Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, July 17, 2023 (part 5 of 8)

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 35 41 435 9 573 17
Future Vol, veh/h 22 35 41 435 9 573 17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 26 41 48 506 10 666 20
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1045 343 686 0 506 - 0
Stage 1 696 - - - - - -
Stage 2 349 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 224 653 904 - 686 - -
Stage 1 456 - - - - - -
Stage 2 685 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 209 653 904 - 686 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 209 - - - - - -
Stage 1 432 - - - - - -
Stage 2 675 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.2 0.8 0.2

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 904 - 209 653 686 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 - 0.122 0.062 0.015 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - 24.6 10.9 10.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.4 0.2 0 - -
930
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 06/20/2022
Existing - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 48 0 0 77 18 429 11 18 535 25
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 48 0 0 77 18 429 11 18 535 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 57 0 0 92 21 511 13 21 637 30
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 334 - - 262 667 0 0 524 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 662 0 0 737 919 - - 1039 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 662 - - 737 919 - - 1039 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11 10.6 0.4 0.3

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 919 - - 662 737 1039 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - - 0.086 0.124 0.021 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 11 10.6 8.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0.4 0.1 - -
931
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Existing - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 77 134 89 83 216 54 13 103 325 55 77 390 99 Future Volume (vph) 77 134 89 83 216 54 13 103 325 55 77 390 99 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.979 0.978 0.970
Flt Protected 0.982 0.988 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1794 1553 0 1767 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.982 0.988 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1794 1553 0 1767 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 106 5 14 24
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1927 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 29.2 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 92 160 106 99 257 64 15 123 387 65 92 464 118 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 252 106 0 420 0 0 138 452 0 92 582 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.27 1.16 0.77 0.36 0.51 0.46
Control Delay 66.5 10.1 147.9 92.4 34.2 74.6 35.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 66.5 10.1 147.9 92.4 34.2 74.6 35.7

LOS E B F F C E D
Approach Delay 49.8 147.9 47.8 41.0
Approach LOS D F D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.16
Intersection Signal Delay: 66.5 Intersection LOS: E
932
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Existing - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
933
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 06/20/2022
Existing - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 184 10 5 228 95 27 39 8 45 10 64
Future Vol, veh/h 52 184 10 5 228 95 27 39 8 45 10 64
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 60 214 12 6 265 110 31 45 9 52 12 74
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 375 0 0 226 0 0 485 721 214 644 623 133 Stage 1 - - - - - - 334 334 - 277 277 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 151 387 - 367 346 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1182 - - 1341 - - 479 353 825 372 402 892 Stage 1 - - - - - - 679 642 - 707 680 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 837 609 - 652 635 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1182 - - 1341 - - 411 334 825 316 380 892 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 411 334 - 316 380 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 644 609 - 671 677 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 751 607 - 566 603 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.7 0.1 15.6 13.5

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 411 372 1182 - - 1341 - - 316 755
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 0.147 0.051 - - 0.004 - - 0.166 0.114 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.5 16.3 8.2 - - 7.7 - - 18.6 10.4 HCM Lane LOS B C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.5 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.6 0.4
934
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 06/20/2022
Existing - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 20 32 24 3 16
Future Vol, veh/h 7 20 32 24 3 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 26 42 32 4 21
Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1
Approach EB WB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 1
HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.1 7.1

HCM LOS A A A
Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 26% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 74% 57% 0% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 43% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 27 56 3 16
LT Vol 7 0 3 0
Through Vol 20 32 0 0
RT Vol 0 24 0 16
Lane Flow Rate 36 74 4 21
Geometry Grp 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.04 0.077 0.006 0.024
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.085 3.748 5.224 4.022
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 877 956 684 887
Service Time 2.109 1.769 2.962 1.76
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 0.077 0.006 0.024
HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.1 8 6.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.2 0 0.1
935
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/07/2022
Existing - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 26 28 581 3 538 37
Future Vol, veh/h 22 26 28 581 3 538 37
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 25 30 32 660 3 611 42
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1032 327 653 0 660 - 0
Stage 1 638 - - - - - -
Stage 2 394 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 229 669 930 - 548 - -
Stage 1 488 - - - - - -
Stage 2 650 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 220 669 930 - 548 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 220 - - - - - -
Stage 1 471 - - - - - -
Stage 2 647 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.5 0.4 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 930 - 220 669 548 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - 0.114 0.044 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - 23.5 10.6 11.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 0.1 0 - -
936
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 06/20/2022
Existing - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 22 0 0 25 19 561 38 44 518 21
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 22 0 0 25 19 561 38 44 518 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 24 0 0 27 21 610 41 48 563 23
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 293 - - 326 586 0 0 651 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 703 0 0 670 985 - - 931 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 703 - - 670 985 - - 931 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 10.6 0.3 0.7

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 985 - - 703 670 931 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - 0.034 0.041 0.051 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - 10.3 10.6 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.1 0.2 - -
937
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Existing - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 87 160 62 83 158 76 8 55 426 97 136 449 92 Future Volume (vph) 87 160 62 83 158 76 8 55 426 97 136 449 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.968 0.972 0.974
Flt Protected 0.983 0.987 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1796 1553 0 1745 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3381 0 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.987 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1796 1553 0 1745 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3381 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 76 10 21 18
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1927 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 29.2 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 95 174 67 90 172 83 9 60 463 105 148 488 100 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 269 67 0 345 0 0 69 568 0 148 588 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.18 0.95 0.39 0.45 0.83 0.47
Control Delay 69.2 8.9 93.5 69.7 35.7 99.2 36.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 69.2 8.9 93.5 69.7 35.7 99.2 36.3

LOS E A F E D F D
Approach Delay 57.2 93.5 39.4 48.9
Approach LOS E F D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95
Intersection Signal Delay: 54.8 Intersection LOS: D
938
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Existing - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
939
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 06/20/2022
Existing - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 79 250 19 10 218 68 28 23 8 54 15 51 Future Vol, veh/h 79 250 19 10 218 68 28 23 8 54 15 51
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 89 281 21 11 245 76 31 26 9 61 17 57
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 321 0 0 302 0 0 612 802 281 754 747 123 Stage 1 - - - - - - 459 459 - 267 267 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 153 343 - 487 480 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1237 - - 1257 - - 391 317 757 311 341 905 Stage 1 - - - - - - 581 566 - 716 687 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 835 637 - 561 554 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1237 - - 1257 - - 330 292 757 269 314 905 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 330 292 - 269 314 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 539 525 - 664 681 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 756 631 - 489 514 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.3 16.8 16.3

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 330 347 1237 - - 1257 - - 269 634
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 0.1 0.072 - - 0.009 - - 0.226 0.117 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.1 16.5 8.1 - - 7.9 - - 22.2 11.4 HCM Lane LOS C C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.3 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.8 0.4
940
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 06/20/2022
Existing - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 44 8 18 18 4
Future Vol, veh/h 13 44 8 18 18 4
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 51 9 21 21 5
Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1
Approach EB WB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach Left SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 1
HCM Control Delay 7.4 6.8 7.9

HCM LOS A A A
Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 23% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 77% 31% 0% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 69% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 57 26 18 4
LT Vol 13 0 18 0
Through Vol 44 8 0 0
RT Vol 0 18 0 4
Lane Flow Rate 66 30 21 5
Geometry Grp 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.075 0.03 0.03 0.005
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.047 3.613 5.202 4.001
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 885 987 688 892
Service Time 2.073 1.65 2.939 1.737
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.075 0.03 0.031 0.006
HCM Control Delay 7.4 6.8 8.1 6.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0.1 0.1 0
941
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/08/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 41 48 511 11 662 20
Future Vol, veh/h 26 41 48 511 11 662 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 30 48 56 594 13 770 23
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1217 397 793 0 594 - 0
Stage 1 808 - - - - - -
Stage 2 409 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 173 602 824 - 603 - -
Stage 1 399 - - - - - -
Stage 2 639 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 158 602 824 - 603 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 158 - - - - - -
Stage 1 372 - - - - - -
Stage 2 625 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19.9 0.8 0.2

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 824 - 158 602 603 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 - 0.191 0.079 0.021 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 - 33.1 11.5 11.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - D B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.7 0.3 0.1 - -
942
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 07/08/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 56 0 0 90 21 504 13 21 629 29
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 56 0 0 90 21 504 13 21 629 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 67 0 0 107 25 600 15 25 749 35
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 392 - - 308 784 0 0 615 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 607 0 0 688 830 - - 961 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 607 - - 688 830 - - 961 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 11.2 0.4 0.3

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 830 - - 607 688 961 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - - 0.11 0.156 0.026 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 11.7 11.2 8.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0.5 0.1 - -
943
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 88 153 102 95 247 62 15 118 371 63 88 446 113 Future Volume (vph) 88 153 102 95 247 62 15 118 371 63 88 446 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.979 0.978 0.970
Flt Protected 0.982 0.988 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1794 1553 0 1767 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.982 0.988 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1794 1553 0 1767 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 121 5 15 24
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 2649 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 40.1 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 105 182 121 113 294 74 18 140 442 75 105 531 135 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 287 121 0 481 0 0 158 517 0 105 666 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.29 1.33 0.88 0.41 0.59 0.53
Control Delay 73.0 9.8 208.8 107.9 35.7 78.2 37.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 73.0 9.8 208.8 107.9 35.7 78.2 37.4

LOS E A F F D E D
Approach Delay 54.2 208.8 52.6 43.0
Approach LOS D F D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.33
Intersection Signal Delay: 81.9 Intersection LOS: F
944
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
945
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 07/08/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 205 11 5 254 106 30 44 9 50 11 71 Future Vol, veh/h 58 205 11 5 254 106 30 44 9 50 11 71
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 67 238 13 6 295 123 35 51 10 58 13 83
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 418 0 0 251 0 0 538 802 238 716 692 148 Stage 1 - - - - - - 372 372 - 307 307 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 166 430 - 409 385 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1139 - - 1313 - - 440 317 800 331 366 873 Stage 1 - - - - - - 648 618 - 679 660 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 820 583 - 619 610 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1139 - - 1313 - - 368 297 800 270 343 873 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 368 297 - 270 343 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 610 582 - 639 657 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 725 580 - 524 574 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.1 17.4 15

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 368 333 1139 - - 1313 - - 270 723
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 0.185 0.059 - - 0.004 - - 0.215 0.132 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.8 18.3 8.4 - - 7.8 - - 22 10.7 HCM Lane LOS C C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.7 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.8 0.5
946
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 07/08/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 25 0 0 40 30 0 0 0 4 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 9 25 0 0 40 30 0 0 0 4 0 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 33 0 0 53 39 0 0 0 5 0 26
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.4 7.2 0 7.1

HCM LOS A A - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 26% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 74% 57% 0% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 43% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 34 70 4 20
LT Vol 0 9 0 4 0
Through Vol 0 25 40 0 0
RT Vol 0 0 30 0 20
Lane Flow Rate 0 45 92 5 26
Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.051 0.096 0.008 0.03
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.297 4.111 3.765 5.272 4.07
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 870 951 677 875
Service Time 2.355 2.142 1.793 3.02 1.818
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.052 0.097 0.007 0.03
HCM Control Delay 7.4 7.4 7.2 8.1 6.9
HCM Lane LOS N A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.2 0.3 0 0.1
947
HCM 6th TWSC
6: 2ND ST & CHERRY AVE 07/08/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1 0 2 1
Stage 1 - - - - 1 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1622 - 1021 1084
Stage 1 - - - - 1022 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1022 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1622 - 1021 1084
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 1021 -
Stage 1 - - - - 1022 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1022 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1622 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
948
HCM 6th TWSC
7: McAULIFF ST & A STREET 07/08/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1 1 1 0 - 0
Stage 1 1 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1022 1084 1622 - - -
Stage 1 1022 - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1022 1084 1622 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1022 - - - - -
Stage 1 1022 - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
949
HCM 6th TWSC
8: McAULIFF ST & B STREET 07/08/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1 0 0 0 0 0
Stage 1 0 - - - - -
Stage 2 1 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1022 - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 1022 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1022 - - - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1022 - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - -
Stage 2 1022 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - - -
950
HCM 6th TWSC
9: McAULIFF ST & C STREET 07/08/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 7 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
951
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/08/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 30 33 680 4 626 43
Future Vol, veh/h 26 30 33 680 4 626 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 30 34 38 773 5 711 49
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1209 380 760 0 773 - 0
Stage 1 746 - - - - - -
Stage 2 463 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 175 618 848 - 464 - -
Stage 1 430 - - - - - -
Stage 2 600 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 165 618 848 - 464 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 165 - - - - - -
Stage 1 411 - - - - - -
Stage 2 593 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 20.6 0.4 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 848 - 165 618 464 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - 0.179 0.055 0.01 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - 31.5 11.2 12.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - D B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.6 0.2 0 - -
952
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 07/08/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 25 0 0 29 21 632 43 49 583 24
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 25 0 0 29 21 632 43 49 583 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 27 0 0 32 23 687 47 53 634 26
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 330 - - 367 660 0 0 734 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 666 0 0 630 924 - - 867 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 666 - - 630 924 - - 867 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 11 0.3 0.7

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 924 - - 666 630 867 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - 0.041 0.05 0.061 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 10.6 11 9.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.2 0.2 - -
953
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 184 71 96 182 88 9 63 491 112 157 518 106 Future Volume (vph) 100 184 71 96 182 88 9 63 491 112 157 518 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.967 0.972 0.975
Flt Protected 0.983 0.987 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1796 1553 0 1744 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3384 0 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.987 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1796 1553 0 1744 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3384 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 77 10 21 18
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 2649 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 40.1 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 109 200 77 104 198 96 10 68 534 122 171 563 115 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 309 77 0 398 0 0 78 656 0 171 678 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.20 1.10 0.44 0.52 0.96 0.54
Control Delay 78.6 11.2 129.2 71.4 37.4 122.1 38.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 78.6 11.2 129.2 71.4 37.4 122.1 38.0

LOS E B F E D F D
Approach Delay 65.1 129.2 41.0 54.9
Approach LOS E F D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.10
Intersection Signal Delay: 64.8 Intersection LOS: E
954
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
955
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 07/08/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 90 284 22 11 248 77 32 26 9 61 17 58 Future Vol, veh/h 90 284 22 11 248 77 32 26 9 61 17 58
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 101 319 25 12 279 87 36 29 10 69 19 65
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 366 0 0 344 0 0 694 911 319 856 849 140 Stage 1 - - - - - - 521 521 - 303 303 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 173 390 - 553 546 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1191 - - 1213 - - 343 273 721 264 297 883 Stage 1 - - - - - - 538 531 - 682 663 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 812 607 - 516 517 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1191 - - 1213 - - 279 247 721 220 269 883 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 279 247 - 220 269 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 492 486 - 624 656 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 723 601 - 438 473 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.9 0.3 19.4 19.6

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 279 297 1191 - - 1213 - - 220 582
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.132 0.085 - - 0.01 - - 0.312 0.145 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.8 19 8.3 - - 8 - - 28.6 12.2
HCM Lane LOS C C A - - A - - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.5 0.3 - - 0 - - 1.3 0.5
956
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 07/08/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 51 1 0 9 21 0 0 0 21 0 5
Future Vol, veh/h 15 51 1 0 9 21 0 0 0 21 0 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 59 1 0 10 24 0 0 0 24 0 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.5 6.8 0 7.9

HCM LOS A A - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 22% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 76% 30% 0% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 1% 70% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 67 30 21 5
LT Vol 0 15 0 21 0
Through Vol 0 51 9 0 0
RT Vol 0 1 21 0 5
Lane Flow Rate 0 78 35 24 6
Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.088 0.035 0.035 0.007
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.253 4.048 3.624 5.23 4.028
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 883 981 683 884
Service Time 2.312 2.081 1.67 2.974 1.772
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.088 0.036 0.035 0.007
HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.5 6.8 8.2 6.8
HCM Lane LOS N A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0
957
HCM 6th TWSC
6: 2ND ST & CHERRY AVE 07/08/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 4 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1622 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
958
HCM 6th TWSC
7: McAULIFF ST & A STREET 07/08/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 5 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
959
HCM 6th TWSC
8: McAULIFF ST & B STREET 07/08/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 6 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - - -
960
HCM 6th TWSC
9: McAULIFF ST & C STREET 07/08/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 7 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
961
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/07/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 41 48 511 11 662 20
Future Vol, veh/h 26 41 48 527 11 710 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 30 48 56 613 13 826 28
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1285 427 854 0 613 - 0
Stage 1 866 - - - - - -
Stage 2 419 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 156 576 781 - 587 - -
Stage 1 372 - - - - - -
Stage 2 632 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 142 576 781 - 587 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 142 - - - - - -
Stage 1 345 - - - - - -
Stage 2 618 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.6 0.8 0.2

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 781 - 142 576 587 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 - 0.213 0.083 0.022 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - 37.1 11.8 11.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - E B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.8 0.3 0.1 - -
962
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 56 0 0 90 21 504 13 21 629 29
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 56 0 0 156 21 504 29 49 681 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 67 0 0 186 25 600 35 58 811 35
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 423 - - 318 846 0 0 635 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 579 0 0 678 787 - - 944 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 579 - - 678 787 - - 944 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12 12.3 0.4 0.6

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 787 - - 579 678 944 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - 0.115 0.274 0.062 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 - - 12 12.3 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 1.1 0.2 - -
963
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 3 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 88 153 102 95 247 62 15 118 371 63 88 446 113 Future Volume (vph) 88 153 114 134 274 62 28 127 415 63 88 462 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.982 0.980 0.970
Flt Protected 0.982 0.986 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1794 1553 0 1769 0 0 1736 3402 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.982 0.986 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1794 1553 0 1769 0 0 1736 3402 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 136 5 13 23
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 2649 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 40.1 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 105 182 136 160 326 74 33 151 494 75 105 550 135 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 287 136 0 560 0 0 184 569 0 105 685 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.32 1.54 1.03 0.45 0.59 0.54
Control Delay 73.0 9.5 296.0 138.6 36.2 78.2 37.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 73.0 9.5 296.0 138.6 36.2 78.2 37.9

LOS E A F F D E D
Approach Delay 52.6 296.0 61.2 43.2
Approach LOS D F E D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.54
Intersection Signal Delay: 106.2 Intersection LOS: F
964
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
965
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 07/07/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 205 11 5 254 106 30 44 9 50 11 71 Future Vol, veh/h 58 205 11 9 254 106 96 48 17 50 11 71 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 67 238 13 10 295 123 112 56 20 58 13 83
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 418 0 0 251 0 0 546 810 238 732 700 148 Stage 1 - - - - - - 372 372 - 315 315 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 174 438 - 417 385 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1139 - - 1313 - - 434 313 800 323 363 873 Stage 1 - - - - - - 648 618 - 671 655 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 811 578 - 612 610 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1139 - - 1313 - - 362 292 800 255 339 873 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 362 292 - 255 339 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 610 582 - 631 650 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 714 573 - 508 574 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.2 18.8 15.5

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 362 350 1139 - - 1313 - - 255 721
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.308 0.216 0.059 - - 0.008 - - 0.228 0.132 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.3 18.1 8.4 - - 7.8 - - 23.2 10.8 HCM Lane LOS C C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 0.8 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.9 0.5
966
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 07/07/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 25 0 0 40 30 0 0 0 4 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 12 25 33 0 40 30 33 75 0 4 3 21
Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 33 43 0 53 39 43 99 0 5 4 28
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.7 8.6 7.4

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 31% 17% 0% 57% 0%
Vol Thru, % 69% 36% 57% 43% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 47% 43% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 108 70 70 7 21
LT Vol 33 12 0 4 0
Through Vol 75 25 40 3 0
RT Vol 0 33 30 0 21
Lane Flow Rate 142 92 92 9 28
Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.18 0.108 0.107 0.014 0.033
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.555 4.202 4.194 5.345 4.354
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 793 855 857 671 824
Service Time 2.555 2.219 2.211 3.063 2.072
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.179 0.108 0.107 0.013 0.034
HCM Control Delay 8.6 7.7 7.7 8.1 7.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.4 0.4 0 0.1
967
HCM 6th TWSC
6: 2ND ST & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 33 11 1 33 33 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 36 12 1 36 36 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 48 0 80 42
Stage 1 - - - - 42 -
Stage 2 - - - - 38 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1559 - 922 1029
Stage 1 - - - - 980 -
Stage 2 - - - - 984 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1559 - 921 1029
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 921 -
Stage 1 - - - - 980 -
Stage 2 - - - - 983 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 9

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 929 - - 1559 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
968
HCM 6th TWSC
7: McAULIFF ST & A STREET 07/07/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 36 0 0 72 24 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 39 0 0 78 26 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 111 33 39 0 - 0
Stage 1 33 - - - - -
Stage 2 78 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 886 1041 1571 - - -
Stage 1 989 - - - - -
Stage 2 945 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 886 1041 1571 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 886 - - - - -
Stage 1 989 - - - - -
Stage 2 945 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1571 - 886 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.044 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
969
HCM 6th TWSC
8: McAULIFF ST & B STREET 07/07/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 36 36 0 12 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 39 39 0 13 13
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 78 39 0 0 39 0
Stage 1 39 - - - - -
Stage 2 39 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 925 1033 - - 1571 -
Stage 1 983 - - - - -
Stage 2 983 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 918 1033 - - 1571 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 918 - - - - -
Stage 1 983 - - - - -
Stage 2 975 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0 3.7

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1033 1571 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.038 0.008 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.6 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
970
HCM 6th TWSC
9: McAULIFF ST & C STREET 07/07/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 36 0 0 0 0 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 39 0 0 0 0 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 7 7 13 0 - 0
Stage 1 7 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1014 1075 1606 - - -
Stage 1 1016 - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1014 1075 1606 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1014 - - - - -
Stage 1 1016 - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1606 - 1014 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.039 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
971
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/07/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 30 33 680 4 626 43
Future Vol, veh/h 30 30 33 736 4 658 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 34 34 38 836 5 748 49
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1277 399 797 0 836 - 0
Stage 1 783 - - - - - -
Stage 2 494 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 158 601 821 - 423 - -
Stage 1 411 - - - - - -
Stage 2 579 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 149 601 821 - 423 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 149 - - - - - -
Stage 1 392 - - - - - -
Stage 2 572 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 23.8 0.4 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 821 - 149 601 423 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 - 0.229 0.057 0.011 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - 36.2 11.4 13.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - E B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.8 0.2 0 - -
972
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 25 0 0 29 21 632 43 49 583 24
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 25 0 0 71 21 632 103 137 615 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 27 0 0 77 23 687 112 149 668 26
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 347 - - 400 694 0 0 799 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 649 0 0 600 897 - - 819 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 649 - - 600 897 - - 819 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 11.9 0.3 1.8

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 897 - - 649 600 819 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - 0.042 0.129 0.182 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - 10.8 11.9 10.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.4 0.7 - -
973
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 184 71 96 182 88 9 63 491 112 157 518 106 Future Volume (vph) 100 184 111 120 200 88 17 69 519 112 157 566 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.971 0.973 0.976
Flt Protected 0.983 0.986 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1796 1553 0 1749 0 0 1736 3377 0 1736 3388 0 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.986 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1796 1553 0 1749 0 0 1736 3377 0 1736 3388 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 121 8 19 16
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 2649 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 40.1 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 109 200 121 130 217 96 18 75 564 122 171 615 115 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 309 121 0 443 0 0 93 686 0 171 730 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.29 1.22 0.52 0.54 0.96 0.58
Control Delay 78.6 9.7 170.7 74.8 38.1 122.1 39.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 78.6 9.7 170.7 74.8 38.1 122.1 39.2

LOS E A F E D F D
Approach Delay 59.2 170.7 42.5 54.9
Approach LOS E F D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.22
Intersection Signal Delay: 71.9 Intersection LOS: E
974
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
975
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 07/07/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 90 284 22 11 248 77 32 26 9 61 17 58 Future Vol, veh/h 90 284 22 19 248 77 74 26 13 61 21 58 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 101 319 25 21 279 87 83 29 15 69 24 65
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 366 0 0 344 0 0 715 929 319 877 867 140 Stage 1 - - - - - - 521 521 - 321 321 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 194 408 - 556 546 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1191 - - 1213 - - 332 267 721 255 290 883 Stage 1 - - - - - - 538 531 - 666 651 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 790 596 - 515 517 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1191 - - 1213 - - 265 240 721 209 261 883 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 265 240 - 209 261 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 492 486 - 609 640 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 693 586 - 434 473 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.9 0.4 22.6 20.6

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 265 309 1191 - - 1213 - - 209 541
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.314 0.142 0.085 - - 0.018 - - 0.328 0.164 HCM Control Delay (s) 24.7 18.6 8.3 - - 8 - - 30.4 13
HCM Lane LOS C C A - - A - - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 0.5 0.3 - - 0.1 - - 1.4 0.6
976
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 07/07/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 51 1 0 9 21 0 0 0 21 0 5
Future Vol, veh/h 16 51 112 0 9 21 21 45 0 21 9 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 19 59 130 0 10 24 24 52 0 24 10 9
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.2 8.2 8.2

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 32% 9% 0% 70% 0%
Vol Thru, % 68% 28% 30% 30% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 63% 70% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 66 179 30 30 8
LT Vol 21 16 0 21 0
Through Vol 45 51 9 9 0
RT Vol 0 112 21 0 8
Lane Flow Rate 77 208 35 35 9
Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.099 0.226 0.039 0.053 0.011
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.661 3.915 4.017 5.459 4.404
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 771 922 894 658 815
Service Time 2.676 1.921 2.029 3.175 2.119
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.1 0.226 0.039 0.053 0.011
HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 7.2 8.5 7.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.2 0
977
HCM 6th TWSC
6: 2ND ST & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 4 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 111 37 3 21 21 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 121 40 3 23 23 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 161 0 170 141
Stage 1 - - - - 141 -
Stage 2 - - - - 29 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1418 - 820 907
Stage 1 - - - - 886 -
Stage 2 - - - - 994 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1418 - 818 907
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 818 -
Stage 1 - - - - 886 -
Stage 2 - - - - 992 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 9.5

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 822 - - 1418 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
978
HCM 6th TWSC
7: McAULIFF ST & A STREET 07/07/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 5 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 22 0 0 44 80 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 24 0 0 48 87 43
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 157 109 130 0 - 0
Stage 1 109 - - - - -
Stage 2 48 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 834 945 1455 - - -
Stage 1 916 - - - - -
Stage 2 974 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 834 945 1455 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 834 - - - - -
Stage 1 916 - - - - -
Stage 2 974 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.4 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1455 - 834 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.029 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
979
HCM 6th TWSC
8: McAULIFF ST & B STREET 07/07/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 6 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 22 22 0 40 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 24 24 0 43 43
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 153 24 0 0 24 0
Stage 1 24 - - - - -
Stage 2 129 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 839 1052 - - 1591 -
Stage 1 999 - - - - -
Stage 2 897 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 816 1052 - - 1591 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 816 - - - - -
Stage 1 999 - - - - -
Stage 2 872 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 0 3.7

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1052 1591 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.023 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.5 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
980
HCM 6th TWSC
9: McAULIFF ST & C STREET 07/07/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 7 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 22 0 0 0 0 40
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 24 0 0 0 0 43
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 22 22 43 0 - 0
Stage 1 22 - - - - -
Stage 2 0 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1055 1566 - - -
Stage 1 1001 - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1055 1566 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 995 - - - - -
Stage 1 1001 - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1566 - 995 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.024 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
981
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 43 51 540 11 701 21
Future Vol, veh/h 27 43 51 540 11 701 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 31 50 59 628 13 815 24
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1285 420 839 0 628 - 0
Stage 1 853 - - - - - -
Stage 2 432 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 156 582 791 - 574 - -
Stage 1 378 - - - - - -
Stage 2 622 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 141 582 791 - 574 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 141 - - - - - -
Stage 1 350 - - - - - -
Stage 2 608 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.8 0.9 0.2

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 791 - 141 582 574 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.075 - 0.223 0.086 0.022 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - 37.7 11.8 11.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - E B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.8 0.3 0.1 - -
982
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 59 0 0 95 22 530 14 22 661 31
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 59 0 0 95 22 530 14 22 661 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 70 0 0 113 26 631 17 26 787 37
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 412 - - 324 824 0 0 648 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 589 0 0 672 802 - - 934 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 589 - - 672 802 - - 934 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 11.4 0.4 0.3

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 802 - - 589 672 934 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 - - 0.119 0.168 0.028 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - - 11.9 11.4 9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0.6 0.1 - -
983
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 94 164 109 101 264 66 16 126 397 67 94 477 121 Future Volume (vph) 94 164 109 101 264 66 16 126 397 67 94 477 121 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.979 0.978 0.970
Flt Protected 0.982 0.988 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1794 1553 0 1767 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.982 0.988 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1794 1553 0 1767 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 130 5 14 24
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 2649 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 40.1 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 112 195 130 120 314 79 19 150 473 80 112 568 144 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 307 130 0 513 0 0 169 553 0 112 712 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.31 1.41 0.94 0.44 0.63 0.57
Control Delay 78.3 9.6 243.5 119.8 36.4 80.6 38.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 78.3 9.6 243.5 119.8 36.4 80.6 38.4

LOS E A F F D F D
Approach Delay 57.8 243.5 55.9 44.1
Approach LOS E F E D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.41
Intersection Signal Delay: 90.9 Intersection LOS: F
984
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
985
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 213 12 5 264 110 31 45 9 52 12 74 Future Vol, veh/h 60 213 12 5 264 110 31 45 9 52 12 74
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 70 248 14 6 307 128 36 52 10 60 14 86
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 435 0 0 262 0 0 561 835 248 745 721 154 Stage 1 - - - - - - 388 388 - 319 319 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 173 447 - 426 402 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1123 - - 1301 - - 424 303 790 316 353 865 Stage 1 - - - - - - 635 608 - 668 652 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 812 573 - 606 600 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1123 - - 1301 - - 351 283 790 254 329 865 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 351 283 - 254 329 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 596 570 - 627 649 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 712 570 - 509 563 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.1 18.1 15.6

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 351 317 1123 - - 1301 - - 254 705
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.103 0.198 0.062 - - 0.004 - - 0.238 0.142 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.4 19.1 8.4 - - 7.8 - - 23.5 10.9 HCM Lane LOS C C A - - A - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.7 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.9 0.5
986
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 07/07/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 26 0 0 42 31 0 0 0 4 0 21
Future Vol, veh/h 9 26 0 0 42 31 0 0 0 4 0 21
Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 34 0 0 55 41 0 0 0 5 0 28
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.4 7.2 0 7.2

HCM LOS A A - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 26% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 74% 58% 0% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 42% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 35 73 4 21
LT Vol 0 9 0 4 0
Through Vol 0 26 42 0 0
RT Vol 0 0 31 0 21
Lane Flow Rate 0 46 96 5 28
Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.053 0.101 0.008 0.031
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.307 4.116 3.772 5.28 4.078
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 869 949 675 872
Service Time 2.369 2.147 1.799 3.034 1.831
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.053 0.101 0.007 0.032
HCM Control Delay 7.4 7.4 7.2 8.1 7
HCM Lane LOS N A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.2 0.3 0 0.1
987
HCM 6th TWSC
6: 2ND ST & CHERRY AVE 07/06/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1622 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
988
HCM 6th TWSC
7: McAULIFF ST & A STREET 07/06/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
989
HCM 6th TWSC
8: B STREET & McAULIFF ST 07/06/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - - -
990
HCM 6th TWSC
9: McAULIFF ST & C STREET 07/06/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
991
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 31 34 695 4 640 44
Future Vol, veh/h 26 31 34 695 4 640 44
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 30 35 39 790 5 727 50
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1235 389 777 0 790 - 0
Stage 1 762 - - - - - -
Stage 2 473 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 169 610 835 - 453 - -
Stage 1 421 - - - - - -
Stage 2 593 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 159 610 835 - 453 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 159 - - - - - -
Stage 1 401 - - - - - -
Stage 2 586 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.1 0.4 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 835 - 159 610 453 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 - 0.186 0.058 0.01 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - 32.7 11.3 13 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - D B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.7 0.2 0 - -
992
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 26 0 0 31 22 662 45 52 611 25
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 26 0 0 31 22 662 45 52 611 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 28 0 0 34 24 720 49 57 664 27
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 346 - - 385 691 0 0 769 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 650 0 0 613 900 - - 841 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 650 - - 613 900 - - 841 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 11.2 0.3 0.7

