Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, October 2, 2023 (part 3 of 5)

6.7 OTHER OPEN SPACES

6.7.1 Community Sports
The Carleton Acres Open Space Plan aims to collaborate with the school district to establish an agreement that allows community access to school play fields outside of school hours. This arrangement will provide opportunities for various programs and activities, such as sports events that may utilize baseball, football, or soccer fields, fostering a sense of community engagement and encouraging active recreational opportunities for residents beyond regular school hours.

6.7.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The pedestrian and bicycle circulation within Carleton Acres plays a crucial role in connecting various components of the community.

Some streets in the project incorporate a dedicated bike lane adjacent to the curb. Many streets incorporate a dedicated bike path adjacent to the sidewalk for safety from traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists. Sidewalks are positioned on both sides of streets, facilitating safe access throughout the entire community. Moreover, 644
Page | 98
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 the Modoc Greenway will offer a pedestrian and bicycle path along the bioswales, further promoting active transportation options and enhancing the overall connectivity and accessibility within Carleton Acres. See Figure 2.D and 3.B.

6.8 SITE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
This section defines the basic character and design standards for all open spaces in Carleton Acres. The improvements by
Developers/Builders shall apply the standards to their designs.

6.8.1 Site Landscape Standards
 Each landscape and open space within Carleton Acres should incorporate a unifying theme, contributing to a cohesive and harmonious community design.
 Trees should serve the dual purpose of providing shade to protect from the sun and defining the outdoor spaces within the community.
 Landscape elements at the edges and buffer areas to
enhance the project's visual appeal and create a sense of privacy. Landscaping should play a significant role in defining smooth transitions between adjacent land uses, ensuring a harmonious coexistence within the community.
 The landscaping of open spaces should enhance the
architecture and contribute to the overall aesthetic and appeal of the development.
 Arbors, trellises, and other elements may be incorporated to enrich the pedestrian experience and add to the overall ambiance of the community.
 Off-street parking along streets should be screened with trees and shrubs.
 The placement of trees and plants should not interfere with lighting, fire hydrants or fire alarm boxes.

6.8.2 Off-Street Parking
The City of Visalia’s Zoning Ordinance shall be used to determine required parking for each Commercial use. The following standards apply to landscaping of off-street parking at Commercial uses.  Shade trees should be distributed throughout the parking area.
 A minimum of 10% of the parking lot with more than 20 parking spaces should be landscaped and maintained. No
more than ten consecutive parking stalls should be allowed without an approved landscape tree well of eighty square feet or more.
 A minimum 5-foot landscape strip should be provided
outside the public right of way along the street frontage perimeter of all proposed parking.
 Parking areas along the public streets or when across from residential property should be screened. A suggestion is a low, evergreen shrub at least 36” in height at two-year growth or a 3-foot tall solid wall.
 No parking should be provided in a required front/rear/side yard. Exception is drive aisles within multi-family density with a min. of 5’ landscape buffer at rear yard.
 All parking lots should be designed to provide a tree canopy to provide shade in the hot seasons and sunlight in the winter months.
645
Page | 99
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 The following standards apply to landscaping of off-street parking at Multi-Family Residential Uses.
 Front carport area should have a 3 to 6-foot tall screening wall.

6.8.3 Service/Loading Area and Trash Enclosures
 Loading and service areas with landscape or architectural elements such as walls should be screened. These areas
should be concealed from the public streets, sidewalks and adjacent buildings.
 Prohibit off-site vehicle loading, design for multiple truck access points.
 Utility and communication equipment should be screened.  Any storage areas should be screened with similar materials as the building and shall complement the design.
 Trash enclosures with solid gates should be screened.  Shopping cart storage areas should be provided.

6.8.4 Wall and Fence Standards
 Use walls and fences for security, visual screening and aesthetic purposes. Water Storage/Recharge Basin should be fenced and only allow access for maintenance purposes.  Walls and fences should be coherent with the architecture of adjacent building.
 Use landscaping to vary walls. Walls should be covered with vine to discourage graffiti and enhance the appearance of fence and/or wall.
 Walls located along arterial or collector streets adjacent to single family residential should be masonry not exceeding 7 feet 4 inches in height.

Figure 6.D
Wall Detail
 Walls located along arterial or collector streets adjacent to multi-family residential should be masonry or wrought iron not exceeding 7 feet 4 inches in height. A pedestrian access should be required if a transit stop is located within ¼ mile.  When commercial use is adjacent to residential a masonry wall not less than 7 feet 4 inches should be required.
 Walls and fences for residential at the front setback should be maximum of 3 feet tall and complement the architecture. 646
Page | 100
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

6.8.5 Paving Design Standards
These standards should be provided for pedestrian pavements on private property that include sidewalks, paths, walkways and plazas.  Slip free surface texture.
 Maintenance-free and/or low maintenance.
 Stain-resistant, fade resistant, non-reflective.

Acceptable paving materials:
 Concrete: Broom, salt, or heavy sandblasted.
 Colored concrete.
 Stamped and saw-cut.

6.8.6 Plant Material and Planting Design
 Provide simple and bold landscape planting designs that incorporate low water and/or drought-tolerant plants that can be maintained easily.
 Landscaping along public streets should blend with the developed parcels.
 Street trees an average of 40 to 50-feet on center along frontages should be provided. All street trees to be a
minimum 15-gallon size. Ground cover to be placed 36” on center maximum spacing.
 All landscape areas should be protected with 6-inch concrete curbs.
 Provide a mix of planting material sizes.
 Select plants suitable to the soil and climatic conditions of the site.
 Use low water and/or drought-tolerant plants to minimize water use.
 Space trees and shrubs considering their mature size.  All landscape improvements should meet the requirements of the City of Visalia.
 See Figure 6.K to 6.O for tree and plant selections
recommended for Carleton Acres.

6.8.7 Irrigation Standards
 Provide adequate irrigation while conserving water. Irrigate all permanently landscaped areas with a permanent
underground irrigation system operated by an automatic
irrigation controller.
 In areas where native or drought-tolerant plants are used a drip irrigation system should be installed.
 Apply irrigation in short intervals to reduce runoff to paved areas.
 Ensure irrigation water is not on walks, driveways, walls, fences and buildings.
 Provide approved backflow preventers on all systems.
 Screen irrigation equipment from public view.
 All irrigation installation shall meet the requirements of the City of Visalia.

6.8.8 Landscape Maintenance Standards
 Maintain all landscape areas including trees, shrubs, ground covers and vines.
 Remove damaged, dead or diseased plants and replace with similar in terms of type, size and location.
 Remove overgrown or oversized plants to keep the area safe.  Prepare and provide maintenance specifications on
landscape plans describing the irrigation, pruning, weeding, fertilizer application and other maintenance items for all landscaped areas.
647
Page | 101
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023  All landscape maintenance shall meet the requirements of the City of Visalia.

6.8.9 Street Furniture
Throughout Carleton Acres, a consistent selection of street furniture items, including street lights, mailboxes, benches, trash receptacles, and more, should be used to establish a unified theme that enhances both pedestrian and vehicular circulation, reinforcing the overall design intent of the community and complementing its landscape theme.

6.9 SIGNAGE STANDARDS

6.9.1 Introduction
All signage must be in conformance with the requirements of the City of Visalia. The Developer/Builder must prepare and submit a signage master plan as part of their submittal package for review and approval by the Architectural Design Committee and the City of Visalia. Permanent and temporary signage with Carleton Acres includes:
 Project Identity: Signs which identity groups of commercial or residential. Design will be similar to pole-mounted and monument signs for private commercial and residential
development.
 On-Building: Building identification signs containing names and/or addresses.
 Public Transportation Signage: Possible bench and shelter signs.
 Ground-Mounted Traffic Control: Stops signs, etc.
 Directional/Wayfinding: Signs on pedestrian and/or
vehicular circulations that assist in reaching particular areas within Carleton Acres.
 Temporary and Advertising Signs: Identification,
construction, advertising, etc.
 Street Signs: Should be located per City requirements.

Carleton Acres signs that are decorative in character and which blend with the architectural style are encouraged.  Regulatory Signs: Should incorporate decorative supports in attractive colors, provided they meet City and County
standards for size, location and design.

6.9.2 Signage Design Theme
The incorporation of design elements reminiscent of cotton hauling wagons and cotton gins adds a nostalgic and authentic touch to the overall landscape of Carleton Acres. The wood fencing design, inspired by cotton hauling wagons, brings a rustic and traditional feel to the community. This design choice not only pays tribute to the area's agricultural past but also contributes to the cohesive theme throughout the development.

Drawing inspiration from the appearance of cotton gins, the use of metal siding and large paned windows in certain structures within Carleton Acres adds an industrial and historical touch. This design element gives a nod to the processing and manufacturing of cotton, which played a crucial role in the region's agricultural history.

Using light-colored stone in the landscape design, akin to the color of white cotton, further reinforces the homage to the crop that once flourished in the area. This choice of stone brings a soft and elegant touch to the surroundings, complementing the other design elements and creating a cohesive and harmonious environment. 648
Page | 102
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 By thoughtfully incorporating these design features that draw inspiration from the cotton industry's history, Carleton Acres creates a unique and evocative atmosphere that celebrates the region's agricultural heritage. The landscape and architectural choices intertwine with the community's identity, fostering a sense of pride and appreciation for the land's past while creating a beautiful and inviting place to call home.

6.9.3 General Signage Standards
All signage within Carleton Acres must adhere to a high level of design quality and consistency with the architectural and landscape character of the community. This includes ensuring that signage materials, scale, size, placement, integration with building design, texture, color, and illumination align harmoniously with the overall building and site design, contributing to a cohesive and visually appealing environment.

Traffic control signs in public streets should conform to the City of Visalia Standards.

The Carleton Acres logo and typestyle should be used uniformly on all public area signs.

C – Gabriola
A – Swiss721 Lt Bt
arleton cres – Bell MT
Freestanding Monument Signs are encouraged because of the eyelevel low horizontal information.

6.9.4 Residential Entrance Signs:

Residential entrance signs should continue the theme of Carleton Acres. Conceptual designs are shown in Figure 6.E and 6.F.  Maximum number of two signs per individual residential entrance.
 Entrance signs may be attached to a wall, fence, or project identification feature located at or within 100 feet of the entrance to a development.
 Signs may be externally or internally illuminated.
 Refer to the City of Visalia’s Sign Ordinance for maximum size and height of signs.

Figure 6.E
Residential Entrance Conceptual Plan
649
Page | 103
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 6.F
Residential Entrance Conceptual Designs
650
Page | 104
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

6.9.5 Monumental/Theme Signs:

To create a cohesive community with a common theme, Carleton Acres will feature a minimum of three monumental/theme signs strategically placed at the following possible locations: Riggin and Roeben, Akers and Shannon Parkway, and Shirk and Shannon Parkway intersections. Additionally, Residential Entrance Signs may also be utilized as Theme sign locations, further reinforcing the community's identity and theme. See Figure 6.G for possible locations and Figure 6.H for conceptual designs.
 Signs may be attached to a wall located at or within 100 feet of the intersection.
 Signs may be externally or internally illuminated.
651
Page | 105
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 6.G
Monumental/Theme Signage
Conceptual Locations
652
Page | 106
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 6.H
Monumental/Theme Signage Conceptual Designs
653
Page | 107
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

6.9.6 Master Sign Program:

Within the City municipal code, a Master Sign Program may be submitted for the design and placement of signs within a project to achieve an overall design and unified appearance. Master Sign Programs may also be used for subdivision projects with a phased development. Minor variations in dimensional standards and other limitations may be approved, to achieve a more superior result. The Sign Program must show:
 Safety of the public is improved by minimizing distractions from sign design and placement.
 The sign design and placement is appropriate for the area.  The sign design and placement is cohesive with the
architecture and landscape.
 The sign design, scale and placement is orientated to pedestrian traffic.

Approval of a Master Sign Program is required by the Planning Commission for residential and commercial projects within Carleton Acres.

The Master Sign Program should include the following:
 Site plan showing the location of signs and/or buildings, parking lots, driveways and landscaped areas.
 A calculation of the maximum total sign area, maximum area for individual signs, height of signs and number of freestanding sign allowed, if proposed.
 Color schemes, lettering and graphic style.
 Lighting and sign construction materials.
 Sign dimensions.
 A written program of standards for all sign types to be distributed to future tenants, including color, size,
illumination, construction detail and sign placement for commercial uses.

Master Sign Programs should demonstrate:
 Signage is in harmony
o Common design elements including materials,
letter style, colors, illumination, type or shape.
o The signage identifies with the building.
o Surrounding land uses and safety is taken into
consideration.
 The proposed signs comply with the City of Visalia’s
Standards except the following:
o Number of signs allowed.
o Location and height of signs.

6.9.7 Commercial Signs
Refer to the City of Visalia’s Sign Ordinance for commercial signs. The Specific Plan does not serve as a Commercial Master Sign Program.

Any future Master Sign Programs should be submitted separately.

See Figure 6.I for possible signage locations. Figure 6.J are conceptual signage designs.
654
Page | 108
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 6.I
Commercial Signage Conceptual Locations
655
Page | 109
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 6.J
Commercial Signage Conceptual Designs
656
Page | 110
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

6.10 EXTERIOR LIGHTING STANDARDS

6.10.1 Introduction
All exterior lighting within Carleton Acres should adhere to the guidelines specified in the separate Exterior Lighting Plan, applicable to both private and public open spaces. The lighting design will prioritize safety and continuity, ensuring it aligns with the overall theme and ambiance of the community.

6.10.2 Lighting Quality
 Architectural lighting should serve to enhance building designs while also providing adequate illumination for
pedestrian safety.
 Illuminate the entrance of buildings and parking areas.  Private development lighting should complement and not conflict with public lighting.
 Special accent lighting may be used on architectural details and signage throughout Carleton Acres.
 Landscape lighting may be used to compliment the open space areas.

6.10.3 Lighting Spillover
 All lighting should be designed and installed so as to prevent any significant direct or indirect light or glare from falling upon any adjacent residential property.
 Parking lot and drive aisle lighting adjacent to residential units or designated properties should consider the use of maximum 15-foot high light poles, with the light element to be completely recessed into the can. A reduction in the height of the light pole will assist in the reduction/elimination of direct and indirect light and glare which may adversely impact adjacent residential areas.
 Building and security lights should be shielded so that the light element is not visible from the adjacent residential properties.
 Service area lighting should be contained within its boundary and enclosure walls with minimal spillover.
 More than 0.5 lumens should not be exceeded at any
property line.

6.10.4 Lighting Type
 Lighting should have a warm appearance and broadcast light over large areas.
 Lighting shall meet all City requirements.

6.10.5 Residential Street Lights
 Details and specifications should be submitted by each neighborhood Builder/Developer to the Architectural Design Committee for approval prior to the start of construction.  Light locations should respect street trees and underground utilities as well as glare into resident’s windows and natural areas.
 The utility coordination plan should show all transformers, traffic signal devices, water meters, utility vaults, gas meters, major drainage structure and street lights.

6.10.6 Secondary Lighting
Low-level landscape lighting is strongly encouraged for all open spaces, pocket parks, entries, and paseos within Carleton Acres to enhance the ambiance. In addition, secondary lighting is necessary to ensure public safety in the neighborhoods. All proposed lighting 657
Page | 111
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 fixtures must undergo a review process by the Architectural Design Committee to ensure they align with the overall design vision of the community.

6.11 LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT DISTRICT
A Landscaping and Lighting Act Assessment District shall be formed, prior to the recordation of a final map. This district will serve the purpose of funding the maintenance of landscaping, fences, and/or walls along the public street frontages and open space areas within the subdivision. Additionally, the district will cover the operational and maintenance costs of street lights within the subdivision and along streets adjacent to the subdivision.

The following areas should be included in the Landscaping and Lighting Act District:
 Park areas surrounding the round-abouts
 Round-abouts
 Pocket parks
 Trail along Modoc Greenway
 Trails along streets
 Bioswales along Modoc
 Trail around basin
 Landscaping adjacent to residential at arterial and collector streets.

7.0 664
Page | 117
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

7.0 Infrastructure

7.1 INTRODUCTION
The infrastructure section discusses the existing conditions and anticipated improvements to circulation and utility systems within the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Each Builder/Developer shall be responsible for the infrastructure adjacent to their proposed development project. The single family residential has been phased (see Figure 2.C.) with consideration for fire access as development progresses.

7.2 CIRCULATION MASTER PLAN

7.2.1 Objectives
The Circulation Master Plan for Carleton Acres aims to promote a well-designed community with various transportation options. By integrating an interconnected network of streets, trails, and bike paths, the plan encourages safe and efficient movement for all transportation users, including motorists, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Emphasizing traditional neighborhood design principles, the plan aims to reduce vehicle speeds and minimize conflicts between different transportation modes.