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 900 - - 650 613 841 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.043 0.055 0.067 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - 10.8 11.2 9.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.2 0.2 - -
993
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 109 200 77 104 197 95 10 69 532 121 170 560 115 Future Volume (vph) 109 200 77 104 197 95 10 69 532 121 170 560 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.968 0.972 0.974
Flt Protected 0.983 0.987 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1796 1553 0 1745 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3381 0 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.987 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1796 1553 0 1745 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3381 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 84 9 21 18
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 2649 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 40.1 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 118 217 84 113 214 103 11 75 578 132 185 609 125 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 335 84 0 430 0 0 86 710 0 185 734 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.22 1.19 0.48 0.56 1.03 0.58
Control Delay 88.5 10.9 159.1 73.1 38.5 139.8 39.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 88.5 10.9 159.1 73.1 38.5 139.8 39.2

LOS F B F E D F D
Approach Delay 73.0 159.1 42.2 59.4
Approach LOS E F D E
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.19
Intersection Signal Delay: 73.0 Intersection LOS: E
994
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
995
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 97 307 23 13 267 83 34 28 10 66 18 63 Future Vol, veh/h 97 307 23 13 267 83 34 28 10 66 18 63 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 109 345 26 15 300 93 38 31 11 74 20 71
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 393 0 0 371 0 0 753 986 345 927 919 150 Stage 1 - - - - - - 563 563 - 330 330 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 190 423 - 597 589 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1164 - - 1186 - - 312 247 697 236 270 870 Stage 1 - - - - - - 510 508 - 658 645 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 794 587 - 489 495 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1164 - - 1186 - - 247 221 697 191 241 870 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 247 221 - 191 241 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 462 460 - 596 637 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 697 579 - 406 448 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.9 0.3 21.5 22.9

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 247 269 1164 - - 1186 - - 191 551
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.155 0.159 0.094 - - 0.012 - - 0.388 0.165 HCM Control Delay (s) 22.2 20.9 8.4 - - 8.1 - - 35.3 12.8 HCM Lane LOS C C A - - A - - E B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.6 0.3 - - 0 - - 1.7 0.6
996
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 07/07/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 55 0 0 10 22 0 0 0 22 0 5
Future Vol, veh/h 16 55 0 0 10 22 0 0 0 22 0 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 19 64 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 0 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.5 6.8 0 7.9

HCM LOS A A - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 23% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 77% 31% 0% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 69% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 71 32 22 5
LT Vol 0 16 0 22 0
Through Vol 0 55 10 0 0
RT Vol 0 0 22 0 5
Lane Flow Rate 0 83 37 26 6
Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.093 0.038 0.037 0.007
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.266 4.061 3.637 5.241 4.039
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 880 977 681 881
Service Time 2.329 2.097 1.685 2.99 1.787
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.094 0.038 0.038 0.007
HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.5 6.8 8.2 6.8
HCM Lane LOS N A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0
997
HCM 6th TWSC
6: 2ND ST & CHERRY AVE 07/06/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1622 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 -
998
HCM 6th TWSC
7: McAULIFF ST & A STREET 07/06/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
999
HCM 6th TWSC
8: B STREET & McAULIFF ST 07/06/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 0 -
HCM Lane LOS - - A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - - -
1000
HCM 6th TWSC
9: McAULIFF ST & C STREET 07/08/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1622 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
1001
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 43 51 540 11 701 21
Future Vol, veh/h 27 43 51 556 11 749 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 31 50 59 647 13 871 29
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1354 450 900 0 647 - 0
Stage 1 912 - - - - - -
Stage 2 442 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 141 556 751 - 558 - -
Stage 1 352 - - - - - -
Stage 2 615 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 127 556 751 - 558 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 127 - - - - - -
Stage 1 324 - - - - - -
Stage 2 601 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 23.8 0.9 0.2

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 751 - 127 556 558 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.079 - 0.247 0.09 0.023 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - 42.4 12.1 11.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - E B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.9 0.3 0.1 - -
1002
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 59 0 0 95 22 530 14 22 661 31
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 59 0 0 161 22 530 30 50 713 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 70 0 0 192 26 631 36 60 849 37
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 443 - - 334 886 0 0 667 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 562 0 0 662 760 - - 919 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 562 - - 662 760 - - 919 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 12.6 0.4 0.6

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 760 - - 562 662 919 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - 0.125 0.29 0.065 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - - 12.3 12.6 9.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 1.2 0.2 - -
1003
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 94 164 109 101 264 66 16 126 397 67 94 477 121 Future Volume (vph) 94 164 121 140 291 66 29 135 441 67 94 493 121 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.982 0.980 0.970
Flt Protected 0.982 0.986 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1794 1553 0 1769 0 0 1736 3402 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.982 0.986 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1794 1553 0 1769 0 0 1736 3402 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 144 5 13 23
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 2649 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 40.1 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 112 195 144 167 346 79 35 161 525 80 112 587 144 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 307 144 0 592 0 0 196 605 0 112 731 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.33 1.63 1.09 0.48 0.63 0.58
Control Delay 78.3 9.4 332.5 154.7 36.9 80.6 38.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 78.3 9.4 332.5 154.7 36.9 80.6 38.8

LOS E A F F D F D
Approach Delay 56.3 332.5 65.7 44.4
Approach LOS E F E D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.63
Intersection Signal Delay: 116.2 Intersection LOS: F
1004
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1005
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 60 213 12 5 264 110 31 45 9 52 12 74 Future Vol, veh/h 60 213 12 9 264 110 97 49 17 52 12 74 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 70 248 14 10 307 128 113 57 20 60 14 86
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 435 0 0 262 0 0 569 843 248 761 729 154 Stage 1 - - - - - - 388 388 - 327 327 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 181 455 - 434 402 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1123 - - 1301 - - 419 300 790 308 349 865 Stage 1 - - - - - - 635 608 - 660 647 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 804 568 - 600 600 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1123 - - 1301 - - 346 279 790 240 325 865 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 346 279 - 240 325 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 596 570 - 619 642 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 703 563 - 494 563 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.8 0.2 19.8 16.3

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 346 335 1123 - - 1301 - - 240 702
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.326 0.229 0.062 - - 0.008 - - 0.252 0.142 HCM Control Delay (s) 20.4 18.9 8.4 - - 7.8 - - 25 11
HCM Lane LOS C C A - - A - - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 0.9 0.2 - - 0 - - 1 0.5
1006
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 26 0 0 42 31 0 0 0 4 0 21
Future Vol, veh/h 12 26 33 0 42 31 33 75 0 4 3 22
Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 34 43 0 55 41 43 99 0 5 4 29
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.7 8.6 7.4

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 31% 17% 0% 57% 0%
Vol Thru, % 69% 37% 58% 43% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 46% 42% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 108 71 73 7 22
LT Vol 33 12 0 4 0
Through Vol 75 26 42 3 0
RT Vol 0 33 31 0 22
Lane Flow Rate 142 93 96 9 29
Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.18 0.109 0.112 0.014 0.035
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.569 4.215 4.204 5.358 4.367
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 790 852 855 670 822
Service Time 2.569 2.23 2.218 3.075 2.084
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.18 0.109 0.112 0.013 0.035
HCM Control Delay 8.6 7.7 7.7 8.2 7.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.4 0.4 0 0.1
1007
HCM 6th TWSC
6: 2ND ST & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 4 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 929 - - 1559 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
1008
HCM 6th TWSC
7: McAULIFF ST & A STREET 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 5 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1571 - 886 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.044 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1009
HCM 6th TWSC
8: McAULIFF ST & B STREET 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 6 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1033 1571 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.038 0.008 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.6 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
1010
HCM 6th TWSC
9: McAULIFF ST & C STREET 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 7 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1606 - 1014 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.039 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 8.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1011
HCM 6th TWSC
1: LOVERS LANE & K AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 31 34 695 4 640 44
Future Vol, veh/h 30 31 34 751 4 672 44
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - - None
Storage Length 0 290 320 - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 34 35 39 853 5 764 50
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1304 407 814 0 853 - 0
Stage 1 799 - - - - - -
Stage 2 505 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - 6.44 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 152 593 809 - 413 - -
Stage 1 403 - - - - - -
Stage 2 571 - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 143 593 809 - 413 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 143 - - - - - -
Stage 1 384 - - - - - -
Stage 2 564 - - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 24.5 0.4 0.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBU SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 809 - 143 593 413 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 - 0.238 0.059 0.011 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 - 37.9 11.5 13.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - E B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.9 0.2 0 - -
1012
HCM 6th TWSC
2: LOVERS LANE & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 26 0 0 31 22 662 45 52 611 25
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 26 0 0 73 22 662 105 140 643 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 - - 0 85 - - 95 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 28 0 0 79 24 720 114 152 699 27
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All - - 363 - - 417 726 0 0 834 0 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy - - 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 0 634 0 0 585 873 - - 795 - -
Stage 1 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 634 - - 585 873 - - 795 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 12.1 0.3 1.8

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 873 - - 634 585 795 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.045 0.136 0.191 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - - 10.9 12.1 10.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.5 0.7 - -
1013
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 109 200 77 104 197 95 10 69 532 121 170 560 115 Future Volume (vph) 109 200 117 128 215 95 18 75 560 121 170 608 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 666 0 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.850 0.971 0.973 0.976
Flt Protected 0.983 0.986 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1796 1553 0 1749 0 0 1736 3377 0 1736 3388 0 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.986 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1796 1553 0 1749 0 0 1736 3377 0 1736 3388 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 127 8 19 16
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 2649 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 40.1 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 118 217 127 139 234 103 20 82 609 132 185 661 125 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 335 127 0 476 0 0 102 741 0 185 786 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.31 1.31 0.57 0.59 1.03 0.62
Control Delay 88.5 9.7 204.7 77.3 39.3 139.8 40.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 88.5 9.7 204.7 77.3 39.3 139.8 40.4

LOS F A F E D F D
Approach Delay 66.9 204.7 43.9 59.4
Approach LOS E F D E
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.31
Intersection Signal Delay: 81.0 Intersection LOS: F
1014
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/11/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1015
HCM 6th TWSC
4: McAULIFF ST & WALNUT AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 97 307 23 13 267 83 34 28 10 66 18 63 Future Vol, veh/h 97 307 23 21 267 83 76 28 14 66 22 63 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 325 - 100 336 - 50 260 - - 230 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 109 345 26 24 300 93 85 31 16 74 25 71
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 393 0 0 371 0 0 774 1004 345 948 937 150 Stage 1 - - - - - - 563 563 - 348 348 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 211 441 - 600 589 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.33 6.53 6.23 7.33 6.53 6.93 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.53 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.53 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - 2.219 - - 3.519 4.019 3.319 3.519 4.019 3.319 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1164 - - 1186 - - 302 241 697 228 264 870 Stage 1 - - - - - - 510 508 - 642 633 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 772 576 - 487 495 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1164 - - 1186 - - 233 214 697 181 234 870 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 233 214 - 181 234 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 462 460 - 582 620 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 667 564 - 402 448 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.9 0.5 26.1 24.3

HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 233 278 1164 - - 1186 - - 181 511
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.366 0.17 0.094 - - 0.02 - - 0.41 0.187 HCM Control Delay (s) 29.1 20.6 8.4 - - 8.1 - - 38 13.7 HCM Lane LOS D C A - - A - - E B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 0.6 0.3 - - 0.1 - - 1.8 0.7
1016
HCM 6th AWSC
5: CHERRY AVE & McAULIFF ST 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 55 0 0 10 22 0 0 0 22 0 5
Future Vol, veh/h 17 55 111 0 10 22 21 45 0 22 9 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 64 129 0 12 26 24 52 0 26 10 9
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.2 8.2 8.2

HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 32% 9% 0% 71% 0%
Vol Thru, % 68% 30% 31% 29% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 61% 69% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 66 183 32 31 8
LT Vol 21 17 0 22 0
Through Vol 45 55 10 9 0
RT Vol 0 111 22 0 8
Lane Flow Rate 77 213 37 36 9
Geometry Grp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Util (X) 0.1 0.232 0.042 0.055 0.011
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.678 3.933 4.034 5.48 4.419
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 768 917 890 655 812
Service Time 2.695 1.942 2.048 3.198 2.137
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.1 0.232 0.042 0.055 0.011
HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.1 7.2 8.5 7.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.2 0
1017
HCM 6th TWSC
6: 2ND ST & CHERRY AVE 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 4 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 822 - - 1418 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.002 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
1018
HCM 6th TWSC
7: McAULIFF ST & A STREET 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 5 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1455 - 834 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.029 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
1019
HCM 6th TWSC
8: McAULIFF ST & B STREET 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 6 ends

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1052 1591 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.023 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.5 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
1020
HCM 6th TWSC
9: McAULIFF ST & C STREET 07/07/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 7 ends

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • 7/15/22 Appendix-D-1

Appendix D – Synchro
Mitigated Analysis Reports

1022
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 88 153 102 95 247 62 15 118 371 63 88 446 113 Future Volume (vph) 88 153 102 95 247 62 15 118 371 63 88 446 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 666 200 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.940 0.970 0.978 0.970
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3263 0 1736 3367 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3263 0 1736 3367 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 96 19 15 24
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1273 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 19.3 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 105 182 121 113 294 74 18 140 442 75 105 531 135 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 303 0 113 368 0 0 158 517 0 105 666 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.41 0.32 0.53 0.88 0.41 0.59 0.53
Control Delay 53.4 36.8 53.9 53.6 107.9 35.7 78.2 37.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.4 36.8 53.9 53.6 107.9 35.7 78.2 37.4

LOS D D D D F D E D
Approach Delay 41.1 53.6 52.6 43.0
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.88
Intersection Signal Delay: 47.6 Intersection LOS: D
1023
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1024
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 184 71 96 182 88 9 63 491 112 157 518 106 Future Volume (vph) 100 184 71 96 182 88 9 63 491 112 157 518 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 666 200 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.958 0.951 0.972 0.975
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3325 0 1736 3301 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3384 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3325 0 1736 3301 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3384 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 34 49 21 18
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1273 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 19.3 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 109 200 77 104 198 96 10 68 534 122 171 563 115 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 277 0 104 294 0 0 78 656 0 171 678 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.39 0.30 0.41 0.44 0.52 0.96 0.54
Control Delay 53.7 47.1 53.4 45.0 71.4 37.4 122.1 38.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.7 47.1 53.4 45.0 71.4 37.4 122.1 38.0

LOS D D D D E D F D
Approach Delay 48.9 47.2 41.0 54.9
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96
Intersection Signal Delay: 48.3 Intersection LOS: D
1025
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1026
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 88 153 102 95 247 62 15 118 371 63 88 446 113 Future Volume (vph) 88 153 114 134 274 62 28 127 415 63 88 462 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 666 200 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.936 0.972 0.980 0.970
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3249 0 1736 3374 0 0 1736 3402 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3249 0 1736 3374 0 0 1736 3402 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 114 16 13 23
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1273 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 19.3 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 105 182 136 160 326 74 33 151 494 75 105 550 135 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 318 0 160 400 0 0 184 569 0 105 685 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.42 0.45 0.57 1.03 0.45 0.59 0.54
Control Delay 53.4 34.7 57.3 55.4 138.6 36.2 78.2 37.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.4 34.7 57.3 55.4 138.6 36.2 78.2 37.9

LOS D C E E F D E D
Approach Delay 39.4 55.9 61.2 43.2
Approach LOS D E E D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03
Intersection Signal Delay: 50.8 Intersection LOS: D
1027
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1028
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 100 184 71 96 182 88 9 63 491 112 157 518 106 Future Volume (vph) 100 184 111 120 200 88 17 69 519 112 157 566 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 666 200 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.943 0.954 0.973 0.976
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3273 0 1736 3311 0 0 1736 3377 0 1736 3388 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3273 0 1736 3311 0 0 1736 3377 0 1736 3388 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 76 42 19 16
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1273 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 19.3 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 109 200 121 130 217 96 18 75 564 122 171 615 115 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 321 0 130 313 0 0 93 686 0 171 730 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.44 0.37 0.44 0.52 0.54 0.96 0.58
Control Delay 53.7 41.6 55.0 47.3 74.8 38.1 122.1 39.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.7 41.6 55.0 47.3 74.8 38.1 122.1 39.2

LOS D D E D E D F D
Approach Delay 44.7 49.6 42.5 54.9
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96
Intersection Signal Delay: 48.5 Intersection LOS: D
1029
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
Opening + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1030
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 94 164 109 101 264 66 16 126 397 67 94 477 121 Future Volume (vph) 94 164 109 101 264 66 16 126 397 67 94 477 121 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 666 200 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.940 0.970 0.978 0.970
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3263 0 1736 3367 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3263 0 1736 3367 0 0 1736 3395 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 96 19 14 24
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1273 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 19.3 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 112 195 130 120 314 79 19 150 473 80 112 568 144 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 325 0 120 393 0 0 169 553 0 112 712 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.44 0.34 0.56 0.94 0.44 0.63 0.57
Control Delay 53.8 38.4 54.4 54.6 119.8 36.4 80.6 38.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.8 38.4 54.4 54.6 119.8 36.4 80.6 38.4

LOS D D D D F D F D
Approach Delay 42.3 54.6 55.9 44.1
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94
Intersection Signal Delay: 49.4 Intersection LOS: D
1031
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
5-Year - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1032
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 109 200 77 104 197 95 10 69 532 121 170 560 115 Future Volume (vph) 109 200 77 104 197 95 10 69 532 121 170 560 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 666 200 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.958 0.951 0.972 0.974
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3325 0 1736 3301 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3381 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3325 0 1736 3301 0 0 1736 3374 0 1736 3381 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 34 48 21 18
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1273 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 19.3 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 118 217 84 113 214 103 11 75 578 132 185 609 125 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 301 0 113 317 0 0 86 710 0 185 734 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.43 0.32 0.45 0.48 0.56 1.03 0.58
Control Delay 54.2 48.2 53.9 46.4 73.1 38.5 139.8 39.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.2 48.2 53.9 46.4 73.1 38.5 139.8 39.2

LOS D D D D E D F D
Approach Delay 49.9 48.4 42.2 59.4
Approach LOS D D D E
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03
Intersection Signal Delay: 50.7 Intersection LOS: D
1033
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
5-Year - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1034
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 94 164 109 101 264 66 16 126 397 67 94 477 121 Future Volume (vph) 94 164 121 140 291 66 29 135 441 67 94 493 121 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 666 200 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.936 0.972 0.980 0.970
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3249 0 1736 3374 0 0 1736 3402 0 1736 3367 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3249 0 1736 3374 0 0 1736 3402 0 1736 3367 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 111 16 13 23
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1273 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 19.3 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 112 195 144 167 346 79 35 161 525 80 112 587 144 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 339 0 167 425 0 0 196 605 0 112 731 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Split NA Split NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.45 0.47 0.61 1.09 0.48 0.63 0.58
Control Delay 53.8 36.8 57.9 56.4 154.7 36.9 80.6 38.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 53.8 36.8 57.9 56.4 154.7 36.9 80.6 38.8

LOS D D E E F D F D
Approach Delay 41.1 56.8 65.7 44.4
Approach LOS D E E D
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.09
Intersection Signal Delay: 52.9 Intersection LOS: D
1035
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
5-Year + P - AM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1036
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 109 200 77 104 197 95 10 69 532 121 170 560 115 Future Volume (vph) 109 200 117 104 197 95 18 75 560 121 170 608 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 200 666 200 0 210 100 245 50
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.945 0.951 0.973 0.976
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3280 0 1736 3301 0 0 1736 3377 0 1736 3388 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3280 0 1736 3301 0 0 1736 3377 0 1736 3388 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 71 48 19 16
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 60 55
Link Distance (ft) 792 1273 1292 1374
Travel Time (s) 12.0 19.3 14.7 17.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 118 217 127 113 214 103 20 82 609 132 185 661 125 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 344 0 113 317 0 0 102 741 0 185 786 0 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right R NA Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 9 15 9 15 9
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 23.3% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 13.3% 40.0% Maximum Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.5 15.5 55.5 15.5 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.37 0.10 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.48 0.32 0.45 0.57 0.59 1.03 0.62
Control Delay 54.2 43.9 53.9 46.4 77.3 39.3 139.8 40.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 54.2 43.9 53.9 46.4 77.3 39.3 139.8 40.4

LOS D D D D E D F D
Approach Delay 46.5 48.4 43.9 59.4
Approach LOS D D D E
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Actuated Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Pretimed
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03
Intersection Signal Delay: 50.6 Intersection LOS: D
1037
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE 07/12/2022
5-Year + P - PM Synchro 11 Light Report

Page 2 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: LOVERS LANE & WALNUT AVE
1038
400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291-6337
Tel: (559) 636-1166
Fax: (559) 636-1177
www.provostandpritchard.com
Engineering  Surveying  Planning  Environmental  GIS  Construction Services  Hydrogeology  Consulting Clovis  Bakersfield  Visalia  Modesto  Los Banos  Chico  Sacramento  Sonora

May 13, 2022

Melody Nohemi Haigh
DR Horton
419 West Murray Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291

RE: Pearl Woods Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment

Dear Ms. Haigh:

The following Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Assessment has been prepared for the Pearl Woods single-family residential development located at Cherry Avenue and McAuliff Street – Assessor’s Parcel Number 127-030-038.

BACKGROUND
In December 2018, modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay -based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate, enacted by the State Legislature through Senate Bill 743, took effect July 1, 2020.

This analysis relies on the City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines , adopted on March 15, 2021. If any guidelines do not apply, the analysis will rely on information prepared by OPR as part of their December 2018 publication entitled Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), which provides guidance for evaluating transportation impacts based on VMT.1

PROJECT SCREENING
The City of Visalia guidelines provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify wh en a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less -than- significant impact without conducting a more detailed VMT analysis. Screening thresholds include:

1. Residential and office projects within a Transit Priority Area

2. Locally serving retail projects up to 50,000 square feet

3. Residential, office, or mixed‐use projects within low‐VMT generating areas

4. 100 percent affordable housing projects

5. Projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and generating fewer than 1,000 daily trips

A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.

1 (Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) December 2018) 1039
DR Horton May 13, 2022
Job No. 1594-21-003 Page 2 of 4
G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\200 Technical\220 Traffic\VMT\2022-0506 Pearl Woods VMT Analysis.docx

1. Transit Priority Area Screening
The City of Visalia identified the Transit Priority Area as illustrated on Attachment A. The project is not located within the Transit Priority Area.

Transit Priority Area screening threshold is not met.

2. Retail Screening
As the project is residential, this screening is not applicable.

Retail screening threshold is not met.

3. Low VMT-generating Area Screening
The City of Visalia identified the Low VMT-generating Area as illustrated on Attachment A. The project is located within the Low VMT-generating Area.

Low VMT-generating Area screening threshold is met.

4. Affordable Housing Screening
The Technical Advisory asserts that “a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less -than-significant impact on VMT.

Evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed -use development) in infill locations. Lead agencies may develop their own presumption of less than significant impact for residential projects (or residential portions of mixed-use projects) containing a particular amount of affordable housing, based on local circumstances and evidence.”

The Project would not meet Affordable Ho using screening as the Project does not provide 100 percent affordable housing in an infill area.

Affordable Housing screening threshold is not met.

5. Trip Generation Screening
The project proposes 273 single-family dwelling units. Per trip generation rates taken from Trip Generation, 11th Edition – Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) , the project is expected to generate 2,574 daily trips. While the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, t his trip generation exceeds the 1,000 daily trip threshold.

Trip Generation screening threshold is not met.

CONCLUSION
One of the five screening criteria was met, specifically No. 3 – Low VMT -generating Area .

Because of this, the project is eligible to be screened out based on City of Visalia guidelines, would result in a less than significant impact, and no further VMT analysis or potential mitigation measures are necessary.

1040
DR Horton May 13, 2022
Job No. 1594-21-003 Page 3 of 4
G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\200 Technical\220 Traffic\VMT\2022-0506 Pearl Woods VMT Analysis.docx

If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 636 -1166 or [email protected].

Respectfully,

Matt Hamilton, PE
Senior Engineer

c: Jarred Olsen – Provost & Pritchard
Matt Barnes – Provost & Pritchard

Attachments: One
1041

ATTACHMENT A
1042
ÄÆ99
ÄÆ198
ÄÆ216

ALTA AVE

E NOBLE AVE

W MINERAL KING AVE W NOBLE AVE

S DEMAREE RD

S SHIRK RD

ALTA AVE

N SHIRK RD

S COURT ST
AVENUE 280
AVENUE 296

W HOUSTON AVE

W WALNUT AVE

E CALDWELL AVE

E WALNUT AVE

W CALDWELL AVE W VISALIA RD

N DEMAREE RD

N FARMERSVILLE BLVD

PLAZA DR

W CALDWELL AVE

E VISALIA RD

E MINERAL KING AVE

S FARMERSVILLE BLVD

N AKERS ST

N LOVERS LN

E HOUSTON AVE
CR-J32

CAMP DR
ROAD 160

E MAIN ST

HOUSTON ST

W MAIN ST

N BEN MADDOX WAY

FARMERSVILLE BLVD

S BEN MADDOX WAY
AVENUE 328

W CENTER ST
AVENUE 312

BEN MADDOX WAY

N MOONEY BLVD

S AKERS ST

W GOSHEN AVE

S LOVERS LN

W RIGGIN AVEW RIGGIN AVE

E HOUSTON AVE

IVANHOE DR
AVENUE 280
ROAD 158
ROAD 80
LEGEND
City of Visalia Sphere of Influence
SOURCE: TCAG Model; City of Visalia;Tulare County (11/20) R:\VSL2001 Visalia VMT\GIS\VMT_Maps_01-21-2021\fig6_VMT_CAP .mxd (1/21/2021) FIGURE 6
City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines City of Visalia - Existing VMT per Capita
S!!N
0 2500 5000
FEET
VMT per Capita
No Population

10.0 or Less
More than 10.0, up to 11.9
Greater than 11.9
City of Visalia Average VMT per Capita: 9.1
Tulare County Average VMT per Capita: 11.9
Threshold: 16%
Map created using Tulare County as the region.
1043
Resolution No. 2023-30
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-30

A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 2022-05

AND DETACHMENT OF PROPERTY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA
NO. 1, PERTAINING TO ONE PARCEL TOTALING 67.7-ACRES INTO THE CITY LIMITS OF VISALIA. UPON ANNEXATION, THE SITE SHALL BE ZONED R-1-5 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5,000 SQUARE FOOT

MINIMUM), Q-P (QUASI-PUBLIC) AND O-S (OPEN SPACE) WHICH IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION

OF LOW DENSI TY RESIDENTIAL , PARKS/RECREATION, AND
CONSERVATION. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN BETWEEN
SOUTH LOVERS LANE AND ROAD 148, JUST SOUTH OF EAST
CHERRY AVENUE (APN: 127-030-038).

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 June 12, 2023, 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) W ill facilitate and contribute to the proper and orderly layout, design and construction of streets, gutters, sani tary and storm sewers and drainage facilities, both within the City and within the territory proposed to be annexed; and 3) W ill 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 June 12, 202 3, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project; and 1044
Resolution No. 2023-30

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings with regard to the project:

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

2. That the proposed Annexation, which will re- designate 67.7- acres of AE -20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20- acre) County zone district to R -1-5 (Single -Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area), Q-P (Quasi-Public), and OS (Open Space) City zone districts, and will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

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

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

5. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023 -30, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-30 for Annexation No. 2022-05 and Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

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

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum), Q-P (Quasi-Public) and O-S (Open Space) consistent with the pre- zoning 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. 2023-30. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.
1045

1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

CHAIRPERSON: VICE CHAIRPERSON:

Marvin Hansen Adam Peck COMMISSIONERS: Mary Beatie, Chris Gomez, Chris Tavarez, Adam Peck, Marvin Hansen MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2023

VISALIA COUNCIL CHAMBERS
LOCATED AT 707 W. ACEQUIA AVENUE, VISALIA, CA
MEETING TIME: 7:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER –

2. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE –

3. CITIZEN’S COMMENTS – This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters that are not on the agenda but are within the jurisdiction of the Visalia Planning Commission. You may provide comments to the Planning Commission at this time, but the Planning Commission may only legally discuss those items already on tonight’s agenda.

The Commission requests that a five (5) minute time limit be observed for Citizen Comments.

You will be notified when your five minutes have expired.

4. CHANGES OR COMMENTS TO THE AGENDA –

5. CONSENT CALENDAR - All items under the consent calendar are to be considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. For any discussion of an item on the consent calendar, it will be removed at the request of the Commission and made a part of the regular agenda. • No Items on the Consent Calendar

6. PUBLIC HEARING – Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit No. 2023- 06: A request by Caldwell -Mooney Partners I, L.P. to establish a three- unit commercial building with a Starbucks and a drive- thru lane located within the C -R (Regional Commercial) Zone. The project site is located at 3501 So uth Mooney Boulevard, at the northeast corner of West Caldwell Avenue and South Shady Street (Temporary APN: 000 -013-902). The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 153 03(c), Categorical Exemption No. 2023-09.

1046
Planning Commission Agenda, Monday, June 12, 2023
2 7. PUBLIC HEARING –Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-15: A request by Blair Sign Programs to adopt a master sign program associated with the redevelopment of 28.5- acre Sequoia Mall commercial center, including the addition of monument signs that exceed City standards for height and sign area.

The property is located within the City’s Regional Commercial (C-R) zone district. The project site is located at the northwest corner of South Mooney Boulevard and West Caldwell Avenue. (APN: 121 -100-049, 050; 121- 110-023, 034, 041, 043, 049, 050 052, 055) . The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15311, Categorical Exemption No. 2023-22.

8. PUBLIC HEARING – Josh Dan, Senior Planner
a. Annexation No. 2022 -05: A request by D.R. Horton to annex one parcel totaling approximately 67.7-acres into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum), Q -P (Quasi-Public zone) and OS (Open Space) which is consistent with the General Plan. The property is located in between South Lovers Lane and Road 148, just south of East Cherry Avenue (APN: 0127- 030-038).

An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023- 30 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 202305031).
b. Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591: A request by D.R. Horton to subdivide a 67.7-acre parcel into 273 single-family lots for residential use consistent with the R -1-5 zoning district and create an 8.96-acre park and regional stormwater basin. The property is located in between South Lovers Lane and Road 148, just south of East Cherry Avenue (APN: 0127-030-038). An Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023- 30 be adopted (State Clearinghouse No. 202305031).
c. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023- 07: A request to subdivide 67.7- acres into three parcels and two outlots for phasing purposes. The property is located in between South Lovers Lane and Road 148, just south of East Cherry Avenue (APN: 0127-030-038). The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, Categorical Exemption No. 2023-33.

9. CITY PLANNER/ PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION –
a. Housing Element City Council Work Session.

The Planning Commission meeting may end no later than 11:00 P.M. Any unfinished business may be continued to a future date and time to be determined by the Commission at this meeting. The Planning Commission routinely visits the project sites listed on the agenda.

For Hearing Impaired – Call (559) 713-4900 (TTY) 48-hours in advance of the scheduled meeting time to request signing services.

Any written materials relating to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are availabl e for public inspection in the City Office, 315 E. Acequia Visalia, CA 93291, during normal business hours.

1047
Planning Commission Agenda, Monday, June 12, 2023
3 APPEAL PROCEDURE
THE LAST DAY TO FILE AN APPEAL IS THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023, BEFORE 5 PM According to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance Section 17.02.145 and Subdivision Ordinance Section

16.04.040, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal form with applicable fees shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 N. Santa Fe, Visalia, CA 93291 . 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.

THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD ON MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2023 1048

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION

HEARING DATE: June 12, 2023

PROJECT PLANNER: Josh Dan, Senior Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4003
Email: [email protected]

SUBJECT: Annexation No. 202 2-05: A request by D.R. Horton to annex one parcel totaling approximately 67.7-acres into the City limits of Visalia. Upon annexation the area would be zoned R -1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum), Q -P (Quasi-Public) and O-S (Open Space) which is consistent with the General Plan.

Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591: A request by D.R. Horton to subdivide a 67.70- acre parcel into 273 single- family lots for residential use consistent with the R -1-5 zoning district and to create an 8.96 -acre park and regional stormwater basin.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07: A request by D.R. Horton to subdivide 67.7- acres into three parcels and two outlots for phasing purposes.

Project Location: The property is located in between South Lovers Lane and Road 148, just south of East Cherry Avenue (APN: 127-030-038).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Annexation No. 2022-05
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve Annexation No. 2022-05, as conditioned, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2023-29. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan.

Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591
Staff recommends approval of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 20 23-30. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) and the Visalia Housing Element.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07
Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 202 3-31. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend approval of Annexation No. 2022-05, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-29.

I move to approve Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-30.

I move to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 202 3-07, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-31.
1049

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, DR Horton, has filed entitlement applications for the annexation of a 67.7 -acre parcel, a tentative subdivision map and a tentative parcel map. Annexation No. 2022 -05 is a request to annex a 67.7-acre parcel located beyond the city limits and within Tulare County (see Exhibit “B”). The annexation application requests to annex the development site within the City.

Upon annexation, the Zoning designations for the project area will include R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area) , Q-P (Quasi-Public), and OS (Open Space) .

These zoning designations woul d be applied to the areas as noted on the City’s General Plan land use map for the residential subdivision, future neighborhood park / regional stormwater basin, and future trail along Cameron Creek.

The Pearl Woods tentative subdivision map is a request to subdivide the 67.7-acre parcel into a 273-lot single- family residential subdivision at a density of 4.03 dwelling units per ac re (see Exhibit “A”). All of the proposed 273 lots will conform to the zoning standards required within the R-1-5 zoning district for lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or greater . The proposed single- family subdivision will be serviced by 60 -foot-wide public local streets containing full improvements (curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, and streetlights), sewer lines, storm drainage, and other public infrastructure, utilities, and services (i.e., electricity, gas, and water). Primary access to the subdivision will be from Cherry Avenue, a local roadway, and McAuliff Street, a collector roadway. Both streets will be improved to their ultimate right -of-way width within the boundaries of the Pearl Woods subdivision. Improvements along these major streets include construction of curb, gutter, parkway landscaping, sidewalks, block wall (where lots do not front onto roadway), installation of park strip landscaping, streetlights, and undergrounding of utility lines. The street improvements associated with this subdivision are discussed in greater detail in the Cherry Avenue and McAuliff Street Improvements and Local Street Connectivity section of the report.

The subdivision map will also create 16 lettered lots for Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) purposes. The LLD lots will contain landscaping and block walls along McAuliff Street and portions of lots adjacent to interior street sides on the corner lots (i.e.: Lots 141 & 129).

The Parcel Map will also subdivide the area into t hree parcels. The large parcels , as depicted with the tentative parcel map , are for phasing purposes. Parcel 1/Phase I will be approximately

18.77 acres in area and will include 106 lots. Parcel 2/Phase II will be approximately 28.77 acres in area and will include 89 lots. Parcel 3/Phase III will be approximately 15.02 acres in area and will include 78 lots. The 67.7-acre project site is currently undeveloped with portions including an active walnut farm that will continue to operate until the site is ready for development. The parcel is surrounded by residential subdivisions to the north, the entitled future 174-lot Higgins Ranch residential s ubdivision to the west , and undeveloped lots and the Rector Southern California Edison (SCE) substation within the county’s jurisdiction to the east and south. The project site also abuts Cameron Creek to the east, railroad tracks along the south operated by San Joaquin Valley Railroad, and overhead SCE power lines along the south boundary.

Please note the project site is within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 2 and is subject to City’s Agricultural Preservation Ordinance. This is discussed in greater detail in the Agricultural Preservation Ordinance section of the staff report below.

1050

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density , Parks/Recreation, and Conservation
Future City Zoning: R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq uare foot minimum lot size) , QP (Quasi -public zone) and OS
(Open Space)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: R-1-5 / Residential subdivision South: County AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre
County jurisdiction) / Undeveloped Land
East: County AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre
County jurisdiction) / Undeveloped Land
West: R-1-5 / Higgins Ranch Subdivision
Environmental Review: Initial Study / Negative Declaration No. 2023-30 & Categorical Exemption No. 2023-33
Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 2021-224

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

SIMILAR PROJECTS
On May 9, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approve Annexation No. 2021-03, approved Higgins Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5585 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-01 which were a request to annex and subdivide a 32.35 -acre parcel into 174 -lots for residential use consistent with the R-1-5 (Single-family Residential) zone.

PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff supports the annexation based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, the annexation will facilitate a residential subdivision development on a 67.7-acre site in a manner that is consistent with residential neighborhoods in the area.

Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023 -07 based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) and the Visalia Housing Element for approval of the tentative subdivision map. The subdivision map proposes to develop a parcel of land that is designated for residential development at a density prescribed in the 2030 Visalia General Plan. Furthermore, the project is providing housing that meets the City’s Regional Housing Needs for the moderate income level.

Annexation No. 2022-05
The project proponents have also filed an application to initiate the annexation of the 67.7 -acre parcel (i.e., Annexation No. 2022 -05). This is required in order to annex the site into the City’s land use jurisdiction. The annexation can be supported on the basis that the proposed use is consistent with Land Use Policy LU -P-21, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram. The site can be service d with all of the requisite utility and infrastructure available to serve the site upon development. Cities can approve tentative maps prior to final 1051

approval of the annexation by the local agency formation commission but cannot approve the final subdivision map until after the land is annexed and the annexation is recorded through the Tulare County Recorder . Staff has included this requirement as Conditio n No. 3 of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07.

General Plan Consistency
The proposed 273 -lot single -family residential subdivision on 67.7- acres is compatible with existing residential development adjacent to the area. The project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21 of the 2014 General Plan, which states that the city should “Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram” . The proposed site is within the County of Tulare and is adjacent to developed sites to the north and west. Existing utility infrastructure (i.e., sewer, storm and water) can be provided to accommodate the project at buildout. Further, the site is in the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 2, which allows for immediate development upon successful annexation. Visalia met the residential land use thresholds for expanding into the Tier 2 growth boundary in July 2021.

Furthermore, the project is consistent with Policy LU -P-55. The policy allows for residential development consistent with the Low Density Residential designation at a density range between two to ten dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed development will be developed at a residential density of 4.03 units per acre consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation as well as the R -1-5 zoning district. The policy states: “this designation is intended to provide for single- family subdivisions. ” Compatibility with the surrounding area is required by the General Plan in the decision to approve the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision meets all codified standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as well as all General Plan policies pertaining to residential development. Staff finds that the proposed tentative subdivision map is compatible with the surrounding area and the Low Density Residential land use designation.

Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 66589.5) The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact

1. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformi ty with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and single-family residential development standards. The lots proposed within the Pearl Woods subdivision meet and/or exceed the minimum 5,000 square foot lot area. As depicted per the subdivision map, the average lot size is 5,250 square feet. The subdivision will also comply with the required setbacks and height restrictions per the R-1 standards. The developer is not seeking any concessions and/or deviations to the required setbacks.

Furthermore, the subdivision will be required to develop the local street network to provide connectivity to future growth areas and to the existing street network developed in the area. The subdivision will build the major street, McAliff Avenue, and the local streets to City standards.

1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).
1052

Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the proposed project (ref.: DR Horton – Pearl Woods Traffic Impact Study. Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, July 2022). The purpose of the study is to analyze traffic conditions related to the development of the subdivision and its projected level of service (LOS) at opening year and at five- year increments, and the corresponding environmental impact as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The TIS analyzed existing and proposed intersections. The existing and new intersections studied are as follows:

Existing New
McAuliff Street at Cherry Avenue Cherry Avenue at 2nd Street (lettered and numbered streets will be re-named by City staff)
McAuliff Street at Walnut Avenue McAuliff Street at A Street Lovers Lane at Cherry Avenue McAuliff Street at B Street Lovers Lane at Walnut Avenue McAuliff Street at C Street Lovers Lane at K Avenue
A level of service analyses was completed on all scenarios and intersections as stated above.

The intersection level of service was determined using Synchro 11 utilizing existing counts, ITE trip generation guidelines, and TCAG models. Based on the City of Visalia standards, a minimum Level of Service (LOS) of D is required for all intersections. After completing the analysis of all intersections, the signalized intersection of Lover’s Lane and Walnut Avenue was found to be failing in all scenarios including existing without project.

To mitigate not only the impacts of the proposed development, but also other base traffic, the intersection layout was adjusted based on the 2030 Visali a General Plan. The 2030 Visalia General Plan calls for widening Walnut Avenue to a four -lane arterial. In addition to the road widening, the signal was adjusted to have protected left -turn lanes in both Eastbound and Westbound directions. With those adjustments, the LOS improved to a “D” for the 5- year 2032 with Project scenario. Based on these findings, the development is not making a significant impact on existing or proposed intersections.

Walnut Avenue / Lovers Lane Intersection Widening Project (Capital Improvement Project) Currently, the Walnut Avenue and Lovers Lane intersection is not fully built out. However, the City of Visalia has a budgeted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to address full intersection improvements. Staff is engaging State of California officials to obtain additional right-of-way from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection site located on the northeast corner of Walnut Avenue and Lovers Lane. Acquisition of this additional right -of-way, including relocation of power poles, will facilitate additional lanes along Walnut Avenue east of the intersection. When the intersection is built to its ultimate design, the intersection will provide for two dedicated through lanes in each direction (north/south and east/west) and dedicated right turn and left turn lanes for north/southbound traffic and east/westbound traffic. The City’s CIP Engineering staff has provided an expected timeline for expected improvements at this intersection. Completion of the intersection improvements is expected to occur in the spring of 2025.

1053

The Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 is not required to buildout this intersection.

However, Traffic Impact fees collected when the permits are issued for new home construction help fund the City’s Traffic Impact Fee program which is then used to fund traff ic improvements City wide.

Cherry Avenue and McAuliff Avenue Improvements and Local Street Connectivity The developer of the subdivision will be required to construct major street improvements along both South McAuliff Street and East Cherry Avenue. Improvements along the subdivision frontage for these major streets include improving these streets to their ultimate right-of-way design.

McAuliff Street is a designated 84-foot-wide collector roadway. Improvements along the right of way within the boundaries of the subdivision map include improving the street to its full width which will include curb, gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, block wall and landscaping. McAuliff Street pavement ends at Cherry Avenue however curb, gutter, sidewalk s, streetlights, block wall and landscaping has already been installed along the Woodside Sousa Property Subdivision to the east. Additional landscaping frontage along McAuliff Street will be required to be dedicated as part of a Landscape and Lighting District which will be formed with the subdivision map. The Landscape and Lighting District lots are identified as o utlots “G”, “I”, “J”, “K” and “M” of the Pearl Woods tentative subdivision map (see Exhibit “A”). The establishment of the district provides maintenance of the landscape lots, block walls, street pavement and street lighting. Also, as noted in the Engineering Division’s Site Plan Review comments, all new utilities that will service the residential subdivision will be placed underground.

Cherry Avenue is a 56-foot-wide local street. Full street improvements along Cherry Avenue include a street widening, new curb, gutter, parkway landscaping and new sidewalk along the south side of the roadway fronting the new development. The north side of the roadway has been improved as part of the improvements that were required with the residential subdivision to the north. In addition, as noted in the Engineering Division’s Site Plan Review comments , all new utilities required to service the residential subdivision will be required to be undergrounded.

Local Street Connectivity : The 273 -lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards “P -15 – Super Block Connectivity”. This improvement standard provides for access via the local street connectivity pattern within a superblock thereby reducing trips onto arterial and collector streets. The superblock connectivity design allows for interconnectivity between and within neighborhoods. The local street connection proposed within the 273-lot subdivision provides for the local street stub-out connection to a future Higgins Ranch subdivision located to the west of the project site which will be accessible via “E” Street as shown on Exhibit “A”. Additionally, the subdivision will connect to existing Rio Vista Street which stubs in the existing Woodside Sousa Property Subdivision to the north.

City of Visalia Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California CEQA documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for impact determination. As a result of the final rulemaking surrounding SB 743 and the implementation deadline of July 1, 2020, the City of Visalia adopted VMT thresholds and guidelines (City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, LSA, Adopted March 15, 2021) to address the shift from delay‐based LOS CEQA traffic analyses to VMT CEQA traffic analyses.

The adopted guidelines provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed VMT analysis. Screening thresholds include:

1. Residential and office projects within a Transit Priority Area. 1054

2. Locally serving retail projects up to 50,000 square feet.

3. Residential, office, or mixed‐use projects within low‐VMT generating areas.

4. 100 percent affordable housing projects.

5. Projects that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and generating fewer than 1,000 daily trips.

A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.

The project would result in the addition of 273 new homes resulting in an increase of population for the City. A rise in population for the area would result in an increased amount of VMT being produced from a rise in population. However, the project area is located within a Low VMT - generating area as illustrated in Appendix D: Traffic Impact Study. As a result, the Project meets one of the five screening thresholds identified above. These screening thresholds limit the project’s impacts relating to VMT gen eration to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (Title 18 “Agricultural Land Preservation”) The 67.7-acre project site is located in the City’s Tier II growth boundary and is designated as Prime Farmland as defined per the Tulare County Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Based on the projects location in Tier II and having a Prime Farmland designation, the development of this site is subject to the City’s recently adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance.

On May 1, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to introduce Ordinance No. 2023- 02, a request to adopt a new title and chapter to the Visalia Municipal Code referred to as Title 18 “Agricultural Land Preservation”, Chapter 18.04 “Agricultural Land Preservation Program”, to create an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) to implement Visalia General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-34. The second reading of Ordinance No. 2023-02 was done on May 15, 2023, and the APO will take effect 30 days after the ordinance adoption.

The adoption of the Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) is a necessary step for projects in the Tier II growth boundary to move forward. The purpose and intent of the ordinance is to implement t he goals of the City of Visalia General Plan and address the conversion of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance through the adoption of an agricultural land preservation program . In addition, the ordinance established a process for the requi red preservation of agricultural land through the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements or the payment of an in-lieu fee for projects subject to the provisions of this ordinance.

The developer of the project is subject to complying with the requirements of the adopted APO.

The preserved land obligation shall be calculated at a ratio of one acre of preserved land for each acre of converted land. Converted land acreage shall be calculated by determining the applicable project acreage less the acr eage of exclusions. In addition, the preserved land obligation, as established in Section 18.04.070(A) of the APO, shall be preserved through acquisition of an agricultural easement in accordance with Section 18.04.080, unless eligible for payment of an in- lieu fee in accordance with Section 18.04.090 of the APO.

Please note prior to issuance of any permit directly authorizing or resulting in disturbance to the project site, the preserved land obligation shall be satisfied when either the approved agricultural conservation easement has been recorded; or when the applicant has remitted the approved in- lieu fee to the qualified entity.

1055

Out lots for Basin and Trail Purposes
The Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map 5591, as seen in Exhibit “A”, accounts for various Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) lots but also delineates two out lots as described in Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07 for Basin and Trail Purposes.

Trail: The out lot for the trail incorporates the project area’s section of the 50-foot riparian setback from Cameron Creek. The trail is identified to be a 10-foot wide, paved Class I proposed bikeway trail system running parallel (west and north) to Cameron Creek. The location of the trail is consistent with the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) for the proposed bikeway routes in the area.

The trail will be constructed later with a City CIP project encompassing a larger trail network area.

Southern California Edison (SCE) Easement : Originally, the applicant had proposed the project area’s southern boundary SCE easement to be an out lot for the continued trail system which could potentially support the proposed Class I bikeway along Cameron Creek in a westward expansion. However, as discussed above per the ATP, the trail system will run parallel along Cameron Creek and will not traverse to the west. In addition, t he Higgins Ranch subdivision to the west incorporated the same SCE easement along the southern portion of the residential development. Due to this area being an easement for SCE purposes, which is required to be free and clear of any structure, Condition No. 6 has been included for the Pearl Woods subdivision which states that the developer and City staff will continue to work with SCE to find solutions on what can be placed within the 25- foot SCE easement to address debris and weed maintenance including cross access maintenance agreements that give rights to keep this area free and clear.

Basin: This project includes the installation of a regional retention basin locat ed on the east end of the project area, just west of Cameron Creek at Road 148. This basin will be designed to capture storm runoff from existing and future development within the tributary watershed area bounded by Walnut Avenue to the north, K Road extension to the south, Lovers Lane to the west and Road 148 to the east. In addition to capturing storm runoff, the basin will have the ability to recharge ground water from surface runoff and minimize runoff into local creeks and channels.

This basin would serve as an ultimate basin for the northern portion of the developing area in conjunction with the Southern Cameron Creek Regional Basin. Geotechnical testing will be required to determine soil infiltration characteristics for ground water recharge purposes and eligibility for ground water recharge.

As an added benefit , the basin project will provide flood control during major storm events and water storage during dry years through the coordination with Tulare Irrigation District for exchange of water from Cameron Creek. This basin project would greatly assist with the management of our limited water resources. In addition, a pre- treatment system will be installed to treat storm runoff prior to entering the basin to be in compliance with MS-4 requirements.

Development Standards
All of the proposed lots will utilize stand ard single-family residential standards for lot size and setbacks. The lots will be required to meet R -1-5 zoning standard setback standards, described in further detail in VMC chapter 17.12 (see attached Related Plans and Policies). All lots will have a minimum lot depth between ±100 to ±122 feet with the exception of the lots located on cul -de- sac or knuckle street bulbs. These lots will also be required to utilize standard single- family residential setback standards but are permitted to have a 20-foot setback for front-loading garages as identified in Section 17.12.080.C of the Zoning Ordinance.

1056

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

Minimum Lot
Area Front Side Street Side Rear
5,000 sq. ft.
15-ft. to
habitable space.
22-ft. to garage
5-ft. 10-ft. 25-ft.

Landscape and Lighting Assessment District and Block Walls A Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) will be required for the long- term maintenance of the out lots (Lots A through N), which include blocks walls, landscaping, streets lights and a small park as noted on Exhibit “A”. The block walls along the major street frontages will be typical City standard block walls. The block wall height shall be reduced to three feet where the block wall runs adjacent to the front yard setback along the front yard areas of the adjoining residential lots.

The three-foot transition areas can be found between the corner residential lots and the local streets heading into the subdivision from McAuliff Street. Staff has included Condition No. 5 to require the stepped down walls.

Infrastructure
Water Service: Staff has included Condition No. 7 that requires a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company if, prior to development of the subdivision, the determination of water availability letter lapses.

Sanitary Sewer: The sewer system will have to be extended to the boundaries of the development where future connection and extension is anticipated. The sewer system will be sized in order to service the entire subdivision. The sanitary sewer master plan for the entire development will be required to be submitted for approval prior to approval of any portion of the system.

Storm Drainage : The subdivision will be required to provide a retention basin w hich will also incorporate park area and measure 8.96- acres for storm water drainage . Coordination with the City Engineer as part of the master storm infrastructure plan will be necessary to design the subdivision accordingly to ultimately tie into the future storm drain basin.

Subdivision Map Act Findings
California Government Code Section 66474 lists seven findings for which a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map if it is able to make any of these findings.

These seven “negative” findings have come to light through a recent California Court of Appeal decision (Spring Valley Association v. City of Victorville) that has clarified the scope of findings that a city or county must make when approving a tentative map under the California Subdivision Map Act.

Staff has reviewed the seven findings for a cause of denial and finds that none of the findings can be made for the proposed project. The seven findings and staff’s analysis are below.

Recommended finings in response to this Government Code section are included in the recommended findings for the approval of the tentative subdivision and tentative parcel map.

GC Section 66474 Finding Analysis
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified
in Section 65451.

The proposed map s have been found to be
consistent with the City’s General Plan. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 1 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.

There are no specific plans applicable to the
proposed maps.
1057

(b) That the design or improvement of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.

The proposed design and improvement of the
maps have been found to be consistent with the
City’s General Plan. This is included as
recommended Finding No. 1 of the Tentative
Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps. There are
no specific plans applicable to the proposed maps.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the
type of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed
maps and its affiliated development plan, which is
designated as Low Density Residential and
developed at a density of 4.03 units per acre. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 3 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed
maps and its affiliated development plan, which is
designated as Low Density Residential. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 4 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The proposed design and improvement s of the
maps have not been found likely to cause
environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This finding is further supported by the project’s
determination of no new effects under the
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), included as
recommended Finding No. 6 of the Tentative
Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public
health problems.

The proposed design of the map has been found
to not cause serious public health problems. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type
of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.

The proposed design of the map s do not conflict
with any existing or proposed easements located
on or adjacent to the subject property. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 5 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Maps.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed project. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-30 disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation to addr ess significant impacts to the following resources:
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Agricultural and Forestry Resources to mitigate impacts for loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on a 1:1 ratio. • Nine (9) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources to reduce impacts of the Project to special -status wildlife species (i.e., Swainson's Hawk, nesting Raptors, and Migratory Birds, Bats, and Northern California legless lizard).

1058

• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Cultural Resources to reduce the impacts of the Project on the potential of exposing historical or archaeological materials during construction.
• One (1) mitigation measure pertaining to Geology and Soils to address whether paleontological resources be encountered.
• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Tribal and Cultural Resources to address the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe’s concerns regarding Tribal history and knowledge of the area.

The Tent ative Parcel Map is considered Categorically Exempt under Section 15315 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality A ct (CEQA) (Categorical Exemption No. 2023-33).

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Annexation No. 2022-05

2. That the proposed Annexation, which w ill re -designate 67.7- acres of AE -20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) County zone district to R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area), Q-P (Quasi-Public), and OS (Open Space)City zone districts, and will not impose new land us es or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

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

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

5. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-30, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Pearls Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07

1. That the proposed location and layout of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07, its improvements and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The 67.7 -acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 273-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21 of the General Plan. Policy LU -P-21 allows for the “annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”.

2. That the proposed Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 91 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023- 07 its improvement s and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or im provements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed tentative subdivision map will be compatible with adjacent land uses. The project site is bordered by existing residential development and two major streets. 1059

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. T he Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023- 07 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is adjacent to land zoned for residential development, and the subdivision establ ishes a local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the west of the subject site.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision and tentative parcel maps and the project’s density, which is consistent with the underlying Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed location and layout of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 , its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The 67.7 -acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 273-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21.

5. That the proposed Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 91 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07, design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The 2 73-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. The development of the site with a 273-lot single-family residential subdivision would extend local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right - of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found in the area. The project will include the construction of local streets within the subdivision, connection stub out to a future subdivision to the east and frontage street improvements along both South McAuliff Street and East Cherry Avenue.

6. The proposed location of the tentative subdivis ion map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed location of the subdivision is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Multiple General Plan policies identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new single -family residential development will contribute to positive land use compatibility. The size of the property combined with the number of residential lots proposed is consistent and compatible with existing surrounding residential development.

The proposed project will result in the creation of a new single-family residential development at a density of 4.03 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and the R -1-5 zoning designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.

7. The Housing Accountability Act ( GC section 66589.5) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s applicatio n is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact. There is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development standards.

1060

8. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-30, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2022-05

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum), Q -P (Quasi -Public) and O -S (Open Space) consistent with the pre- zoning 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. 2023-30. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.

Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591

1. That the subdivision map be developed in substantial compliance with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review Committee as set forth under Site Plan Review No. 2021- 224 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 91 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.

3. That approval of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022-05, 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. 2022-05.

4. That all lots that are a minimum of 5,000 square feet in area shall comply with the R -1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 sq. ft. min. site area) zone district standards for the front, side, street side yard, and rear yard setbacks.

5. That the block walls located within the Landscape and Lighting District lots shall transition to three-foot height within the 15-foot front yard setback areas of the adjoining residential lots of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 (Exhibit “A”).

6. That the developer and City work with Southern California Edison (SCE) to identify appropriate use and improvement measures within the 25-foot SCE easement area for future maintenance to keep the area free and clear of debris and weeds.

7. That if, prior to development of the subdivision the applicant/developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.

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

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07

1. That the project be developed consistent with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review No. 2021-224.

2. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023 -07 be prepared in substantial compliance with Exhibit “C”.
1061

3. That approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022 -05, 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 c onditions contained in the Pre- Annexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2022-05.

4. That all other federal, state and city codes, ordinances and laws be met.

APPEAL INFORMATION
Annexation
For the Annexation, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory only. The final decision will be by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendation in this matter is not appealable.

Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07 According to the City of Visalia Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.28.080, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writin g and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 North Santa Fe St., Visalia, CA. 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. 2023-30 – Annexation No. 2022-05
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2023-29 – Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 • Resolution No. 2023-31 – Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07 • Exhibit "A" – Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 • Exhibit “B” – Annexation Area
• Exhibit “C” – Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07
• Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023-30 • Site Plan Review Item No. 2021-244
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map

1062

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

General Plan Land Use Policies:

LU-P-21: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) and the Urban Growth Boundary (Tier III) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to th e following phasing thresholds: • “Tier II”: Tier II supports a target buildout population of approximately 178,000.

The expansion criteria for land in Tier II is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been issued in Tier I at the following levels, starting from April 1, 2010:

Residential: after permits for 5,850 housing units have been issued.

LU-P-55: Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Low Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre, facilitating new planned neighborhoods and infill development in established areas. This designation is intended to provide for single-family detached housing with densities typical of single-family subdivisions. Duplex units, townhouses, and small-lot detached housing may be incorporated as part of Low Density Residential developments. Development standards will ensure that a desirable single-family neighborhood character is maintained.

1063

Zoning Ordinance Chapter for R-1 Zone
Chapter 17.12
R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE

17.12.010 Purpose and intent.

In the R-1 single-family residential zones (R-1-5, R-1-12.5, and R-1-20), the purpose and intent is to provide living area within the city where development is limited to low density concentrations of one- family dwellings where regulations are designed to accomplish the following: to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life; to provide space for community facilities needed to compliment urban residential areas and for institutions that require a residential environment; to minimize traffic congestion and to avoid an overload of utilities designed to service only low density residential use.

17.12.015 Applicability.

The requirements in this chapter shall apply to all property within R-1 zone districts.

17.12.020 Permitted uses.

In the R-1 single-family residential zones, the following uses shall be permitted by right:

A. One-family dwellings;
B. Raising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties; C. Accessory structures located on the same site with a permitted use including private garages and carports, one guest house, storehouses, garden structures, green houses, recreation room and hobby shops;
D. Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests; provided, that no swimming pool or accessory mechanical equipment shall be located in a required front yard or in a required side yard;
E. Temporary subdivision sales offices;
F. Licensed day care for a maximum of fourteen (14) children in addition to the residing family; G. Twenty-four (24) hour residential care facilities or foster homes, for a maximum of six individuals in addition to the residing family;
H. Signs subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.48;
I. The keeping of household pets, subject to the definition of household pets set forth in Section

17.04.030;
J. Accessory dwelling units as specified in Sections 17.12.140 through 17.12.200; K. Adult day care up to twelve (12) persons in addition to the residing family; L. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner; M. Legally existing multiple family units, and expansion or reconstruction as provided in Section

17.12.070.

N. Transitional or supportive housing for six (6) or fewer resident/clients.

O. In the R-1-20 zone only, the breeding, hatching, raising and fattening of birds, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters, other small animals and fowl, on a domestic noncommercial scale, provided that there shall not be less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of site area for each fowl or animal and provided that no structure housing poultry or small animals shall be closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line, closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any dwelling on the site, or closer than fifty (50) feet to any other dwelling;

1064

P. In the R-1-20 zone only, the raising of livestock, except pigs of any kind, subject to the exception of not more than two cows, two horses, four sheep or four goats for each site, shall be permitted; provided, that there be no limitation on the number of livestock permitted on a site with an area of ten acres or more and provided that no stable be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any dwelling on the site or closer than one hundred (100) feet to any other dwelling;

17.12.030 Accessory uses.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, the following accessory uses shall be permitted, subject to specified provisions:

A. Home occupations subject to the provisions of Section 17.32.030; B. Accessory buildings subject to the provisions of Section 17.12.100(B).

C. Cottage Food Operations subject to the provisions of Health and Safety Code 113758 and Section

17.32.035.

17.12.040 Conditional uses.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, the following conditional uses may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.38:

A. Planned development subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.26; B. Public and quasi-public uses of an educational 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; C. Public and private charitable institutions, general hospitals, sanitariums, nursing and convalescent homes; not including specialized hospitals, sanitariums, or nursing, rest and convalescent homes including care for acute psychiatric, drug addiction or alcoholism cases; D. 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, ambulance service and other public building, structures and facilities; public playgrounds, parks and community centers;
E. Electric distribution substations;
F. Gas regulator stations;
G. Public service pumping stations, i.e., community water service wells; H. Communications equipment buildings;
I. Planned neighborhood commercial center subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.26; J. Residential development specifically designed for senior housing; K. Mobile home parks in conformance with Section 17.32.040; L. [Reserved.] M. Residential developments utilizing private streets in which the net lot area (lot area not including street area) meets or exceeds the site area prescribed by this article and in which the private streets are designed and constructed to meet or exceed public street standards; N. Adult day care in excess of twelve (12) persons;
O. Duplexes on corner lots;
P. Twenty-four (24) hour residential care facilities or foster homes for more than six individuals in addition to the residing family;
Q. Residential structures and accessory buildings totaling more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet; R. Other uses similar in nature and intensity as determined by the city planner.

S. Transitional or supportive housing for seven (7) or more resident/clients. 1065

17.12.050 Site area.

The minimum site area shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Site Area
R-1-5 5,000 square feet
R-1-12.5 12,500 square feet
R-1-20 20,000 square feet
A. Each site shall have not less than forty (40) feet of frontage on the public street. The minimum width shall be as follows:

Zone Interior Lot Corner Lot
R-1-5 50 feet 60 feet
R-1-12.5 90 feet 100 feet
R-1-20 100 feet 110 feet
B. Minimum width for corner lot on a side on cul-de-sac shall be eighty (80) feet, when there is no landscape lot between the corner lot and the right of way.

17.12.060 One dwelling unit per site.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each site, with the exception to Section 17.12.020(J).

17.12.070 Replacement and expansion of legally existing multiple family units.

In accordance with Sections 17.12.020 legally existing multiple family units may be expanded or replaced if destroyed by fire or other disaster subject to the following criteria:

A. A site plan review permit as provided in Chapter 17.28 is required for all expansions or replacements.

B. Replacement/expansion of unit(s) shall be designed and constructed in an architectural style compatible with the existing single-family units in the neighborhood. Review of elevations for replacement/expansion shall occur through the site plan review process. Appeals to architectural requirements of the site plan review committee shall be subject to the appeals process set forth in Chapter 17.28.050.

C. Setbacks and related development standards shall be consistent with existing single-family units in the neighborhood.

D. Parking requirements set forth in Section 17.34.020 and landscaping requirements shall meet current city standards and shall apply to the entire site(s), not just the replacement unit(s) or expanded area, which may result in the reduction of the number of units on the site.

E. The number of multiple family units on the site shall not be increased.

F. All rights established under Sections 17.12.020and 17.12.070 shall be null and void one hundred eighty (180) days after the date that the unit(s) are destroyed (or rendered uninhabitable), unless a building permit has been obtained and diligent pursuit of construction has commenced. The approval of a site plan review permit does not constitute compliance with this requirement.

17.12.080 Front yard.

A. The minimum front yard shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Front Yard
R-1-5 Fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty-two (22) feet for front-loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cochere. A Porte Cochere with less than twenty-two (22) feet of 1066

setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.