Pursuant to the City of Visalia’s General Plan, the circulation network proposed in the Specific Plan will adhere to the objectives and policies outlined in the City’s Circulation Element. In addition to the Circulation Element, roadway and pathway design standards and dimensions shall comply with standards established by the following:
 City of Visalia Engineering Design and Improvement
Standards (2016)
 City of Visalia Active Transportation Plan (2017)
 City of Visalia Waterway and Trails Master Plan (2010)

7.2.2 Vehicular Circulation
Carleton Acres is bounded by four of the City’s public arterial streets.

Within the Plan Area, local and collector streets of varying design will enable access and traffic distribution throughout the community.

Figure 7.A depicts the hierarchy and location of roadways within Carleton Acres.
665
Page | 118
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.A
Vehicular
Circulation
666
Page | 119
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Arterials
West Riggin Avenue, North Shirk Street (Rd. 92), North Akers Street (Rd 100), and Avenue 320 (Kibler Ave.) are classified as arterial roads in the City’s Circulation Element with a right of way of 110 feet.

Arterials are high-capacity roads that deliver traffic from collector roads to and from freeways or expressways. The arterials may include right-turn and left-turn movements where applicable. Arterial streets are funded by Transportation Impact Fees (TIFs) and the development shall be reimbursed for all street improvements on Riggin, Shirk, Akers, and Ave. 320.

Figure 7.B and 7.C show the cross section and plan view West Riggin Avenue is at the widest point of the median. The raised median will serve as a traffic calming measure and create a distinct separation between travel lanes in both directions. The widening of Riggin includes median and two west bound lanes. The existing travel lanes will be converted to two east bound lanes.

Figure 7.D, 7.E, 7.F and 7.G show the cross section and plan view for North Shirk Street and Avenue 320. Developer to provide 2/3 improvements.

Figure 7.H and 7.I show the cross section and plan view for North Akers Street. The existing Modoc ditch runs along the west side of the street with proposed bioswales and bike trail. Developer to provide 2/3 improvements.

The City of Visalia is undergoing an engineering standard update and transportation impact fee nexus update as of the approval of this Specific Plan. Modifications to lane widths and bike lane configurations may occur at point of development.
667
Page | 120
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.B W. Riggin Ave. Cross Section
Figure 7.C W. Riggin Ave. Plan View
668
Page | 121
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.D N. Shirk St. Cross Section
Figure 7.E N. Shirk St. Plan View
669
Page | 122
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.F Ave. 320 Cross Section
Figure 7.G Ave. 320 Plan View
670
Page | 123
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.H N. Akers St. Cross Section
671
Page | 124
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.I N. Akers St. Plan View
672
Page | 125
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Collectors
Shannon Parkway and North Roeben Street are designated as collectors and serve to connect arterial and local roadways within the Plan Area. Shannon Parkway and Roeben Street will feature two lanes of traffic within an 84 feet right of way. Shannon Parkway will include a median with trees or landscaping to help enhance overall street aesthetic and complement the greenery of Modoc Ditch, which runs along the north edge of the road.

Three roundabouts are proposed along North Roeben Street.

Roundabouts have been proven to improve traffic flow and efficiency while regulating vehicle speeds without requiring drivers to come to a complete stop. The addition of the roundabouts along North Roeben Street will reinforce slower speeds near sensitive land uses, including residential homes and educational facilities. Roundabouts have been requested by the City’s Traffic Department as a way to slow traffic at intersections. Collector streets are TIF funded and the development shall be reimbursed for all street improvements including roundabouts.

Figure 7.J and 7.K show the cross section and plan view for North Roeben Street at the proposed high school. The developer is to provide 2/3 improvements with the remainder to be completed by the school district. At the proposed high school, a raised bike trail shall be provided on the west side of the street. A protected bike lane with buffer and parking adjacent to travel lane is proposed adjacent to the proposed high school. Bike lane transitions would occur at intersections or roundabouts and should be further designed in improvement drawings.

Figure 7.L and 7.M is the cross section and plan view for North Roeben Street south of Ave. 320. A bike lane with buffer is proposed along the travel lanes.

Figure 7.N and 7.O show the cross section and plan view for Shannon Parkway. The developer is to provide 2/3 improvements in Phase 1.

Phase 2 will complete the remainder of the street improvements including the proposed bioswales and bike trail along the north side of the street. 2/3 improvements in Phase 1 allow farming to continue until development is ready in Phase 2.
673
Page | 126
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.J
N. Roeben St. Cross Section at Proposed High School
Figure 7.K N. Roeben St.

Plan View at Proposed High School
674
Page | 127
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.L
N. Roeben St. Cross Section
Figure 7.M
N. Roeben St. Plan View

675
Page | 128
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.N
Shannon Parkway Cross Section at Phase 1 Residential
676
Page | 129
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.O
Shannon Parkway Plan View at Phase 1 Residential
677
Page | 130
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Local Streets
The remaining streets within the Plan Area, including Sedona Avenue, are classified as local and should be developed to residential street standards. Local streets are designed to distribute vehicular traffic from arterial and collector streets and provide direct access to individual parcels. Local streets within the Plan Area should have a right of way width of 60 feet. A roundabout should be located at Sedona Avenue & Denton as well as two more along Pratt Road to enhance traffic flow. See Figures 7.T and U for Conceptual Roundabout Designs. Traffic speed tables should be installed along Sedona Avenue, Pratt Road, and the north/south street that connects Shannon Parkway to Ave. 320. The purpose of the speed tables are to slow traffic for a safer environment.

Figure 7.P and 7.Q show the cross section and plan view for Sedona Avenue, a typical local street with full buildout when single family residential is on both sides of the street.

Figure 7.R and 7.S show the cross section and plan view for a local street with bike and pedestrian trail which are located throughout Carleton Acres.
678
Page | 131
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.P Sedona Ave. Cross Section
Figure 7.Q Sedona Ave. Plan View
679
Page | 132
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.R Local Street with Trail Cross Section
Figure 7.S Local Street with Trail Plan View
680
Page | 133
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.T Conceptual Roundabout Plan Views
681
Page | 134
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.U
Conceptual Roundabout Views
682
Page | 135
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

7.2.3 Pedestrian Circulation
The Carleton Acres Master Plan prioritizes walkability by overlaying walking routes and sidewalks on streets to create a cohesive pedestrian network. Interconnected paths, trails, and sidewalks will promote easy access throughout Carleton Acres and link to existing pedestrian networks in neighboring areas. Shade trees and vegetation along streets and medians will enhance the pedestrian experience. Streetlights will be provided in conformance with City standards to ensure safety and visibility throughout the night. Other amenities like signalized intersections, crosswalks, street furniture, and signage will further contribute to safety, visibility, and neighborhood identity. Refer to Figure 7.V.

7.2.4 Bikeways
A proposed Class I shared path along Modoc Greenway (adjacent to Shannon Parkway) further establishes a multi-modal transportation network within Carleton Acres, and provides an alternative to automobile travel. North Roeben Street includes a Class I bike path from West Riggin Avenue to the future elementary school site. Class I bike paths are paved right of ways for exclusive use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Clusters of trees will line the path to create an aesthetically pleasing environment and provide ample shading for users. The proposed Class I path serves as a recreational and functional way to enhance interconnectivity between existing and proposed schools, residential units, neighborhood shopping centers, and parks.

Class II bike lanes are proposed along North Roeben Street. Class II bike lanes are striped on-street travel lanes exclusively for bicyclists.

Class IV bike lanes are located along arterials on West Riggin Avenue, North Shirk Street, Avenue 320 and North Akers Street. The bike lanes are protected from vehicle traffic by being raised and adjacent to the sidewalk.

The bikeways proposed within Carleton Acres are consistent with future routes established by the City’s ATP. Design standards for the Class I and Class II bikeways will conform with those outlined in the 2010 Waterway Trails Master Plan. Figure 7.V shows the pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the Plan Area.
683
Page | 136
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.V
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
684
Page | 137
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

7.2.5 Parking
Carleton Acres will provide adequate on- and off-street parking to accommodate proposed businesses, motorists, and residents. Onstreet parking will be included throughout the Plan Area to provide short-term parking needs. On-street parking also doubles as a protective barrier between vehicular traffic and pedestrians. Offstreet parking within the Plan Area should be consistent with offstreet parking requirements listed in Section 17.34.020 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance:

Commercial Parking:

Section 17.34.020 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires general shopping centers to provide one parking space for each two hundred and twenty-five square feet of building area. Retail food markets, such as grocery stores, must provide one parking space for each five hundred square feet of building area.

Residential Parking:

Carleton Acres promotes a mix of land uses and incorporates a variety of housing densities ranging from single-family villages to multi-family dwellings. According to the City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance, single-family dwellings require two parking spaces (one covered) per unit, and multi-family dwellings require 1.5 parking spaces per unit. An additional .25 spaces will be required for multifamily dwellings when more than fifty percent of the units are dedicated as three- or four-bedroom units.

Educational Facilities:

The Carleton Acres Plan Area includes an existing middle school, a planned high school, and a future elementary school. Pursuant to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, elementary and middle schools require two parking spaces for each classroom. The planned high school will require one parking space for each employee, as well as an additional seven parking spaces for each classroom.

7.2.6 Public Transportation
Two policies outlined in the City’s General Plan (T-P-33 and T-P-34) highlight establishing transit stops for major commercial and residential areas along with the design and development standards for transit service in the community. The City’s Active Transportation Plan is the integration of pedestrian and bicycle facilities with public transit as a primary objective. To adhere to the goals set out by these plans and increase the availability and use of transit, Carleton Acres proposes a minimum of three new bus stops to support public transit services. As shown in See Figure 7.A, two transit stops are proposed on Avenue 320 and one is proposed on W. Riggin Avenue. The proposed bus stops and public transit routes will be operated by Visalia Transit (VT). The bus stops should include a shelter to provide adequate shading, seating, and clear signage.
685
Page | 138
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

7.3 GRADING MASTER PLAN

7.3.1 Existing Conditions
Ridgeview Middle School is the only existing structure adjacent to the Plan Area. The remainder of the project site is undeveloped.

7.3.2 Proposed Conditions
Development within the Plan Area shall comply with grading requirements as described in the City Municipal Code to minimize the potential for erosion, landslides, and other forms of land disturbance.

7.4 DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN

7.4.1 Existing Conditions
Ridgeview Middle School, is currently supported by existing storm mains that run beneath N. Akers Street and Sedona, which carry runoff via a network of pipes and catch basins.

7.4.2 Proposed Conditions
The storm drainage system for Carleton Acres will be designed in compliance with City standards to help minimize the impact of the proposed development. The Plan Area will discharge stormwater runoff through proposed storm drain lines that connect to a proposed 36-inch storm drain trunk line and appurtenances along Sedona and Pratt. A minimum 48-inch diameter storm drain pipeline and appurtenances shall be installed at N. Shirk Street consistent with the City’s storm drainage master plan requirements. All drainage, including the proposed storm drain lines, will be directed to the recharge basin proposed in the Plan Area. Refer to Figure 7.W Storm Drain Master Plan.

Stormwater
The stormwater drainage system for the Project will be designed in compliance with City standards to ensure adequate facilities to serve the Project. The Project will discharge stormwater runoff through a proposed storm drain system that drains into a proposed drainage basin onsite. The basin design is based on a 10 year, 10 day storm event.

The proposed basin location is in the lowest elevation of the Project site and is in the natural drainage/low area of the development. This allows for natural stormwater runoff. The basin is approximately 17.3 gross acres, 11.4 net acres, with a capacity of 93.29 acre/feet. The

93.29 acre/feet of capacity is in excess of the 90.80 acre/feet of storage capacity that would be required by the Project. The basin will be 10’ deep with 3:1 side slopes. Refer to Figure 7.X Storm Drain Basin Calculations. Half of the basin is proposed to be completed for Phase 1 while construction is underway for development in Phase

1. In addition to serving the proposed development, the basin will be designed to accommodate storm drainage for the existing Ridgeview Middle School, the proposed High School, future elementary school, and future City facilities at the intersection of N. Akers Street and W.

Riggin Avenue. A bioswale will be used to collect storm water from developments adjacent to the existing Modoc Ditch. The bioswale shall be connected to the proposed basin by culverts. The location of the bioswale adjacent to the bike path trail will enhance the landscape space.
686
Page | 139
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 As mentioned above, the Water Storage/Recharge Basin location is within Phase 2 but will be partially built for the use of Phase 1.

Native vegetation and a trail around the basin will enhance the area. The existing middle school currently drains to a temporary basin located to the West of the school.

Bioswales
The proposed bioswales north of Shannon Parkway and Modoc Ditch, as well as west of N. Akers Street and Modoc Ditch, will serve as stormwater drainage systems for the northeast portion of the development. Runoff from the streets will be directed to the bioswales through gutters or pipes, and storm drains will discharge into the bioswales using bubble up drains/inverse siphons. These bioswales will be 18' wide and 4' to 5' deep, connecting to the proposed basin through culverts. The design details of the bioswales will be further developed in improvement drawings as the project progresses, potentially involving multiple developers during various phases of construction. The Lighting and Landscape District would maintain the bioswales.
687
Page | 140
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.W
Storm Drain Master Plan
688
Page | 141
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.X
Storm Drain Basin Calculations
689
Page | 142
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

7.5 WATER MASTER PLAN

7.5.1 Existing Conditions
The City of Visalia’s water is supplied by California Water Service Company (Cal Water). The City’s source of water comes from 75 active supply wells that extract groundwater from the Kaweah Groundwater Sub-basin. The water is distributed over 519 miles of pipelines. Water is currently supplied to Ridgeview Middle School as well as properties surrounding the Plan Area via existing water mains.

7.5.2 Proposed Conditions
Water will be supplied to the Plan Area by Cal Water. Carleton Acres will require the extension of pipelines to accommodate future growth, including the installation of 12” mains to connect to the Project Area. A 12” main on N. Akers Street will be extended north of the Ridgeview Middle School. A 12” main on N. Shirk Street will be extended from W. Riggin Avenue. Major streets around the property will require a 12” main, and interior streets will require an 8” main.

Fire hydrants will be located every 600 feet of linear residential and 500 feet of linear commercial. The water distribution system within Carleton Acres is shown in Figure 7.Y.
690
Page | 143
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.Y
Water Infrastructure Master Plan
691
Page | 144
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

7.6 SEWER MASTER PLAN

7.6.1 Existing Conditions
Wastewater generated in the City of Visalia is treated by the City’s Water Conservation Plant (WCP) located west of Highway 99 and south of Highway 198. Ridgeview Middle School is the only existing structure adjacent to the Plan Area. Existing 8” sewer mains running along N. Akers Street and Sedona provide sewer service to the school.

7.6.2 Proposed Conditions
Sewer/wastewater generated in Carleton Acres will be treated by the City’s Water Conservation Plant. The Project proposes to install and extend all City master planned sewer lines to the extent determined by the City Engineer per development phasing plans. The northeast portion of the development shall tie in with the existing 15” sewer main at N. Akers Street. The high density south of the proposed high school shall tie in with the existing 8” sewer main at Sedona. The remainder of the proposed development will tie in with the existing 42” sewer main at the intersection of W. Riggin Avenue and N. Shirk Street. A minimum 10” sanitary sewer main and appurtenances will be extended along Pratt, Shannon Parkway, and Sedona. A 36” sanitary sewer line is proposed along Avenue 320. (See Figure 7.Z.) The extension of sewer mains shall comply with the standards established in the City’s sewer and storm master plan. Oversizing shall be reimbursed by the City. The design details including the sewer crossing Modoc ditch will be further developed in improvement drawings as the project progresses.
692
Page | 145
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Figure 7.Z
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
693
Page | 146
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

7.7 ELECTRICAL MASTER PLAN 7.7.1 Existing Conditions Electricity in Visalia is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Current electrical lines run beneath and overhead along major arterials and collectors adjacent to the Plan Area and provide electricity to Ridgeview Middle School and surrounding neighborhoods. Along the north side of W. Riggin Street 19 power poles of Southern California Edison will have to be relocated to accommodate the street future widening/dedication. 7.7.2 Proposed Conditions Electricity will continue to be provided to the Plan Area by SCE via the extension of existing electrical lines. 12kB backbone lines are proposed along arterial and collector streets with the exception of Avenue 320. 6.9kV circuit ties will extend from the backbone lines throughout all the local streets. New electrical distribution lines will be placed underground in accordance with City utility standards and regulations. 7.8 GAS MASTER PLAN 7.8.1 Existing Conditions Natural gas in Visalia is provided by SoCal Natural Gas / Sempra Energy. Transmission lines surrounding the Plan Area deliver natural gas to Ridgeview Middle School and adjacent properties. 7.8.2 Proposed Conditions Land development for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan will include residential and commercial uses. New construction and expansion of the natural gas distribution system will require coordination with SoCal Gas / Sempra Energy. 694
Implementation

8. 0
695
Page | 147
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

8.0 Implementation:

8.1 INTRODUCTION
The implementation of the Carleton Acres Specific Plan is a collaborative effort involving the City of Visalia, Master Developer, Builder/Developers, and other stakeholders. This process ensures that the standards and vision outlined in the plan are applied appropriately. The plan, including graphic illustrations, text, and development and design standards, will be carefully processed and reviewed to ensure consistency with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This comprehensive approach ensures that Carleton Acres will be developed in line with its vision, creating a well-designed and cohesive community.

8.1.1 Application
Carleton Acres Specific Plan applies to all lands within the Specific Plan Area boundaries shown in Figure 2.C. All developments within the Specific Plan Boundaries must be consistent with the Specific Plan and the City of Visalia’s General Plan and must be approved and permitted by the City of Visalia. Within the Specific Plan area, the Regulations of this Specific Plan shall control the development. The graphic illustrations are intended only to illustrate particular applications. The exact location of streets, utilities, and boundaries of development will be determined by the approval of subdivision maps. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Phase 1 single family residential and Commercial Tentative Map will be processed alongside this Specific Plan as well as other necessary entitlements.

The City of Visalia will be responsible for plan-check, inspection, and occupancy release.

8.2 PURPOSE
 To assure that all projects within Carleton Acres are consistent with the planning and design intent guidelines and standards of this Specific Plan as well as the standards of the City of Visalia.
 To create a fair, simple, and efficient process that assures that all project needs are met while following the Specific Plan.
 To specify land uses and development guidelines that relate to the City of Visalia General Plan.
 To provide an efficient project review and approval process with the City of Visalia.

8.3 RESPONSIBILITES

8.3.1 Master Developer Responsibilities
The Master Developer shall participate in the approval of this Specific Plan document, EIR and other studies, Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map (Phase 1 Single Family), Commercial Tentative Map and Annexation.

The Master Developer is responsible for the construction of the water/storage recharge basin.

8.3.2 Builder/Developer Responsibilities
Each Builder/Developer is responsible for the construction of the following items within the Builder/Developer’s property:
 Streets, all utilities (including gas, electric, water, sewer, drainage and communication lines) and landscaping in the public right-of-way.
696
Page | 148
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023  Landscape and hardscape included within the pedestrian circulation, any parks or open space, lighting and directional signage.
 Identification & directional signage.
 Modoc Greenway Trail, where applicable.

8.3.3 City Responsibilities
The City of Visalia staff, Planning Commission and City Council shall collaborate with the Master Developer on the approval of the Specific Plan and other necessary approvals. Please see below items in Section 8.4.1. The City pre-adoption of this Specific Plan and EIR reduces the time required to obtain City approvals for individual projects within Carleton Acres Specific Plan. The City of Visalia will also determine that projects comply with the Carleton Acres Specific Plan based on the vision and guidelines within this Plan.

8.4 APPROVALS

8.4.1 Specific Plan Approvals
Along with this Specific Plan below are other necessary approvals including the following:
 Certification of the Carleton Acres Environmental Impact Report
 Approval of Final Specific Plan and Amendments, if necessary  Approval of a General Plan Amendment
 Approval of Zone Changes
 Approval of a Tentative Tract Map (Phase 1 Single Family)  Approval of Commercial Tentative Map
 Approval of a Master Development Agreement between
Developer and the City of Visalia

8.4.2 Individual Project Development Approvals
For individual Project Developments within Carleton Acres, Builders/Developers require following approvals. See Section 8.5.3 for more information.
 Approval of Lot Line Adjustment to reflect the various stages of the Project
 Approval of Site Plan Review and/or Tentative Subdivision Map, if applicable
 Approval of Conditional Use Permit Application, if applicable  Amendments to the Specific Plan, if necessary
 Approval of Final Subdivision Map, if applicable
 Approval with Building Department and other Departments for Building Permits

8.4.3 Other Public Agencies Approval and Consultation
The Project will require various permits and/or entitlements from regulatory agencies. Consultation may be required and the City of Visalia will integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review requirements. These may include, but not be limited to the following:
 Tulare County LAFCO (annexation)
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – approval of construction and/or operational air quality permits
 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
 Regional Water Quality Control Board
697
Page | 149
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023

8.5 PROJECT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
The Specific Plan is a collaboration between Master Developer and the City of Visalia. The Plan is a clear vision for the community and ensures the quality of future growth in the City.

The City of Visalia recognizes that Carleton Acres will be built as multiple projects. This allows each project to meet market realities.

The City pre-adoption of this Specific Plan and EIR reduces the time required to obtain City approvals for individual projects within Carleton Acres Specific Plan.

8.5.1 Project and Subdivision Map Approval Process
A “project” is defined in this Section as a development of new commercial, residential or institutional buildings within the Specific Plan area. Any project on non-public land within Carleton Acres must be reviewed and approved by the City of Visalia. These approvals will ensure that each project will be consistent with the Specific Plan and 2030 General Plan. The project approval process of Carleton Acres Specific Plan is designed to require the minimum time and complexity with assuring that each development project meet Specific Plan requirements. A Tentative Subdivision Map, if applicable, for each project must be reviewed and approved by the City. This review and approval process utilizes established City of Visalia procedures.

Allowed Uses in Section 2 notes Permitted and Conditional-Use Permitted project types. Conditional-Use Permitted projects shall require approval from the Planning Commission.

8.5.2 Interpretations and Amendments
The implementation of this Specific Plan will take place over a course of several years. Deviations of project features from the original Specific Plan may emerge during the implementation phase. In order to account for these changes, authorized Interpretations, Adjustments, Minor Amendments, and Major Amendments to the Specific Plan may result.

Interpretations
The City of Visalia, the General Plan, and other City of Visalia planning documents and policies hold the responsibility for interpreting the provisions outlined in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. In cases where any ambiguity arises, the City will resolve it in a manner consistent with the established goals and objectives of this document.

Interpretations may be required for decisions related to discretionary development applications, subdivision maps, and building permits.

During the interpretation process, the City's approving authority will consult with relevant City departments that may be impacted by the decision to ensure a comprehensive and informed resolution.

Adjustments
Adjustments within the Carleton Acres Specific Plan pertain to minor modifications that align with the plan's original intent. These changes may be required during the final design and engineering phase, such as shifts in roadway alignments, utility locations, infrastructure adjustments, density transfers, lot sizes, and site development dimensions, which are deemed as minor. The City of Visalia holds the authority to make these adjustments through an administrative review process to ensure compliance with both City regulations and the overall intent of the Specific Plan.

Amendments
Amendments refer to substantial changes to specific features of the Carleton Acres Specific Plan, and usually involve deviations from the 698
Page | 150
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 original intent of the Specific Plan or General Plan. Amendments are permitted to the Specific Plan and include significant changes that are not interpretations or adjustments. Amendments may include an increase or decrease in number of total lots by more than 20%, as well as a change in the configuration of the Plan Area’s zoning.

Amendments must be reviewed and approved by the City Council.

Other amendments shall be deemed as Major Amendments and will require the review and approval by the City.

EIR
The processes involved with implementing the Specific Plan will be subject to environmental review, including an EIR for this project.

Interpretations, Adjustments, and Amendments that are consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan may result in an environmental determination of “categorically exempt” since the EIR has covered all the potential environmental issues within the Plan area. Additional environmental review may be necessary for Major Amendments to the Specific Plan including instances where a previously unknown environmental resource is found on the site, or surrounding conditions are significantly altered since the certification of the EIR.

If this occurs, the Lead Agency may prepare an Addendum or Supplement to the EIR, or a subsequent comprehensive or focused EIR to address these findings.

8.5.3 Approval Process for Individual Projects:

1. Initial Meeting with the City:

This meeting or series of meetings provides the
Builder/Developer with information needed to prepare for a project submittal with Standards from this Specific Plan. This meeting will determine if the use is allowed or Conditional-Use Permit will be required. The City shall also determine items to be included for Site Plan Review and procedures for the review process. The Builder/Developer reviews the vision and
guidelines of the Specific Plan and required documents for Architectural Board review (see Section 8.5.6.)

2. Site Plan Review:

The Builder/Developer prepares and submits an application to the City of Visalia for review.

3. Site Plan City Review:

At this time the City will determine if the project is in compliance, requires adjustments to the Specific Plan or if an Amendment to the Specific Plan is required. The City will review to ensure the project complies with the Specific Plan’s land use, density, parking and other development standards.

If the City finds that the project is in compliance, the Builder/Developer shall submit information to the
Architectural Board. The board reviews the project to be compliant with the vision and guidelines of the Specific Plan.

The Builder/Developer is responsible for revising the project plans to reflect the comments.

Items being reviewed by the City and Architectural Board:
 That all applicable design standards of the Carleton
Acres Specific Plan are complied with.
 The location of structures, landscaping and
pedestrian paths support the community.
 That onsite circulation and driveway locations are
adequate and safe for pedestrians and vehicular
699
Page | 151
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 circulation. Minimize traffic conflicts and
congestion.
 That the proposed development is quality and
preserves privacy for residential users.
 That the architectural style and design of the project shall contribute to the overall design quality and
character of the Specific Plan.

4. Application for Project Approval:

The Builder/Developer prepares a revised project design based on comments from Site Plan Review and Architectural Board. The signage plan is also included at this time. If an Amendment to the Specific Plan or Conditional Use Permit is required staff shall prepare a report for review and approval from Planning Commission and, if required, City Council.

5. Project Approval:

The Builder/Developer then prepares construction
documents meeting the City of Visalia requirements while also incorporating comments and/or conditions from Site Plan Review and/or Planning Commission and City Council.

Construction documents shall also be submitted to the
Architectural Board for final approval.

6. Building Permit:

The Builder/Developer submits the construction documents meeting all Specific Plan, City of Visalia and other required information to the Visalia Building Department for the
necessary approval.

8.5.4 Street Approval
All Visalia streets including those within this Specific Plan must be approved by the City. Discussions have been made with the City concerning the cross sections in this document. Any changes from this document will have to be reviewed by the City.

8.5.5 Signage Approval
All submittals to the City shall be consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan. Preliminary signage plans shall be submitted to the City and Architecture Board. Final signage shall incorporate comments and be submitted to the City when construction documents are submitted for building permit.

8.5.6 Architectural Board Approval
Introduction
Carleton Acres will be built by different Builder/Developers. The Architectural Board ensures that the design intent meets the Specific Plan requirements. Before approval with the City, approval is required by the Architectural Board. Drawings must be submitted demonstrating design compliance for all projects located in Carleton Acres. The Architectural Board shall have the powers to review, approve, deny or amend all plans and specificationsfor all structures, landscaping and exterior designs submitted to the Committee. All actions of the Committee shall be taken by vote or written consent of a majority of the Committee Members.

Membership of the Architectural Board
The Architectural Board Initial Board Members shall be Dave Crinklaw, Eric Shannon, Gary Artis, Sandra Staats and Michelle Huerta.
700
Page | 152
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Future Membership of the Architectural Board
The Architectural Board Future Members shall be appointed by the existing members by 50% vote. There shall be a minimum of three and a maximum of five board members.

Required Submission of Plans
No parcel subject to the Specific Plan shall be graded and no building, wall, structure, or landscaping of any kind shall be commenced, erected or maintained on any parcel and exterior addition to any structure on a parcel shall be made until the construction documents and specifications have been submitted to the Architectural Board and thereafter approved in writing. The Architectural Board shall have 30 days after the submission of plans and specificationsin which to approve or disapprove proposed improvements. The failure of the Architectural Board to act within the 30-day period shall constitute approval of the proposed improvements.

Architectural Board approval letter is required by the City before issuances of permit.

Disapproval of Plans
The Architectural Board shall disapprove of any structure that does not meet the development standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan. The Architectural Board shall disapprove any grading plan which is not in conformance with the final parcel map.

Landscaping
The building plan submittal shall also include detailed landscape plans designating the type and location of all landscaping and irrigation to be installed. Every site within Carleton Acres shall be landscaped and maintained. The Architectural Board shall have the right to disapprove any proposed landscaping or fencing which the Board considers incompatible with the overall development of parcels within Carleton Acres. Upon such disapproval, the Owner of the parcel shall prepare and submit to the Architectural Board an alternative landscaping and fencing plan for its review and approval.

No Owner shall install any landscaping, plants, irrigation or similar improvements on any parcel subject to this Declaration without the prior written approval of the Board as required herein.

The property Owner, lessee or occupant shall landscape and maintain unpaved areas between the property lines, including any area, public utility easement and the setback lines.

The property Owner, lessee or occupant shall provide facilities adequate to sustain and maintain the landscaped areas. Such facilities are to be adequately screened.

Approved landscaping shall be installed at completion of the building.

Fencing improvements, as approved by the Architectural Board, shall be installed concurrently with the installation of landscaping improvements for the parcel.

Except as approved by the Architectural Board no excavation shall be made except in connection with the construction of an improvement and upon completion thereof exposed opening shall be backfilled and disturbed ground shall be graded and leveled.

Interpretation
In addition to the powers and duties specified in this Section, the Architectural Board shall have the right to interpret, adjust or modify each provision or restriction contained in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan.
701
Page | 153
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023 Neither the Architectural Board or its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Section. The Architectural Board is not responsible for any structural defects in submitted plans or specification for any building or structure erected according to such plans or specifications.

The Architectural Board shall not be liable in damages to anyone submitting plans and specification for approval, or to any Owner or lessee of any part of Carleton Acres Specific Plan, by reason of mistake in judgement, negligence or nonfeasance arising out of or in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve any such plans and specifications. Every person who submits plans and specifications to the Architectural Board agrees, by submission thereof, and every Owner or lessee of any part of the Subject Property agrees, by acquiring title thereto or interest therein, that he will not bring any action or suit against the Architectural Board or the Declarant to recover any such damages.

8.5.7 Other Approval Items
General Plan Amendment
Adoption of amendments to the 2030 General Plan or a General Plan Update by the City will not require amendment to the Specific Plan.

Any amendment to the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan except in matters in which the Developer/Applicant shall possess vested rights under the terms of a Development Agreement entered into between the Developer/Applicant and the City.

Environmental
The City of Visalia has certified the Project Environment Impact Report in association with approval of the Carleton Acres Specific Plan.

Temporary Uses
The following are temporary uses permitted within Carleton Acres.

Residential Land Use:
 Construction signs.
 Sales or rental offices.
 Subdivision model homes and related facilities.
 Temporary construction yards and offices.
 Youth, charitable or nonprofit organization projects.  Other temporary uses that the Development Director has determined to be compatible with the land use.

Commercial Land Use (may be subject to a Temporary Conditional Use Permit):
 Temporary uses listed in residential land use above.
 Christmas tree lots.
 Grand opening signs, banners and other similar temporary signage.
 Outdoor concerts.
 Outdoor sales.
 Other temporary uses that the Development Director has determined to be compatible with the land use.

Open Space, School and Public Facilities Land Use:
 Subdivision signs.
702
Page | 154
Carleton Acres Specific Plan_________________________________________________________________________ 08-29-2023  Temporary construction yards and offices.
 Youth, charitable or nonprofit organization projects.  Other temporary uses that the Development Director has determined to be compatible with the land use.

8.6 DEVELOPMENT PHASES
The Carleton Acres Specific Plan will be divided into two phases for development. Development is expected to begin in 2023 and completed approximately 2043.

Phase 1
Phase 1 consists of development in the southern half of the Specific Plan Area, which includes street and infrastructure improvements, pedestrian paths and bikeways, low to high density residential units, neighborhood parks, and commercial mixed-use. Partial
construction of the Water Storage/Recharge Basin for Phase 1 use.

Low Density Residential housing will be constructed first. Proceeding into Phase 2 is only determined by the completion of Low Density Residential. It is not dependent on the completion of Medium and High Density Residential or Commercial uses. Phase 2 would begin construction according to the Development Agreement.

Phase 2
Phase 2 consists of the remainder of the proposed Specific Plan, which encompasses additional street and infrastructure
improvements, pedestrian paths and bikeways, low to high density residential units, neighborhood commercial, neighborhood parks, Water Storage/Recharge Basin, Modoc Greenway, and future elementary school.