R-1-12.5 Thirty (30) feet
R-1-20 Thirty-five (35) feet
B. On a site situated between sites improved with buildings, the minimum front yard may be the average depth of the front yards on the improved site adjoining the side lines of the site but need not exceed the minimum front yard specified above.

C. On cul-de-sac and knuckle lots with a front lot line of which all or a portion is curvilinear, the front yard setback shall be no less than fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty (20) feet for front-loading garages.

17.12.090 Side yards.

A. The minimum side yard shall be five feet in the R-1-5 and R-1-12.5 zone subject to the exception that on the street side of a corner lot the side yard shall be not less than ten feet and twenty-two (22) feet for front loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cocheres.

B. The minimum side yard shall be ten feet in the R-1-20 zone subject to the exception that on the street side of a corner lot the side yard shall be not less than twenty (20) feet.

C. On a reversed corner lot the side yard adjoining the street shall be not less than ten feet.

D. On corner lots, all front-loading garage doors shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet from the nearest public improvement or sidewalk.

E. Side yard requirements may be zero feet on one side of a lot if two or more consecutive lots are approved for a zero lot line development by the site plan review committee.

F. The placement of any mechanical equipment, including but not limited to, pool/spa equipment and evaporative coolers shall not be permitted in the five-foot side yard within the buildable area of the lot, or within five feet of rear/side property lines that are adjacent to the required side yard on adjoining lots.

This provision shall not apply to street side yards on corner lots, nor shall it prohibit the surface mounting of utility meters and/or the placement of fixtures and utility lines as approved by the building and planning divisions.

17.12.100 Rear yard.

In the R-1 single-family residential zones, the minimum yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet, subject to the following exceptions:

A. On a corner or reverse corner lot the rear yard shall be twenty-five (25) feet on the narrow side or twenty (20) feet on the long side of the lot. The decision as to whether the short side or long side is used as the rear yard area shall be left to the applicant's discretion as long as a minimum area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet of usable rear yard area is maintained. The remaining side yard to be a minimum of five feet.

B. Accessory structures not exceeding twelve (12) feet may be located in the required rear yard but not closer than three feet to any lot line provided that not more than twenty (20) percent of the area of the required rear yard shall be covered by structures enclosed on more than one side and not more than forty (40) percent may be covered by structures enclosed on only one side. On a reverse corner lot an accessory structure shall not be located closer to the rear property line than the required side yard on the adjoining key lot. An accessory structure shall not be closer to a side property line adjoining key lot and not closer to a side property line adjoining the street than the required front yard on the adjoining key lot.

C. Main structures may encroach up to five feet into a required rear yard area provided that such encroachment does not exceed one story and that a usable, open, rear yard area of at least one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet shall be maintained. Such encroachment and rear yard area shall be approved by the city planner prior to issuing building permits. 1067

17.12.110 Height of structures.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, the maximum height of a permitted use shall be thirty-five (35) feet, with the exception of structures specified in Section 17.12.100(B).

17.12.120 Off-street parking.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.34.

17.12.130 Fences, walls and hedges.

In the R-1 single-family residential zone, fences, walls and hedges are subject to the provisions of Section 17.36.030.

17.12.135 Lot area less than 5,000 square feet.

A. Notwithstanding Section 17.12.050, lots in the R-1-5 zone may have a lot area of between 3,600 and 4,999 square feet if all of the following standards are met:

1. The Planning Commission finds that the development's overall density is consistent with the General Plan.

2. The maximum number of lots less than 5,000 square feet that may be approved by a tentative subdivision map shall be fifty (50) percent or less of the total lots.

3. Streets shall be constructed to public street standards.

4. Each subdivision with at least 15 lots that are less than 5,000 square feet in size shall make available to buyers at least three (3) different small lot floor plans with at least four (4) available elevation designs for each floor plan to construct on those lots.

5. The primary frontage of the dwelling unit shall face a public street, primary entryway, circulation walkway, or open space with sidewalks that provide delineated paths of travel.

6. The primary frontage of the dwelling unit shall include the primary entrance and at least one window.

7. Required covered parking spaces shall be in garages. Carports are prohibited.

8. The width of the garage shall not be greater than fifty (50) percent of the width of the dwelling unit.

9. The garage shall not extend beyond the front building facade (living area.)

10. All dwelling units shall include a covered front porch at least four (4) feet deep and six (6) feet wide or an uncovered front courtyard at least five (5) feet wide and five (5) feet deep that is surrounded on four sides by the dwelling unit or a wall or fence between three (3) and four (4) feet high with a pedestrian gate or entryway.

11. The building official shall not approve a building permit for a new dwelling unit on a lot with a lot area less than 5,000 square feet until the city planner, or designee, has determined that the standards identified in this section are met.

12. The subdivision shall provide a common, usable open space area of a minimum 3,000 square feet or two hundred fifty (250) square feet per lot under 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater. The area shall be landscaped and maintained with funding from either a homeowner's association or a landscape and lighting act district.

B. Notwithstanding this Chapter, lots with less than five thousand (5,000) square feet shall have the following minimum dimensions and building setback areas, unless they were approved with a planned development permit:

1. The minimum lot depth shall be seventy (70) feet.

2. The minimum lot width shall be forty-six (46) feet for interior lots and fifty-one (51) feet for corner lots.
1068

3. The minimum front building setback area shall be twelve (12) feet for livable space and twenty (20) feet for garages.

4. The minimum rear yard building setback area shall be fifteen (15) feet.

5. The minimum interior side yard building setback area shall be five (5) feet.

6. The minimum corner side yard building setback area shall be ten (10) feet.

7. The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet.

8. Lots shall provide for a usable open space area of a minimum three hundred (300) square feet. The open space shall be a minimum fifteen (15) feet wide.

C. Lots less having a lot area of 3,600 square feet, or lots that do not meet the standards in this section may be approved through the planned development permit process per Chapter 17.26. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017)

1069
Resolution No. 2023-30
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-30

A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION NO. 2022-05

MINIMUM), Q-P (QUASI-PUBLIC) AND O-S (OPEN SPACE) WHICH IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION

OF LOW DENSI TY RESIDENTIAL , PARKS/RECREATION, AND
CONSERVATION. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN BETWEEN
SOUTH LOVERS LANE AND ROAD 148, JUST SOUTH OF EAST
CHERRY AVENUE (APN: 127-030-038).

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after a duly published notice, did hold a public hearing on June 12, 2023, and

WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on June 12, 202 3, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project; and 1070
Resolution No. 2023-30

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.

TO THE CITY OF VISALIA

GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
All that certain real property, situate in the North half of Section 3 of Township 19 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, in the County of Tulare, State of California, described as follows:

BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of Woodside Sousa Property, Unit No. 1 subdivision, according to the map thereof recorded in Volume 42 of Maps at Page 75, Tulare County Records, being a point on the South line of the North 34 3/5 acres of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3, and being an angle point in the existing City Limit line of the City of Visalia; thence departing said City Limit Line
1) South 89°25’35” East, along said South line, 1361.43 feet, more or less, to a point on the West right-of-way line of Road 148, a county road, said point lying 25 feet West of the East line of said Northeast quarter of Section 3; thence 2) South 1°31’04” West, along said West right-of-way line, 312.67 feet, more or less, to a point on the North line of that parcel granted to Pacific Light & Power by the deed recorded in Book 238 of Deeds at Page 174, Tulare County Records; thence 3) North 89°07’56” West, along said North line, 405.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said parcel; thence
4) South 1°31’04” West, along the West line of said parcel, 331.21 feet, more or less, to the northerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, and a point on a non-tangent curve, concave northerly and having a radius of 43,089.56 feet, a radial to said point bears South 1°09’08” West; thence
5) Westerly, along said northerly right-of-way line, 286.31 feet along the arc of said non- tangent curve, through a central angle of 0°22’51”; thence 6) North 88°28’01” West, along said northerly right-of-way line, 269.70 feet to an angle point in said right-of-way line at U.P.R.R. Station 584+74.0; thence 7) North 1°31’59” East, along said northerly right-of-way line, 50.00 feet to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence
8) North 88°28’01” West, along said northerly right-of-way line, 1400.00 feet to an angle point in said right-of-way line at U.P.R.R. Station 570+74.0; thence 9) South 1°31’59” West, along said northerly right-of-way line, 50.00 feet to an angle point in said right-of-way line; thence
1072
NE14SEC. 3-19/25
NW14SEC. 3-19/25ANNEXATION AREAAPN 127-030-03868.30 ACRESCHERRYAVENUE LICENSE NO:LAND SURVEYOR:SHEETDATE:JOB NO:DRAFTED BY: CHECKED BY:OFORIGINAL SCALE SHOWN IS ONEINCH. ADJUST SCALE FORREDUCED OR ENLARGED PLANS.01"PHASE:PROJECT NO:ANNEXATION NO. ____TO THE CITY OF VISALIATULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIAGRAPHICAL EXHIBITTIMOTHY M. ODOMPLS 8468TMO JSO4/7/221594210031 14/7/2022 12:36 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\330 Existing Conditions\Surveys_Ex\159421003-SUR-GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION.dwg -Tim Odom CHERRYAVENUEU.P.R.R.

ROAD148

MCAULIFFSTREET

LOVERSLANEROAD
RD 148S MCAULIFF AVEVICINITY MAPE WALNUT AVER.R.TRACKSLOVERS LANEPINKHAM STAVENUE280POINT OF BEGINNINGRIOVISTASIMONSTREETTEAKWOODSTREET 1073
4/7/22
1074
1075
Page2 of2
10) North 88°28’01” West, along said northerly right-of-way line, 1573.64 feet to a point on the West line of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 3; thence 11) North 1°25’50” East, along said West line, 1154.40 feet, more or less, to the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 3, being a point on the existing City Limit line; thence along said existing City Limit line the following three (3) courses:
12) South 89°26’08” East, 1321.58 feet, more or less to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 3; thence 13) South 1°25’40” West, along the West line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3, a distance of 570.99 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of the North 34 3/5 acres of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3; thence 14) South 89°25’35” East, along said South line, 1253.01 feet, more or less, to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

Containing approximately 68.30 acres.

For assessment purposes only. This description of land is not a legal property description as defined in the Subdivision Map Act and may not be used as the basis for an offer for sale of the land described. 4/7/22
1076
1 of 8

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 C ounty 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 R-1-5, Q-P (Quasi-Public) and O -S (Open Space) which would permit the Property to be used for Low Density Residential; and

WHEREAS, the Property consists of approximately 67.7 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 ___, 2023, initiated proceedings to annex the Property; and

WHEREAS, in certain annexation proceedings Williamson Act issues arise which require indemnification of LAFCO, in said event, C ity requires indemnification from Developer; and

WHEREAS, finding __ of Resolution No. 2023-___ 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.
1077
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 prohib it 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 condition s 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 obta in 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 provi der, 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 1078
3 of 8
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 annexatio n 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 Acq uisition 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), Ow ner will comply with the Water Acquisit ion 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 po table 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 ag ents 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 sha ll 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 agre es that City shall have first right of r efusal 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 ri ghts 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 t he Property, City agrees such water rig hts convey ance 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 ba sis 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 1079
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 ma ps covering the Property and, in the ev ent 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 fina l subdivision map, with payment to be made on a p er 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 Ci ty’s annex ation 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 issue d 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 termi nate if (a) the annexation proceedings a re 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 incl uded 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 obligati on of this Agreement by either party, t he other p arty 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, r ules 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, 1080
5 of 8
causes of actions, and demands, including att orney’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 con nected 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 fee s and court costs, which arise out of o r are in a ny 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 part ies hereto. The terms and conditions stated herein shall constitute covenants running with the land.

b. Assignment. Neither party shall assign, delegate or tra nsfer their rights and duties in this Ag reement w ithout 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, righ t and actual authority to bind the part y 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 th e 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: Kevin Clements
939 S. McAuliff Street
Visalia, CA 93292

Or such other address as the parties may from time to time designate by giving notice as required hereunder.
1081
6 of 8

e. Entire Ag reement. 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 . Ex cept as p rovided 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 incorpora ted by re ference 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 aut hority, 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 A greement 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 ques tions ari sing her eunder 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 par ty commen ces 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 an d 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 1082
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 v enturers 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 annex ation, 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 transa ctions 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
1083
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: ________________________________ Kevin Clements

1084
RESOLUTION NO 2023-29

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

VISALIA APPROVING PEARL WOODS TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5591, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 67.7 -ACRES INTO A 273 -LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION . THE 67.7-ACRES IS PROPOSED TO BE ZONED R -1-5 (SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE) Q-P (QUASI-PUBLIC) AND O-S (OPEN SPACE) UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF VISALIA.

THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN BETWEEN SOUTH LOVERS LANE AND ROAD 148, JUST SOUTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE
(APN: 127-030-038)

WHEREAS, Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 is a request to subdivide 67.7-acres into a 273-lot single-family residential subdivision. The project is pre- zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum site area) Q-P (Quasi- Public) and O -S (Open Space) and is located in between South Lovers Lane and Road 148, just south of East Cherry Avenue (APN: 127-030-038); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on June 12, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 in accordance with Chapter 16.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Visalia, based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared which disclosed that no significant environmental impacts would result from this project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2022-30 for Annexation No. 2022-05 and Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 that was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia approves the proposed tentative subdivision map based on the following specific findings and based on the evidence presented:

67.7-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 273-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU -P-21 of the General Plan. Policy LU-P-21 allows for the “annexation and development of residential, commercial, 1085
Resolution No. 2023-29
regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”.

2. That the proposed Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 91 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07 its improvements and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed tentative subdivision map will be compatible with adjacent land uses. The project site is bordered by existing residential development and two major streets.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. T he Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is adjacent to land zoned for residential development, and the subdivision establishes a local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the west of the subject site.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision and tentative parcel maps and the project’s density, which is consistent with the underlying Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed location and layout of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The 67.7-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 273-lot single- family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21.

5. That the proposed Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 91 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023- 07, design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The 2 73-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. The development of the site with a 273 -lot single -family residential subdivision would extend local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right-of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found in the area. The project will include the construction of local streets within the subdivision, connection stub out to a future subdivision to the east and frontage street improvements along both South McAuliff Street and East Cherry Avenue.

6. The proposed location of the tentative subdivision map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.

The proposed location of the subdivision is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Multiple General Plan policies identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new single -family residential development will contribute to positive land use compatibility. The size of the property combined with the number of residential lots proposed is consisten t and compatible with existing surrounding residential 1086
Resolution No. 2023-29
development.

The proposed project will result in the creation of a new si ngle-family residential development at a density of 4.03 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and the R -1-5 zoning designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.

7. The Housing Accountability Act ( GC section 66589.5) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact. There is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development standards.

8. That an Initial Study was prepared for this project, consistent with CEQA, which disclosed that environmental impacts are determined to be not significant and that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2023 -30, is hereby adopted. Furthermore, the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the tentative subdivision map on the real property herein above described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provisions of Section 16.16.030 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, subject to the following conditions:

2. That the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “A”.

3. That approval of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022 -05, 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. 2022-05.

4. That all lots that are a minimum of 5,000 square feet in area shall comply with the R - 1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 sq. ft. min. site area) zone district standards for the front, side, street side yard, and rear yard setbacks.

7. That if, prior to development of the subdivision the applicant/developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.

8. That all applicable federal, state, regional, and city policies and ordinances be met. 1088
Resolution No. 2023-31
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-31

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
VISALIA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20 23-07, A
REQUEST BY D.R. HORTON TO SUBDIVIDE 67.7-ACRES INTO THREE PARCELS AND TWO OUTLOTS FOR PHASING PURPOSES. THE SITE
IS LOCATED IN BETWEEN SOUTH LOVERS LANE AND ROAD 148,
JUST SOUTH OF EAST CHERRY AVENUE (APN: 127-030-038)

WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20 23-07, is a request by D.R. Horton to subdivide 67.70 - acres into three parcels and two outlots for phasing purposes. The property is located in between South Lovers Lane and Road 148, just south of East Cherry Avenue (APN: 127-030-038); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice scheduled a public hearing before said commission on June 12, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia finds Tentative Parcel Map No. 202 3-07, as condit ioned, in accordance with Section 16.28.070 of the Visalia Municipal Code based on the evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing; and,

WHEREAS, the project is considered Categorically Exempt under Section 15315 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Categorical Exemption No. 2023-33).

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

67.7-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 273-lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU -P-21 of the General Plan. Policy LU-P-21 allows for the “annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram”.

2. That the proposed Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 91 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07 its improvements and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed tentative subdivision map will be compatible with adjacent land uses. The project site is bordered by existing residential development and two major streets.

1089
Resolution No. 2023-31

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. T he Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-07 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is adjacent to land zoned for residential development, and the subdivision establishes a local street pattern that will serve the subject site and the future development of vacant parcels located to the west of the subject site.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision and tentative parcel maps and the project’s density, which is consistent with the underlying Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use D esignation. The proposed location and layout of the Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5591, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and Zoning O rdinance and Subdivision Ordinance. The 67.7-acre project site, which is the site of the proposed 273-lot single- family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21.

5. That the proposed Pearl Woods Tentative Subdivision Map No. 55 91 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023- 07, design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The 2 73-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. The development of the site with a 273 -lot single -family residential subdivision would extend local streets, infrastructure improvements, utilities, right-of-way improvements and a residential lot pattern consistent with existing residential development found in the area. The project will include the construction of local streets within the subdivision, connection stub out to a future subdivision to the east and frontage street improvements along both South McAuliff Street and East Cherry Avenue.

6. The proposed location of the tentative subdivis ion map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.

The proposed project will result in the creation of a new si ngle-family residential development at a density of 4.03 units per acre, which is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and the R -1-5 zoning designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.

7. The Housing Accountability Act ( GC section 66589.5) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have 1090
Resolution No. 2023-31
a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact. There is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development standards.

8. That the project is considered Categorically Exempt under Section 15315 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Categorical Exemption No. 2023-33).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approved the parcel map on the real property herein above described in accordance with the terms of this resolution under the provision of Section 17.12.010 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, subject to the following conditions:

1. That the project be developed consistent with the comments and conditions of the Site Plan Review No. 2021-224.

2. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023 -07 be prepared in substantial compliance with Exhibit “C”.

3. That approval of the Tentativ e Parcel Map No. 2023- 07 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2022-05, 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. 2022-05.

4. That all other federal, state and city codes, ordinances and laws be met. 1091
TT
T
o □ □ □ x
o
oo
ox
x x x
o x
OE
OE
OE

OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
133132131130 248247246245244
141
135136137
134 221220219226225224223222130757473727170696867
26494827472846293045443143324233344140353936 6665
1219 11 318 1017 916 815 722 14 621 13 520 424
3837 6364
50 55
62 54
61 53
60 52
59585756
517625
23 2
94 115
127126125124123122121120119118117
101781007999808198978296839584859386928791889089 116
103
11411311211111010910810710610510477102128
184165164 158157156155154153152151150149148147146145144143168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183166160161162163 142159167 197200185 202187188 205190191192194195196199201186 203204189193 270 254269 261 253268 260 252267 259
212213214215216239243217236235234233232231 242241 206207208209210211218 198
140
249238240
266 258265 257264 256263 255262
138
237
271
B
129273272 251250
A
139
1 227
L
H
J
E
C D
P
G
MF
O
I
N K 230228229
4/4/2022 3:42 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\01 COVER SHEET.dwg -Tonia Holmes

PREPARED BY
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ PROJECT INFO. ·APN: 127-030-038·SITE AREA: 67.70 AC·GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL·CURRENT ZONING: AE-20·PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-5·EXISTING USE: AGRICULTURE/VACANT·PROPOSED USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION,PARKS/RECREATION AND RESERVOIRS/CANALS.·SITE DRAINAGE: DRAIN TO PROPOSED ON-SITE REGIONAL BASIN.·TRASH COLLECTION: CITY OF VISALIA·PROPOSED SEWERAGE: CITY OF VISALIA PUBLIC WORKS.CONNECT TO EXISTING MAIN IN MCAULIFF STREET AND CHERRYAVENUE.·WATER: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE. CONNECT TO EXISTINGMAIN IN RIO VISTA STREET AND CHERRY AVENUE.·FIRE PROTECTION: CITY OF VISALIA FIRE DEPARTMENT·FLOOD ZONE: ZONE AE & X·TOTAL LOTS: 273·LOT AREA: 5,000 MIN/ 8,190 MAX·DENSITY: 4.04 UNITS/GROSS AC·GROSS AREA: 67.70 AC. NET AREA: 34.08 AC·PARK BASIN AREA: 8.96 AC. PERCENTAGE OF AREA DEDICATEDTO COMMUNITY PARK COMP. TO NET AREA: 26.3%·REMAINDER PARCEL AREA: 5.07 AC·ZONING SETBACKS FOR R-1-5:FRONT:15 FEET FOR LIVING SPACE AND SIDE LOADING GARAGEFRONT/CORNER:22 FEET FOR FRONT-LOADING GARAGECORNER:10 FEETREAR:25 FEETSIDE:5 FEET PROPERTY OWNER PEARL WOODSDR HORTON419 W. MURRAY AVE.VISALIA, CA 93291

SITE MAP
RD 148

S MCAULIFF AVE

VICINITY MAP

E WALNUT AVE

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAPPEARL WOODSVISALIA, CALIFORNIA 1ST STREET

N TEAKWOODSTREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET

MCAULIFF STREET
5TH STREET
6TH STREET

A STREET

B STREET

C STREETD STREET
0100200400SCALE IN FEET
PROPOSED PARK BASIN8.96 AC

CHERRY AVENUE
4TH STREET
7TH STREET
DATE:01/20/2022JOB NO.:0159421003
SIMONSTREET R.R. TRACKS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PARCEL BASED UPON THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FROM FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, ORDER NO. 0131-624802ala, DATED JUNE 10, 2021, FOR APN: 127-030-038:REAL PROPERTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:PARCEL 1:THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OFSAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AT THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, THENCE EAST 80 RODS, THENCE NORTH 45-1/2 RODS, THENCE WEST 80 RODS, THENCE SOUTH 45-1/2 RODS TOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006, FILE NO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.PARCEL 2: (APN: PORTION 127-030-038-000)THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEYOF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AT THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, THENCE NORTH 45.40 RODS, THENCE WEST 80 RODS, THENCE SOUTH 45.40 RODS, THENCE EAST 80 RODS TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION WHICH WAS CONVEYED TO PACIFIC LIGHT AND POWER CORPORATION BY A DEED DATED JUNE 22, 1916, RECORDED JULY 8, 1916 IN BOOK 238, PAGE 174 OF DEEDS,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY OF TULARE.ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006, FILE NO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.PARCEL 3: (APN: PORTION 127-030-038-000)THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEYOF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AT THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3,EXCEPTING THEREFROM FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY, THOSE PORTIONS THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY, AS SAME IS NOWESTABLISHED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY.ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006, FILE NO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

CAMERON CREEKRIO VISTA STREET
ROAD 148

E STREET
1092

SSFDSSS
S
TT
T
N89°29'27"W 2643.33'
N1°26'00"E 2630.02'
S89°20'39"E 2642.98'S89°20'38"E 2642.36'
S1°31'04"W 2617.37'
N89°28'22"W 2638.32'
N1°28'22"E 2620.31'S89°25'35"E 2640.34'S89°26'08"E 2643.17'S1°25'40"W 2623.25'N1°25'50"E 2626.63' 1320.17'1320.17'1321.58'1321.58' 1307.19'
1319.44'
1321.49' 1321.49' 2642.36' 2642.36'
1303.79'
1313.57'
1319.16' 1319.16'1321.67' 1321.67'
1305.91'
1317.34'
1304.85'
1315.45'
1308.47'
1321.55'
N89°07'56"W 430.00'
S1°31'04"W 331.21'R=43089.56'L=286.31'Δ=0°22'51"
605.75'
527.06'

1.65'
420.00'N1°31'04"E 1303.79'

16.42'
312.79'
N89°28'22"W 1319.75'N1°28'22"E 1304.85'N1°25'40"E 1148.74' N88°28'01"W 252.15'S1°31'59"W 50.00'N88°28'01"W 1400.00'N1°31'59"E 50.00'N88°28'01"W 269.70'

15.92' 15.34'
577.85'
156.01'
N89°28'22"W 1319.75'
N1°25'40"E 28.00'S89°25'35"E 185.14'S89°26'08"E 1185.37' N1°25'50"E 1138.40'
S89°26'08"E 16.64'R=272.00'L=54.49'Δ=11°28'42"R=328.00'L=65.71'Δ=11°28'42" N88°42'17"W 232.05'N1°25'40"E 129.17'S89°28'22"E 1319.16'N1°25'50"E 152.79'S89°29'27"E 1321.67' 1148.74'

28.00'
N1°25'40"E 1305.91'
129.17'
N89°25'35"W 1319.72'N89°25'35"W 1319.72'

1.65'
420.00'N1°31'04"E 1303.79'

16.42'
312.79'
N89°28'22"W 1319.75'N1°28'22"E 1304.85'N1°25'40"E 1148.74' N88°28'01"W 252.15'S1°31'59"W 50.00'N88°28'01"W 1400.00'N1°31'59"E 50.00'N88°28'01"W 269.70'

28.00'
N1°25'40"E 1305.91'
129.17'
N89°25'35"W 1319.72'N89°25'35"W 1319.72'
3/18/2022 4:44 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\07 EXISTING PARCELS.dwg -Tonia Holmes DATE:01/20/2022JOB NO.:0159421003
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PARCEL BASED UPON THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FROM FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, ORDER NO. 0131-624802ala, DATED JUNE 10, 2021, FOR APN: 127-030-038:REAL PROPERTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:PARCEL 1:THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OFSAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AT THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, THENCE EAST 80 RODS, THENCE NORTH 45-1/2 RODS, THENCE WEST 80 RODS, THENCE SOUTH 45-1/2 RODS TOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006, FILE NO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.PARCEL 2: (APN: PORTION 127-030-038-000)THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEYOF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AT THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, THENCE NORTH 45.40 RODS, THENCE WEST 80 RODS, THENCE SOUTH 45.40 RODS, THENCE EAST 80 RODS TO THEPOINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION WHICH WAS CONVEYED TO PACIFIC LIGHT AND POWER CORPORATION BY A DEED DATED JUNE 22, 1916, RECORDED JULY 8, 1916 IN BOOK 238, PAGE 174 OF DEEDS,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY OF TULARE.ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006, FILE NO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.PARCEL 3: (APN: PORTION 127-030-038-000)THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEYOF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AT THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3,EXCEPTING THEREFROM FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY, THOSE PORTIONS THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY, AS SAME IS NOWESTABLISHED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY.ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006, FILE NO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

LOVERS LANE

WALNUT AVENUE

CHERRY AVENUEMCAULIFF STREET
U.P.R.R. U.P.R.R.

SIMON STREET

CAMERON CREEK

CITY OF VISALIA

COUNTY OF TULARE

CITY OF VISALIA

COUNTY OF TULARE

CITY OF VISALIA

COUNTY OF TULARE

CITY OF VISALIACOUNTY OF TULARE
1093
1417,095 SF
136
1376,246 SF
1417,095 SF
136
1376,246 SF
1845,726 SF
1406,246 SF
1156,312 SF
121
1205,250 SF
1195,250 SF
1185,250 SF
1175,250 SF
9584
855,250 SF
935,250 SF865,250 SF
925,250 SF
1585,100 SF1575,100 SF1565,100 SF1555,100 SF1545,100 SF1535,100 SF1525,100 SF1515,100 SF1505,100 SF1495,100 SF1485,100 SF1475,100 SF1465,100 SF1455,100 SF1445,100 SF1435,100 SF 1685,100 SF1695,100 SF1705,100 SF1715,100 SF1725,100 SF1735,100 SF1745,100 SF1755,100 SF1765,100 SF1775,100 SF1785,100 SF1795,100 SF1805,100 SF1815,100 SF1825,100 SF1835,100 SF1666,548 SF 1605,725 SF1615,502 SF1625,503 SF
875,250 SF
915,250 SF885,250 SF
69 685,250 SF
675,250 SF
435,250 SF325,250 SF
425,250 SF335,250 SF
345,250 SF415,250 SF
405,250 SF355,250 SF
395,250 SF365,250 SF
945,250 SF
665,250 SF
655,250 SF
1656,301 SF1648,190 SF
1638,114 SF
E
E

DSSFDEDSEDSEEDSED
E
D
S
o

W W W W W W W W W W W W
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SS
SS
SD
SS SS
SS
SS
SD
SD
110+00111+00112+00113+00114+00115+00116+00117+00118+00119+00120+00121+00122+00122+87 29+90
25+00
26+00
27+00
28+00
29+00
57+32
55+00
56+00
57+00
37+32
35+00
36+00
37+0017+32
14+00
15+00
16+00
17+00
76+00
77+00
78+00
79+00
80+00
81+00
81+50
47+32
45+00
46+00
47+00
124.93'
124.93'

50.48'

18.00'53.54'

50.00'

43.88'

50.00'

49.52'
60'30'
60'30'
R60'

50.00'

55.00'L=93.33' 55.00'38.47'
100.01'
L=55.41'7.12'63.00'48.22'28.07'

80.03'

28.50'

40.49'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'

62.01' 57.01'

45.50'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'43.52'28.07'

80.01'

28.50'

42.00'28.50'85.01'84.99'28.10'

42.00'62.01'105.01'105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'50.00'

50.00'

50.00'50.00'

50.00'

85.01'85.01'28.50' 28.07'

42.00'62.00'42.00'105.01'105.01'50.00' 50.00'

50.00' 50.00'

50.00'

50.00'50.00' 50.00'50.00'

50.00'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'

28.50'42.00'

50.00'

50.00' 50.00'

50.00'

42.00'

28.07'85.01'85.01'62.00'105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'

50.00'50.00' 50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'

50.00' 50.00'

50.00'50.00'

50.00' 50.00'

41.95'62.00'42.00'

28.07'28.57'85.01'85.01' 97.23'
124.92'

57.84'40.29'14.71'48.29'60.00'

42.47'
60'30' 60'30' 60'30'
1675,925 SF
625,250 SF
615,250 SF
605,250 SF
595,250 SF
1596,076 SF
1386,277 SF
386,311 SF376,310 SF 636,310 SF646,310 SF 906,310 SF896,310 SF 1166,310 SF 1145,252 SF
1135,252 SF
1125,252 SF
1115,252 SF
1425,576 SF100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'90.01'160.02'90.01' 252.42'

6.71'110.64'
136.19'

48.52'14.04'

14.25'14.25'

80.03'100.03'100.05'100.06'
100.02'
105.06'105.01'
105.05'
105.05'
105.05'
105.04'105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01' 124.92'
124.92'
16'
1396,216 SF
O
G
H
I
3/18/2022 3:46 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.dwg -Michael McConnell

PREPARED BY
DATE:01/20/2022JOB NO.:0159421003
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/

SIMON STREET

A STREET
3RD STREET
2ND STREET
1ST STREET 4TH STREET
03060 120SCALE IN FEET
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 03
5TH STREET

TEAKWOOD CT
RISH
RI
SHSH
SH
1094
1335,386 SF
1325,123 SF
1315,006 SF
1304,996 SF
1355,991 SF
1366,218 SF
1345,690 SF1345,690 SF
1355,991 SF
1366,218 SF
1335,386 SF
1325,123 SF
1315,006 SF
1304,996 SF1275,250 SF
1265,250 SF
1255,250 SF
1245,250 SF
1235,250 SF
1225,250 SF
1215,250 SF
1015,250 SF785,250 SF
1005,250 SF795,250 SF
995,250 SF805,250 SF
815,250 SF985,250 SF
975,250 SF825,250 SF
965,250 SF835,250 SF
955,250 SF845,250 SF
755,250 SF
745,250 SF
735,250 SF
725,250 SF
715,250 SF
705,250 SF
695,250 SF
265,250 SF495,250 SF
485,250 SF275,250 SF
475,250 SF285,250 SF
465,250 SF295,250 SF
305,250 SF455,250 SF
445,250 SF315,250 SF
5,250 SF5,250 SF
125,993 SF195,640 SF 116,027 SF 35,868 SF185,718 SF 106,060 SF175,779 SF 96,093 SF165,825 SF 86,126 SF155,871 SF 76,158 SF225,425 SF 145,918 SF 66,191 SF215,484 SF 135,960 SF 56,224 SF205,562 SF 46,128 SF 245,623 SF

OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
E
OE
OE OE
OE
OE OE

OE OE OE OE OE OE
20+00
21+00
22+00
23+00
24+00
212+62
200+00201+00202+00203+00204+00205+00206+00207+00208+00209+00210+00211+00212+0050+00 51+00
52+00
53+00
54+00
30+00
31+00
32+00
33+00
34+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
70+00
71+00
72+00
73+00
74+00
75+00
76+00
40+00
41+00
42+00
43+00
44+00
300+00
122.79'
116.81'
110.78'
104.69'
100.75'

99.91'

99.92'

84.63'78.08'

43.28'

50.00'

40.34'21.26'

77.78 50.00'
L=41.34'

41.57'

45.86'
L=8.80'
L=50.17'

50.00'
L=39.40'

50.38'2.06'

50.00'
6030
6030
4284
L=7.08'
6030 6030 6030 6030

40.39'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00' 107.55'112.49'117.62'122.35'121.71'121.07'120.43'119.79'119.14'118.49'117.84'117.19'116.48'115.58'114.68'113.77'112.87'111.36'109.83'108.30'106.77'106.05'105.39'

51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'51.00'

40.00'60.00'40.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'

40.00'

50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'

50.00'

50.00'50.00'

40.00'60.00'85.01'85.01'28.07' 28.50'28.50'85.01'85.01'28.07'105.01'105.01' 105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01' 105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'105.01' 40.00'50.00'

50.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'

50.00'50.00'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'

50.00'

60.00'28.07'85.01'85.01'28.50'40.00'

50.00'

50.00' 50.00'50.00'

50.00'

60.00'40.00'

50.00'

50.00'50.00'

50.00'

40.00'28.07'85.01'85.01'28.50'
105.04'105.01'
105.01'105.03'
105.03'
105.03'
105.02'
105.02'
105.02'105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
105.01'
506,100 SF 776,100 SF1026,100 SF 1286,100 SF
555,250 SF
545,250 SF
535,250 SF
525,250 SF
5,250 SF
575,250 SF
565,250 SF
516,100 SF766,100 SF256,100 SF
235,392 SF 25,520 SF
1036,100 SF
1105,251 SF
1095,251 SF
1085,251 SF
1075,251 SF
1065,251 SF
1055,250 SF
1045,250 SF
R60'
1295,341 SF
R750'
L=45.45' 6.79' 14.04'

92.48'
I
15,241 SF
500+89.42500+50.00
L=49.71'

29.6329.99
J
N
F
I
L
M
K
4/5/2022 10:13 AM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\03 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.dwg -Tonia Holmes

PREPARED BY
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ 3RD STREET2ND STREET

B STREET
1ST STREET

MCAULIFF STREET
4TH STREET
03060 120SCALE IN FEET
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 04
5TH STREET
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 02
DATE:01/20/2022JOB NO.:0159421003
SH
SH SH
BT
BT

E STREET

C STREET
TT

TT TT TT TT TT
1095
D
o
o o o o x x

OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OESS
2485,200 SF2475,200 SF2465,200 SF2455,200 SF2445,200 SF 82+60
80+00
81+00
82+00
92+61
90+00
91+00
92+00
412+16400+00401+00402+00403+00404+00405+00406+00407+00408+00409+00410+00411+00412+00 104+01
100+00
101+00
102+00
103+00
104+00
313+72301+00302+00303+00304+00305+00306+00307+00308+00309+00310+00311+00312+00313+00 100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'80.10'

28.28'42.96'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'

60.00'50.00'50.00'50.00' 100.00'100.00'

28.29'

80.09'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'

53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'53.00'45.53'

28.28'

80.00'
100.00'100.00'
100.00'

50.59'24.64'
165.62'58.71'50.76'50.76'50.76'50.77'50.76'50.77'50.77'50.77'60.00'

28.28'

80.00' 100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'

31.46'58.71'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'41.23' 100.00'108.13' 100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'

53.00' 31.46'
100.00'
2215,000 SF2205,000 SF2195,000 SF

40.00'50.00'50.00'50.00' 28.28'

80.00'

28.28'50.00'14.93' 50.00'50.00'56.00'38.65'
L=75.95'
100.00'100.00'41.51'53.00'62.20'
6030
6030
6030
R52'
2215,000 SF2205,000 SF2195,000 SF2265,600 SF2255,000 SF2245,000 SF2235,000 SF2225,000 SF 2485,200 SF2475,200 SF2465,200 SF2455,200 SF2445,200 SF 2685,000 SF 2605,000 SF 2525,000 SF2675,000 SF 2595,000 SF2665,000 SF 2585,000 SF2655,000 SF 2575,000 SF2645,000 SF 2565,000 SF2635,000 SF 2555,000 SF2625,000 SF 1976,508 SF2005,300 SF1856,119 SF 2025,300 SF1875,300 SF1885,300 SF 2055,300 SF1905,300 SF1915,300 SF1925,300 SF1945,300 SF 2125,200 SF2135,200 SF2145,200 SF2155,200 SF2165,200 SF 2395,200 SF
1955,300 SF1966,254 SF 1995,300 SF2015,300 SF1865,300 SF 2035,300 SF2045,300 SF1895,300 SF 1935,300 SF 2435,200 SF
2175,800 SF
2365,000 SF2355,000 SF2345,000 SF2335,000 SF2325,000 SF2315,000 SF 2425,200 SF2415,200 SF 2065,994 SF2075,200 SF2085,200 SF2095,200 SF2105,200 SF2115,200 SF2185,800 SF 1985,300 SF
2705,000 SF 2545,000 SF2695,000 SF 2615,000 SF 2535,000 SF 2495,871 SF2385,923 SF
B
2405,200 SF

52.00' 52.00'

59.94'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'52.00'40.00'

50.77' 50.76'100.00'100.00'100.00'

50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'40.00'

80.00'
100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'101.26'84.93'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'L=77.55' 134.14'

33.22'L=26.74'
L=13.88'
L=89.99' L=31.27'
L=40.78' 50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00' 50.00'50.00'50.46'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'40.52' 50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00' 50.00'50.00'

99.80'86.81'

64.89'
338.50'
L=86.43'15.22'
100.01'100.01'100.01'100.01'

50.00'50.00'50.00'16.81'

50.00'50.00'50.00'50.00'56.00'58.01' 100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00'100.00' 100.00'

53.00'53.00'
100.00'100.00'

53.00'53.00'
100.00'

58.10'13.27'L=52.88'
2375,800 SF
2715,686 SF2735,983 SF2725,508 SF

39.9789.6 50' MIN

52.21 60

66.89' 101.65'69.40'56.94'

55.00'58.52'58.33'55.14' 65.75
2505,500 SF2515,000 SF
A
2275,387 SF
L=40.63' L=54.99'
L=22.55'
L=18.00'L=116.14'50.00'
2305,021 SF2285,812 SF2295,267 SF
R=300.00'L=1216.07'
R=200.00'
L=400.53'
298.97'
4/4/2022 1:33 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\04 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.dwg -Tonia Holmes

PREPARED BY
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ 7TH STREET

B STREET

D STREET
03060 120SCALE IN FEET
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 05
6TH STREET
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 03
DATE:01/20/2022JOB NO.:0159421003

RIO VISTA STREET
SH
SH SH
SHSH

TO BE DEEDICATED TOCALWATER FORWATER SUPPLYPURPOSES
TR
TR
1096
T
T
T
E
x x x
o o o o
o
oo
ooooooo o
o
o
o
o
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x
o
ooo
o o
x x x x
x
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE

OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
o o o o o o o o o o o o
oooooo o
o o o o o
50' MIN
80'
C
D
3/18/2022 3:49 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\05 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.dwg -Michael McConnell

PREPARED BY
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/ PROPOSED PARK BASIN8.96 AC
03060 120SCALE IN FEET
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 04
DATE:01/20/2022JOB NO.:0159421003

EXISTING HOME SITE ASDESIGNATED REMAINDER

SCE MAINTENANCE YARD

GENERALPLANCLASS IBIKE TRAIL
ROAD 148
1097
E

EDSSFDEDSEDSEEDSEDE
D
S
TT
T
E
E
o
W W W
x
o
oo
ox
x x x
o x
o o o o
OE
OE
OE

OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE

SSSD SD
SD
EE

OE OE OE OE OEOE OE OE OE OEOE OE OE
o o o
oo o o133132131130 248247246245244
141
135136137
134 221220219226225224223222134
141
135136137
133132131130
197185187188190191192194
217236235234233232231 242241218
198
184
215216239
140115
127126125124123122121120119118117
10178100799980819897829683958485938692
158157156155154153152151150149148147146145144143168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183166160161162 213214
195196186189193
879188
757473727170696867
26494827472846293045443143324233344140353936
946665
165
12 27019 11 3 269 26118 10 268 26017 9 267 259
164
16 8 266 25815 7 265 25722 14 6 26421 13 5 26320 4 26224 163
238240
167
62616059
159
138
3837 6364 9089 116114113112111
142
139
50 55545352
585756
517625 77102128129103
110109108107106105104
2123
212243 206207208209210211249
254253252256255
237
271273272 250251
227
200202205199201203204A
B C P
D
E
L
M
I J
H
G
N
O
F
K 230228229
3/29/2022 3:24 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\08_TTM\06 PHASING BOUNDARIES.dwg -Tonia Holmes

PREPARED BY
DATE:01/20/2022JOB NO.:0159421003
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/

A STREET
3RD STREET2ND STREET1ST STREET4TH STREET
0100200400SCALE IN FEET
5TH STREET

C STREET

MCAULIFF STREET
6TH STREET

RIO VISTA STREET
7TH STREET

B STREET

D STREET

E STREET
LEGENDFENCED BASIN DESIGNED FOR 10-YEAR CAPACITY100-YEAR BASIN CAPACITYPARK AREA OUTSIDE OF BASINCLASS I BIKE TRAILAE ZONE LIMITPHASE 1 - 101 LOTS (106 - 5 FOR TEMP TURNAROUNDS)PHASE 2 - 89 LOTSPHASE 3 - 83 LOTS (78 + 5 FROM P1 TEMP TURNAROUNDS) PROJECT INFO. SITE AREA: 67.70 ACTOTAL LOTS: 273

N TEAKWOOD STREETMCAULIFF STREETSIMON STREET
NOTE PHASE 1 WOULD REQUIRE A TEMPORARY BASIN OR TEMPORARYSTORM DRAIN EASEMENT TO REGIONAL BASIN LOCATION. 1098
2%2%2%2%
56' 7'7'
AA

SECTION A-A

CONCRETE
56'7' 7'6"

RAISED INTERSECTIONSPEED HUMP
0FEET3 6

LIBRARY FOLDER NAME
7' 10' 7'

CONCRETE
6"
6"RECTANGULAR TUBINGSEE CITY-STANDARD D-20(WHERE NECESSARY) 7' 10' 7'
2%2%ASPHALT ASPHALT
CURB AND GUTTERRECTANGULAR TUBINGSEE CITY-STANDARD D-20(WHERE NECESSARY)

CONCRETECONCRETECONCRETE

PLAN VIEW

LONGITUDINAL SECTION
NOTE: TO BE STRIPED FOR HIGH VISIBILITY
6''
5''
6''11'' 11''8''PARKING5''BIKE12''LANE8''PARKING12''LANE5''BIKE 5''2%1.5%1.5% 1.5%1.5%2% 1.5%-10% MINIMUM 5" ASPHALTCONCRETE, TYPE AMINIMUM 8" AGGREGATEBASE, CLASS 2 95%RELATIVE COMPACTION.MINIMUM 6" COMPACTEDSUBGRADE 95%RELATIVE COMPCTION.SEE CURB AND GUTTERSTANDARD DRAWINGSLANDSCAPINGSETBACK LOT

SEE SIDEWALKSTANDARDDRAWINGSPARKWAY

1.5%-10%1.5%-10%
2'' 2''

MCAULIFF STREET
R/W R/W ℄
12''TURN LANE
84'
5''5'' 5''10'' 8''PARKING12''LANE8''PARKING12''LANE 5''2%1.5%1.5% 1.5%1.5%2% 1.5%-10% MINIMUM 2.5" ASPHALTCONCRETE, TYPE AMINIMUM 7" AGGREGATEBASE, CLASS 2 95%RELATIVE COMPACTION.MINIMUM 6" COMPACTEDSUBGRADE 95%RELATIVE COMPCTION.

SEE CURB AND GUTTERSTANDARD DRAWINGSLANDSCAPINGSETBACK LOTPER PLAN

SEE SIDEWALKSTANDARDDRAWINGSPARKWAY
2'' 2''
 ℄ R/WR/W 60' 10'

TYPICAL INTERIOR STREET
3/18/2022 3:50 PM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\04_Civil_Details\07 DETAILS.dwg -Michael McConnell

PREPARED BY
455 W FIR AVENUECLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611559/449-2700 FAX 559/449-2715https://provostandpritchard.com/DATE:01/20/2022JOB NO.:0159421003

CLASS I MULTI-USE RECREATION TRAIL

CLASS I TRAIL CROSSING
1099
1100
o □ □ □ x
o
oo
ox
x x x
o x
o o o o
OE
OE
OE

OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE

OE OE OE

84.85'

90.09'R=792.00' L=96.74'111.28'16.34'9.46'60.00'28.07'135.57'218.28'231.98'216.24'207.74'172.15' R=272.00' L=9232.69' Δ=011°28'42"16.64'
1138.40'
1321.49' 252.15'50.00' 1380.20' 147.73'R=400.00' L=179.45'45.30'R=60.00' L=39.53'121.64' R=300.00' L=217.86'129.06'87.19'2257.50'
542.98'
1185.37'R=328.00' L=65.71'
554.37'
R=651.44' L=80.68'1350.89'65.81'
584.03'

41.92'

84.00'63.76'126.92'51.00' 1059.22'99.79'R=50.00' L=18.00'R=52.00' L=116.14'R=50.00' L=22.55' 298.98'
R=230.01' L=55.00'1371.10' 794.05'50.44'

29.90' 53.98'209.46'1254.46'
6/1/2023 11:05 AM G:\DR Horton - 1594\0159421003-Pearl Woods\300 CAD\340 Sheet Sets\99_Exhibits\TPM after SCE conveyance.dwg -Tim Odom

PREPARED BY
400 E. MAIN STREET, STE. 300VISALIA, CALIFORNIA 93291-6337559/636-1166 FAX 559/636-1177https://provostandpritchard.com/ PROJECT INFO. ·APN: 127-030-038·SITE AREA: 62.56 AC (NET OF REMAINDER)·GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL·CURRENT ZONING: AE-20·PROPOSED ZONING (through other entitlements): R-1-5·EXISTING USE: AGRICULTURE/VACANT·PROPOSED FUTURE USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALSUBDIVISION, PARKS/RECREATION AND RESERVOIRS/CANALS.·SITE DRAINAGE: DRAIN TO PROPOSED ON-SITE REGIONAL BASIN.·TRASH COLLECTION: CITY OF VISALIA·PROPOSED SEWERAGE (upon further development): CITY OF VISALIAPUBLIC WORKS. CONNECT TO EXISTING MAIN IN MCAULIFFSTREET AND CHERRY AVENUE.·WATER (upon further development): CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE.CONNECT TO EXISTING MAIN IN RIO VISTA STREET AND CHERRYAVENUE.·FIRE PROTECTION: CITY OF VISALIA FIRE DEPARTMENT·FLOOD ZONE: ZONE AE & X, as shown DEVELOPER PEARL WOODSDR HORTON419 W. MURRAY AVE.VISALIA, CA 93291 RD 148

S MCAULIFF AVE

VICINITY MAP

E WALNUT AVE

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPPEARL WOODSVISALIA, CALIFORNIA

MCAULIFF STREET
0100200400SCALE IN FEET

CHERRY AVENUE
DATE:06/01/2023JOB NO.:0159421003

SIMONSTREET
R.R. TRACKS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PARCEL BASED UPON THE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FROM FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, ORDER NO. 0131-624802ala, DATED JUNE 10, 2021,FOR APN: 127-030-038:REAL PROPERTY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:PARCEL 1:THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AT THEDATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, THENCE EAST 80 RODS, THENCE NORTH45-1/2 RODS, THENCE WEST 80 RODS, THENCE SOUTH 45-1/2 RODS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006, FILENO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.PARCEL 2: (APN: PORTION 127-030-038-000)THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTAT THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, THENCE NORTH 45.40 RODS, THENCEWEST 80 RODS, THENCE SOUTH 45.40 RODS, THENCE EAST 80 RODS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION WHICH WAS CONVEYED TO PACIFIC LIGHT AND POWER CORPORATION BY A DEED DATED JUNE 22,1916, RECORDED JULY 8, 1916 IN BOOK 238, PAGE 174 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY OF TULARE.ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006,FILE NO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.PARCEL 3: (APN: PORTION 127-030-038-000)THAT PORTION OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 19 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF THE SURVEY OF SAID LAND ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTAT THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3,EXCEPTING THEREFROM FROM ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY, THOSE PORTIONS THEREOF LYING WITHIN THESOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY, AS SAME IS NOW ESTABLISHED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAID REALPROPERTY.ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DEEDED TO THE CITY OF VISALIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2006,FILE NO. 2006-0103968, OFFICIAL RECORDS.ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 34 3/5THS ACRES OF THE SOUTH HALFOF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, AS QUITCLAIMED TO THE OWNERS OF THE VARIOUS PORTIONS THEREOF BY THOSEQUITCLAIM DEEDS RECORDED AS (18 SEPARATE DOCUMENTS, RECORDING INFORMATION TBD)

CAMERON CREEKRIO VISTA STREET
ROAD 148
PARCEL 1FOR PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENTOF PEARL WOODS18.77 AC
REMAINDER5.09 AC
U.P.R.R.

PARCEL 2FOR PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENTOF PEARL WOODS28.77 ACPARCEL 3FOR PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENTOF PEARL WOODS15.02 AC S.C.E.U.P.R.R. U.P.R.R.

CAMERON CREEKT.I.D. CANAL WOODSIDE SOUSA PROPERTYUNIT NO. 4, RM 43-34 WOODSIDE SOUSA PROPERTYUNIT NO. 1, RM 42-75PARCEL 2,PM NO. 328 RECORD OF SURVEY,BK. 28 LS, PG. 1
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 34.6 ACRES(OR NORTH 34 3/5 ACRES) OFTHE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,AS SHOWN ON ADJACENT TRACTS,PARCEL MAPS, AND RECORDS OF SURVEY 25' BUILDING SETBACK FROM S.C.E. ELEC. WIRES PER BK. 1316, PG. 270, O.R.℄ S.C.E. EASEMENT PER BK. 1316, PG. 270, O.R. ℄ S.C.E. EASEMENT PER BK. 1316, PG. 270, O.R.
℄ S.C.E. EASEMENT PER BK. 1316, PG. 270, O.R.
5' ANCHORAGE EASEMENT TO SCEPER DOC. 2008-0023861, O.R.

PORTION GRANTED TO CITY OF VISALIAPER DOC. 2006-0103968, O.R.T.C.

APPROX. ℄ ANCHOR EASEMENT TO SCEPER BK. 419, PG. 240, O.R.℄ TRESTLE TAKEN TO BE U.P.R.R. STATION 571+79.5PER SPRR RW & TRACK MAP "V-26/4" ON FILE IN THE COUNTYSURVEYOR'S OFFICE APPROX. ℄ ANCHOR EASEMENT TO SCEPER BK. 198, PG. 440, O.R.

U.P.R.R. STATION 584+74.0U.P.R.R. STATION 570+74.0

N TEAKWOODSTREET
1101

PEARL WOODS SUBDIVISION

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

APRIL 2023
SCH NO.

PREPARED FOR:

City of Visalia
Community Development Department
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291

PREPARED BY:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

1102
Table of Contents
April 2023 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 1-1

1.1 Regulatory Information ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1-1

1.2 Document Format ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 1-1 Chapter 2 Project Description ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2-1

2.1 Project Background ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 2-1 Project Title ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2-1 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................ ................................ .............. 2-1 Contact Person and Phone Number ................................ ................................ ......... 2-1 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2-1 General Plan Designation and Zoning ................................ ................................ ...... 2-1 Description of Project ................................ ................................ .............................. 2-1 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................ ............................ 2-2 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required................................ ....... 2-2 Consultation with California Native American Tribes ................................ ............... 2-3 Chapter 3 Determination ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3-1

3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3-1

3.2 Determination ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-3

4.1 Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4-3 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-3 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-4 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4-5

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-7 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-7 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-8 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-10 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-12

4.3 Air Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4-14 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-14 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-14 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-22

4.4 Biological Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4-24 1103

Table of Contents
April 2023 ii
Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-24 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-34 Visalia City Oak Tree Ordinance ................................ ................................ ............. 4-38 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-40 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-42

4.5 Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4-45 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-45 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-47 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-49 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-50

4.6 Energy................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4-51 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-51 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-51 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-53

4.7 Geology and Soils ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-55 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-55 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-56 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-58 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-60

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4-62 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-62 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-62 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-68

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-70 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-70 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-71 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-73

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4-75 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-75 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-76 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-81

4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4-86 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-86 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-89 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-91 1104

Table of Contents
April 2023 iii

4.12 Mineral Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4-93 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-93 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-93 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-94

4.13 Noise ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4-96 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-96 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-96 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-98

4.14 Population and Housing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4-99 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 4-99 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-99 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-99

4.15 Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4-101 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-101 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-101 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4-108

4.16 Recreation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4-110 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-110 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-111 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4-115

4.17 Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4-116 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-116 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-116 Thresholds ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4-116 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4-117

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4-119 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-119 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-120 Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-123 Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4-124

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-125 Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-125 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-126 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4-130

4.20 Wildfire ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4-132 1105

Table of Contents
April 2023 iv
Baseline Conditions ................................ ................................ .............................. 4-132 Applicable Regulations ................................ ................................ ......................... 4-132 Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4-134

4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ................................ .................. 4-136 Statement of Findings ................................ ................................ .......................... 4-136 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ................................ ................................ ....... 5-1 Chapter 6 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........A-1 Appendix B: Biological Evaluation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. B-1 Appendix C: Cultural Resources Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ C-1 Appendix D: Traffic Impact Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. D-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2-4 Figure 2-2: Topographic Quadrangle Map ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2-5 Figure 2-3: Aerial Image ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2-6 Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map ................................ ................................ ................. 2-7 Figure 2-5: Zone District Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2-8 Figure 4-1: Farmland Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4-13 Figure 4-2: Oak Trees within the Project Site ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-44 Figure 4-3: FEMA Flood Map ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4-85

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties .............. 2-2 Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4-3 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-7 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4-14 Table 4-4: SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance ................................ ................................ ....................... 4-20 Table 4-5: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation .............................. 4-21 Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants .......... 4-22 Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions ................................ ................................ ...... 4-23 Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4-24 Table 4-9: List of Soils Located Onsite and Their Basic Properties ................................ ............................ 4-25 Table 4-10: Results from the Valley Oak Tree Survey ................................ ................................ ............... 4-26 Table 4-11: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity ............. 4-27 Table 4-12: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity ................ 4-30 1106

Table of Contents
April 2023 v
Table 4-13: Cultural Resources Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4-45 Table 4-14: Energy Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-51 Table 4-15: Geology and Soils Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4-55 Table 4-16: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts ................................ ................................ ...................... 4-62 Table 4-17: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts ................................ ................................ ............ 4-70 Table 4-18: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts ................................ ................................ ................... 4-75 Table 4-19: Use for Potable and Non-Potable Water – Projected ................................ ............................ 4-82 Table 4-20: Land Use and Planning Impacts ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-86 Table 4-21: Mineral Resources Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4-93 Table 4-22: Noise Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4-96 Table 4-23: City of Visalia - Noise Level Standards ................................ ................................ ................... 4-97 Table 4-24: Population and Housing Impacts ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-99 Table 4-25: Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4-101 Table 4-26: Recreation Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-110 Table 4-27: Transportation Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4-116 Table 4-28: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts ................................ ................................ ....................... 4-119 Table 4-29: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts ................................ ................................ .................. 4-125 Table 4-30: Wildfire Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 4-132 Table 4-31: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ................................ ........... 4-136 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ................................ ................................ ....... 5-2

1107

Table of Contents
April 2023 vi

ACRONYMS
AB ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... Assembly Bill APE ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... Area of Potential Effect AQP ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... Air Quality Plan Cal/OSHA ................................ .............................. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod ................................ ................................ ...... California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CARB ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ California Air Resources Board CDFW................................ ................................ ................................ .................... California Fish and Wildlife CH4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. Methane CNDDB ................................ ................................ ................................ .. California Natural Diversity Database CO2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ Carbon dioxide County ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... Tulare County dBA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ A-weighted decibels EIR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. Environmental Impact Report EPA ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... Environmental Protection Agency FEMA ................................ ................................ ............................. Federal Emergency Management Agency FMMP ................................ ................................ ....................... Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GAMAQI ................................ ............................ Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... Greenhouse Gas GIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. Geographic Information System IS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. Initial Study IS/MND ................................ ................................ ...................... Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration km ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... kilometers MMRP ................................ ................................ .................... Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. Mitigated Negative Declaration MTCO2e ................................ ................................ .......................... Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAHC ................................ ................................ ................................ . Native American Heritage Commission ND ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... Negative Declaration NOX ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... Nitrogen oxides NRCS ................................ ................................ ................................ Natural Resources Conservation Service O3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... Ozone PM10 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... particulate matter 10 microns in size 1108

Table of Contents
April 2023 vii
PM2.5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... parts per billion ppm ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... parts per million Project ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... Pearl Woods Subdivision RWQCB ................................ ................................ ................................ Regional Water Quality Control Board SJVAPCD ................................ ................................ ............... San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... Sulfur Dioxide SR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. State Route SWPPP ................................ ................................ ............................... Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB ................................ ................................ ................................ . State Water Resources Control Board TID ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... Tulare Irrigation District USACE ................................ ................................ ................................ United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA ................................ ................................ .............................. United States Department of Agriculture USFWS ................................ ................................ ................................ United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. United States Geological Survey μg/m3................................ ................................ ................................ .................. micrograms per cubic meter

1109
Chapter 1: Introduction
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of DR Horton to address the environmental effects of the Pearl Woods Subdivision (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City of Visalia is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.

The site and the Project are described in detail in Chapter 2 Project Description.

1.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq. )-- also known as th e CEQA Guidelines --Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and shoul d be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substan tial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND contains six chapters. Chapter 1 Introduction, provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process. Chapter 2 Project Description , provides a detailed descr iption of proposed Project components and objectives. Chapter 3 Determination, the Lead Agency’s determination based upon this initial evaluation. Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), provides the 1110
Chapter 1: Introduction
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 1-2
proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation. Chapter 6 References details the documents and reports this document relies upon to provide its analysis.

The CalEEMod Output Files, Biological Evaluation, Cultural Resources Information, and Traffic Impact Study are provided as technical Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files, Appendix B: Biological Evaluation, Appendix C: Cultural Resources Study, Appendix D: Traffic Impact Study, respectively, at the end of this document. 1111
Chapter 2: Project Description
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Title
Pearl Woods Subdivision
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Visalia
Community Development Department, Planning Division
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
(559) 713-4636
CEQA Consultant
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jarred Olsen, AICP, Associate Planner
(559) 636-1166 x535
Project Location
The Project is located in Visalia, California, approximately 200 miles southeast of Sacramento and 62 miles north of Bakersfield (see
Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-3). The Project site is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 127-030-038. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 18’ 24.19” N, 119° 15’ 01.48” W.

General Plan Designation and Zoning
Project Area General Plan Designation Zoning District
ONSITE Low Density Residential AE-20 (Existing)
R-1-5 (Proposed)
ADJACENT LANDS Low Density Residential AE-20, R-1-5
Description of Project
1112
Chapter 2: Project Description
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 2-2
The proposed Pearl Woods Subdivision pertains to approximately 67.70 gross acres of property located at the southwest corner of South McAuliff Street and East Cherry Avenue in the Southeast Quadrant of the City of Visalia.

This project proposes to subdivide and develop the property into 273 single family residential lots. The subdivision would be developed into three separate phases through a Tentative Parcel Map. The project site will be zoned to R -1-5 (Single-family residential zone - 5,000 square foot minimum site area) and annexed into the City of Visalia. Site improvements and construction of the homes will take place over approximately 21 months. The Project would construct its portions of the General Plan-designated collector McAuliff Street right-of-way.

The Project site currently contains an orchard and oak trees and the so utheastern portion of the parcel is bounded by Cameron Creek. Ten oak trees will be removed as part of the project. As part of the Project and pursuant to the General Plan and the Waterways and Trails Master Plan, the proposal will dedicate the subject property’s portion of the Segment 4 Preferred Trail Alignment, which would run adjacent to Cameron Creek. This trail wo uld be a Class I Bike Trail and would maintain views of Cameron Creek. No development is proposed on the portion of property east of Cameron Creek. The Tulare Irrigation District (TID) Canal which runs along the western portion of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) would have a culvert constructed across the Canal to provide vehicular connectivity and to connect the APE to the adjacent property. The culvert would be approximately 7 feet across by up to 60 feet wide and would be located near Lot 31. The APE is identified as 67.7 acres for the purposes of the biological and cultural field surveys.

Farmland, consisting primarily of pecan and walnut orchards, is the prominent land use currently within the Project Site. These orchards will be chipped and removed as part of the project.

The project proposes a regional-serving stormwater drainage basin with its watershed being the quarter - section that this Project is located in. This location reduces the necessity of further-increasing storm main sizing at further-increasing depths, in addition to avoiding crossing under a railroad. Adjacent to the above- mentioned basin and trail, the Project proposes a General Plan-designated Neighborhood Park. The park and basin would be approximately 8.96 acres in size. These two features would be located in the 100-year floodplain portion of the site, adjacent to Cameron Creek.

Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties Direction from Project
Site Existing Use General Plan Designation Zone District NORTH Single-Family Residential Low Density Residential R-1-5 (City of Visalia) EAST Agriculture, Single-Family
Residential
Agriculture AE-20 (Tulare County)
SOUTH Agriculture Medium Density Residential,
Low Density Residential,
Public Institutional
AE-20 (Tulare County)
WEST Single-Family Residential Low Density Residential R-1-5 (City of Visalia) Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
• Tulare County LAFCo
1113
Chapter 2: Project Description
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 2-3
Consultation with California Native American Tribes
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013 -14)) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

The City of Visalia, as the public lead agency, received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (AB 52) officially requesting notification of Projects within the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s geographic area of traditional and cultural affiliation. On May 16, 2022, the City sent the Tribe a formal letter including a Project description. In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation in writing. No response was received. Further discussion of the AB 52 process can be found in the Tribal Cultural Resources Section (4.18). 1114
Chapter 2: Project Description
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 2-4

Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map
1115
Chapter 2: Project Description
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 2-5

Figure 2-2: Topographic Quadrangle Map
1116
Chapter 2: Project Description
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 2-6

Figure 2-3: Aerial Image
1117
Chapter 2: Project Description
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 2-7

Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
1118
Chapter 2: Project Description
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 2-8

Figure 2-5: Zone District Map
1119
Chapter 3: Determination
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION

3.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are. checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

The analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 Impact Analysis result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.

Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

Less than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (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). 1120
Chapter 3: Determination
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 3-2

3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):

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 b y 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, an d an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact o n 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.

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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 required.

_______________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date

_______________________________________
Printed Name/Position
1121
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-3
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a 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 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?