8.7 PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING
The Specific Plan Area will be supported by the development and expansion of new and existing infrastructure systems. Project Builder/Developers shall be responsible for public improvements, such as the installation and extension of curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, and other similar features. The Specific Plan will be subject to development impact fees to support the expansion of public facilities. Impact fees shall be paid before the issuance of building permits. Installation of infrastructure including streets and dry and wet utility lines will be completed by the builder/developer and dedicated to the City as applicable. Arterial streets will be funded through the City’s Capital Improvement Projects and Transportation Impact Fees. Collector streets shall be funded through the City’s Transportation Impact Fee program. When a City Park or trail is constructed by a Builder/Developer the City shall reimburse or provide credit for park fees.

8.7.1 Landscaping and Lighting Act District
A Landscaping and Lighting Act Assessment District shall be formed, as mentioned in Section 6.11, prior to the final map of the individual project being recorded. The purpose is for the maintenance along public frontages and open spaces within a subdivision. The maintenance includes landscaping, fences and/or walls, and the operational and maintenance of street lights within the subdivision and the abutting streets.

The Landscape and Lighting Act District shall include the provisions for the City to collect payment from the subdivider to cover the estimated cost to operate and maintain the improvements of the District prior to assessments occurring on the property tax roll. 703
The design of Carleton Acres will not only be aesthetically pleasing but also serve as a special tribute to the land's rich agricultural history and Carleton Shannon's enduring legacy of farming passion. The thoughtful integration of design elements will create a unique and meaningful connection to the past, celebrating the community's heritage while providing a vibrant and inviting environment for residents to call home. 704
705
57' 50' 50' 50' 15'
92' 122' 60'
74' 79' 79' 78' 45' 30'
5250 S.F.
296 95'
14'
5380 S.F.
309
98'
40' 15'
75'
5 4' 5 4'
31'
5 4' 5 4'
65' 5 4' 5 4'
24' 5 4' 5 4'
42' 50' 14'
9' 95'
55' 51' 6'
7647 S.F.
277
44'
24' 9' 46' 41' 35' 24' 53' 62' 6' 14'
12322 S.F.
291 105'
65' 50'
7213 S.F.
289
9626 S.F.
290
142'
113'
6120 S.F.
314
6778 S.F.
317
6881 S.F.
320
5781 S.F.
355
95'
46 14'
' 57' 57' 57' 107'
42' 19' 7'
3' 55'
96' 39' 5' 55'
107' 38'
94' 14'
50' 51' 30' 16'
57' 32' 25'
57' 63' 57' 14'
100'
61' 60' 60'
5706 S.F.
332
49' 16'
50' 50' 28' 22' 53'
27' 94' 14' 43' 53'
49' 49'
5 4' 20'
45'
30' 5 4'
14'
89' 6 4'
100'
60' 52' 52'
10' 40'
5238 S.F.
325
13' 68' 5250 S.F.
324
4' 5250 S.F.
323 47' 50'
105'
105'
5250 S.F.
322
105' 50' 50'
105'
5278 S.F.
321 50'
105'
105'
105'
105' 50' 10' 40'
17' 51' 50' 51' 1' 5831 S.F.
354 38' 107' 55' 55' 42' 105'
50' 55' 19'
51' 56' 31' 7'
12' 9'
6624 S.F.
34 8953 S.F.
276
7958 S.F.
265
9341 S.F.
198
9655 S.F.
201
8790 S.F.
197
9800 S.F.
192
105'
14' 55' 60' 60' 47' 13'
90'
70'
70'
27'
46'
32' 71'
73' 23' 70' 60' 14'
72'
14' 103' 71'
32' 43' 75' 36' 39' 75' 3 4'
7' 34' 38' 14' 110'
88' 85'
75' 75' 71' 60' 70' 102'
14'
87' 75' 50' 41' 60' 60' 50'
14' 112' 60' 60' 60'
5737 S.F.
45 105'
50' 50' 50'
65' 63' 66'
50' 5441 S.F.
44105'
50' 51' 105'
5394 S.F.
43105'
50' 50' 105'
64' 6 4'
50' 5434 S.F.
42105'
52' 14' 105'
7 4 7 4' '
95'
5353 S.F.
41105'
10'
105'
5394 S.F.
45' 21' 35 10'
102'
14'
30'
58' 65'
105'
9720 S.F.
160
112'
85'
102'
7837 S.F.
159
14'
63' 112'
7842 S.F.
158
43' 27'
112'
8155 S.F.
157
70'
112'
112'
8808 S.F.
156
70'
76'
73' 75'
9467 S.F.
191 112'
88' 85' 110'
10385 S.F.
193
70'
14' 23' 38'
9962 S.F.
194
8298 S.F.
195
5 4'
66' 115'
6093 S.F.
196
112'
7800 S.F. 112' 200
7840 S.F. 112' 199 105' 100'
7868 S.F.
207
41' 102'
70'
8117 S.F.
206
112' 50'
102'
112'
8117 S.F.
205
14' 40'
112'
60'
8117 S.F.
204
70' 112'
8117 S.F.
203
70' 70' 112'
10'
8117 S.F.
202
70' 112'
71'
112'
112'
30' 67'
105'
14'
67' 95'
35' 46' 42' 28' 66 38' 26' 6'
'
67'
7685 S.F.
258
8195 S.F.
255
14'
7270 S.F.
286 28'
7320 S.F.
287
122'
7320 S.F.
288
122'
122'
20'
20'
43'
9'
5519 S.F.
21 50' 96'
4 4' 14' 53' 58'
50' 16' 36' 14' 95'
60' 16' 3 4' 50' 50'
6894 S.F.
19 6205 S.F.
18 50' 50' 50' 6262 S.F.
3 50' 50' 5270 S.F.
4 50' 50' 5358 S.F.
5 7' 43'
5400 S.F.
6 50'
50'
5424 S.F.
7 50'
60'
5398 S.F.
8 95'
14'
5358 S.F.
9 50'
50'
5355 S.F.
10 50'
50' 5356 S.F.
11 43'
105' 105' 105' 105' 5361 S.F.
12 105'
7' 52' 105' 105' 105' 105' 105' 5356 S.F.
13 14'
105'
53' 5 2' 105'
5250 S.F.
14 52' 53'
105'5220 S.F.
15 95'
53' 53'
105'
5226 S.F.
16 53' 53'
105'
4'
105' 105' 105' 105' 105'
105'
105' 5295 S.F.
17 5396 S.F.
20 60' 50' 105'

OUTLOT A

OUTLOT B

OUTLOT C

OUTLOT D

OUTLOT E

OUTLOT G

OUTLOT H

OUTLOT I

OUTLOT F

OUTLOT J

SHANNON PARKWAY
TYLER AVE.

EL CAJON ST.

GLENDALE CT.

GLENDALE AVE. MAE CARDEN ST.

DENTON ST.

HUNTER AVE.

MARCIN ST.

LIPSON AVE. EL CAJON ST.

PORTER AVE. BOISE ST.

SEDONA AVE. ROEBEN ST. EL CAJON ST. PRESTON ST.

PRESCOTT AVE. BOISE ST. MAE CARDEN ST.

FLAGSTAFF AVE.

RIGGIN AVE.

LINDSAY ST.

HUNTER AVE.

PORTER AVE.

LIPSON AVE. SIDNEY ST.

STOKES ST.

SHENANDOAH CT.

TYLER AVE. SHIRK ST.

FUTURE VUSD HS N.A.P.

CAL WATER WELL/TANK SITE
FUTURE MF N.A.P.

MODOC DITCH
REMAINDER MF PARCEL 5.54 ACRES

REMAINDER MF PARCEL

3.60 ACRES

REMAINDER MF PARCEL

9.69 ACRES
REMAINDER COMMERCIAL PARCEL (Tentative Parcel Map in progress) 28.76 ACRES 5394 S.F.
40 105'
5394 S.F.
39 55' 95'
14' 105'
5458 S.F.
38 105'
5394 S.F.
37 105'
5394 S.F.
36 105'
20'
70'
0'
70'
70'
60'
10'
50'
11846 S.F.
235
9694 S.F.
145
115'
60'
56'
3'40' 10'20' 30' 33'
17'14' 36' 3 4' 22'
8047 S.F.
144
38' 60'
115'
8058 S.F.
239
39'
115'
8022 S.F.
238
115'
8064 S.F.
237
115'
7853 S.F.
236
105'
115'
7510 S.F.
230
113'
7120 S.F.
231
26'23'
117'
7301 S.F.
232
76'
14'
119'
8374 S.F.
233
50' 10'
108' 117' 12759 S.F.
234
168'
63' 63' 37'
8189 S.F.
92 14'
105'76'
80'
72'
43'
106' 15'
75'
76'
4' 34' 97' 7'
44' 62' 90' 60' 66' 60'
9157 S.F.
107
11261 S.F.
109
93'
9064 S.F.
106
7257 S.F.
108
115'
115'
93'
9863 S.F.
101
43'
72'
80'
76'
105' 14'
64'
80'
72'
43'
42'
35' 8502 S.F.
105
115'
9 4' 55' 26'
70'
9188 S.F.
104
14' 105'
115'
8256 S.F.
103 31' 46'
7'
115'
93' 48'
115'
9691 S.F.
100
115'
9307 S.F.
102
39' 39' 35'
29' 115'
8777 S.F.
95 70' 7 4' 65' 14' 106' 90' 62' 16' 7 4' 2' 44'
67'
9965 S.F.
99 115'
36' 70' 7 4' 8496 S.F.
98 115'
39' 46'
115'
73'
115'
9 31' 6' 115'
9403 S.F.
97 115'
78' 83' 115'
9270 S.F.
94 115'
18'
83'
9663 S.F.
112
2' 74' 39'
16' 7 4'
10741 S.F.
93 128'
13'
107'
10012 S.F.
110
116'
79'
23'
50'
8534 S.F.
111
116' 18'
67'
116'
7864 S.F.
91 18'
50'
23'
79'
120'
67'
10602 S.F.
161
49' 38' 35' 92'
103' 13'
92'
71'
72'
25'
52' 86'
102' 14'
85' 46'
14'
10226 S.F.
165
112'
27'
70'
8406 S.F.
164
112'
101'
112'
70'
7963 S.F.
163
112'
112'
90'
7920 S.F.
162
112'
76'
112'
90'
7854 S.F.
240
5' 55' 5973 S.F.
250
7066 S.F.
241 112'
112'
7066 S.F.
242
112'
7254 S.F.
243
112'
112'
112'
7066 S.F.
244
112'
9' 7066 S.F.
245
112'
7588 S.F.
246
76' 104' 112'
7064 S.F.
247
15' 53' 112'
6891 S.F.
248
26' 17' 109'
5787 S.F.
249
112' 91' 112'
8101 S.F.
271 115'
8392 S.F.
270
115'
115'
7481 S.F.
272
115'
70' 63'
116'
7999 S.F.
269
115'
71' 66' 10'115'
7491 S.F.
273
116'
65' 63'
115'
7182 S.F.
268
115'
55' 63' 115' 7093 S.F.
267
62' 75' 115'
68' 72' 7239 S.F.
274
115'
14'
115'
7031 S.F.
266
115'
75'
115'
115'
105'
7467 S.F.
275
115'
71' 115'
8787 S.F.
251
115'
9253 S.F.
264
115'
57' 14'
7432 S.F.
252
115'
67' 60' 65'
115' 105'
8659 S.F.
263
115'
67'
115'
8030 S.F.
253
115'
14'
105' 115'
67'
8760 S.F.
262
115' 115'
7976 S.F.
254
77 115'
' 70' 115'
8643 S.F.
261 115' 115'
6852 S.F.
257 115'
73' 72' 8467 S.F.
260 115' 115'
7705 S.F.
259 115'
6661 S.F.
256 115'
72' 41' 92'
7188 S.F.
293
10' 99' 105'
7322 S.F.
294 115'
6861 S.F.
299
13' 105'
6806 S.F.
292
37' 25' 115'
25' 50'
5230 S.F.
298
5270 S.F.
297
5175 S.F.
295
25' 50'
65' 50' 13' 37' 25' 105' 105' 105' 105'
7807 S.F.
285 115'
7325 S.F.
284
22' 29' 38' 115'
7325 S.F.
283
13' 51' 115'
7325 S.F.
282
3' 48' 115'
7403 S.F.
281
18' 32' 115'
7325 S.F.
280
3 4' 17'
115'
7325 S.F.
279
55' 105'
115'
7325 S.F.
278
14'
115'
115'
115'
115'
6006 S.F.
300 105'
55' 61'
5476 S.F.
301
5476 S.F.
302
5476 S.F.
303
5476 S.F.
304
5476 S.F.
305
5476 S.F.
306 5476 S.F.
307 5476 S.F.
308
61' 61' 62' 61' 61' 61' 55' 17' 3 4' 32' 18' 48' 3' 51' 13' 38' 29' 22' 44' 6' 51' 9' 42' 105' 105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
105'
6447 S.F.
310
105'6120 S.F.
311
102'
67' 29' 105'6174 S.F.
312
31' 60' 105' 6120 S.F.
313
60' 60' 105'
6143 S.F.
315
105'
61' 7643 S.F.
319
110'
6777 S.F.
318
110'
60' 31'
6997 S.F.
316
110'
31'
6263 S.F.
339
6499 S.F.
360
5544 S.F.
338
5544 S.F.
337
5544 S.F.
336
5652 S.F.
335
5706 S.F.
334
5706 S.F.
333
5704 S.F.
331
17' 35' 52' 52' 52' 52' 110'
35' 52' 52' 52' 42' 9' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110'
5594 S.F.
361
52' 52' 40' 12' 11' 42' 5594 S.F.
362
5594 S.F.
363
5495 S.F.
364
5446 S.F.
365
5446 S.F.
366
5441 S.F.
367 110'
44' 68' 105' 105' 105' 104'
6731 S.F.
375
110'
52' 105' 105'
52' 52' 105' 105' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 110' 105' 105' 105' 7156 S.F.
368
107' 104'
9331 S.F.
369
35' 52' 52'
110'
6519 S.F.
370
52' 17'
105'
5566 S.F.
371
52' 52' 60' 95'
14' 55' 55' 55'
107'
5454 S.F.
372
112'
5982 S.F.
373
55' 18' 35'
118'
6271 S.F.
374
43' 33' 125'
5894 S.F.
345
5838 S.F.
350
107'
5866 S.F.
359
107' 30' 5334 S.F.
351
107' 16' 106'
5316 S.F.
358
107'
99' 16' 56' 106'
5286 S.F.
352
106' 51' 50' 105'
5277 S.F.
357
106' 51' 50' 105'
5338 S.F.
353
105' 51' 17'105'
5334 S.F.
356
105' 50' 42' 105'
5650 S.F.
349
5231 S.F.
348
103' 45' 15'
106'
5284 S.F.
347
85'
5370 S.F.
346
105'
107'
103'
14' 25' 5 4' 48' 14'
3 4' 22' 22'
8364 S.F.
46 112'
65' 14'
6971 S.F.
49 102'
55'
8184 S.F.
47 112'
53' 9' 4 4' 18' 35' 25' 29' 34' 19' 42' 20' 32' 38' 14' 5 4' 8125 S.F. 48 49' 112'
7402 S.F.
55 11 112'
' 42' 19' 34' 49' 14 5 4' ' 7079 S.F.
54 7079 S.F.
53 6907 S.F.
52 7152 S.F.
51 6983 S.F.
50 29' 25' 35' 18' 44' 9' 53' 55' 32' 38' 55' 112' 112' 112' 112' 112' 112'
11'

OUTLOT L OUTLOT K
60'
40'
20'
40'
20'
60'
40'
20'
60'
40'
20'
60'
40'
20'
60'
40'
20'
60' 40' 20'
60' 40' 20'
60'
40'
20'
60'
40'
20'
60'
60'
40'
20'
60'
40'
20'
60'
40'
20'
60' 40' 20'
60'
40'
20'
60'40'20'
60' 40' 20'
60' 40' 20'
60' 40' 20'
60' 40' 20'
60' 40' 20'
60' 40' 20'
60' 40' 20'
40' 20'
60'
40'
20'
60'
60'
40'
20'
40'
20'
15'
PHASE 1A
PHASE 1B
PHASE 1C
PHASE 1D
PHASE 1E
30'
20'
60'
60' ROEBEN ST. DENTON ST.
6289 S.F.
1 6261 S.F.
2 6970 S.F.
67 7020 S.F.
68 8190 S.F.
69 7020 S.F.
70 8190 S.F.
72 7970 S.F.
85 7020 S.F.
84 12047 S.F.
86 60'
105' 60'
95' 14' 50'
105' 60' 50'
14' 107' 60' 60'
117' 60' 70'
117' 70' 60'
117' 70'
117'
21'
106' 70'
117' 27' 24' 60'
117' 60' 165'
106'
7020 S.F. 60' 71
117' 60' 60' 70'
52'
7260 S.F.
63 7098 S.F.
62 6955 S.F.
61 7186 S.F.
60 7009 S.F.
59 6900 S.F.
58 8304 S.F.
57 113'
62' 113'
48' 16'
61'
42' 22'
60'
47' 18'
62'
51' 13'
60'
43' 19'
60'
60' 17'
70'
8369 S.F.
81 7788 S.F.
80 8242 S.F.
79 7072 S.F.
78 7072 S.F.
77 8244 S.F.
76 7065 S.F.
75 8576 S.F.
7257 S.F. 73
74 8426 S.F.
56 55' 16' 115'
16 50' '
69'
50' 16' 115'
61' 113'
73'
48' 22'
115'
60' 113'
63'
42' 18'
115'
62' 113'
63'
47' 13'
115'
60' 113'
73'
51' 19'
115'
60' 113'
63'
43' 17'
115'
70' 113'
14' 65'
24' 26' 26'
105'
66'
60'
115'
26' 26' 24'
65' 14'
103'
7231 S.F. 102' 66
14' 55' 112'
7016 S.F.
65 6872 S.F.
64 75'
64'
12' 49' 113'
65' 7' 55'
60' 113'
7489 S.F.
83 8394 S.F.
82 55' 14' 106'
65' 116'
12' 62'
64' 7' 115' 113'
8524 S.F.
96 9637 S.F.
136
9454 S.F.
137
7406 S.F.
138
9757 S.F.
139 7394 S.F.
147
7675 S.F.
146
7384 S.F.
148
8006 S.F.
149
9819 S.F.
150
104' 14' 26' 49' 115' 85'
115' 73' 115'
30'
62'
115'
60' 115' 39'
30'
25' 48'
14'
105' 66'
21'
39'
21'
115'
68' 10'
66'
105'
14'
48'
30'
30'
116'
68'
115'
62'
115' 77' 26' 14' 106' 85'
115' 49'
10597 S.F.
114
13295 S.F.
115
9439 S.F.
113
9687 S.F.
116
11487 S.F.
117
11115 S.F.
118 8031 S.F.
119
9202 S.F.
120
8589 S.F.
121
8276 S.F.
122
7094 S.F.
123
8276 S.F.
124 7021 S.F.
125 9489 S.F.
127 8851 S.F.
128
8357 S.F.
129
7294 S.F.
130
8147 S.F.
131
8050 S.F.
132
8050 S.F.
133
8000 S.F.
135
8050 S.F.
134
14' 105' 87'
118' 85'
67' 13' 164'
14'16'
118' 81'
4'
35' 50' 120'
24'
85' 25' 172'
80'
80' 168'
25'
82' 3' 115'
51' 19'
70' 115'
80'
19' 62' 115'
70'
79' 115'
70'
7 4' 115'
60'
63' 115'
70'
7 4' 115'
34' 26'
29' 32' 115'
60'
62' 115'
85'
80' 115'
79'
75' 115'
75'
70' 115'
67'
60' 115'
72'
70' 115'
20' 50'
20' 50' 115'
70'
70' 115'
14' 60'
70' 105'
70'
70' 115'
6940 S.F.
126
8106 S.F.
151
20'20' 92' 52'
112' 72'
6720 S.F.
152
6720 S.F.
153
6972 S.F.
154
8401 S.F.
155
112' 60'
112' 60'
112' 3' 19' 19'
41' 112' 40' 14' 20'
9775 S.F.
166
6534 S.F.
168
7632 S.F.
167
11899 S.F.
169 10071 S.F.
170
7842 S.F.
171
7944 S.F.
172
8960 S.F.
173
8176 S.F.
174
8960 S.F.
175
8176 S.F.
176
8960 S.F.
177
7260 S.F.
178
9317 S.F.
179
112' 4' 81' 102' 14' 80'
20' 82' 81'
112' 4' 42' 102' 9' 57'
112' 24' 36' 3' 57'
112' 9' 51' 23'
112' 3' 19' 42' 112' 50'
8' 41' 72' 51'
102'
43'
125'
33' 106' 125'
52' 15'108'
72' 108'
9' 61' 112'
33' 39' 112'
70' 112'
80' 112'
80' 112'
73' 112'
73' 112'
80' 112'
80' 112'
73' 112'
73' 112'
80' 112'
76' 4' 112'
70' 112'
20' 45' 18' 88' 73'
57' 88'
18'
41' 119'
9100 S.F.
190
8540 S.F.
188
9760 S.F.
189
9760 S.F.
187
8540 S.F.
186
9760 S.F.
185
9760 S.F.
184
8540 S.F.
183
9760 S.F.
182
8540 S.F.
181
122' 75'
112' 14' 65'
122' 70'
122' 70'
122' 80'
122' 80' 80'
122' 80' 70'
122' 70' 80'
122' 80' 80'
122' 80' 70'
122' 70' 80'
122' 80' 70'
119'
11053 S.F.
180
129'
27' 2 4' 122' 120' 70'
122' 70'
8462 S.F.
215
9800 S.F.
216
6978 S.F.
217
7124 S.F.
218
7124 S.F.
219
9080 S.F.
220 7290 S.F.
209
7875 S.F.
208
7067 S.F.
211
7128 S.F.
210
8350 S.F.
214
102' 14' 40' 26' 112' 25'
60' 112' 61' 112' 28' 38'
61' 112' 33' 33'
57' 16'
10 4' 65' 28' 3 ' 28' 112' 8'
60'
65' 67'
37' 14'
63'
23' 38' 28' 33' 112'
6 ' 14' 102' 50' 25' 112' 25' 40'
8447 S.F.
213
7402 S.F.
212
1' 70' 112' 79'
83' 112' 22' 70' 25' 50' 40'
22' 42' 112' 68'
112' 65'
112' 23' 42'
9272 S.F.
221
7593 S.F.
222
7568 S.F.
223
8291 S.F.
224
8292 S.F.
225
8735 S.F.
226
7844 S.F.
227
7840 S.F.
228
9470 S.F.
229
81' 13'
105'
76'
112'
53' 66' 66' 68' 66' 66' 71' 66' 19'
6 4' 112'
2' 60'
112'
6 4' 112'
51' 20'
112'
70' 112'
41' 37'
112'
70' 112'
23' 55'
112'
70' 112'
5' 64' 16' 112'
61' 9' 112'
44' 17' 9' 112'
70' 112'
35' 35' 112'
14' 75' 112'
25' 60' 102'
7212 S.F.
330
5563 S.F.
329
6537 S.F.
328
5398 S.F.
327
7353 S.F.
326
7836 S.F.
344
4754 S.F.
343
5299 S.F.
342
5116 S.F.
341
5865 S.F.
340
15'
105' 17'
112' 40' 20' 30' 30' 20' 30' 30' 20'
111' 50' 29' 30' 30'
101'
33' 3' 20'
92' 62' 57' 138' 31'
59' 31' 147' 55' 5' 57'
2'
46'
4'
46'
4' 7'
4'
52' 99'
13' 3 ' 8' 98'
46'
4'
50' 106'
46'
2'
13' 85' 57' 98' 57'
5600 S.F.
26 5600 S.F.
25 5600 S.F.
24 5601 S.F.
50' 23
112'
30' 20'
50'
112'
17' 33'
33' 17' 112'
36' 14'
50' 112'
5962 S.F.
22 50' 112'
22' 3 4'112'
6937 S.F.
88 11690 S.F.
87 8400 S.F.
89 11355 S.F.
90 16' 30' 14' 109'
2 4' 24' 14'
24' 16' 30' 164'
16' 20' 30' 81' 87'
80' 24'
54'
173'
41' 46'
173'
80' 120'
16' 20' 30' 4' 120'
36' 3 4' 120'
4' 106' 85'
106' 120'
71' 16' 1 0'
6970 S.F.
28 6900 S.F.
30 7161 S.F.
29 6900 S.F.
32 6900 S.F.
31 8050 S.F.
142
8050 S.F.
141
9694 S.F.
140
10' 40' 4'
65'
98'
14' 55'
108'
60'
115'
60'
33'
70'
70'
70'
70'
75'
14'
105' 85'
70'
0'
65'
50'
56'
60'
115'
60' 115'
60'
115'
50'
10'
70'
39' 14'
115'
70'
115' 0'
70'
105' 14'
75'
115'
85'
5400 S.F.
27 50'
108'
50' 45'
17'
46'
56'
115'
24'
0'
8050 S.F.
143
8050 S.F.
33 70'
70'
14' 61'
70'
14'
115'
70'
115'
70'
60'
115'
43'
55'
67'
60'
84'
10'
10'
74'
2/3rd Street buildout with Phase 1
2/3rd Street buildout with Phase 1
RIGGIN AVE. SHIRK ST.

VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1
2 MILE
CARLETON ACRES - PH. 1

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
www.4-creeks.com
PREPARED FOR: WEST STAR CONSTRUCTION
13837 S. ZEDIKER AVE
KINGSBURG, CA 93631
PREPARED BY: 4CREEKS, INC.
324 S. SANTA FE ST., STE. A
VISALIA ,CA 93292
SEPTEMBER 2023

CITY OF VISALIASHIRK STREET

PROJECT

LOCATION

TULARE COUNTY

RIGGIN AVE NORTH
120' 0' 120'
BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 SEC. 14, T.18S., R.24E., M.D.B. & M., IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

LEGEND
APN: 077-060-034
ACREAGE: 100±
PROPOSED LOTS: 375
FLOOD ZONE: X02
EXISTING ZONING: AE-40
PROPOSED ZONING: R-1
GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ELECTRICITY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
WATER: CAL WATER
TELEPHONE: AT&T/COMCAST
ZONING: CITY OF VISALIA
NATURAL GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
EXISTING USE: VACANT
PROPOSED USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE: CITY OF VISALIA

GROSS ACREAGE
R-1-5 100.86 AC 375 UNITS 3.71 DU/A

NET ACREAGE
R-1-5 64.31 AC 375 UNITS 5.85 DU/A
TYPICAL LOT SIZES:
50'x105' 105 UNITS
60'x112'+ 125 UNITS 70'x112'+ 108 UNITS
80'x115'+ 37 UNITS
TOTAL: 375 UNITS
*OUTLOTS A-L: DEDICATED TO CITY OF VISALIA LLD
UTILITIES:

STORM WATER: PER CARLETON SD MASTERPLAN
SEWER: CONNECTION LOCATED IN SHIRK ST., PER CARLETON
SS MASTERPLAN.

WATER: 12" WATER TIE INTO EXISTING WATER LINE IN SHIRK
AND RIGGIN AVE.

DISTRIBUTION LINE SHIRK (0)
UNDERGROUNDING: RIGGIN (9)
ON-SITE (5)
PHASE 1A: 72LOTS
PHASE 1B: 78 LOTS
PHASE 1C: 79 LOTS
PHASE 1D: 82 LOTS
PHASE 1E: 64 LOTS
TOTAL: 375 LOTS

17.50 AC

24.54 AC

23.98 AC

20.82 AC

14.02 AC
100.86 AC
706
R/ W
FUTURE 5' SIDEWALK
R/ W

FUTURE LANDSCAPE

FUTURE CITY STANDARD CURB &
GUTTER
FUTURE 5' SIDEWALK
C/ L
CITY STD. BLOCK WALL
PL

FUTURE LANDSCAPE
5' 6' 5' 8' 11' 11'
35'
FUTURE

BUILDOUT
18' 11' 11' 8' 5' 6' 5' 8'
L&LD
2 / 3 ROW BUILDOUT
110' ROW
20'

EXISTING COUNTY

ROAD EASEMENT

EXISTING COUNTY

ROAD EASEMENT

FUTURE CITY STANDARD

CURB & GUTTER

FUTURE LANDSCAPE
(2 WAY TRAFFIC TO BE STRIPED AND DESIGNATED AT TENTATIVE MAP SUBMITTAL) FUTURE 6' BIKE TRAIL
SIDE
WALK
BIKE
TRAIL

PLANTING
STRIP

BUFFER TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BUFFER PLANTING STRIP
BIKE
TRAIL
SIDE
WALK
2% 2%
FUTURE 6' BIKE TRAIL
20'
2%
FUTURE 5' SIDEWALK

FUTURE LANDSCAPE

FUTURE CITY STANDARD CURB &
GUTTER
FUTURE 5' SIDEWALK

FUTURE LANDSCAPE

FUTURE CITY STANDARD CURB &
GUTTER
2%
R/ W
R/ W
C/ L
5' 6' 5' 8' 11' 11' 18' 11' 11' 8' 7' 10' 5'
SIDE
WALK
BIKE
TRAIL

PLANTING
STRIP

BUFFER TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE BUFFER BIKE LANE

PLANTING
STRIP
SIDE
WALK
116' ROW

ROW BUILDOUT EXISTING BUILDOUT PROPERTY LINE
(2 WAY TRAFFIC TO BE STRIPED AND DESIGNED AT TENTATIVE MAP SUBMITTAL) FUTURE 6' BIKE TRAIL
12'
CLASS 1 BIKE
TRAIL
18'

STORMWATER/GROUND

WATER RECHARGE
SWALE
12'

POLICE &

MODOC ACCESS
19'

EXISTING MODOC
DITCH
R/ W
R/ W
FUTURE 6' SIDEWALK
FUTURE 10' PARKWAY

FUTURE CITY STANDARD CURB &
GUTTER
FUTURE 6' SIDEWALK

FUTURE PARKWAY

FUTURE CITY STANDARD CURB &
GUTTER
CITY STD. BLOCK WALL

RAILING FENCE
C/ L
2% 2% 4.3' 5.1' 4'-5'

DECOMPOSED GRANITE

BIOSWALE
P/ L
9' L&LD

FUTURE LANDSCAPE
P/ L
CITY STD. BLOCK WALL
10'

PARKWAY
84' ROW

FENCE & BACK OF RESIDENCE AT LOW
DENSITY. MEDIUM & HIGH DENSITY COULD

FRONT TRAIL
5' 5'
BIKE
LANE
BUFFER
6'
SIDE
WALK
12'

TRAVEL LANE MEDIAN
12'

TRAVEL LANE
8'

PARKING
5'

PLANTING
STRIP
6'
SIDE
WALK
10'

DITCH ACCESS &

WALKING PATH
6'

LANDSCAPE
STRIP
2 / 3 ROW BUILDOUT FUTURE BUILDOUT
15'

FULL DEDICATION TO MODOC DITCH COMPANY L & LD
88' FACE OF CURB TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE
R/ W
FUTURE 6' SIDEWALK
84' R. O. W.

R/ W

FUTURE CITY STANDARD CURB &
GUTTER
FUTURE 6' SIDEWALK

FUTURE LANDSCAPE

FUTURE CITY STANDARD CURB &
GUTTER
12'

TRAVEL LANE
C/ L
CITY STD. BLOCK WALL
P/L

FUTURE LANDSCAPE
FUTURE 6' BIKE TRAIL

LAND DEDICATION

FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT
(GOOD FAITH EFFORT)
11'

PROPERTY LINE
6' 6' 8' 12' 8' 7' 6'
23'
2 /3 ROW BUILDOUT FUTURE BUILDOUT
3' BUFFER
5'

L&LD SIDE
WALK
BIKE
TRAIL
5'

PLANTING
STRIP

PARKING MEDIAN TRAVEL LANE PARKING BIKE
LANE
SIDE
WALK
2% 2%
60' ROW
5' SIDEWALK
5' PLANTING STRIP

CITY STANDARD

CURB & GUTTER
5' 5' 5' 5'
10' 20' 20' 10' P/L P/L C/ L
5' SIDEWALK
5' PLANTING STRIP

CITY STANDARD

CURB & GUTTER
SIDE
WALK

PLANTING
STRIP
8'

PARKING
12'

TRAVEL LANE
12'

TRAVEL LANE
8'

PARKING SIDE
WALK

PLANTING
STRIP
2% 2%

R/W R / W
R / W
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
www.4-creeks.com
20073
N. SHIRK STREET - CROSS SECTION (LOOKING NORTH)
W. RIGGIN AVENUE - CROSS SECTION (LOOKING EAST)

NTS NTS

SHANNON PARKWAY - CROSS SECTION (LOOKING WEST) NTS NTS

ROEBEN STREET - CROSS SECTION (LOOKING NORTH) NTS LOCAL ROAD - CROSS SECTION 707
67' IOD TO THE

CITY OF VISALIA

CAL WATER WELL/TANK SITE
FUTURE VUSD HS N.A.P.