Baseline Conditions
The Project is located along the floor of the San Joaquin Valley in Tulare County adjacent to the southeast quadrant of the City of Visalia. The San Joaquin Valley, including Tulare County, is known for its prominent agricultural land; and has been termed the “breadbasket of the world.” To the east lies the Sierra Nevada Mountain range and Sequoia National Park, which is known for its large mountains, rugged foothills, deep canyons, vast caverns, and the world’s largest trees , the giant sequoias. 1 California State Route (SR) 198, which runs east-west through Visalia, connects to SR 99, located near the western boundary of Visalia’s city limits. SR 99 runs north-south. The 44-mile stretch of SR 198 between SR 99 and Sequoia National Park is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status but is not officially designated. 2 Regional views from the valley floor are generally limited due to the flatness of the region, however, on clear days the Sierra

1 (National Park Service 2022)
2 (CIty of Visalia, Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, ICF International, Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group, Omni-Means, Transportation Planners and Engineers 2014) 1122
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-4
Nevada’s are visible to the east. The City of Visalia is characterized as a freestanding city with a small town feel but also with big city amenities.

The Project site itself currently contains an orchard and oak trees and the southeastern portion of the parcel is bounded by Cameron Creek. To the north lies a residential subdivision and rural residences. To the east are more orchards, to the west orchard and a cana l, owned and operated by TID and to the south there lies agricultural land and a Southern California Edison (SCE) rector substation. There are no historic buildings located on or near the Project site.

Applicable Regulations
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA establishes that it is the policy of the State to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state “with…enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities.” [California Public Resources Code Section 21001(b)].

California Scenic Highways Program
Recognizing the value of scenic areas and the value of views from roads in such areas, the State Legislature established the California Scenic Highway Program in 1963. Under this program, State highway segment s are designated as eligible for inclusion as scenic routes. Once the local jurisdictions through which a roadway passes have established a corridor protection program, the State may officially designate a roadway as a scenic route. Projects must then be e valuated for their impact on the scenic qualities of the corridor. Each designated corridor is monitored by the State and its designation may be revoked if a local government fails to enforce the provisions of the corridor protection program.

As stated in the Environmental Setting above, SR 198 through the Project vicinity is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status but is not officially designated.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy LU-P-37: Adopt specific development standards for scenic entryways (gateways) and roadway corridors into the City, including special setback and landscape standards, open space and park development, and/or land use designations.
• Policy LU-P-41: Use Mill, Packwood and Cameron Creeks and other waterways as natural amenities and links between neighborhoods.
• Policy LU-P-43: Develop land use and site design measures for areas adjacent to high-voltage power facilities. Measures will include landscape buffers and mandatory setbacks from substations and transmission towers and lines.
• Policy LU -P-59: Ensure that natural and open space features, such as Valley Oak trees and community waterways, are treated as special site amenities as part of any residential development. • OSC-P-13: Require that new development along waterways maintain a visual orientation and active interface with waterways. Develop design guidelines to be used for review and approval of subdivision and development proposals to illustrate how this can be accomplished for different land uses in various geographic settings.
1123
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-5
• OSC-P-34: Enhance views and public access to Planning Area waterways and other significant features such as Valley Oak groves consistent with flood protection, irrigation water conveya nce, habitat preservation and recreation planning policies.
• OSC-P-35: Use native trees in street and public landscaping designs, where appropriate, to preserve Visalia’s character.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
Section 17.30.015.H – Lighting: No on-site lighting shall directly or indirectly illuminate adjacent properties or the public street which provides access. The lights and standards to be used for the Project shall be subject to the requirements set forth by the City’s Site Plan Review Committee.

City of Visalia Valley Oak Ordinance
The City’s Valley Oak Ordinance provides basic standards, measures, and compliance requirements for the preservation and protection of native Valley oak trees and landmark trees. The Ordinance prohibits destruction of Valley oak trees except with an oak tree removal permit. A permit may be granted only if it is found that the oak tree is in danger of falling on a structure or is host for a plant, pest, or disease endangering other species; if removal is necessary to allow the reasonable enjoyment of private property; or if urban forestry or land management practices warrant removal. If a tree removal permit is granted, the tree must either be replaced by planting new oak trees at the specified mitigation ratio on the same property, or by paying mitigation fees to be used by the City to plant new oak trees at other locations, consistent with the City Oak Tree Mitigation Policy.3
Impact Analysis
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact. Views of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to the east and the surrounding agricultural lands help showcase the scenery from the Project. The development of residential homes would align with the development to the north of the Project site and would not significantly impact views of the Sierra Nevada. As mentioned earlier, Cameron Creek runs adjacent to a portion of the Project. As part of the Project and pursuant to the General Plan and the Waterways and Trails Master Plan, the proposal would dedicate th e subject property’s portion of the Segment 4 Preferred Trail Alignment, which would run adjacent to Cameroon Creek. This trail would be a Class I Bike Trail and would maintain views of Cameron Creek. Impacts to a scenic vista would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no scenic resources onsite; however, there are oak trees on the property that have a scenic quality. The City of Visalia’s ordinance prohibits destruction of Valley oak trees except with an oak tree removal permit. The Project propose s to remove ten oak trees, however the Project would have to comply with tree removal permit conditions . The Project would not impact a state scenic highway as one does not exist in the vicinity of the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

3 (City of Visalia 2007)
1124
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-6
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 publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, w ould the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The existing visual character of the Project site is agricultural land surrounded by urbanized development and agricultural land. Multiple subdivisions exist to the north of the Project site. To the east and west lie agricultural land, with more agricultural land and a SCE rector substation to the south. The Project would offer attractive landscaping and architectural design to reduce any visual effect to the surrounding properties and conform with the existing character of the neighboring community. There are no existing regulations governing scenic quality, nor would there by regulations in the R-1-5 zone district that the Project would be subject to. Any impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Development of the Project would create new sources of light typical of urban development, typical of the subdivisions found at the perimeter of the project site . Nighttime lighting levels near the Project site would increase over current levels, as sources of new and nighttime lighting and illumination would include, but are not necessarily limited to, lighting from new residential uses, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., car headlights), and street lighting . The Project would have to comply with the development standards of t he Subdivision Ordinance ( Title 16) and Chapter

17.30 of the Zoning Ordinance which regulates light spillage , Visalia Public Works Standards, and the California Building Code. Streetlights are required to be full cut -off. These requirements would assist in reducing potential impacts associated with daytime glare and nighttime light. In addition, the Project site is situated near other residential subdivisions that produce like l ighting, so the impacts of the Project would be consistent with the existing setting to the north. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial light or glare would adversely affect views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

1125
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-7

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?

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

Baseline Conditions
Agriculture has been the predominant land use in the Project area since the late 1800s. Due to the region’s rich soils, water resources, and favorable geographic and climatic conditions, agricultural activity in and around Visalia is highly productive. Visalia’s agricultural heritage has contributed significantly to the City’s economy – much of the region’s economic activity is related to the cultivation, processing, and distribution of agricultural products – as well as its visual and cultural character. Historically, City’s General Plan policies have acknowledged the value of the areas agricultural resources and sought to preserve them through urban growth management strategies and monitoring despite a prevalence of development pressures on local landowners and a growing urban population.4
Farmland, consisting primarily of pecan and walnut orchards, is the prominent land use within the Project Site which is approximately 67.70 acres. The Project site is located in Tier II of the City’s Urban Development Boundary.

4 (Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners 2014)
1126
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-8
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act
The NRCS oversees the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S. Code [USC] Section 4201, et seq.; see also 7 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 658). The FPPA (a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill) is national legislation designed to protect farmland. The FPPA states its purpose is to “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.” The FPPA applies to projects and programs that are sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the federal government. The FPPA does not apply to private construction projects subject to federal permitting and licensing, projects planned and completed w ithout assistance from a federal agency, federal projects related to national defense during a national emergency, or projects proposed on land already committed to urban development. The FPPA spells out requirements to ensure federal programs to the extent practical are compatible with State, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland and calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to aid in analysis. Because the City may ultimately seek some federal funding for transportation or other capital improvements related to this Project, this document addresses the FPPA as an applicable regulation.

State
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection As part of the Farmland Mapping & Mon itoring Program (FMMP), t he California Department of Conservation (DOC) applies the NRCS soil classifications to identify agricultural lands, and these agricultural designations are used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural l and resources.

These designated agricultural lands are included in the Important Farmland Maps . The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analys is of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. The DOC has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications.

The list below provides a comprehensive description of all the categories mapped by the DOC. • Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long ‐term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils use d for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. 1127
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-9
• Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is sui ted to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
• Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to

1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10‐acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, inst itutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
• Other Land. Land not included in any othe r mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• LU-P-14: Recognize the importance of agriculture-related business to the City and region, • LU-P-25: Provide planning and technical support for the relocation of agricultural operations currently located in the City to compatible locations in the Planning Area or the County. • LU-P-30: Maintain greenbelts, or agricultural/open space buffer areas, between Visalia and other communities by implementing growth boundaries and working with County and land developers to prevent premature urban growth north of the St. Johns River and other sensitive locations within the timeframe of this General Plan.
• LU-P-34: In addition to supporting regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, the City shall create and adopt a mitigation program to address conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in Tiers II and III. This mitigation program shall require a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved to agricultural land converted and require agricultural land preserved to be equivalent to agricultural land converted. The mitigation program shall also require that the agricultural land preserved demonstrate adequate water supply and agricultural zoning, and shall be located outside the City UDB, and within the southern San Joaquin Valley. The mitigation program shall, to the extent feasible and practicable, be integrated with the agricultural easement programs adopted by the County and nearby cities. The City’s mitigation program shall allow mitigation to be provided by purchase of conservation ease ment or payment of fee, but shall indicate a preference for purchase of easements. The mitigation program shall require easements to be held by a qualifying entity, such as a local land trust, and require the submission of annual monitoring reports to the City. The mitigation program shall specifically allow exemptions for conversion of agricultural lands in Tier I, or conversion of agricultural lands for agricultural processing uses, agricultural buffers, public facilities, and roadways. • LU-P-44: Develop l and use and site design measures for areas adjacent to high -voltage power facilities. Measures will include landscape buffers and mandatory setbacks from substations and transmission towers and lines.
1128
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-10
• OSC-O-2: Work with County and other organizations to pr otect prime farmland and farmland of Statewide importance outside the City’s Urban Development Boundary for agricultural production, and to preserve areas for groundwater recharge.
• OSC-P-1: Conduct an annual review of cancelled Williamson Act contracts an d development proposals on agricultural land within the Planning Area Boundary to foresee opportunities for acquisition, dedication, easements, or other techniques to preserve agricultural open space or for groundwater recharge.
• OSC-O-9: Protect agricultural land from premature urban development. • OSC-P-24: To allow efficient cultivation, pest control and harvesting methods, require buffers and transition areas between urban development and adjoining or nearby agricultural lands. • OSC-P-25: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate to mini mize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, land scaping and construction.

Impact Analysis
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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The Project consists of land within an unincorporated area of Tulare County currently zoned AE -20 (Exclusive Agriculture-20 acres minimum), within Tiers II and III, and proposed for annexation into the City. This land is designated Prime Farmland. As such, the area is subject to the City’s agricultural mitigation policy (See AGR-1, below).

The General Plan identifies the need for the conversion of agricultural land to urban development. The City has set aside three-tiered areas planned for development which contain land designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project is within Tier II and Tier III, which has been deemed as land to be converted from agricultural land to urban development.

The 2014 General Plan Policy LU -P-34 contained a requirement for an Agricultural Mitigation Program to address the conversion of Prime Fa rmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Tier II and Tier III growth boundaries. Policy LU-P-34 requires the adoption of this type of program notwithstanding that such a program would not reduce the environmental effects from the loss of such farmland to a level of less than significant. In order to meet the requirements of this policy, the City has prepared an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance applicable to properties within Tier II and Tier III that requires a 1:1 ratio of agricultural lan d preserved to agricultural land converted towards urban development. The Ordinance is anticipated to be adopted in May 2023 and must be adopted for other pending entitlements submitted to the City of Visalia that are located within Tier II to be developed. The Ordinance will require that an equivalent amount of agricultural land converted be preserved outside the urban development boundary and within the southern San Joaquin Valley, or that a project comply with regulations within the Ordinance that will c ause an equivalent amount of agriculture land to be preserved. Additionally, the preserved agricultural land must demonstrate adequate water supply and agricultural zoning. Policy LU-P- 34 notes that such a program shall, to the extent feasible and practica ble, be integrated with the agricultural easement programs adopted by Tulare County and nearby cities. The City of Visalia’s program shall allow for compliance with the preservation ordinance to be completed by purchase of easements, and that such easements be held by a qualifying entity, such as a local land trust, and require the submission of 1129
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-11
annual monitoring reports to the City. Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance the Project proponent could mitigate for the loss of agricultural land and begin conversion of agricultural lands by providing verification to the City that it has preserved agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio using easements that meet the requirements identified in Policy LU -P-34 or participation in an agricultural preservation program adopte d by another agency within the southern San Joaquin Valley that meet the these requirements for preserving agricultural land.

As this is a requirement for consistency with the General Plan, the Project’s compliance is mandatory.

Therefore, compliance with General Plan Policy LU-P-34 will allow the Project to convert Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance and preserve offsite farmland outside of the urban development boundaries at an equivalent ratio. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is zoned as AE -20 as per the Tulare County zoning designation. This project will propose an annexation by the City of Visalia as well as zoning the property to a residential zone district , in accordance with the pre -zoning of the General Plan Land Use Map, in order to facilitate the proposed use of a housing development. Although the Project site is within an agriculture zone district, it is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberla nd (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 would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project would result in the annexation of the Project site from Tulare County into the City of Visalia, p re-zoning the site for residential use. The Visalia General Plan has not designated the Project site or surrounding areas as Forest Land, Timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. The Project site has historically been utilized for agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. The Project would result in the construction of a new subdivision on land that would be annexed into the City of Visalia, which has historically been utilized for agriculture. This would not require the loss or conversion of a forest to a non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Less than Significant Impact . The Project would result in the conversion of approximately 68 acres of farmland into a new subdivision. While the Project would convert farmland into another use, the Project site is substantially surrounded by urban uses. The development of the project site is bordered by existing barriers, such as the TID Canal, Cameron Creek, and the San Joaquin Railroad line. Therefore, agricultural encroachment impacts would be less than significant.

1130
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-12
Mitigation
AGR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio. The Project proponent shall implement one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss: Paym ent of In -Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, and/or Land Use Regulation on land(s)within the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, specifically within Kern County, Tulare County, Kings County, Fresno County, or Madera County. The City shall require, at a minimum:
evidence that the preserved land has adequate water supply, agricultural zoning, evidence of land encumbrance documentation, documentation that the easement/regulations are permanent and monitored, and documentation that the mitigation strategy is appropriately endowed. This mitigation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Should the City of Visalia develop an Agricultural Mitigation Program before future construction within the Project begins, the Project proponent shall mitigate for the loss of agricultural land pursuant to the Program that is adopted by the City.

1131
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-13

Figure 4-1: Farmland Map
1132
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-14

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?

Baseline Conditions
The subject property is composed of an existing orchard spanning approximately 67 acres. Typical cultivation operations include traversing the site with all-terrain vehicles and pickup trucks, application of pesticides and fertilizers, removal and replanti ng of orchards, and the picking of fruit. Such activities are likely to disturb the site’s bare dirt, causing an unquantifiable amount of particulate matter emissions.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The Clean Air Act (CAA), first adopted in 1967 and periodically amended since then, established federal ambient air quality standards. A 1987 amendment to the CAA sets a deadline for the attainment of these standards. That deadline has since passed. The oth er CAA Amendments, passed in 1990, share responsibility with the State in reducing emissions from mobile sources. The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the 1990 amendments.

CAA and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) identify levels of a ir quality for six “criteria” pollutants, which are considered the maximum levels of ambient air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. The six criteria pollutants include ozone, CO, NO 2, SO 2, PM2.5 and PM 10, and lead (Pb). Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non - health-related adverse effects such as visibility restrictions.

The CA A also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution.

The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules 1133
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-15
and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance with the mandates of the CAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine if implementation would achieve air quality goals. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures.

CAA Section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and USEPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93 Subpart A) require that each new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportatio n Improvement Program (TIP) be demonstrated to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) before the RTP and TIP are approved by the metropolitan planning organization, in this case the County Association of Governments (TCAG) or accepted by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). The conformity analysis is a federal requirement designed to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. However, because the San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan for CO, PM 10, PM2.5 and ozone address attainme nt of both the State and federal standards for these pollutants, demonstrating conformity to the federal standards is also an indication of progress toward attainment of the State standards. Compliance with the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) is provided on the pages following this federal conformity discussion.

The USEPA approved San Joaquin Valley reclassification of the ozone (8 -hour) designation to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010, even though the San Joaqui n Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8 -hour ozone standard. In accordance with the CAA, USEPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. In the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, the USEPA revised the primary and secondary standard to 0.070 ppm to provide increased pu blic health protection against health effects associated with long - and short-term exposures. The previous ozone standard was set in 2010 at 0.075 ppm.

National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA provides general information on the effects of federally funded projects. The act was implemented by regulations included in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 6). The code requires careful consideration concerning environmental impacts of federal actions or plans, including local projects that receive federal funds. The regulations address impacts on land uses and conflicts with state, regional, or local plans and policies, among others. They also require that projects requiring NEPA review seek to avoid or minimize adverse effects of proposed actions and to restore and enhance environmental quality as much as possible. The Project is subject to NEPA compliance because of the potential for federal grant funding for construction of the Project. The air quality assessment required under federal air quality standards and regulations covers the basic outline for project -level assessment under NEPA guidelines. The CAA also requires a parallel “Conformity” in addition to the basic impact assessment.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act first authorized the USEPA to regulate asbestos in schools and public and commercial buildings under Title II of the law, which is also known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) . AHERA requires Local Education Agencies to inspect their schools for Asbestos- Containing Building Materials and prepare management plans to reduce the asbestos hazard. The Act also established a program for the training and accreditation of individuals performing certain types of asbestos work.
1134
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-16
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the CAA, the USEPA established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

These are technology -based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).

State
California Air Resources Board and the California Clean Air Act The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing its own air quality legislation called the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988. CARB was created in 1967 from the merging of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board and the Bureau of Air Sanitation and its Laboratory.

CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the USEPA. Whereas CARB has primary responsibility and produces a major part of the SIP for pollution sources that are statewide in scope, it relies on the local air districts to provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. CARB combines its data with all local district data and submits the completed SIP t o the USEPA. The SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources and consumer products set by the CARB, and attainment plans adopted by the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) and Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) and approved by CARB. The SJVAPCD is one of 35 AQMDs that have prepared air quality management plans to accomplish a five percent annual reduction in emissions documenting progress toward the CAAQS.

States may establish their own standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established the CAAQS pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes.

HSC Section 39608 requires CARB to “identify” and “classify” each air basin in the state on a pollutant-by- pollutant basis. Subsequently, the CARB designated areas in California as nonattainment based on violations of the CAAQS. Designations and classifications specific to the SJVAB can be found in the next section of this document. Areas in the state were also classified based on severity of air pollution problems.

For each nonattainment class, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted.

For all nonattainment categories, attainment plans are required to demonstrate a five percent-per-year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three -year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. In addition, air districts in violation of CAAQS are required to prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) that lays out a program to attain and maintain the CCAA mandates.

Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality. CARB has established and maintains, in conjunction with local APCDs and AQMDs, a network of sampling stations (called the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations [SLAMS] Network), which monitors the present pollutant levels in the ambient air.

All of County, including the City, is in the SJVAB. Table 4-5 contains a summary of State and federal air quality standards and the SJVABs attainment status for common pollutants.

CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
CARB is responsible for controlling emiss ions from the operation of motor vehicles in the state. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, CARBs motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the r egulations focus 1135
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-17
on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, CARB has adopted regulations that require auto manufacturers to phase in less-polluting vehicles.

The CCAA was first signed into law in 1988 and is administered by CARB. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the States air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CAAQS, established pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 39606(b), are similar to, but more stringent than, the NAAQS.

Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as a TAC. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TACs. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted USEPAs list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. CARB list of TACs is provided below:
▪ Benzene
▪ Ethylene Dibromide
▪ Ethylene Dichloride
▪ Hexavalent chromium
▪ Asbestos
▪ Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans
▪ Cadmium
▪ Carbon Tetrachloride
▪ Ethylene Oxide
▪ Methylene Chloride
▪ Trichloroethylene
▪ Chloroform
▪ Vinyl chloride
▪ Inorganic Arsenic
▪ Nickel
▪ Perchloroethylene
▪ Formaldehyde
▪ 1,3-Butadiene
▪ Inorganic Lead
▪ Particulate Emissions from Diesel -Fueled
Engines
▪ Environmental Tobacco Smoke
▪ USEPA Hazardous Air Pollutants (187)

If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.

California Assembly Bill 170
Assembly Bill 170, Reyes (AB 170), was adopted by state lawmakers in 2003 creating GC Section 65302.1 which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality.

State Tailpipe Emission Standards
To reduce emissions from off -road diesel equipment, on -road diesel trucks, and harbor craft, CARB established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new engines. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy duty trucks, off-road construction equipment, tugboats, and barges, would be required to comply with the standards.

Local
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within the County and throughout the SJVAB. The District also has 1136
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-18
responsibility for monitoring air quality and setting and enforcing limits for source emissions. The CARB is the agency with the legal responsibility for regulating mobile source emissions. The District is precluded from such activities under State law.

The District was formed in mid-1991 and prepared and adopted the San Joaquin Valley AQAP, dated January 30, 1992, in response to the requirements of the CCAA. The CCAA requires each non -attainment district to reduce pertinent air contaminants by at least five percent (5%) per year until new, more stringent, 1988 State air quality standards are met.

Activities of the SJVAPCD include the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources of air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by the CAA and the CCAA.

The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2013 Ozone Plan to achieve federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone. It provides a comprehensive list of regulatory and incentive-based measures to reduce emissions of ozone and particulate matter precursors throughout the SJVAB, and calls for major advancements in pollution control technologies for mobile and stationary sources of air pollution, a 75 -percent reduction in ozone -forming oxides of nitrogen emissions, and addresses the remaining requirement under the 1979 revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

The EPA in 2006 issued a Final Rule determining that the Basin had attained the NAAQS for PM 10, it did however note that the Final Rule did not constitute a redesignation to attainment until all of the CAA requirements under Section 107(d)(3) were met. In response, the SJVAPCD prepared the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation (2007 PM 10 Plan). The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB. The 2012 PM 2.5 Plan provides a comprehensive list of regulatory and incentive-based measures to reduce PM2.5.

The Guide for Assessing and Mitigat ion Air Quality Impacts was prepared in 2015, which is an advisory document that provides Lead Agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality impacts in environmental documents. It describes the criteria that SJVAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents and recommends thresholds for determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts.

The SJVAPCD documents identified above represent the SJVAPCDs plan to achieve both State and federal air quality standards. The regulations and incentives contained in these documents must be legally enforceable and permanent. These plans separate emissions reductions and compliance into different emissions source categories. The SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations that are applicable to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081): This regulation is a series of rules designed to reduce particulate emissions generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, carryout and trackout, use of paved and unpaved roads and traffic areas, bulk material handling and storage, open space areas, etc. If a non-residential area is five or more acres in size, a Dust Control Plan must be submitted as specified in Section 6.3.1 of Rule 8021. Additional requirements may apply, depending on total area of disturbance. 1137
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-19
• Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Other Earthmoving Activities: District Rule 8021 requires owners or operators of construction projects to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District if at any time the project involves non-residential developments of five or more acres of disturbed surface area or moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least three days of the project. The Project will meet these criteria and will be required to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District in order to comply with this rule. • Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review: Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review (ISR), fulfills the SJVAPCD emission reduction commitments in the PM 10 and Ozone Attainment Plans through emission reductions associated with construction and operational activities for projects subject to the rule.

Since the project contains more than 20,000 square feet of recreational space it will be required to comply w ith Rule 9510. Compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA process, although the control measures used to comply with Rule 9510 may be used to mitigate CEQA impacts.
• Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations: If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the Project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt , and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.
• Regulatory Attainment Designations: Under the CCAA, CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant c oncentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exception al event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, wi th extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe a ir pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The USEPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO 2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more f requently used. The USEPA uses the same sub -categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM 10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
The SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state PM10 standard, ozone, and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the national 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the USEPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.

Table 4-4 shows the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for both construction - and operation -related emissions from a given project.
1138
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-20
Table 4-4: SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance
SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr)
Pollutant Construction Emissions Operation Emissions
ROG 10 10
NOx 10 10
CO 100 100
SOx 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD, May 2015.

City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy 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. • Policy AQ -P-9: Continue to mitigate short -term construction impacts and long -term stationary 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.

City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
The City Climate Action Plan (CAP) was created as one of the first key steps to guiding the development and enhancement of actions designed to reduce Visalia’s GHG emissions. The CAP represents the results of a GHG emissions inventory effort which serves as a starting point for the development of a comprehensive municipal and community strategy for addressing GHG emission reduction goals.

The major long-term objectives of the City’s CAP for the City government and the community as a whole include the following:
▪ Reduce net GHG emissions from both municipal operations and community activities; ▪ Promote cleaner and healthier air to breathe;
▪ Help the City and its residents save on energy costs; ▪ Reduce vulnerability to changes in energy availability and price; and ▪ Increase public awareness of climate change issues.

The City selected the years 2020 and 2030 to establish mitigation targets for the CAP. A reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline year level is the target for 2020. A reduction of 30% below the 2005 baseline year level is the target for 2030. The City established two mitigation milestones to correlate with the planning horizon of the 2030 General Plan Update, and to ensure that the City is working towards the States goal of an 80% reduction below baseline by 2050.

The City has instituted various actions in an effort to meet the year 2020 and 2030 mitigation targets. The measures identified to achieve mitigation targets are organized into five categories: Energy Systems, Transportation, Water and Resource Conservation, Transportation / Land Use, and Waste and R esource Conservation. Included in the Transportation category is a measure regarding the expansion of bicycle paths.
1139
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-21
Table 4-5: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration* Attainment
Status Primary Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe
– No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment – Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified 8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment/
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – Attainment -- Attainment/
Unclassified 24-hour 0.04 ppm --
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb) 30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment – No
Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter – --
Rolling 3 -Month
Average
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl)
24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
Visibility-
Reducing
Particle Matter
8-hour Extinction coefficient:

0.23/km-visibility of
10 miles or more due
to particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.

Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard ***Secondary Standard
Source: CARB 2015; SJVAPCD 2015

1140
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-22
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact . CEQA requires that certain projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In addition, emission reductions achieved through implementation of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, construction of the project would not result in t he generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Implementation of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII would further reduce construction dust impacts.

Operational emissions associated with the project would not exceed SJVA PCD established significance thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. The Project does exceed the minimum dwelling unit count to be subject to Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans. Impacts would be less than significant.
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. Construction-generated emissions are temporary in duration, site improvements and construction of the homes will take place over 21 months. The construction of the Project would result in the temporary generation of emissions associated with site grading and excavation, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, as well as the movement of construction equipment on unpaved surfaces. Estimated construction -generated emissions and operational emissions are summarized in Table 4-6. Operational emissions would occur from vehicular trips, area sources such as fireplaces, and energy sources from the combustion of natural gas. These emissions are summarized in
Table 4-7.

Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) (1)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx
Maximum Annual Proposed Project Emissions: 1.5627 2.9580 3.1400 0.5041 0.2433 <0.0001 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds: 10 10 100 15 15 27
Exceed SJVAPCD Thresholds? No No No No No No
Emissions were quantified using CalEEmod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1141
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-23

Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions
Source
Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) (1)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx
Maximum Annual Project Emissions: 3.0406 1.9511 11.5568 2.6819 0.7598 0.0274 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds: 10 10 100 15 15 27
Exceed SJVAPCD Thresholds? No No No No No No
Emissions were quantified using CalEEmod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As Project emissions will not exceed established thresholds, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would generate diesel particulate matter during construction and during project operations when solid waste is being collected from the site. These emissions are short in duration, temporary, and consistent with emissions found in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the conversion of farmland would likely result in similar emission reductions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting faciliti es, feed lots, coffee roaster, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants, among other uses. The Project does not include any of these activities or land uses. The Project would therefore have no impact with respect to generation of emissions leading to odors or other adverse or objectionable emissions.

1142
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-24

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-8: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 and
Wildlife 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 Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?

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

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

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

Baseline Conditions
General
The proposed Project is located in the City of Visalia within Tulare County about one mile west of the census designated place of Linnell Camp, California. This area lies within the Central Valley of California near the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. The topography is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 300 to 400 feet, with underlying rock formations of sandstone.

Like most of California, the San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters. Summer temperatures often reach above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and 1143
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-25
the humidity is generally low. Winter temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and rarely exceed 70 degrees. On average, the Central Valley receives approximately 12 inches of precipitation in the form of rainfall yearly, most of which occurs between October and April.

Water
The nearest surface waters are Cameron Creek which runs along the eastern and southern portions of the APE and the TID Canal that runs along the western portion of the APE . Cameron Creek and the TID Canal did not have any surface water present during the survey. There were canine tracks near both the creek and canal that were consistent with that of a domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris).

Watersheds are made up of many smaller subwatersheds that drain into a particular stream, river, or lake.

The Project site lies within the Middle Branch Cross Creek watershed; Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC):
1803000714 and a single subwatershed: Cameron Creek subwatershed; HUC: 180300071402. A watershed is the topographic region that drains into a stream, river, or lake. The nearest surface waters are Cameron Creek which runs along the east and southeast portion of the APE. The creek did not have any visible water present during the survey.

The Middle Branch Cross Creek watershe d is comprised of stormwater or snowmelt collected in upland areas which flows down into Lion Lake. Lone Pine Creek exits Lion Lake and flows into Tamarack Lake.

Hamilton Creek flows from Precipice Lake downstream before it combines with Lone Pine Creek to become the Middle Fork Kaweah River. Granite Creek, Cliff Creek, Buck Creek, Castle Creek, Mehrten Creek, Panther Creek, Dome Creek, and Paradise Creek all flow into the Middle Fork Kaweah River. Farther downstream the Middle Fork Kaweah River combines wi th the Marble Fork Kaweah River and forms the start of the Kaweah River. Elk Creek and Salt Creek flows into the Kaweah River which then goes into Kaweah Lake which exits as Kaweah River. This river then receives inputs from Dry Creek, and Lane Slough before flowing into Cameron Creek along with Deep Creek. Cameron Creek then runs along the east and southeast portion of the APE. Cameron Creek exits the APE and runs southwest and through Mooney Grove Park and empties into a basin. Cameron Creek then picks up further downstream near the City of Paige and connects to a canal that empties into the Tule River which terminates in a canal within the former Tulare Lake.

Soil
Two soil mapping units representing two soil types were identified within the APE and are l isted in Table 4-9. Within the two soil mapping units there are also minor units within the APE. The soils are displayed with their core properties according to the Major Land Resource Area of California (MLRA) 19 map area.

Both soil types are primarily used for farmland, if irrigated.

Table 4-9: List of Soils Located Onsite and Their Basic Properties Soil Soil Map Unit Percent
of APE
Hydric
Unit
Hydric
Minor
Units
Drainage Permeability Runoff
Grangeville
Sandy loam,
drained, 0 to 2
percent slopes

59.8% Yes Yes
Somewhat
poorly
drained
Moderate
permeability
Negligible
runoff
Nord Sandy loam, 0 to
2 percent slopes 40.2% No Yes Well drained Moderate
permeability
Negligible
runoff
The full soil report can be found in Appendix B: Biological Evaluation at the end of this document. 1144
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-26
Wildlife and Plant Species
A thorough search of the CNDDB for published accounts of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Visalia and Exeter 7.5-minute quadrangles that contain the APE, and for the 10 surrounding quadrangles: Traver, Monson, Ivanhoe, Woodlake, Rocky Hill, Lindsay, Cairns Corner, Tulare, Paige, and Goshen. Appendix B: Biological Evaluation shows the Project’s 7.5-minute quadrangle, according to United States Geological Survey Topographic Maps. These species, and their potential to occur within the APE, are listed in Table 4-11 and Table 4-12 below. Raw data obtained from CNDDB and IPaC is available in Appendix B: Biological Evaluation at the end of this document. All relevant sources of information, as discussed in the Study Methodology section of this report were used to determine if any special status species are known to be within the APE.

A tree survey was performed on April 7, 2022. Ten Valley Oak trees were found within the APE and their height and Diameter Breast Height (DBH) were measured (see Figure 4-2 for their individual locations within the Project site) . Results from the tree survey can be found in Table 4-10. All ten Valley Oak trees found within the APE have a DBH of eighteen (18) inches or greater and will require a tree removal permit and subsequent mitigation as written in the City of Visalia Oak Tree Ordinance. A map showing the locations of the trees within the APE can be found in Appendix B: Biological Evaluation.

Of the 22 regionally occurring special status plant species, 22 are considered absent from or unlikely to occur within the APE due to past or ongoing disturbance and/or the absence of suitable habitat. These species include: alkali-sink goldfields, brittlescale, ca lico monkeyflower, California alkali grass, California jewelflower, California satintail, Coulter’s goldfields, Earlimart orache, Greene’s tuctoria, heartscale, Hoover’s spurge, Kaweah brodiea, lesser saltscale, recurved larkspur, San Joaquin adobe sunburs t, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, Sanford’s Arrowhead, spiny -sepaled button-celery, stiped adobe -lily, subtle orache, vernal pool, and Winter’s sunflower.

Table 4-10: Results from the Valley Oak Tree Survey
Species Height (feet) (DBH) (Inches)
Protected
under the Oak
Tree Ordinance
Valley Oak
Tree #1 67.4 44.01 Yes
Valley Oak
Tree #2 104.8 53.34 Yes
Valley Oak
Tree #3 117.4 32.32 Yes
Valley Oak
Tree #4 128 66.34 Yes
Valley Oak
Tree #5 61.4 22.83 Yes
Valley Oak
Tree #6 98.4 62.20 Yes
Valley Oak
Tree #7 77.9 51.18 Yes
Valley Oak
Tree #8 85.7 39.00 Yes
Valley Oak
Tree #9 43.4 18.90 Yes
1145
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-27
Species Height (feet) (DBH) (Inches)
Protected
under the Oak
Tree Ordinance
Valley Oak
Tree #10 55.1 52.75 Yes

Table 4-11: List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
American badger
(Taxidea taxus) CSC
Grasslands, savannas, and mountain
meadows near timberline are preferred.

Most abundant in drier open spaces of
shrub and grassland. Burrows in soil.

Unlikely. The only recorded regional
occurrence of this species occurred
approximately four miles northeast of the
APE in 1994. The APE is frequently
disturbed area with stray and domestic
dogs that would this species from living
here.

Blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
(Gambelia sila)

FE, CE,
CFP
Inhabits semi-arid grasslands, alkali flats,
low foothills, canyon floors, large
washes, and arroyos, usually on sandy,
gravelly, or loamy substrate, sometimes
on hardpan. Often found where there
are abundant rodent burrows in dense
vegetation or tall grass. Cannot survive
on lands under cultivation. Known to
bask on kangaroo rat mounds and often
seeks shelter at the base of shrubs, in
small mammal burrows, or in rock piles.

Adults may excavate shallow burrows
but rely on deeper pre-existing rodent
burrows for hibernation and
reproduction.

Absent. There are no recorded regional
observations of this species in CNDDB. The
species is listed on IPaC. The most recent
recorded observation is from iNaturalist in
2019 approximately 20 miles of the APE.

Suitable habitat is not present within the
APE. There are frequently disturbed
agricultural fields. Rodent burrows in this
area are not abundant.

Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia) CSC
Resides in open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands with
low growing vegetation. Nests
underground in existing burrows
created by mammals, most often
ground squirrels.

Unlikely. There are ten recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
occurred approximately nine miles north of
the APE in 2006. The APE does not have an
abundant amount of ground squirrel
burrows that would be suitable habitat for
this species.

California red-legged
frog
(Rana draytonii)

FT, CSC
Inhabits perennial rivers, creeks, and
stock ponds with vegetative cover
within the Coast Range and northern
Sierra foothills.

Absent. The APE is outside of this species
known range. There are no recorded
regional observations of this species in
CNDDB. The species is listed in IPaC as a
Federally Threatened species. The nearest
observation on iNaturalist is from 2015
approximately 70 miles southwest of the
APE.

California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)

FT, CT,
CWL
Requires vernal pools or seasonal ponds
for breeding and small mammal
burrows for aestivation. Generally found
in grassland and oak savannah plant
communities in central California from
sea level to 1500 feet in elevation.

Unlikely. There are 13 recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
occurred approximately nine miles north of
the APE in 2002. Cameron Creek has been
historically dry and the TID canal does not
provide suitable habitat for this species.

Upland habitat required by this species is
1146
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-28
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
also absent from the APE and surrounding
areas.

Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
FT, CE
This pelagic and euryhaline species is
Endemic to the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta, upstream through Contra
Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and
Solano Counties.

Absent. The APE is outside of this species
known range. There are no recorded
regional observations of this species in
CNDDB. This species is listed in IPaC as
federally threatened. The nearby canal is
dry and there are no tributaries that
connect with a known delta smelt
waterway.

Foothill yellow-legged
frog
(Rana boylii)

CCT, CSC
Frequents rocky streams and rivers with
rocky substrate and open, sunny banks
in forests, chaparral, and woodlands.

Occasionally found in isolated pools,
vegetated backwaters, and deep,
shaded, spring-fed pools.

Absent. The APE is outside of this species
known range. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately 12.5 miles northeast of the
APE in 1941 but is listed as extirpated.

There is no suitable habitat present for this
species.

Giant gartersnake
(Thamnophis gigas) FT, CT
Occurs in marshes, sloughs, drainage
canals, irrigation ditches, rice fields, and
adjacent uplands. Prefers locations with
emergent vegetation for cover and
open areas for basking. This species
uses small mammal burrows adjacent to
aquatic habitats for hibernation in the
winter and to escape from excessive
heat in the summer.

Unlikely. There are no recorded regional
observations of this species in CNDDB. The
species is listed on IPaC as federally
threatened. There are some mammal
burrows in the area, but Cameron Creek
and the TID Canal do not provide suitable
habitat as they lack surface water and
emergent vegetation.

Loggerhead Shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus) CSC
Frequents open habitats with sparse
shrubs and trees, other suitable
perches, bare ground, and low
herbaceous cover. In the Central Valley,
nests in riparian areas, desert scrub, and
agricultural hedgerows.

Unlikely. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately 12 miles northwest of the
APE in 1992. There are multiple
observations of the species on iNaturalist.

The nearest observation is from 2019
approximately 7.5 miles south of the APE in
the Herbert Wetland Prairie Preserve. The
walnut groves and frequent maintenance
and disturbance in the APE would deter this
species.

Northern California
legless lizard (Anniella
pulchra)
CSC
Found primarily underground,
burrowing in loose, sandy soil. Forages
in loose soil and leaf litter during the
day. Occasionally observed on the
surface at dusk and night.

Possible. The nearest contemporary
observation of this species occurred
approximately 4.5 miles east of the APE in
2015. The most recent recorded
observation is from iNaturalist in 2021
approximately 6 miles southeast of the APE.

Soils within the APE and leaf litter from the
Valley oaks in the APE could provide
suitable habitat for the species.

Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens) CSC
Inhabits grassland, wet meadows,
potholes, forests, woodland,
brushlands, springs, canals, bogs,
marshes, and reservoirs. Generally,
prefers permanent water with abundant
riparian vegetation.

Absent. There are two recorded regional
observations of this species. Both
observations of this species occurred
approximately 12 miles north of the APE in
1961 and are listed as transplants outside of
native habitat/range. The habitat required
for this species is not present within or
nearby the APE.

Pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus) CSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral, and
woodlands, where it feeds on ground-
and vegetation-dwelling arthropods,
Possible. Multiple tree cavities were present
in an orchard within the APE. The biological
survey was conducted during the day so
1147
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-29
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
and occasionally takes insects in flight.

Prefers to roost in rock crevices, but
may also use tree cavities, caves,
bridges, and other man-made
structures.
nighttime surveys would be needed to
determine presence or absence of this
species. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately four miles northeast of the
APE in 2004.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT
Underground dens with multiple
entrances in alkali sink, valley grassland,
and woodland in valleys and adjacent
foothills.

Unlikely. There are 25 recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
observation of this species occurred
approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the
APE in 1975. There is an observation on
iNaturalist from 2017 approximately 45
miles southwest of the APE. There are
multiple domestic and stray dogs in the
area that would deter the species from
living here.

Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) CT
Nests in large trees in open areas
adjacent to grasslands, grain or alfalfa
fields, or livestock pastures suitable for
supporting rodent populations.

Possible. There are 34 recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
observation of this species occurred
approximately seven miles south of the APE
in 2016. There is an observation on
iNaturalist from 2021 approximately 5 miles
to the east of the APE in the Kaweah Oaks
Preserve. Oak trees within the APE are tall
enough to support nests.

Tipton kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, CE Burrows in soil. Often found in grassland
and shrubland.

Unlikely. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately 12 miles south of the APE in
1943. A more recent regional observation
was found in iNaturalist from 2019
approximately 50 miles southwest of the
APE. No tail drags were observed on APE.

Tricolored Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor) CT, CSC
Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, or in thickets of
riparian shrubs. Forages in grassland
and cropland. Large colonies are often
found on dairy farm forage fields.

Unlikely. There are three recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
observation of this species occurred
approximately ten miles east of the APE in
2000. There is also a recent observation
from 2020 approximately 22 miles east of
the APE on iNaturalist. No riparian shrubs or
dense cattails present on APE. Cameron
Creek and the TID Canal do not provide
suitable habitat as they lack surface water
or riparian shrubs.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT
Lives in mature elderberry shrubs of the
Central Valley and foothills. Adults are
active March to June.

Absent. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately eight miles northeast of the
APE in 1991. The APE is absent of
elderberry shrubs that this species requires.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp (Branchinecta
lynchi)
FT
Occupies vernal pools, clear to tea-
colored water, in grass or mud-
bottomed swales, and basalt depression
pools.

Absent. Suitable habitat for the species is
absent from the APE and surrounding areas.

The soils within the APE are sandy-loam and
do not compact like clay to create vernal
pools. Further vernal pools were not
observed during the field survey.
1148
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-30
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp (Lepidurus
packardi)
FE
Occurs in vernal pools, clear to tea-
colored water, in grass or mud-
bottomed swales, and basalt depression
pools.

Absent. Suitable habitat for the species is
absent from the APE and surrounding areas.

The soils within the APE are sandy-loam and
do not compact like clay to create vernal
pools. Further vernal pools were not
observed during the field survey.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSC
Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert washes,
flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland,
open ponderosa pine forest, grassland,
and agricultural areas, where it feeds on
insects in flight. Roosts most commonly
in crevices in cliff faces but may also use
high buildings and tunnels.

Unlikely. There are no cliff faces, high
buildings, or tunnels in or nearby the APE
that would be suitable habitat for this
species.

Western pond turtle
(Emys marmorata) CSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
slow-moving rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches with riparian
vegetation. Requires adequate basking
sites and sandy banks or grassy open
fields to deposit eggs.

Unlikely. There is one recorded regional
observation of this species with an
unknown location in the vicinity of Visalia in
1879. The only creek beds or canals nearby
have been historically dry and surrounding
areas lack upland habitat required by this
species.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii) CSC
Prefers open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats
including mixed woodlands, grasslands,
coastal sage scrub, chaparral, sandy
washes, lowlands, river floodplains,
alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills,
and mountains. Vernal pools or
temporary wetlands, lasting a minimum
of three weeks, which do not contain
bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish are necessary
for breeding.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat for the species is
absent from the APE and surrounding areas.

The soils within the APE are sandy-loam and
do not compact like clay to create vernal
pools. There are no vernal pools or
temporary wetlands in or near the APE that
would provide suitable habitat for this
species.

Western Yellow-billed
Cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE
Suitable nesting habitat in California
includes dense riparian willow-
cottonwood and mesquite habitats
along a perennial river. Once a common
breeding species in riparian habitats of
lowland California, this species currently
breeds consistently in only two locations
in the State: along the Sacramento and
South Fork Kern Rivers.

Absent. There is one historical recorded
regional observation of this species which
occurred in 1919 in the vicinity of Visalia. It
is listed as extirpated. There are no willow-
cottonwood habitats along a perennial river
in or nearby the APE that would provide
suitable habitat for this species.

Table 4-12: List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
Alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia chrysantha) CNPS 1B
Found in vernal pool and wet saline flat
habitats. Occurrences documented in
the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys
at elevations below 656 feet. Blooms
February - April.

Absent. There are six recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observations of this species
occurred four miles west of the APE on an
unknown date in the 1990’s. There are no
vernal pools or saline flat areas that would
be suitable habitat for this species.
1149
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-31
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Sacramento Valley in alkaline or clay
soils, typically in meadows or annual
grassland in at elevations below 1050
feet. Sometimes associated with vernal
pools. Blooms June–October.

Absent. There are two recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species is a
historical occurrence which occurred in
the vicinity of Visalia in 1881. The other
recorded observation is approximately

13.5 miles northwest of the APE in 1968.

The required soils for the species are not
present in or near the APE.

Calico monkeyflower
(Diplacus pictus /
Mimulus pictus /
Eunanus pictus)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills and
the Tehachapi mountains in bare,
sunny, shrubby areas, and around
granite outcrops within foothill
woodland communities at elevations
between 450 feet and 4100 feet.

Blooms March – May.

Absent. There are two recorded regional
observations of this species. The closest
observation of this species occurred
approximately eight miles west of the APE
in 1935. The elevation requirement for this
species to occur is not present within the
APE. There are no granite outcrops within
foothill woodland communities required
for this species.

California alkali grass
(Puccinellia simplex) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in saline flats
and mineral springs within valley
grassland and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below 3000
feet. Blooms March–May.

Unlikely. There are five recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
occurred approximately nine miles west of
the APE in 1925 and is listed as possibly
extirpated. Although the APE meets the
elevation requirement for this species, but
the required soils are absent.

California jewelflower
(Caulanthus
californicus)

FE, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Western Transverse Ranges in sandy
soils. Occurs on flats and slopes,
generally in non-alkaline grassland at
elevations between 230 feet and 6100
feet. Blooms February–April.

Unlikely. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately seven miles southwest of
the APE in 1932 and is listed as extirpated.

There are no grasslands in or near the APE
that would be required for the species.

California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia) CNPS 2B
Although this facultative species is
equally likely to occur in wetlands and
non-wetlands, it is often found in wet
springs, meadows, streambanks, and
floodplains at elevations below 1600
feet. Blooms September – May.

Unlikely. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred at an
unknown location in the vicinity of Visalia
in 1895. The creek and canal adjacent to
the APE lacked surface water and riparian
vegetation.

Coulter’s goldfields
(Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri)
CNPS 1B
Found on alkaline or saline soils in
vernal pools and playas in grassland at
elevations below 4500 feet. Blooms
April–May.

Absent. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately 11.5 miles north of the APE
in 2015. There are no vernal pools or
playas in grassland in or near the APE. The
required soils for this species are absent.

Earlimart orache
(Atriplex cordulata var.
erecticaulis)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in saline
or alkaline soils, typically within valley
and foothill grassland at elevations
below 375 feet. Blooms August–
September.

Absent. There are four recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
occurred approximately 11.5 miles
northwest of the APE in 2017. The
required soils are absent from the APE and
surrounding areas.
1150
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-32
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)

FE, CR,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in vernal pools
within valley grassland, wetland, and
riparian communities at elevations
below 3500 feet. Blooms May –
September.

Unlikely. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred at an
unknown location in the vicinity of
Woodlake in 1936 and is listed as
extirpated. There are no vernal pools
within valley grassland, wetland or riparian
communities in or near the APE that would
support this species.

Heartscale (Atriplex
cordulata var.
cordulata)
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Sacramento Valley in saline or alkaline
soils within shadescale scrub, valley
grassland, and wetland-riparian
communities at elevations below 230
feet. Blooms June–July.

Absent. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred at an
unknown location in the vicinity of Goshen
approximately nine miles west of the APE
in 1938. There are no valley grassland or
wetland riparian communities that would
support this species. The required soils for
this species are absent from the APE.

Hoover’s spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
FT,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Sacramento Valley in vernal pools
within valley grassland, freshwater
wetland, and riparian communities at
elevations below 800 feet. Blooms July
– September.

Absent. There are five recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
occurred approximately nine miles north
of the APE in 2011. There are no vernal
pools, freshwater wetland, or riparian
communities in or near the APE that would
support the species.

Kaweah brodiaea
(Brodiaea insignis)
CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills in
foothill woodland and valley grassland
communities at elevations between 650
feet and 1650 feet. Blooms May – June.

Unlikely. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately 15 miles northeast of the
APE in 1989. There are no valley grassland
communities in or near the APE to support
the species.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in
sandy, alkaline soils in alkali scrub,
valley and foothill grassland, and alkali
sink communities at elevations below
750 feet. Blooms April–October.

Absent. There are eight recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
occurred approximately 9 miles west of
the APE in 2002. The required soils for the
species are not present in or near the APE.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in poorly drained, fine, alkaline
soils in grassland and alkali scrub
communities at elevations between 100
feet and 2600 feet. Blooms March–
June.

Absent. There are six recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
contemporary recorded observation of
this species occurred approximately 10
miles south of the APE in 2010. The soils
required for the species is not present in
or near the APE.

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia
peirsonii)

FT, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and the
Sierra Nevada Foothills in bare dark clay
soils in valley and foothill grassland and
cismontane woodland communities at
elevations between 325 feet and 2950
feet. Blooms March–May.

Absent. There are four recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
contemporary recorded observation of
this species that has not been extirpated
occurred approximately 13.5 miles
northeast of the APE in 1992. The soils
required for the species are not present in
or near the APE.

San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass (Orcuttia
inaequalis)

FT, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the eastern San Joaquin Valley
and the Sierra Nevada foothills in vernal
pools within valley grassland,
freshwater wetland, and wetland-
riparian communities at elevations
Absent. There are two recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
contemporary recorded observation of
this species that has not been extirpated
occurred approximately 9.5 miles north of
1151
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-33
Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
below 2600 feet. Blooms April –
September.
the APE in 2017. There are no vernal
pools, valley grasslands, or freshwater
wetlands in or near the APE to support the
species.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in freshwater-
marsh, primarily ponds and ditches, at
elevations below 1000 feet. Blooms
May–October.

Absent. There are two recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded observation of this species
occurred approximately ten miles north of
the APE in 2018. The creek and canal
adjacent to the APE lacked surface water
and riparian vegetation.

Spiny-sepaled button-
celery (Eryngium
spinosepalum)
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada Foothills
and the San Joaquin Valley. Occurs in
vernal pools, swales, and roadside
ditches. Often associated with clay soils
in vernal pools within grassland
communities. Occurs at elevations
between 50 feet and 4160 feet. Blooms
April–July.

Unlikely. There are 16 recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
recorded contemporary observation of
this species occurred approximately nine
miles north of the APE in 1992. There are
no vernal pools or swales in or near the
APE that would support the species.

Striped adobe-lily
(Fritillaria striata)
CT,
CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills in
adobe soil within valley grassland and
foothill woodland communities at
elevations below 3300 feet. Blooms
February – April.

Absent. The only recorded regional
observation of this species occurred
approximately ten miles east of the APE in
1938 and is now listed as extirpated. The
soils required for the species are absent
from the APE or surrounding areas.

Subtle orache (Atriplex
subtilis) CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley in saline
depressions in alkaline soils within
valley and foothill grassland
communities at elevations below 330
feet. Blooms June–October.

Absent. The only recorded contemporary
observation of this species in the region
occurred approximately 10.5 miles south
of the APE in 1999. The soils required for
the species are not present in the APE or
surrounding areas.

Vernal pool smallscale
(Atriplex persistens) CNPS 1B
Occurs in the San Joaquin Valley and
Sacramento Valley in alkaline vernal
pools at elevations below 375 feet.

Blooms June–September.

Absent. There are two recorded regional
observations of this species. Both
observations occurred approximately 12
miles north of the APE in 2010. There are
no alkaline vernal pools in or near the APE
that would support the species.

Winter’s sunflower
(Helianthus winteri) CNPS 1B
Found in the Sierra Nevada foothills on
steep, south-facing grassy slopes, rock
outcrops, and road-cuts at elevations
ranging from 600 feet to 1500 feet.

Blooms year-round.

Absent. There are eight recorded regional
observations of this species. The nearest
observation of this species occurred
approximately 8.5 miles north of the APE
in 2018. There are no south-facing grassy
slopes, rock outcrops or road cuts in or
near the APE that would support the
species.

EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
CCT California Threatened (Candidate)
1152
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-34
CFP California Fully Protected
CSC California Species of Concern
CWL California Watch List
CR California Rare

CNPS LISTING
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in. 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. California, but more common elsewhere.

CT California Threatened
CSC California Species of Concern
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted as an amendment to the federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which outlined the basic structure for regulating discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States (WOTUS). The CWA serves as the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands.

The CWA empowers the USEPA to set national water quality standards and effluent limitations and includes programs addressing both point-source and nonpoint-source pollution. Point-source pollution is pollution that originates or enters surface waters at a single, discrete location, such as a n outfall structure or an excavation or construction site. Nonpoint-source pollution originates over a broader area and includes urban contaminants in stormwater runoff and sediment loading from upstream areas. The CWA operates on the principle that all discharges into the nations waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit; with permit review being the CWAs primary regulatory tool. The following sections provide additional details on specific sections of the CWA.
• Section 404: CWA Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into WOTUS. In 2020, the USEPA and USACE published the Navigable Water Protection Rule defining the jurisdiction of what is considered WOTUS. WOTUS jurisdiction applies to navigable waters a nd includes four categories of water: territorial seas and traditional navigable water; tributaries of such waters; certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional waters. The new rule also def ines what is not considered WOTUS.

The rule provide that groundwater is not a jurisdictional water and explicitly excludes ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, diffuse stormwater runoff, ditches, prior converted cropland, artificially irrigated water or lakes, water -filled depressions constructed or excavated incidental to mining or construction activities, and water filled pits excavated for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel.

As determined by the United Stat es Supreme Court in the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 121 S.CT. 675, 2001, (commonly referred to as the “SWANCC” decision) ” Based on SWANCC, the USACE no longer has jurisdiction or regulates isolated wetlands that have no hypothetical or observed hydrologic connection with a WOTUS).

A June 19, 2006, federal ruling on two consolidated cases ( Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers ), often referred to as the Ra panos decision, affects whether adjacent waters or wetlands are considered jurisdictional under the CWA. The directive of the court follows the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, which states that the test for waters 1153
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-35
of the United States should be determi ned on a case -by-case basis by USACE on the basis of whether a particular water body has “significant nexus” to navigable waters.

Applicants must obtain a permit from the USACE for all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States , including adjacent wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed activity. The USACE may issue either an individual permit evaluated on a case -by-case basis, or a Nationwide general permit (NWP) evaluated at a program level for a series of related activiti es.

NWP are preauthorized activities that have been determined to cause only minimal adverse environmental effects. Each NWP provides specific conditions that must be met for the NWP to apply to a project. Potential WOTUS found within the project area would be under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento District of the USACE.

Compliance with CWA Section 404 requires compliance with several other environmental laws and regulations. The USACE cannot issue an individual permit or verify the use of a NWP until the requirements of the NEPA, ESA, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been met.

In addition, the USACE cannot issue or verify any permit until a CWA Section 401 water quality certification or a waiver of certification has been issued. This is discussed further below. • Section 402: CWA Section 402 regulates construction -related stormwater discharges to surface waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, administered by the USEPA. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has authority to oversee the NPDES program and is implemented through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) (see further related discussions under “Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act” below). The APE would be under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB.

NPDES permits are required for projects that disturb one (1) acre or more of land. The NPDES permitting process requires the applicant to file a NOI to discharge stormwater and prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP includes a site map and a description of proposed construction activities. In addition, it describes the BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants (e.g., petroleum products, solvents, paints, and cement) that may contaminate nearby water resources.

Permittees are required to conduct annual monitoring and reporting to ensure that BMPs are correctly implemented and effective in controlling the discharge of stormwater-related pollutants. • Section 401: In 2020, California regulations protecting wetland and state waters were approved by the SWRCB and have updated defined procedures for discharges of dredge or fill material to waters of the State. The new procedures consist of four major elements: a wetland definition; framework for determining if a feature meets the wetland definition; delineation procedures; and procedures for the submittal, review and approval of applications for water quality certification and waste discharge requirements (WDRs). Discharges into waters of the State that are also waters of the United States require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining certain federal permits, such as a CWA Section 404 permit. Waters of the State also include wetlands Discharges into all waters of the State, even those that are not also Waters of the United States, may require WDRs, or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB. 1154
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-36
Executive Order 13186 – Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 United States Government Code 703–711, prohibits the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird.5 Under the act, “take” is defined as the action of or attempt to “pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill”. This act applies to all persons and agencies in the United States, including federal agencies.

Executive Order 13186 requires that any project with federal funding, permitting, or action must address the impacts of the project on migratory birds. The order is designed to assist federal agencies in their efforts to comply with the MBTA and does not constitute any legal authorization to take migratory birds. The order also requires federal funding, permitting, or action-taking agencies to work with the USFWS to develop a memorandum of u nderstanding (MOU). Protocols developed under the MOU must promote the conservation of migratory bird populations through:
• Avoiding and minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions;
• Restoring and enhancing the habitat of migratory birds, as practicable; and • Preventing or abating the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as practicable.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species
EO 13112, signed February 3, 1999, directs all federal agencies to prevent and control the introduction of invasive species in a cost -effective and environmentally sound manner. The EO requires consideration of invasive species in NEPA analyses, including their identification and distribution, their potential effects, and measures to prevent or eradicate them.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990, signed May 24, 1977, directs all federal agencies to refrain from assisting in or giving financial support to projects that encroach on publicly or privately -owned wetlands. It further requires that federal agencies support a policy to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands.

State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the regulatory framework by which California public agencies identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. The CEQA statute is set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the Guidelines implementing the Act (State CEQA Guidelines) are set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq. A project normally is considered to result in a significant environmental impact on biological resources if it substantially affects a rare or endangered species or the habitat of that species, substantially interferes with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife, or substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants.

California Endangered Species Act
California implemented California Endangered Species Act ( CESA) in 1984. The act prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species; however, habitat destruction is not included in the States definition of take. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly hunt, pursue, catch,

5 Executive Order 13186, 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 11. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-EO13186migratorybirds.pdf Date Accessed:
11/6/2017.
1155
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-37
capture, or kill an individual of a species . Section 2090 of CESA requir es State agencies to comply with endangered-species protection and recovery and promote conservation of these species. CDFW administers the act and authorizes take through Section 2081 agreements (except for species designated as fully protected). Regarding rare plant species, CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, which preserves, protects, and enhances rare and endangered plant species and prohibits importing/exporting or the sale of rare and endangered plants. All State plants that have been designed as rare, threatened, endangered , or listed as a candidate or species of special concern are protected. In addition to federal and State protection the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has a ranking system that places native plants into categories or ranks reflecting degrees of concern and which also needs to be addressed during CEQA review.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Water Code Section 13260 requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements)”. Under the Porter -Cologne definition, the term “waters of the State” (as distinguished from Waters of the United States) is defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state”. The SWANCC ruling and Rapanos decision, described above, have no bearing on the Porter-Cologne definition. Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the State, the converse is not true (i.e., in California, waters of the United States represent a subset of waters of the state). Thus, California retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, regardless of whether the USACE has concurrent jurisdiction under CWA 404.

If the USACE determines a wetland is not subject to regulation under CWA 404, CWA 401 water quality certification is not required. However, the RWQCB may impose WDRs if fill material is placed into waters of the state.

California Fish and Game Code
• Section 1602: Under Fish and Game Code Section 1602, public agencies are required to notify CDFW before undertaking any project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow, bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Preliminary notification and project review occur generally during the environmental process. When an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected, CDFW is required to propose reasonable project changes to protect the resources. These modifications are formalized in a streambed -alteration agreement that becomes part of the plans, specifications, and bid documents for the project. • Sections 3503 and 3503.5: Fish and Game Code Section 3503 prohibits the destruction of bird nests.

Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing of raptor species and the destruction of raptor nests. • Section 3511 (Fully Protected Birds): The Fish and Game Code p rovides protection from take for a variety of species of birds, referred to as fully protected species. Section 3511 lists fully protected birds and prohibits take of these species. The Fish and Game Code defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”. Except for take related to scientific research, all take of fully protected species of birds is prohibited. 1156
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-38
California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
The California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act was enacted in 2001 to protect oak woodland habitats that were being diminished due to development, firewood harvesting, and agricultural conversions.6 The Oak Woodlands Conservation Program was established as a result of the act and is intended to provide project funding opportunities for private landowners, conservation organizations, and cities and counties to conserve and restore oak woodlands. The program authorizes the Wildlife Conservation Board to purchase oak woodland conservation easements and provide grants for land improvements and oak restoration efforts. The Planning Area contains a large stand of California Valley Oak Woodland and also contains scattered oak woodland stands that have been preserved throughout the City.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan Update
Objective OSC-O-7
Preserve and enhance Planning Area waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources which serve as plant and wildlife habitats, as groundwater recharge facilities, as flood control and irrigation components, and as connections between open space areas.

Policy OSC-P-8
Protect, restore and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation along Planning Area waterways, including the St. Johns River; Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks; and segments of other creeks and ditches where feasible, in conformance with the Parks and Open Space diagram of this General Plan.

Objective OSC-O-10
Protect and enhance natural vegetation throughout the Planning Area, especially types that are considered sensitive natural communities by the Department of Fish and Game.

Policy OSC-P-28
Protect significant stands of Valley Oak woodlands from further development by designating them for Conservation, creating habitat management plans, where needed, and undertaking restoration activities as appropriate.

Policy 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.

Visalia City Oak Tree Ordinance
The City of Visalia has an ordinance preventing the premature removal of native oak trees. The APE hosts 10 Valley oak trees. A table and map of the oak trees within the APE that are subject to this ordinance are available in Appendix B: Biological Evaluation. If oak trees are to be removed, it must comply with the ordinance identified below.

6 (California Wildlife Conservation Board 2023)
1157
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-39

Chapter 12.24 of the Visalia Municipal Code, Oak Tree Preservation, provides requirements intended to discourage the premature removal of oak trees.

Section 12.24.020 Definitions.
“Oak Tree” means Valley Oak Tree ( Quercus lobata), with a trunk diameter of eighteen (18) inches or greater at a point 4.5 feet above the root crown (Also referred to as “18 inches Diameter Breast Height (D.B.H.)”). “Oak tree” may also mean a “landmark tree.” “Landmark tree” means any native or non-native tree recognized by city council resolution for its age, size, location outstanding habitat value, superior beauty, historical, and/or cultural significance.

Section 12.24.030 Oak Tree Removal Permit Required.

A. Any person desiring to destroy or remove an oak tree on private or public property must first apply for and obtain a removal permit. Such application shall be in writing to the city clerk, who shall forward such application to the city manager of the city. The application shall contain the number, size and location of the oak trees and a brief statement of the reason of the requested action. The city manager shall charge a fee for said permit, to be established by the city council's annual designation of city fees.

B. Within five calendar days of receipt of such application, the city manager shall post a notice on the subject tree, in a manner reasonably intended to inform the general public, stating that an application for removal of the tree has been filed and is pending with the city manager. Within fourteen calendar days of receipt of such application, the city manager shall inspect the premises whereon such oak trees are located, and shall issue an intended decision in writing as to whether or not the application will be approved, and if so, what mitigation shall be required as a condition to approval, consistent with Section 12.24.035 below; provided, however, that failure to render an intended decision within such period shall not be deemed approval.