PROPOSED DENTON CENTERLINE DENTON STREET SHIRK STREET
46641 S.F.
8 691528 S.F.
1 218' 238'
219' 238'
213' 224'
21'
198' 238'
333' 238'
186' 147' 231'
220' 231'
109' 112' 208'
230' 208'
162' 68' 201'
1274' 30'
170'
170' 30'
333' 301'
353'
218'
50750 S.F.
4 52032 S.F.
5 78704 S.F.
6 48327 S.F.
7 17'
171' 295'
170' 277'
170' 17'28' 21' 121'
3 8' 41'
2 5' 289'
50088 S.F.
2 51544 S.F.
3 67' IOD TO THE

CITY OF VISALIA
55' IOD TO THE

CITY OF VISALIA
30'

IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF

DEDICATION
RIGGIN AVE. NORTH
120' 0' 120'

VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1"=
1 2 MILE

CITY OF VISALIA SHIRK STREET

PROJECT LOCATION

TULARE COUNTY RIGGIN AVE
20073 AKERS STREET

CARLETON ACRES

COMMERCIAL

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 SEC. 14, T.18S., R.24E., M.D.B. & M., IN THE CITY OF VISALIA, COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

APRIL 2023
REMAINDER: 443 ACRES
PREPARED BY:
324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A
P.O. BOX 7593
VISALIA, CA 93292
TEL: 559.802.3052
FAX: 559.802.3215
LEGEND
APN: 077-060-034
GROSS ACREAGE: 28.7
NET ACREAGE: 24.5
PROPOSED LOTS: 8 and Remainder lot
FLOOD ZONE: X02
EXISTING ZONING: AE-40
PROPOSED ZONING: COMMERCIAL
GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ELECTRICITY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
WATER: CAL WATER
TELEPHONE: AT&T/COMCAST
ZONING: CITY OF VISALIA
NATURAL GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
EXISTING USE: VACANT
PROPOSED USE: COMMERCIAL
PROPOSED MAINTENANCE: CITY OF VISALIA

RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT SUBJECT TO
CHANGE

GROSS AREA BOUNDARY
708
N78° 24' 09"W 125.74'±
Δ=13°55'00"
R=1,500.00'L=364.34'±
Δ=13°55'00"
R=1,500.00'L=364.34'±
S0° 01' 27"E 182.33'±
N89° 47' 50"W 55.00'±
S0° 00' 55"W 28.81'±
N89° 58' 59"W 75.00'±
N0° 00' 55"E 635.50'±
S89° 48' 11"W 1,437.50'± S89° 45' 12"W 1,076.00'±
S0° 01' 27"E 1,681.25'±
N0° 00' 55"E 1,948.56'±
N89° 55' 12"E 2,691.43'±
S0° 03' 54"E 20.07'±
S89° 56' 06"W 25.00'±
N89° 55' 51"W 2,662.73'±
N0° 03' 54"W 2,629.61'± N0° 04' 08"W 2,684.90'±
ANNEXATION NO. 20__-__
NORTH
600' 0' 600'
LEGEND

EXISTING CITY LIMITS

ANNEXATION BOUNDARY CARLTON ACRES
CITY OF VISALIA - EFFECTIVE:

A PORTION OF SECTIONS 9, 10, 11, 14,
15 & 16 OF T. 18 S., R. 24 E., M.D.B.&M.,

IN THE COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
15 55' 55' 55'
55'55'
N89° 55' 13"E 2,691.70'±
55'
55'
55'

TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
2 1
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEX. NO. 2007-03

CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEX. NO. 2003-05

CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEX. NO. 9293

CITY OF VISALIA
ANNEX. NO. 2016-02 COV ANNEX. NO.
2020-01
S0° 00' 55"W 3,350.87'±

POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
SOUTHEAST CORNER SECTION 15-18/24

SECTION
15-18/24
AKERS STREET (RD 100)

RIGGIN AVENUE RIGGIN AVENUE

AKERS STREET CITY OF VISALIA
20' 20'
NORTH
709
Development Agreement Page 1 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023 Recording Requested By and
When Recorded Return to:

City Clerk
City of Visalia
425 E. Oak Avenue
Visalia, CA 93292

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Carleton Acres Specific Plan and Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 This Development Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”, is entered into as of this ___ day of ________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF VISALIA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, WEST STAR CONSTRUCTION, INC. hereinafter referred to as “Developer”, and HAYES RANCH LLC, hereinafter referred to as “Owner”, and wherein Developer and Owner have interest in real property, herein call the “Property”, which is more particularly described in Exhibit “A” and is situated in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State of California, and;
WHEREAS, applications have been filed by Owner to facilitate the creation, annexation, and development of the Carleton Acres Specific Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Specific Plan”), which will result in the development of approximately 507 acres into 3,262 dwelling units, 35.1 acres of commercial, 17.3 acres of basin, and approximately 13 acres of institutional uses on land designated for Low, Medium, and High Density Residential, Mixed Use Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Parks/Recreation, and Public/Institutional, within the area generally bound by Shirk Street, Avenue 320, Akers Street, and Riggin Avenue, partially within and adjacent to the Visalia City limits and;
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia passed Resolution No. 2023-___ approving Carleton Acres – Ph. 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 for the Property, wholly located with Urban Growth Development Boundary Tier II (herein referred to as “Tier II)” and;
WHEREAS, on _______________, the City Council of the City of Visalia passed and adopted Specific Plan No. 2021-13 and General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14, establishing the Carleton Acres Specific Plan and changing the General Plan land use designations within the Property to conform to the land use designations specified in the Specific Plan, and; 710
Development Agreement Page 2 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023 WHEREAS, the development project, consisting of the Property and the applicable terms, conditions, policies, and standards of the Specific Plan, and the approved resolutions for Carleton Acres – Ph. 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590, is hereinafter call the “Development” and; WHEREAS, this Development Agreement is being carried out as part of the City of Visalia General Plan’s Land Use Policy No. LU-P-22, which allows for parcels under common ownership or unified control that are within multiple Urban Growth Boundary Tiers to be annexed and developed in accordance with a master plan and development agreement that details the overall site plan development while maintaining the City of Visalia’s interest in maintaining concentric growth through the Urban Growth Boundary Tiers, and;
WHEREAS, currently, the Development is situated in Growth Tiers II and III as defined in the City of Visalia General Plan. In accordance with Policy No. LU-P-22, the Development may be allowed to annex and develop in Tier III while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier II designation, subject to the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement, and; WHEREAS, Owner has requested to allow the Specific Plan development to begin growth in the Tier II area and to have continuous growth into the Tier III portion of the plan. The proposal of “continuous growth” infers not being interrupted by the requirement of meeting citywide expansion criteria as stated in Land Use Policy LU-P-21. The reasoning for the request is that the proposed Project has been designed as one cohesive neighborhood with an elementary school, parks and open space, walking trails along Modoc Ditch and throughout the property, and other amenities that connect development situated in Tiers II and III, and; WHEREAS, City will proceed with initiating annexation of the entire Property, including portions situated within Tier III in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and; WHEREAS, City will allow for development of the portions of the Property situated within Tier II at any time, provided that the property is annexed into the City of Visalia and has secured all proper entitlements, and;
WHEREAS, City will only allow for development of the portions of the Property situated within Tier III only at such time when the terms and conditions of this Agreement have been fulfilled by Developer to the satisfaction of the City. The development of the portions of the Property situated within Tier III will also require the installation of all public improvements within the respective areas as different phases of this development move forward, and; WHEREAS, City shall periodically review this Agreement, and Developer and Owner agree the City may modify or terminate the Agreement, if the Developer has not complied with the terms and conditions, and;
711
Development Agreement Page 3 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023 WHEREAS, Developer agrees that when a building permit or any other type of entitlement or permit for the Development is sought, all applicable processing and impact fee amounts, conditions, and standards that the City has in effect at the time of entitlement is requested by the Developer shall be applied to the requested permits, and; WHEREAS, nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit Owner or Developer from selling their portion of the Development provided any such sale is subject to and incorporates the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and;
WHEREFORE, the City, Owner, and Developer do enter into this Agreement and for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, duties and obligations herein set forth, do agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

LEGAL AUTHORITY

1.1 This Agreement is made pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65864 and Visalia Municipal Code, Chapter 17.60.

1.2 This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of execution subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein; however the parties may make amendments or modifications to this Agreement in accordance with Section 1.4 below.

1.3 Developer hereby acknowledges that it is in escrow to buy and develop residential portions of the Development from the Owner, including but not limited to areas designated by the City for Low Density Residential land use, and it is responsible for all rights and duties contained in the Specific Plan and the Development. No other party or individual has a development interest in the Development.

1.4 City may periodically review this Agreement pursuant to Visalia Municipal Code Section

17.60.070. In lieu of a period review held every 12 months as specified in Section 17.60.070, the City may initiate review at intervals of its choosing. The City may modify or terminate this Agreement if Developer has not in good faith complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If City terminates this Agreement, then City may pass a moratorium of further development under Section 17.60.090 or seek other available relief and Owner and/or Developer agrees that all costs expended by the City, including attorney fees, may be charged by the City to Owner and/or Developer for violations of this Agreement.

1.5 Owner and Developer acknowledge that no vesting rights have been granted with the Development and this agreement will not vest any rights beyond those stated in the Specific Plan and the Development.
712
Development Agreement Page 4 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023

ARTICLE II

BUILDING PROGRESS WITHIN TIER II

2.1 Before the City allows for the processing of a tentative subdivision map within the portion of the Property situated within Tier III, final maps that comprise all phases and lots specified in the Carleton Acres – Ph. 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 shall be recorded with the Tulare County Recorder.

2.2 Before the City allows for the recording of a final subdivision map pertaining to any portion of a tentative subdivision map within the portion of the Property situated within Tier III, building permits for new dwelling units shall be issued for
 At least 80% of lots located within the Carleton Acres – Ph. 1 Tentative Subdivision Map (i.e., 300 lots),
 At least 80% of units associated with the 5.5-acre Tier II Medium Density Residential area as indicated by Table 2-1 in the Specific Plan (i.e., 44 units), and  At least 80% of units associated with either the 3.6-acre Tier II Medium Density Residential area or the 9.7-acre Tier II High Density Residential areas as indicated by Table 2-1 in the Specific Plan (i.e., 29 units or 117 units respectively).

This cumulatively equates to construction in at least three of the four stand-alone land use districts in Tier II prior to approvals of any development in Tier III. There is no requirement for issuance of building permits in the 29.3-acre High Density Residential located inside the City limits (APN: 077-100-105) since this parcel is situated in Tier I.

2.3 A tentative subdivision map for the Tier III area can be filed and reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee, and can subsequently be filed with the City of Visalia, but cannot be scheduled for hearing until Articles 2.1 and 2.2 are met.

ARTICLE III

IMPROVEMENTS

3.1 Shirk Street frontage between Riggin Avenue and Shannon Parkway as depicted on the Conceptual Use Plan shall be dedicated and constructed. Shirk Street shall be constructed as a 110’ arterial roadway, at 2/3 buildout, as shown in the Street Cross Section figures in the Specific Plan and in accordance with current City Development Standards. (The remaining 1/3 buildout on the west side of Shirk will be in the future by the adjacent property owner(s).)

3.2 Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Roeben Street shall be dedicated and constructed in accordance with Article V below.
713
Development Agreement Page 5 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023

3.3 Developer shall dedicate and construct Roeben Street between Riggin Avenue and Shannon Parkway as depicted on the Conceptual Use Plan. Roeben Street shall be constructed as an 84’ collector roadway, at 2/3 buildout, as shown in the Street Cross Section figures in the Specific Plan and in accordance with current City Development Standards. (The remaining 1/3 buildout on the east side of Roeben will be in the future by Visalia Unified School District or the adjacent property owner(s).)

3.4 Developer shall dedicate and construct Sedona Avenue between Shirk Street and where improvements already exist approximately ¼ mile west of Akers Street. West of Roeben Street, Sedona Avenue shall be constructed as a 60’ local roadway, at full buildout, as shown in the Street Cross Section figures in the Specific Plan and in accordance with current City Development Standards. East of Roeben Street, Sedona Avenue shall be constructed as a 60’ local roadway consisting of travel lanes, parking lanes, and at least one sidewalk. (The remaining street frontage improvements will be in the future by adjacent property owners.) Alternately, in lieu of Sedona Avenue, Developer shall construct Shannon Parkway between Roeben Avenue and Akers Street. This will require the granting of roadway dedication from Visalia Unified School District. Shannon Parkway shall be constructed as an 84’ collector roadway, at 2/3 buildout, as shown in the Street Cross Section figures in the Specific Plan and in accordance with current City Development Standards. (The remaining 1/3 buildout on the south side of Shannon Parkway east of Roeben will be in the future by Visalia Unified School District.)

3.5 Developer shall dedicate and construct Shannon Parkway between Shirk Street and Roeben Street. Shannon Parkway shall be constructed as an 84’ collector roadway, at 2/3 buildout, as shown in the Street Cross Section figures in the Specific Plan and in accordance with current City Development Standards. (The remaining 1/3 buildout on the north side of Shannon Parkway will be in the future by the adjacent property owner(s).)

3.6 Denton Street between Riggin Avenue and Sedona Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed.

Denton Street shall be constructed as a 60’ local roadway, at full buildout, similar to the Sedona Avenue Street Cross Section figures in the Specific Plan and in accordance with current City Development Standards.

3.7 Developer and/or others who may eventually build within the Specific Plan area shall construct a 12-foot-wide bike and pedestrian trail and landscaping within the Landscape & Lighting District lots and/or right-of-way along all portions of Roeben Street within Tier II.

3.8 All collector street roadway designs within Tier II shall incorporate Class II bike lanes.

3.9 Developer shall submit to the City landscape and irrigation plans associated with all Outlots identified within the Carleton Acres – Ph. 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 that are to be maintained by and Landscape and Lighting District, including Outlot J that is shown on the 714
Development Agreement Page 6 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023 Tentative Subdivision Map as a Park, and shall improve and install all affiliated amenities on said Outlots in accordance with the approved plans.

3.10 Street lighting plans shall be submitted with the final plat application. All the outdoor lighting shall meet City standards or as defined in the Specific Plan.

3.11 Utility pole relocations along Riggin Avenue, between Shirk Street and where improvements already exist approximately ¼ mile west of Akers Street, shall be completed so that the poles are located outside of the curb of the final roadway.

3.12 All local streets within the Carleton Acres – Ph. 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590, shall be installed in accordance with City standards prior to the recording of any final map or issuance of building permits in Tier III.

3.13 The Developer shall prepare and submit improvement plans for street, drainage, water, sewer, and landscaping improvements to the City Engineer for approval for their respective portions of the Development. The improvement plans must be approved by the City for conformance with applicable City standards prior to Developer beginning work on these public improvements.

3.14 The Developer shall prepare and submit improvement plans for the required landscape and lighting district to the City Engineer for approval for their respective portions of the Development.

The City must approve the improvement plans prior to the formation of the district. The landscape and lighting district applies to all outlots identified on the subdivision map.

3.15 Maintenance of landscaping (including temporary irrigation) and furnishings in all public rights-of-way, parks, and open spaces shall be the responsibility of the Developer until formal acceptance by the City Council. Upon acceptance by the City, such parks, open space and landscape easement areas shall become a part of the City’s public system.

3.16 No change in the use or restrictions specified in this Agreement shall be allowed or changed without modification of this Agreement. In the event Developer changes or expands the use permitted by this Agreement or fail to comply with the restrictions in this Agreement, without formal modification of this Agreement, then Developer shall be in default.

ARTICLE IV

COMMERCIAL MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION

4.1 In the event that, prior to commencing construction, there becomes no commercial tenant within contract, for a period of one (1) year, to occupy the anchor tenant space that exceeds 60,000 square feet located within the Commercial Mixed Use land use designation at the 715
Development Agreement Page 7 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023 northeast corner of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue, the Developer shall process a Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment to reduce the gross area associated with the Commercial Mixed Use land use designation to approximately 10 or less acres. Such entitlements shall preserve the minimum area associated with the Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential land use designations located adjacent to the Commercial Mixed Use designation, and may enlarge the area associated with the Low Density Residential land use designation.

ARTICLE V

RIGGIN AVENUE WIDENING

5.1 The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project (ref.: Carleton Ares Specific Plan Traffic Study. Ruettgers & Schuler, March 2023) has concluded that roadway improvements in the form of widening Riggin Avenue to four travel lanes between Shirk Street and Akers Street are necessary with the Project’s Phase 1 improvements to maintain a City acceptable Level Of Service (LOS). The roadway improvements are necessary based upon the traffic volumes analyzed in association with one or more land uses incurred by the Phase 1 portion of the Carleton Acres Specific Plan project.