C. The city manager shall not grant a removal permit unless one of three findings enumerated in Section 12.24.035 can be made bas ed on substantial evidence and, where necessary, expert advice of a certified arborist. The applicant may submit his or her own supporting material, including a report of an independent certified arborist, for consideration by the city manager.

However, the City manager shall retain the discretion for determining the weight and value to be given to such independent reports.

D. Upon determination that one of the three findings enumerated in Section 12.24.035 can be met and a removal permit may be granted, the city manager shall establish mitigation requirements in a manner consistent with the policy to be developed and implemented pursuant to Section

12.24.037. No mitigation shall be required for oak trees removed pursuant to subsections A. or C. of section 12.24.035, unless the city manager determines that the applicant's negligence or willful conduct contributed to the decline of the health of the oak tree. The mitigation requirements established by the city manager shall attach to the permit as conditions and shall be enforceable as a lien against the applicant's real property. In no event shall the availability of mitigation measures, or the willingness of the applicant to agree to such measures, be a factor in determining whether removal of the tree is warra nted. (Ord. 2007-02 § 2 (part), 2007; Ord. 9907 § 2 (part), 1999)

12.24.037 Mitigation requirements.
1158
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-40
In recognition and furtherance of the purposes of this Chapter, as enumerated in Section

12.24.010, it is the policy of the City of Visalia that property owners who are granted a permit to remove an oak tree 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. (Ord. 2007-02 § 2 (part), 2007) Impact Analysis
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 and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The APE contains suitable nesting and/or foraging habitat for a variety of avian species. Swainson’s Hawk was identified as the only special status species likely to occur within the APE.

Implementation of the following measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 will reduce potential impacts to nesting raptors, migratory birds, and special status birds to a less than significant level under CEQA and ensure compliance with State and federal laws protecting these avian species.

Pallid bat was identified as the only special status bat species possible to occur within the APE. Roosting habitat becomes especially sensitive to bat populations during the maternity season (March 1 to September 30) while pups are maturing.

A pre-construction focused survey for bats would be required to identify if Project activities would impact existing bat habitat, presence of high -quality roosting habitat, and/or foraging areas within the APE.

Existing oak and agricultural trees within the APE may contain hollowed out tree cavities that could potentially be used as roosting habitat for bat species.

Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-4 through BIO-8 outlined below will reduce potential impacts to roosting and foraging bats to a less than significant level under CEQA and ensure compliance with State and federal laws protecting these bat species. 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The CDFW and USFWS often designates areas of “Critical Habitat” when it lists species as threatened or endangered. Critical Habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and would require special management or protection. There are no CNDDB -designated “natural communities of special concern” recorded within the APE or surrounding lands. Therefore, there would be no impact. 1159
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-41
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. Typical wetlands, and vernal pools communities were not observed onsite at the time of the biological survey. Cameron Creek which runs along the eastern and southern portion of the APE will not be impacted by the Project. The TID Canal which runs along the western portion of the APE would have a bridge constructed across the Canal to connect the APE to the adjacent property.

The bridge would be approximately 7 feet across by up to 60 feet wide and would be located near Lot

31. Since the TID canal connects to the Kaweah River and Cameron Creek which are jurisdictional waters, it may be considered jurisdictional by regulatory agencies. If the agencies determine the canal to be jurisdictional, an aquatic resource delineation would be performed, and all required permits would be obtained before bridge work begins.

Since construction will involve ground disturbance over an area greater than one acre, the Project will also be required to obtain a Construction General Permit under the Construction Storm Water Program administered by the RWQCB. A prerequisite for this permit is the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure construction activities do not adversely affect water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project 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?
No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter -population movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation.

The APE does not contain features that would be likely to function as wildlife movement corridors.

Further, a portion of the APE located in the median is disturbed by ongoing traffic and the remainder of the APE is completely surrounded by a fence, which would discourage dispersal and migration. There would be no impacts.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. Ten Valley Oak trees were identified within the APE. The City of Visalia Oak Tree Ordinance states (12.24.025):
“It is unlawful for any person to willingly remove, destroy, damage, mutilate, poison, or attempt to kill an oak tree in the city, except as may be allowed pursuant to a removal permit as provided for in Section

12.24.020 of this Chapter, or as designated in a notice to prune an oak tree that satisfies Article 3 of this chapter.”7
The ordinance goes on to define “oak tree” as (12.24.020):

7 (American Legal Publishing 2023)
1160
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-42
”Oak tree” means Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata), with a trunk diameter of eighteen (18) inches or greater at a point 4.5 feet above the root crown (Also referred to as “18 inches Diameter Breast Height (DBH)”).”
A removal permit must be obtained to remove or destroy them. As the Project will require compliance with the removal permit, impacts will be less than significant. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natur al Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other appr oved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There would be no impact.

Mitigation
Nesting Raptors, Migratory Birds, and Special Status Birds (Avoidance): The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between September 16 and J anuary 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
(Pre-construction Surveys): If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist would conduct pre -construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5 -mile radius. This survey would be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000) or current guidance. The pre -construction survey would also provide a presence/absence survey for all other nesting birds within the APE and an additional 50 feet, no more than 7 days prior to the start of construction. All raptor nests would be considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. (Establish Buffers): On discovery of any active nests or breeding colonies near work areas, the biologist will determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question.

Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.

Bats
(Avoidance): The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, between November 1 and February 28 (outside of bat maternity season) in an effort to avoid impacts to maternity roosts.
(Pre-Construction Survey): A pre-construction focused survey for bats will be performed if construction activities fall between March 1 and September 30 (bat maternity season) and include tree removal. The survey will be focused on trees to be removed during 1161
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-43
construction and be conducted by a qualified biologist within (7) seven days prior to tree removal.
(Establish Buffers): On discovery of any bat roosts near work areas, a qualified biologist should determine appropriate construction setback distances (buffer zones) base d on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines, if appropriate. Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and should be maintained until the biologist has determined that the roost will no longer be impact ed by construction.
(Operational Hours): Construction activities will be limited to daylight hours to reduce potential impacts to special status bats that could be foraging onsite.

Northern California legless lizard
(Avoidance): The Project’s construction activities will occur, if feasible, where discing or ground disturbance has previously occurred and avoid areas that contain loose soil and leaf litter.
(Pre-construction Surveys): If activities must occur in areas that contain loose soil and leaf litter a qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys within 48 hours prior to beginning ground disturbing activities. Any loose substrate in which lizards could bury themselves will be gently raked with a hand tool (e.g., a garden rake) to a depth of two inches to locate any lizards that could be under the surface.

1162
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-44

Figure 4-2: Oak Trees within the Project Site
1163
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-45

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-13: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

Baseline Conditions
As the oldest Central Valley city south of Stockton, Visalia hosts an impressive collection of historic sites and structures, including four that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Numerous distinctive architectural styles are present in Visalia, concentrated in the city’s historic core; particularly notable examples are recorded in the city’s local registry.8 Visalia was settled in 1852 and incorporated as a city in 1874. In its early years the City was a supply center for nearby gold mining operations, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock. The construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad through the Valley in 1872 triggered a shift in the agricul tural economy from cattle toward field crops. The next major economic change was brought about by the availability of irrigation water, resulting in the conversion of large grain fields to small farms, where citrus, grapes, olives, and deciduous fruits were raised. These crops are a mainstay of the region’s economy today. 9 Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey
A Phase I Survey of the Project APE was conducted by ASM Associates in July 2022. The field methods employed included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surface for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features (such as bedrock mortars, historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil, burnt animal bone); the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they be present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site integrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation Instructions for Recording Historic Resources and the BLM 8100 Manual, using DPR 523 forms. (See Appendix C: Cultural Resources Study) The survey fieldwork conducted in June 2022, used parallel transects spaced at 15-meter intervals walked across the Project APE, totaling approximately 68-acres. One linear resource (P -54-004877, Cameron Creek) had been recorded as intersecting the study area; however, this was due to inaccuracies in the plotted location and Cameron Creek is actually located entirely outside of the study area. An additional five

8 (City of Visalia 2014) General Plan Chapter 3 Historic Preservation 9 Ibid.
1164
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-46
previous studies had been completed within 0.5 -mi of the study area, resulting in the recordat ion of six resources within that outer radius. (See Appendix C: Cultural Resources Study) Records Search
A records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in May 2022. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced APE and an additional

0.5-mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. Additional sources included the State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California In ventory of Historic Resources. (See Appendix C: Cultural Resources Study)
Native American Outreach
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento was contacted in May 2022. NAHC was provided with a brief description of the Project and a map showing its location with a request that the NAHC perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediate APE. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on pr ivate and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovere d Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties. NAHC provide a current list of Native American Tribal contacts to notify of the project. The thirteen tribal representatives representing eight tribes identified by NAHC were contacted in either writing via United States Postal Service in a letter mailed June 13, 2022, or by email on July 18, 2022, informing each Tribe of the Project.

1. Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Elizabeth D. Kipp, Chairperson

2. Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Benjamin Charley Jr., Tribal Chair

3. Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Dirk Charley, Tribal Secretary

4. Kern Valley Indian Community, Julie Turner, Secretary

5. Kern Valley Indian Community, Brandy Kendricks

6. Kern Valley Indian Community, Robert Robinson, Chairperson

7. North Fork Mono Tribe, Ron Goode, Chairperson

8. Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, Leo Sisco, Chairperson

9. Tubatulabals of Kern County, Robert Gomez, Chairperson

10. Tule River Indian Tribe, Neil Peyron, Chairperson

11. Tule River Indian Tribe, Kerri Vera, Environmental

12. Tule River Indian Tribe, Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist

13. Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson

1165
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-47
Applicable Regulations
Federal
National Register of Historic Places
The NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a NRHP, an inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant on a n ational, state, or local level in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO, and grants-in-aid programs.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) strives to ensure that all Indian human remains, and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums. It also states the intent for states to provide mechanisms for aiding Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.

State
Office of Historic Preservation
The mission of the OHP and the State Historical Resources Commission is to preserve and enhance California's irreplaceable historic heritage as a matter of public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, recreational, aesthetic, economic, social, and environmental benefits will be maintained and enriched for present and future generations. Public Resources Code ( PRC) Section 5024 requires consultation with the SHPO when a project may impact historical resources located on State-owned land.

California Register of Historic Resources
The SHPO maintains the CRHR. Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1). State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The California Register can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historic resource surveys.

For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the California Register, it must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
• It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local and regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; • It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or • It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (California Public Resources Code).

California Environmental Quality Act
PRC Section 21083.2 Archaeological Resources: CEQA directs the lead agency to include in its environmental assessment for the project a determi nation of the project effec ts on unique archeological resources; defines unique archeological resource; enables a lead agency to require an applicant to make a reasonable effort to preserve or mitigate impacts to any affected unique archeological resource; sets 1166
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-48
requirements for the applicant to provide payment to cover costs of mitigation; and restricts excavation as a mitigation measure.

PRC Section 21084.1 Historic Resources: CEQA establishes that adverse effects on a historic resource qualifies as a significant effect on the environment; and defines historical resource.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5: This section defines three ways that a property can qualify as a significant historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review:
• If the resource is list ed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources;
• If the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC S ection 5020.1(k), or is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or
• If the lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5)
In addition to determining the significance under CEQA and eligibility of any identified historical resource for the California Register, historic properties must be evaluated under the criteria for the National Register should federal funding or permitting become involved in any undertaking subject to this document.

CEQA Guidelines on Mitigation of Cultural Resources Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 states that “public agencies should, whenever feasible, se ek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resources of an archeological nature.” The Guidelines further state that preservation-in-place is the preferred approach to mitigate impacts on archaeological resources. However, according to Section 15126.4, if data recovery through excavation is “the only feasible mitigation,” then a “data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resources, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken.” Data recovery is not required for a resource of an archaeological nature if “the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource.” The section further states that its provisions apply to those archaeological resources that also qualify as historic resources.

Native American Heritage Act
Also relevant to the evaluation and mitigation of impacts to cultural resources is the Native American Heritage Act of 1976 which established the NAHC and protects Native American religious values on state property (see PRC Section 5097.9).

Public Notice to California Native American Indian Tribes GC Section 65092 includes California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC in the definition of “person” to whom notice of public hearings shall be sent by local governments.

Disposition of Human Remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) When an initial study identifies the existence, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Ameri can groups or individuals as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American burials. Furthermore, HSC Section 7050.5 requires that construction or 1167
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-49
excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 HSC Sections 8010-8011 establish a State repatriation policy intent that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of NAGPRA. The Act strives to ensure that all California Indian human remains, and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also states the intent for the state to provide mechanisms for aiding California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan Update
• Policy OSC -P-39: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archaeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are consid ered 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 groun d disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and o Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
See section below.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
a and b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A CHRIS records search, from the SSJVIC, was conducted by ASM in June 2022 and confirmed there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the Project area. There have been five pre vious cultural resource studies conducted within the one -half mile radius, TU-01167, 01383, 01690, 01764, 01770 . The search also confirmed that there are seven recorded resources within one -half mile radius of the Project site . It is unlikely that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to any known unknown cultural or historical resources, such as archaeological remains, artifacts or historic properties or structures. However, in the improbable event that cultural resources are encountered during Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 outlined below, would reduce impacts to any historical or archaeological resource to less than significant. 1168
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-50
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence in the record that indicates the Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site or the site of buried human remains.

In the unlikely event of such a discovery, mitigation shall be implemented. With incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-2 outlined below, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project site would be less than significant.

Mitigation
CUL-1 Should archaeological remains or artifacts be unearthed during any stage of project activities, work in the area of discovery shall cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If mitigation is warranted, the project proponent shall abide by recommendations of the archaeologist.

CUL-2 In the event that any human remains are discovered on the Pro ject site, the Tulare County Coroner must be notified of the discovery (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5) and all activities in the immediate area of the find or in any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains mus t cease until appropriate and lawful measures have been implemented. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, but rather of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours to permit the NAHC to determine the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American.

1169
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-51

4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-14: Energy Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?

Baseline Conditions
The subject property is composed of a n orchard spanning approximately 67 acres. Typical current cultivation operations include traversing the site with all -terrain vehicles and pickup trucks, removal and replanting of orchards, and the picking of fruit.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted by Congress in 2007, is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. It expands the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil and confronting climate change. Specifically, it does the following:
• Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Reduces United States demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent as compared to 2007 levels.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also set energy efficiency standards for lighting (specifically light bulbs) and appliances. Development would also be required to install photosensors and energy-efficient lighting fixtures consistent with the requirements of 42 United States Code Section 17001 et seq.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, this legislation established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. The la w placed responsibility on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) for establishing and regularly updating vehicle standards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards. Since the inception of the 1170
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-52
Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, the average fuel economy for new light -duty vehicles steadily increased from 13.1 miles per gallon for the 1975 model year to 30.7 miles per gallon for the 2014 model year and is proposed to increase to 54.5 by 2025. Light -duty vehicles include autos, pickups, vans, and sport-utility vehicles.

Energy Star Program
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program introduced by U.S. EPA to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems.

Under this program, appliances that meet specifications for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the U.S. EPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes certifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes.

Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
The U.S. EPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for constru ction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Emissions requirements for new off -road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.

State
Senate Bill 350
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires a doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

California Renewable Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100 Approved by former Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 accelerates the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Title 24, California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new efficient technologies and methods. In 2022, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1, 2023. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2023, must follow the 2022 standards. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.

California Green Building Standards Code (2019), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11
California’s Green Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, was developed to provide a consistent approach to green building in the State. Having taken effect in January 2023, the most recent version of CalGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential bu ildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved energy efficiency and process improvements. It also includes 1171
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-53
voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap- and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes a wide variety of goals related to energy efficiency and renewable energy that are intended to help meet the State’s 2030 target, including goals specifically targeted at the water sector.

Local
Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia implements the following policies that are applicable to the Project related to energy consumption:

AQ-P-16. Support State efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions through local action that will reduce motor vehicle use, support alternative forms of transportation, require energy conservation in new construction, and energ y management in public buildings, in compliance with AB 32.

Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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 Project would comply with Building Energy Efficiency Standards included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires new residential development to incorporate energy efficiency stand ards into Project designs. In addition, the Project would implement the aforementioned General Plan polic y. The Project proposes the construction of residence that will comply with the energy conservation requirements of the California Building Code and wi ll be adjacent to an existing bicycle route.

Natural gas for the Project and the surrounding area are serviced by SoCalGas. The Project site does not currently have a demand for natural gas usage and the Project would represent an increase in natural gas usage. However, SoCalGas has indicated it can meet the increased demand for natural gas with its existing facilities and through engaging in Energy Efficiency (EE) programs.

Current regulations for construction equipment, heavy -duty equipment, and earthmovi ng equipment used in construction contributes to reductions in energy as well as reduction in pollutant emissions.

California implemented its In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets regulations (off -road regulation) which applies to all self -propelled off -road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater and most two -engine vehicles. The Small Off -Road Engines program was implemented by California to apply to categories of outdoor powered equipment and specialty vehicles often used in construction.

Through compliance with energy reduction standards and regulations aimed at reducing consumption of transportation related energy consumption, as well as the energy provider’s energy reduction programs, the Project will have less than significant impacts related to energy usage during Project operations and 1172
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-54
construction and its impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption overall, would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local p lan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with any of the applicable plans including Title 24, AB 32, SB 32, SB 350, and SB 100, therefore the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would be less than significant.

1173
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-55

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-15: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 or indirect
risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?

Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
Surface soils exhibit various characteristics dependent on location, slope, parent rock, climate, and drainage. The Project site currently contains Grangeville San dy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slope and Nord Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2 percent slope.10

10 (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019) 1174
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-56
Faults and Seismicity
The Project is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults within the City of Visalia. The nearest maj or faults are the Owens Valley and San Andreas Fault, located approximately 58 miles east and 72 miles southwest of the Project site, respectively. The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates. The Kern Canyon Fault is located approximately 42 miles east and the Poso Fault is located approximately 50 miles south of the Project site.

Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, which is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Tulare County or the City of Visalia, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high -water table coincide. Soil types along the Valley floor are not generally conducive to liquefaction because they are generally too coarse. Furthermore, a ccording to the California Department of Water Resources Live Groundwater Levels map, the groundwater levels measured at a location approximately one mile to the east of the Project site was approximately 131.7 feet below ground surface as of March 17, 202 1; this further reduces potential for liquefaction.

Soil Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over -saturation or extensive withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. These areas are typically composed of open-textured soils, high in silt or clay content, that become saturated. Although some areas in Tulare County have experienced subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the City of Visalia’s elevation has remained relatively unchanged.

Soils of the Project site consist of Grangeville Sandy Loam and Nord Fine Sandy Loam, which are coarse - textured, low in clay content, and have a low shrink-swell potential. Therefore, soils onsite represent a low risk of subsidence.

Dam and Levee Failure
The nearest dam with a high likelihood of breaching is the Bravo Lake Reservoir Dam, located approximately

10.5 miles to the northeast.11
Applicable Regulations
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972)
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act) requires the delineation of zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazard of fault rupture; however, surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within the Alquist-Priolo Zone. The Alquist - Priolo Act prohibits the location of most structures for human occupancy across active fault traces. Within these zones, cities and counties must reg ulate certain development, which includes withholding permits

11 (California Department of Water Resources 2022)
1175
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-57
until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement. There are no designated Alquist-Priolo zones in the Project area. The risk of surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, as designated under the Alquist-Priolo Act.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes.

This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a Seismic Hazard Zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted, and appropriate mitigation measures inco rporated into the project design.

Geotechnical investigations conducted within Seismic Hazard Zones must incorporate standards specified by CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards.12 The purpose of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is to identify where special provisions, beyond those contained in the California Building Code (C BC), are necessary to ensure public safety. This need has not been recognized for the hazard of ground shaking.

Design provisions contained in the CBC are believed to be representative of current knowledge and capability in earthquake -resistant design. 13 No portion of County has been mapped under the Seismic Hazards Zoning Program.

California Building Standards Code
The CBC, codified in Title 24 Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is administered by the California Building Standards Commission which by law is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, loc ation, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The current version took effect January 1, 2020, and contains necessary California amendment s based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7 -05. ASCE 7 -05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.

The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC.

California Department of Transportation
Caltrans jurisdiction includes State and interstate routes within California. Any work within the right-of-way of a federal or State transportation corridor is subject to Caltrans regulations governing allowable actions and modifications to the right-of-way. Caltrans standards incorporate the CBC and contain numerous rules

12 (California Geological Survey 2008)
13 (ICC Digital Codes 2020)
1176
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-58
and regulations to protect the public from seismic hazards such as surface fault rupture and ground shaking.

In addition, Caltrans standards require that projects be constr ucted to minimize potential hazards associated with cut and fill operations, grading, slope instability, and expansive or corrosive soils, as described in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). The southern portion of the Project site abuts SR 198, and Houston Avenue (SR 216) abuts the northern portion of the site; any work that is done within Caltrans right-of-way would be coordinated with Caltrans.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective S -O-1: Minimize risks of property damage and personal inju ry posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
• Policy OCS-P-25: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping and construction.

City of Visalia General Plan Seismic Safety Element
The Visalia General Plan incorporates the Sei smic Safety Element completed in 1974 by the Five-County Seismic Safety Committee, with participation from the Tulare Council of Governments. The Safety Element determines that ground shaking is the main potential hazard in the southern Central Valley, and the risk of ground shaking in the Visalia area is low. The Element includes a number of policies, calling for the creation of a public relations and education program to build awareness; development of an Earthquake Disaster Plan; consideration of seismic hazards in the environmental impact assessment process; and adoption and enforcement of the Uniform Building Code (since replaced by the CBC), among others.

City of Visalia Building Code
The City has adopted the 2022 CBC as the City’s building code and o rdinance (Title 15: Buildings and Construction).

Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natura l or manmade hazards. Visalia participates in the preparation of the Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ -LHMP) which covers the County and eleven participating cities. The latest adopted MJ-LHMP was prepared in 2018. The plan has been designed to meet four goals; (1) significantly reduce life loss and injuries, (2) minimize damage to structures and property, as well as disruption of essential services and human activities, (3) protect the environment, and (4) promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy.

Impact Analysis
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 rece nt 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.

See section below.

1177
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-59
ii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? i and ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. The site is not located in an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (Section 2622 of Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code). The nearest major faults are the Owens Valley and San Andreas Fault, located approximately 58 miles east and 72 miles southwest of the Project site, respectively. The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates. The Kern Canyon Fault is located approximately 42 miles east and the Poso Fault is located approximately 50 miles south of the Project site.

Although there are no known earthquake faults within the vicinity of the Project and strong ground shaking is unlikely, construction of the proposed residential structures would comply wi th the most recent seismic standards as set forth in the California Building Standards Code. Compliance with these standards would ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water -saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Tulare County and the City of Visalia , this potential is recognized throug hout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high -water table coincide. Using the U nited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS soil survey, an analysis of the soils onsite was performed. Soils in the area consists of Grangeville Sandy Loam and Nord Fine Sandy Loam , which are well-drained and co arse- textured, representing a low risk for liquefaction or seismic -related ground failure. In addition, using California Department of Water Resources Live Groundwater Levels map, the groundwater levels measured at a location approximately one mile to the southwest of the Project site was approximately 131.7 feet below ground surface as of March 17, 2022; this further reduces potential for liquefaction. 14 Furthermore, as mentioned above in I mpact Assessments 4.7.3 a) i-ii, strong seismic ground shaking is unlikely to occur. Any impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. The Project is located on the Valley floor where no major geologic landforms exist, and the topograp hy is essentially flat and level. The nearest foothills are approximately 9 miles east of the Project site . Therefore, the Project site has minimal-to-no landslide susceptibility, and there would be no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Earthmoving activities associated with the Project would include excavation, trenching, grading, and construction over an area of approximately 67.7 acres. These activities could expose soils to erosion processes and the extent of erosion would vary depending on slope steepness/stability, vegetation/cover, concentration of runoff, and weather conditions. Dischargers whose projects disturb one (1) or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are

14 (California Department of Water Resources 2022)
1178
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-60
part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original li ne, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Since the Project site has relatively flat terrain with a low potential for soil erosion and would comply with the State Water Resource Board requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the pro ject, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
See section below.
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? c and d) Less than Significant Impact. Soils of the Project site consist of Grangeville Sandy Loam and Nord Fine Sandy Loam , which are coarse-textured, low in clay content, and well-drained. These soils have a low shrink-swell potential and a low plasticity index, and therefore, are not considered expansive soils.

Furthermore, the aforementioned physical properties of these soils make subsidence, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other ground failure unlikely. Any impacts would be considered less than significant. 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. Septic installation or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not necessary for the Project. The Project would be required to connect to the City of Visalia’s wastewater system. There would be no impact.
f) Would the project direct ly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No known paleontological resources have been identified at the Project site. However, if a paleontological resource is found then the construction impacts can make a significant impact unless mitigated properly. The Project would be less than significant with GEO-1 incorporated.

Mitigation
GEO-1 Should paleontological resources be encountered on the Project site, all ground disturbing activities in the area shall stop. A qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the discovery. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Visalia for 1179
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-61
review, and (if paleontological materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

1180
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-62

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-16: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?

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

Baseline Conditions
The subject property is composed of an orchard spanning approximately 67 acres. Typical current cultivation operations include traversing the site with all -terrain vehicles and pickup trucks, removal and replanting of orchards, and the picking of fruit.

Applicable Regulations
Federal
Section 202 GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks This rule was proposed jointly by USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to create a national program of GHG emission standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. The standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The standards are designed to achieve a national vehicle fleet whose emissions and fuel economy performance improves year after year. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 960 million metric tons and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016.15 The final rule was signed on April 1, 2010, and became effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Greenhouse Gas Findings (2009)
In the United States Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. USEPA (2007), 12 states, three cities, and 13 environmental groups filed suit that the USEPA should be required to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHG as pollutants under the Federal Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the United States Supreme Court found that the USEPA has a statutory authority to formulate standards and regulations to address GHG, which it historically has not done. On December 7, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator finalized two findings to be effective January 14, 2010. The findings are related to GHG under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. These findings do not them selves impose any requirements on industry or other entities.

15 USEPA, 2010.
1181
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-63
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed greenhouse gases —carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well- mixed GHG from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.16 Executive Order 13154 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance
On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13154, which instructs federal agencies to set or achieve various emissions reduction and energy and environmental benchmarks by 2015, 2020, and 2030. The order requires agencies to set GHG emissi ons reduction targets for 2020 within 90 days and requires Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to set a federal government target for 2020 within 120 days. The order also sets out required reductions in vehicle fleet petroleum use and requires increases in water and energy efficiency and in recycling and waste diversion rates. The order also mandates adoption of certain contract and procurement practices designed to promote energy and water efficiency and environmentally preferable products.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and CAFE Standards
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 declared it to be United States policy to establish a reserve of up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum and established nationwide fuel economy standards in order to conserve oil. Pursuant to this Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, part of the DOT is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle fuel economy standards.

The Corporate Averag e Fuel Economy program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government’s fuel economy standards. Compliance with CAFE standards is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. The USEPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. The CAFE values are a weighted harmonic average of the USEPA city and highway fuel eco nomy test results. Based on information generated under the CAFE program, the DOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.

CAFE rules require the average fuel economy of all vehicles of a given class that a manufacturer sells in each model year to be equal or greater than the standard. CAFE standards apply to passenger cars and light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less). Heavy -duty vehicles (i.e. gross vehicle weight over 8,500 pounds) are not currently subject to fuel economy s tandards. The EPCA was reauthorized in 2000 (49 CFR 533). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 revised CAFE standards for the first time in 30 years, followed quickly by Section 202 GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks, which calls for further revision of the CAFE standards. Both of those regulations are described above.

Energy Policy Acts of 1992, 2005, etc. (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable

16 USEPA, 2009.
1182
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-64
of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions would be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. The Act also requires states to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes updated provisions for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfi ll gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Global Change Research Act (1990)
The purpose of the legislation was: “…to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions towards international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes.” To that end, the Global Change Research Information Office was established in 1991 (it began formal operation in 1993) to serve as a clearinghouse of information. The Act requires a report to Congress every four years on the environmental, economic, health and safety consequences of climate change; however, the first and only one of these reports to-date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility for Global Change Research Program shifted to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

State
There are a variety of statewide rules and regulations which have been implemented or are in development in California which mandate the quantification or reduction of GHGs. Under CEQA, an analysis and mitigation of emissions of GHGs and climate change in relation to a Project is required where it has been determined that a project would result in a significant addition of GHGs. Certain APCDs have proposed their own levels of significance. The SJVAPCD, which has regulatory authority over the air emissions from this project, has not established a significance threshold.

California Air Resources Board
CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing its own air quality legislation, the CCAA, adopted in 1988. CARB was created in 1967 from the merging of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board and the Bureau of Air Sanitation and its Laboratory.

The CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and mai ntain the NAAQS established by the USEPA. Whereas the CARB has primary responsibility and produces a major part of the SIP for pollution sources that are statewide in scope, it relies on the local air districts to provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. The CARB combines its data with all local district data and submits the completed SIP to the USEPA. The SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources and consumer products set by the CARB, and attainment plans adopted by APCDs and AQMDs and approved by CARB.

States may establish their own standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established the CAAQS pursuant to HSC Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes.

HSC Section 39608 requires that CARB “identify” and “classify” each air basin in the state on a pollutant - by-pollutant basis. Subsequently, CARB designated areas in California as nonattainment based on violations 1183
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-65
of the CAAQSs. Designations and classifica tions specific to the SJVAB can be found in the next section of this document. Areas in the state were also classified based on severity of air pollution problems. For each nonattainment class, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted. For all nonattainment categories, attainment plans are required to demonstrate a five percent-per-year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three -year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. In addition, air districts in violation of CAAQS are required to prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan that lays out a program to attain and maintain the CCAA mandates.

Other duties of CARB include monitoring air quality, which has established and maintains, in conjunction with local APCDs and AQMDs, and SLAMS network, which monitor the present pollutant levels in the ambient air.

California Attorney General
The Attorney General has a special role in protecting the environ ment and public health in California. By law, the Attorney General has independent authority, acting directly in the name of the People, "to act to protect the natural resources of the State of California from pollution, impairment, or destruction." The Attorney General plays a leading role in the oversight and enforcement of CEQA and the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). The Attorney General also prosecutes civil and criminal violations of environmental laws in the name of the People of the State of California and on behalf of client agencies.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix F: Energy Conservation
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines describes the types of information and analyses related to energy conservation that are to be in cluded in the EIR process. Energy conservation is described in terms of decreasing per capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. To assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, EIRs must include a discussion of the potentially significant energy impacts of Projects (to the extent relevant and applicable to the Project), with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Executive Order S-3-05: Executive Order S-3-05 was established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006.

Executive Order S-3-05 establishes statewide emission reduction targets through the year 2050:
• by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

This Executive Order does not include any specific requirements that pertain to the Project. However, actions taken by the State to implement these goals may affect the Project, depending on the specific implementation measures that are developed.

Senate Bill 1368: Senate Bill 1368 (SB 1368) was enacted in 2006 and required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a CO 2 emissions standard for base load generation owned by or under long-term contract with publicly owned utilities. The CPUC established a GHG Emissions Performance 1184
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Pearl Woods Subdivision
April 2023 4-66
Standard (EPS) of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. SB 1368 also requires the posting of notices of public deliberations by publicly owned companies on the CPUC website and establishes a process to determine compliance with the EPS. The Project, as a renewable energy generation facility, is determined by rule to comply with the GHG Emission Performance Standard requirements of SB 1368.

Assembly Bill 32: California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, codified at HSC Sections 38500-38599). AB 32 establishes re gulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction would be accomplished by enforcing a statewide cap on GHG emissions that would be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

Visalia City CouncilJuly 17, 2023

Visalia City Council
July 17, 2023