Notwithstanding the impacts incurred by the project, the City understands that furthering the overall widening of Riggin Avenue corridor helps to achieve multiple local and regional priorities, helping to improve traffic flow between the industrial and residential segments of Visalia as well as traffic flow for regional traffic coming to and from Visalia. The City of Visalia therefore agrees to partner with the Developer in providing a phased reimbursement of the widening of Riggin Avenue and the relocation of utility poles along the Riggin Avenue corridor.

5.2 The Developer and/or its designee(s) shall facilitate the widening of Riggin Avenue to a four lane divided road between Shirk Street and Denton Street, transitioning from four lanes to two lanes between Denton Street to approximately 600 feet west of Roeben Street. This widening shall include curb and gutter, median, median street lighting, median landscape and irrigation, storm drainage, and the relocation of five utility poles. Widening shall be completed prior to the final occupancy of the planned Costco Warehouse on the northeast corner of Shirk and Riggin.

Parties acknowledge that the Riggin Avenue widening by the Developer will be eligible for reimbursement pursuant to the requirements listed in the City of Visalia’s Transportation Impact Fee Program. A separate improvement agreement and reimbursement agreement will be required prior to any reimbursement by the City.

5.3 Separate from the project, the City is seeking to enter into agreement with the Tulare County Transportation Authority to appropriate Measure R Regional Funds and City Transportation Impact Fees to fund Riggin Avenue widening from Roeben Street to Akers Street. If such an 716
Development Agreement Page 8 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023 agreement is entered into and a City project is established and constructed, the City shall facilitate the widening of Riggin Avenue to a four lane divided road between approximately 600 feet west of Roeben Street and Akers Street. If the City’s project is delayed, then the Developer and City will discuss alternatives to complete widening this section of Riggin Avenue, which remains a requirement by the City. This widening shall include curb and gutter, median, median street lighting, median landscape and irrigation, storm drainage, signalization of the Riggin & Roeben intersection, and the relocation of no more than eight utility poles.

The developer, through a separate agreement with the City, will be responsible to reimburse the City for the Developer’s proportional share of the project costs based on the types of costs from the City project that would be the responsibility of private development including sidewalk, curb, gutter, a portion of street paving, design, and relocation cost of the utility poles required to be moved with this widening project within their responsible development frontage.

The Developer will agree to reimburse the City upon the completion of certain amounts of development types within the Phase 1 portion of the project as follows:
 The Developer will reimburse the City 25% of their proportional share of all costs to design and construct upon final occupancy of the 2nd commercial parcel located along the Riggin Avenue frontage in front of the Costco Warehouse
 The Developer will reimburse the City 25% of their proportional share of all costs to design and construct upon final occupancy of the 4th commercial parcel located along the Riggin Avenue frontage in front of the Costco Warehouse.
 The Developer will reimburse the City 25% of their proportional share of all costs to design and construct upon final occupancy of a cumulative of 50 single-family residential lots located within the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map.  The Developer will reimburse the City 25% of their proportional share of all costs to design and construct upon final occupancy of a cumulative of 100 single-family residential lots located within the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map.

To further facilitate the widening of Riggin Avenue to a four lane divided road between approximately 600 feet west of Roeben Street and Akers Street, an area of benefit may be established by the City for the area being widened in accordance with Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 16.52, to facilitate reimbursement of City costs.

5.4 Notwithstanding Article 5.2, in the event that the Developer anticipates that any land use is planned to be constructed and occupied prior to Costco’s occupancy, the Developer may continue to consult with the City regarding a phased widening of Riggin between Shirk Street and Akers Street, and the City may consider granting such widening upon submittal to and approval by the City of supporting analysis to demonstrate that such land uses will not require the full widening of Riggin Avenue.
717
Development Agreement Page 9 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023

ARTICLE VI

AFFIDAVIT OF PROPERTY OWNERS

6.1 The signatures of all owners of the Development agreeing to submit the Development to this Agreement and to the provisions set forth in California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Visalia Municipal Code, Chapter 17.60 shall be provided and are incorporated into this Agreement.

ARTICLE VII

DEFAULT

7.1 In the event Developer, its successors, assigns or subsequent owners of the Development or any other person acquiring an interest in the Development, fail to faithfully and materially comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement, such failure to comply will be deemed a default hereunder. In that event, City shall have the following options:
(a) This Agreement and the commitments contained herein may be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, if City provides written notice of Developer default, and provides the hearing required by California Government Code Section 65868. Provided, however, no such termination or reversal shall occur unless City provides written notice of the default and Developer fails to cure such default within ninety (90) days after mailing or delivery of said notice. (b) Enforcement of this Agreement may be sought in an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Tulare County, California. (c) A waiver by City of any default by Developer of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of City or apply to any subsequent breach of any covenants or conditions. (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in the event of a material default of the Agreement, the parties agree that City and/or Developer shall have thirty (90) days after delivery of notice of such default to correct the same prior to the non-defaulting party’s seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (90) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence curing the same within the thirty (90) day period and prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time within which such default may be cured shall be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same, but in any event not to exceed (6) months; and provided further, however, no default by a subsequent owner of a portion of the 718
Development Agreement Page 10 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023 Development shall constitute a default by Developer for the portion of the Development still owned by Developer.
(e) In the event the performance of any obligation to be performed hereunder by any party hereto is delayed for causes that are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, with limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. (f) In addition to the remedies set forth above, in the event of a default by Developer, or any other party claiming an interest herein, City may withhold building permits for any lots within the Development until such time as the default is cured.

ARTICLE VIII

UNENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS

8.1 If any term, provision, commitment or restriction of this Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstances shall, to any extent be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this instrument shall remain in full force and effect.

ARTICLE IX

ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER

9.1 After its execution, this Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder.

Each commitment and restriction on the development subject to this Agreement, shall be a burden on the Development, shall be appurtenant to and for the benefit of the Development, and shall run with the land. This Agreement shall be binding on the City, the Developer, and their respective heirs, administrators, executors, agents, legal representatives, successors and assigns; provided, however, that if all or any portion of the Property is divided, each owner of a legal lot shall only be responsible for duties and obligations associated with an owner’s parcel and shall not be responsible for duties and obligations or defaults as to other parcels or lots within the Development. The new owner of the Development or any portion thereof (including, without limitation, any owner who acquires its interest by foreclosure, trustee’s sale or otherwise) shall be liable for all commitments and other obligations arising under this Agreement with respect only to such owner’s lot or parcel.

ARTICLE X

GENERAL MATTERS
719
Development Agreement Page 11 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023

10.1 Amendments. Any alteration or change to this Agreement shall be made only after complying with the notice and hearing provisions of California Government Code Section 65868 and Visalia Municipal Code, Chapter 17.60.

10.2 Paragraph Headings. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both parties hereto. Titles and captions are for convenience only and shall not constitute a portion of this Development Agreement. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates.

10.3 Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California in effect at the time of the execution of this Agreement. Any action brought in connection with this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Tulare County, California.

10.4 Notices. Any notice which a party may desire to give to another party must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery, by mailing the same by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested postage prepaid, or by Federal Express or other reputable overnight delivery service, to the party to whom the notice is directed at the address of such party set forth below City:

City Clerk
City of Visalia
425 E. Oak Avenue
Visalia, CA 93292
Developer:

West Star Construction, Inc.

Owner:

Hayes Ranch LLC
or such other addresses and to such other persons as the parties may hereafter designate in writing to the other parties. Any such notice shall be deemed given upon delivery if by personal delivery, upon deposit in the United States mail, if sent by mail pursuant to the foregoing.

ARTICLE XI

MISCELLANEOUS

11.1 This Agreement may be modified only by means of a subsequently executed and acknowledged written agreement.
720
Development Agreement Page 12 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023

11.2 In the event Developer fails to comply with the commitments set forth herein, within one hundred twenty (120) days of written notice of such failure from the City, in addition to any other remedies which the City may have available to it, the City shall have the right, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies, to cure such default or enjoin such violation and otherwise enforce the requirements contained in this Agreement, and to collect the direct costs associated with such action from Developer.

11.3 In the event that a judicial dispute arises regarding the enforcement or breach of this Agreement, then the prevailing party in such dispute shall be entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs reasonably incurred, including fees and costs incurred on appeal.

11.4 The applicable building codes for structures shall be the codes in effect when a complete application for a building permit is filed. Development impact fees, if imposed by ordinance, or amended shall be payable as specified in said ordinance or amendment even if the effective date is after the date of this Agreement or the annexation and/or rezone thereto.

11.5 Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution and delivery of the Agreement and the performance of such party's obligations hereunder have been duly authorized and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement binding on such party and enforceable in accordance with its terms.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto caused this Agreement to be executed, effective on the day and year first above written.

West Star Construction Inc.

Signature Date
Print Name
West Star Construction, Inc.

Company Name
Title
Hayes Ranch LLC
721
Development Agreement Page 13 of 13
City of Visalia, West Star Construction Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC DRAFT – Last Update by BJS: 09/26/2023 Signature Date
Print Name
Hayes Ranch LLC
Company Name
Title

CITY OF VISALIA
Leslie Caviglia
City Manager/City Clerk Date
ATTEST:

Deputy City Clerk Date
APPROVAL AS TO FORM:

City Attorney Date
722
723
August 07, 2023
City of Visalia, Community Development Department
Paul Bernal, Director
315 E. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
Re: Carleton Acres Specific Plan – Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids Calculations Mr. Bernal,
We have prepared the calculations below using the best available standards and practices that were able to find. Our calculations reference a report prepared by Provost and Prichard titled Local Discharge Limits Development, that was prepared for the City of Visalia in March 2011, see Appendix A. We have also utilized the City of Visalia’s Sewer Master Plan, December 2005, to calculate an assumed volume of effluent for the proposed project. See below for the equation that will be utilized to calculate the assumed BOD and TSS that will be generated by the proposed project.
724
The Carleton Acres Specific Plan is a new project being proposed by West Star Construction. The project is Located on Shirk Street, South of Shannon Parkway. The project is proposing to develop 28.76 Gross Acres of Commercial Parcel, 100.86 Gross Acres of Low Density Residential, 9.1 Gross Acres of Medium Density Residential, and 9.7 Gross Acres of High Density Residential. Using Table 3.4 from the City of Visalia’s Sewer Master Plan, the expected flow rates can be calculated using the Adjusted Flow Coefficients that have been provided.

Table 1: Breakdown of Land Use for Phase 1
Land Use Acreage Adjusted Flow Coefficient
(GPD/ga)
Expected Flow (GPD)
Commercial 28.76 650 18,694
Low Density 100.86 800 80,688
Medium Density 9.1 1,300 11,830
High Density 9.7 2,000 19,400
Total Expected Flow: 130,612
Utilizing the equation and coefficients previously provided, we can calculate BOD as Follows:

𝐴𝐻𝐿𝑤𝑑𝑟 =
(8.34)(𝐶𝑤𝑑𝑟)(𝑄𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑓)
(1 − 𝑅𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑓)
Where:

𝐶𝑤𝑑𝑟 = 30
𝑄𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑓 = .131 𝑀𝐺𝐷
𝑅𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑓 = .9881
𝑩𝑶𝑫 = 𝟐𝟕𝟒𝟔. 𝟏𝟒 𝑳𝒃/𝑫𝒂𝒚
725
Utilizing the equation and coefficients previously provided, we can calculate TSS as Follows 𝐴𝐻𝐿𝑤𝑑𝑟 =
(8.34)(𝐶𝑤𝑑𝑟)(𝑄𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑓)
(1 − 𝑅𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑓)
Where:

𝐶𝑤𝑑𝑟 = 30
𝑄𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑓 = .131 𝑀𝐺𝐷
𝑅𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑓 = .9865
𝑻𝑺𝑺 = 𝟐𝟒𝟐𝟎. 𝟔𝟖 𝑳𝒃/𝑫𝒂𝒚
The estimated calculations of BOD and TSS for the remaining 312.3 Acres that are included in the second phase of the project, and map as part of the overall Specific Plan are shown below. Calculations utilize the same adjusted flow coefficients for Commercial (6.4 Acres), Low (217.5 Acres), Medium (66.7 Acres) and High (21.7 Acres) Density Residential listed in Table 3.4 and Table 1 above and includes the acreage for the Future Elementary School. These values should be analyzed again as the project develops to ensure accuracy.

𝑩𝑶𝑫 = 𝟔𝟒𝟖𝟏. 𝟒𝟒 𝑳𝒃/𝑫𝒂𝒚
𝑻𝑺𝑺 = 𝟓𝟕𝟏𝟑. 𝟐𝟕 𝑳𝒃/𝑫𝒂𝒚
Please review the calculations provided and if there are any additional questions or information needed, please feel free to contact me at (559)802-3052.

Steven J. Macias, PE
Civil Engineer
726
Appendix A
727
Local Discharge Limits Development
Visalia, California
DRAFT
March 16, 2011
Prepared for:

City of Visalia
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Clovis, California
728
COPYRIGHT 2011 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
729

Local Discharge Limits Development City of Visalia
i
H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 WWTF Information ............................................................................................ 2 2 Pollutants of Concern ............................................................................................... 4

2.1 EPA POCs ........................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Existing Local Limits ......................................................................................... 5

2.3 Waste Discharge Requirement POCs ............................................................... 5

2.4 Other Reasons for POCs .................................................................................. 6

2.4.1 Water Quality Criteria ................................................................................. 6

2.4.2 Biosolids Land Application Criteria ............................................................ 6

2.4.3 Interference and Inhibition Criteria ............................................................. 7

2.4.4 Protection of Treatment Works, Collection System, and Workers ............. 7

2.5 Summary of Controlling Limits .......................................................................... 8

2.6 Evaluation of Existing Data ............................................................................... 9

2.7 Sampling Plan ................................................................................................. 11 3 Maximum Allowable Headworks Loadings ............................................................. 14

3.1 WWTF Removal Efficiencies ........................................................................... 14

3.2 Discharge Permit and Water Quality AHLs ..................................................... 16

3.3 Biosolids Disposal Based AHLs ...................................................................... 19

3.4 Inhibition Based AHLs ..................................................................................... 20

3.5 POC Maximum Allowable Headworks Loadings ............................................. 23 4 Designating Local Limits ........................................................................................ 25

4.1 Residential and Background Loadings ............................................................ 26

4.2 Septage Loadings ........................................................................................... 26

4.3 Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings ......................................................... 27

4.3.1 Safety Factor and Growth Allowance ....................................................... 27

4.4 Local Limits Allocations ................................................................................... 27

4.4.1 Uniform Allocation .................................................................................... 27 730

Local Discharge Limits Development City of Visalia
ii
H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

4.4.2 IU Specific Allocation ............................................................................... 28

4.4.3 The Mass Proportion Allocation ............................................................... 28

4.5 Uniform Allocation of Local Limits ................................................................... 29

4.6 IU Specific Allocation of Local Limits .............................................................. 31

4.7 Comparison of Proposed and Existing Limits .................................................. 32

4.8 Protection of the Treatment Works, Collection System, and Workers ............. 33

4.8.1 Fume Toxicity .......................................................................................... 33

4.8.2 Oil and Grease ......................................................................................... 34

4.9 Public Participation ......................................................................................... 35

4.10 Implementation ............................................................................................... 35 5 Bibliography/References ........................................................................................ 36 APPENDIX A – WWTF Sampling Data
APPENDIX B – Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Sampling Data APPENDIX C – WWTF Biosolids Data
APPENDIX D – Residential Background Sampling Data
APPENDIX E – Septage Hauler Sampling Data
APPENDIX F – Local Limits Calculations (Uniform Allocation) APPENDIX G – SIU Sampling Data
APPENDIX H – Local Limits Calculations (IU Specific Allocation) 731

Local Discharge Limits Development City of Visalia
iii
H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc LIST OF TABLES Page
Table ES-1: Local Limits Summary ................................................................................ 1 Table 1-1: Current SIUs ................................................................................................. 1 Table 2-1: EPA POCs .................................................................................................... 4 Table 2-2: Existing Local Limits POCs ........................................................................... 5 Table 2-3: WDR POCs ................................................................................................... 5 Table 2-4: Summary of Controlling Limits ...................................................................... 8 Table 2-5: Pollutants of Concern .................................................................................. 10 Table 2-6: Sampling Plan Information .......................................................................... 12 Table 3-1: Summary of WWTF Removal Efficiencies ................................................... 14 Table 3-2: WDR Based AHLs ....................................................................................... 16 Table 3-3: Water Quality (Chronic) Based AHLs .......................................................... 17 Table 3-4: Water Quality (Agricultural Water Supply) Based AHLs .............................. 18 Table 3-5: Summary of Water Quality Based AHLs ..................................................... 18 Table 3-6: Summary of Biosolids Disposal Based AHLs .............................................. 19 Table 3-7: Activated Sludge Inhibition Based AHLs ..................................................... 20 Table 3-8: Trickling Filter Inhibition Based AHLs .......................................................... 21 Table 3-9: Anaerobic Digester Inhibition (Conservative Pollutants) Based AHLs ......... 22 Table 3-10: Anaerobic Digester Inhibition (Non-Conservative Pollutants) Based AHLs22 Table 3-11: Summary Inhibition Based AHLs ............................................................... 23 Table 3-12: Maximum Allowable Headworks Loadings ................................................ 24 Table 4-1: Comparison of MAHLs with Average Headworks Loadings ........................ 25 Table 4-2: Uniform Allocation of Local Limits ............................................................... 30 Table 4-3: IU Specific Allocation of Local Limits ........................................................... 31 Table 4-4: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Local Limits .................................... 32 Table 4-5: Fume Toxicity Discharge Screening Levels ................................................ 34 732

Local Discharge Limits Development City of Visalia
iv
H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

ABBREVIATIONS
ACGIH ................................ American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists AHL ................................................................................... Allowable Headworks Loading BOD ................................................................................... Biochemical Oxygen Demand CFR ...................................................................................... Code of Federal Regulations CTR ................................................................................................ California Toxics Rule EPA ........................................................ United States Environmental Protection Agency FOG .............................................................................................. Fats, Oils, and Grease GPD ........................................................................................................ Gallons Per Day IPP ................................................................................. Industrial Pretreatment Program IU................................................................................................................ Industrial User MAHL ................................................................ Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading MAIL ..................................................................... Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading MGD ............................................................................................. Million Gallons per Day NIOSH ............................................ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health OSHA ...................................................... Occupational Safety and Health Administration POC .................................................................................................. Pollutant of Concern PPB .......................................................................................................... Parts Per Billion RWQCB ................................................................ Regional Water Quality Control Board SIU ............................................................................................ Significant Industrial User STEL ....................................................................................... Short Term Exposure Limit TSS ............................................................................................. Total Suspended Solids TWA-TLV ............................................. Threshold Limit Value – Time Weighted Average WDR ................................................................................ Waste Discharge Requirements WQ .............................................................................................................. Water Quality WQS ............................................................................................. Water Quality Standard WWTF ............................................................................... Wastewater Treatment Facility * .................................................................................................................... Multiplication 733

Local Discharge Limits Development City of Visalia
Page ES-1
H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Visalia has an approved Industrial Pretreatment Program. As such, the City is required to maintain and enforce local limits on the significant industrial users that discharge to the City’s wastewater treatment facility. The existing local limits were developed in 1992. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is requiring the City to reevaluate their local limits.

A list of potential pollutants of concern was developed based on available sampling and treatment facility data. A sampling plan was developed and implemented to collect additional data necessary to perform the local limits evaluation. Using the information collected, the local limits were evaluated. The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1: Local Limits Summary
Pollutant Existing Local
Limit
Calculated Local
Limit
Allocation
Method
Proposed Local
Limit
Arsenic 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L Uniform 0.05 mg/L
Boron 1.60 mg/L Not needed None
Cadmium 0.02 mg/L 0.08 mg/L IU Specific 0.02 mg/L
Chromium 3.44 mg/L 5.59 mg/L Uniform 3.44 mg/L
Copper 1.97 mg/L 2.14 mg/L IU Specific 1.97 mg/L
Cyanide 0.16 mg/L 36.97 mg/L IU Specific 0.16 mg/L
Lead 0.30 mg/L 0.48 mg/L IU Specific 0.30 mg/L
Mercury 0.02 mg/L 0.04 mg/L IU Specific 0.02 mg/L
Nickel 2.86 mg/L 5.53 mg/L IU Specific 2.86 mg/L
Silver 0.76 mg/L 12.40 mg/L IU Specific 0.76 mg/L
Zinc 0.64 mg/L 9.12 mg/L IU Specific 0.64 mg/L
Pentachlorophenol 0.15 mg/L Not needed None
Oil & Grease 200 mg/L 609 mg/L Uniform 200 mg/L
BOD5 18,161 lb/day 89,538 lb/day1 Not applicable 18,161 lb/day TSS 41,633 lb/day 41,633 lb/day1 Not applicable 41,633 lb/day 1 Plant design capacity
734
City of Visalia
SECTION ONE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 1 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Visalia operates a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) that collects the municipal wastewater generated from the City of Visalia and the Goshen Community Services District. The WWTF treats typical domestic wastes as well as waste generated from commercial and industrial users. Several of the industrial users served by the WWTF meet the definition of a Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 40 CFR 403.3. SIUs are defined as:
 Industries subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter N;
 Any industry discharging an average of 25,000 gallons per day (gpd) or more of process wastewater;
 Any industry that contributes a waste stream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the WWTF; or  Any industry designated by the Control Authority to have a reasonable potential to adversely affect the WWTF’s operation.

Table 1-1 lists the current SIUs and the reason they are considered SIUs.

Table 1-1: Current SIUs
SIU Name SIU Reason SIU Name SIU Reason
Advanced Food
Products
Discharge volume Mission Uniform Discharge volume
Basic Chemical
Solutions
Categorical – 40
CFR 442
Pregis Innovative
Packaging
Potential to
impact WWTF
California Dairies Discharge volume Provisions Food Discharge volume ATC Plastics
(previously Heller
Performance Polymers)
Potential to impact
WWTF
Visalia Custom
Chrome
Categorical – 40
CFR 433
JM Eagle Potential to impact
WWTF
Voltage
Multipliers Inc.

Categorical – 40
CFR 469
Josten’s Print. And
Pub.

Potential to impact
WWTF
Western Milling Potential to
impact WWTF
Kawneer Company Categorical – 40
CFR 433

735
City of Visalia
SECTION ONE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 2 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Due to the fact that there are SIUs discharging to the WWTF, the City of Visalia is required to have an approved Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP). The City’s IPP was approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on May 5, 1983.

Part of the IPP requirements is the development and implementation of local limits.

Local limits are designed to protect the operations of the WWTF and to ensure that its discharges, whether liquid, solid, or air, comply with State and Federal requirements.

The EPA published the Local Limits Development Guidance document in July 2004.

This document outlines the procedures to develop local limits. In developing local limits the following factors may need to be considered:
 the WWTF’s efficiency in treating and removing pollutants;  the WWTF’s history of complying with the Waste Discharge Requirements;  sludge disposal methods; and
 worker health and safety concerns.

The current local limits were developed in 1992. The purpose of this project is to reevaluate those local limits and investigate the need for stricter or additional local limits.

1.1 WWTF Information
The WWTF treats sewage from the City of Visalia and the community of Goshen. The combined population is approximately 125,000 with a service area of 30 square miles.

The WWTF has a design capacity of 22 million gallons per day (MGD). The average flow for the period of January 2007 to August 2010 was 12.18 MGD, with a maximum one day flow of 14.79 MGD.

Sewage from the main trunklines enters two wet wells prior to entering the headworks of the WWTF. The headworks consists of bar screens. From the headworks, the flow goes to a set of four primary sedimentation basins. From the primary basins, the wastewater is sent to one of four plastic media filled trickling filters. From the trickling filters the water is sent to the aeration basins. The aeration basins precede the secondary sedimentation basins. After the sedimentation basins, the water is chlorinated prior to discharge. The WWTF has the ability to discharge to Mill Creek, agricultural lands, and to onsite percolation ponds. A majority of the flow is discharged to Mill Creek, with the onsite percolation ponds being the discharge point when Mill Creek is not used.

Sludge collected from the primary and secondary treatment processes is thickened in a pair of gravity belt thickeners. After thickening, the sludge is fed to one of six anaerobic digesters. After digestion, liquid from the digesters is discharged to one of two sludge pits for settling of solids. Supernatant from the sludge pits is pumped back to the headworks. The solids from the digesters are pumped to thirty unlined sludge drying 736
City of Visalia
SECTION ONE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 3 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc beds. After 60 to 90 days, the sludge is transferred to an onsite stockpile area. Once per year the stockpiled sludge is land applied to farmland in Merced County.

There are several streams from within the plant that are sent back to the wet wells prior to the headworks for treatment. These recycle streams are gravity thickener filtrate, secondary clarifier scum, supernatant from the sludge pits, decant from the sludge drying beds, and septage waste and chemical toilet waste. The samples obtained for the plant influent include these flows.

The WWTF accepts septage from licensed haulers. The waste from the septage haulers is discharged at a point prior to the headworks to assure treatment by the entire WWTF process. The WWTF accepts approximately 11,599 gallons per day of septage from haulers.

The processes employed in the treatment process will affect certain pollutant local limits due to inhibition levels that can disrupt the treatment process. Additionally, the ability of the WWTF to remove pollutants will affect the local limits. The interference and inhibition values are detailed in Section 2.4.3. The WWTF removal efficiencies are detailed in Section 3.1.
2 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
737
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 4 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Pollutants of Concern (POCs) are those pollutants that need to be controlled to protect the WWTF, its workers, and the disposal of the treated wastewater effluent and biosolids. POCs are pollutants that may cause pass through or interference at the WWTF, cause problems in the collection system, or cause problems with the WWTF’s ability to dispose of the generated biosolids.

The following sections discuss the various reasons a pollutant may be included in the list of POCs. There may be numerous reasons to consider a pollutant a POC. The fact that a pollutant is a POC does not mean that a local limit must be developed for it.

Whether a local limit is needed for a POC is discussed in Section 4. If a pollutant is determined to be a POC, data must be collected for it and a detailed evaluation of the POC must be performed.

2.1 EPA POCs
The EPA has established 15 pollutants that are often found in treatment plant effluent and biosolids. The EPA considers these 15 pollutants to be POCs and need to be evaluated as part of any local limits evaluation. These pollutants are listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: EPA POCs
EPA POCs
Arsenic Cadmium
Chromium Copper
Cyanide Lead
Mercury Nickel
Silver Zinc
Molybdenum Selenium
BOD5 Total Suspended
Solids
Ammonia

2.2 Existing Local Limits
The City of Visalia has established local limits for several pollutants. These pollutants are also considered POCs. Table 2-2 lists the pollutants that the City of Visalia currently regulates through a local limit.

Table 2-2: Existing Local Limits POCs
Local Limits POCs
Arsenic Boron
738
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 5 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Cadmium Chromium
Copper Cyanide
Lead Mercury
Nickel Silver
Zinc Pentachlorophenol
Oil & Grease

2.3 Waste Discharge Requirement POCs
On September 21, 2006, the RWQCB issued Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for the City of Visalia WWTF. The WDR contains pollutant limitations that the WWTF must comply with on the discharge to Mill Creek, the Use Area (agricultural lands), or to the onsite disposal ponds. The pollutants that are regulated on the effluent are considered POCs. Table 2-3 lists the pollutants that have limitations listed in the WDR.

Table 2-3: WDR POCs
WDR POCs
BOD5 TSS
Oil & Grease Chlorides
Lead Ammonia

2.4 Other Reasons for POCs
There are several other reasons that a pollutant may be included on the POC list according to the EPA Guidance Manual, including: water quality criteria, biosolid land application restrictions, and treatment plant inhibitions. There are numerous pollutants that are listed under these criteria. However, to be considered a POC at least one of the following conditions must be met:
 The maximum pollutant concentration in the plant effluent is more than one-half the allowable effluent concentration required to meet a water quality criteria limit;  The maximum pollutant concentration in the sludge is more than one-half the applicable biosolids residual disposal limit;
 The maximum pollutant concentration in a plant influent grab sample is more than one-half the inhibition threshold; or
 The maximum pollutant concentration in a plant influent grab composite sample is more than one-fourth the inhibition threshold.

2.4.1 Water Quality Criteria
739
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 6 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc In the WDR for the WWTF, the RWQCB stated that Mill Creek’s beneficial uses are warm freshwater habitat, water contact recreation, and human health protection (consumption of aquatic organisms only). There is normally no flow in Mill Creek upstream of the WWTF, so the discharge from the WWTF constitutes the flow in Mill Creek. Therefore, there is no dilution of the WWTF effluent in Mill Creek. There are numerous constituents that have limitations based on the beneficial uses in Mill Creek.

Additionally, the State of California has limitations for water used for agricultural uses.

There are numerous constituents that have limitations based on the potential agricultural use of the treated effluent.

For both the beneficial and agricultural use protection, only pollutants in concentrations that are greater than 50% of the water quality standard are considered POCs.

2.4.2 Biosolids Land Application Criteria
The City of Visalia disposes of biosolids by land application. The WWTF must prohibit industrial users from discharging pollutants that could cause a violation of applicable sludge disposal regulations. The national sludge standards are contained in 40 CFR 503. These limitations are based on human health and environmental risks and include numerical pollutant limits, operational standards, management practices, and requirements for sampling, record keeping, and reporting. The State of California has adopted the federal standards in 40 CFR 503. Additionally, the State of California has land application standards set forth in Title 22. The pollutants contained in the 503 and Title 22 regulations are considered for evaluation as a POC. In order to be considered a POC, the maximum pollutant concentration in the sludge must be more than one-half the applicable biosolids residual disposal limit.

2.4.3 Interference and Inhibition Criteria
The pretreatment regulations set forth by the EPA in 40 CFR 403.5(a) state that there must be prohibitions against the discharge of pollutants from an industrial user that may cause interference at the WWTF. Interference, as defined by the EPA, means a discharge that inhibits or disrupts a treatment plant and causes a violation of the WWTF’s WDR or biosolids sludge requirements. The EPA recommends that pollutants be considered POCs if they have caused interference in the past. Based on the City of Visalia WWTF historical data, there have been no pollutants that have caused interference at the plant in the past.

There are certain pollutants that may not cause an effluent discharge or biosolids disposal violation but that may cause disruptions to the WWTF operations. The EPA Local Limits Development Guidance document contains a list of pollutants and inhibition concentrations for various treatment plant processes. The pollutants that have inhibition concentrations are considered POCs if the following criteria have been met:
 The maximum pollutant concentration in a plant influent grab sample is more than one-half the inhibition threshold; or
740
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 7 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc  The maximum pollutant concentration in a plant influent grab composite sample is more than one-fourth the inhibition threshold.

2.4.4 Protection of Treatment Works, Collection System, and Workers Explosive and flammable pollutants can threaten the integrity of the collection system and the health and safety of the WWTF workers. Under the right conditions, the accumulation of such pollutants can produce explosions or fires. Local limits may be needed if these pollutants are expected to be discharged from industrial users.

The fume toxicity levels of certain pollutants indicate the likelihood that a WWTF worker will suffer adverse health effects when the level is approached or exceeded. Volatile organic compound vapors are the major concern because they can be toxic and carcinogenic, and may produce chronic health affects after various periods of exposure.

The EPA Local Limits Development Guidance document list the concentrations for the various exposure levels set forth by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Local limits may be needed if these pollutants are expected to be discharged from industrial users at concentrations that may pose a risk to WWTF workers.

2.5 Summary of Controlling Limits
Based on the criteria discussed in Section 2, several potential pollutants of concern and their associated controlling limit and inhibition limit were tabulated and summarized in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4: Summary of Controlling Limits
Primary Compound
Name
Controlling
Limit (ppb)
Source Inhibition
Criteria (ppb)
Treatment
Process
Ammonia 3,500
Fresh Water Aquatic
4‐day average
(USEPA) 480,000(4) Activated Sludge
Arsenic 100 Agricultural WQ Limit 100(1,2,3) Activated Sludge Boron 700 Agricultural WQ Limit
Cadmium 0.27
Fresh Water Aquatic
4‐day average
(USEPA) 1,000(2,3) Activated Sludge
Chloride 106,000 Agricultural WQ Limit
Chromium VI 1,000(2,3) Activated Sludge
741
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 8 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Copper 9.3
Fresh Water Aquatic
4‐day average (CTR) 1,000(1,2,3) Activated Sludge
Cyanide (total) 5.2
Fresh Water Aquatic
4‐day average (CTR) 100(1,2,3) Activated Sludge
Lead 3.2
Fresh Water Aquatic
4‐day average (CTR) 1,000(3) Activated Sludge
Mercury 100(2,3) Activated Sludge
Molybdenum 10 Agricultural WQ Limit
Nickel 52
Fresh Water Aquatic
4‐day average (CTR) 1,000(2,3) Activated Sludge
Oil and Grease 10,000
Waste Discharge
Requirements
Selenium 5.0
Fresh Water Aquatic
4‐day average (CTR)
Silver 3.8
Fresh Water Aquatic
Instantaneous Max
(USEPA) 13,000(3)
Anaerobic
Digestion
Sodium 69,000 Agricultural WQ Limit
Zinc 120
Fresh Water Aquatic
4‐day average (CTR) 300(3) Activated Sludge
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD) 30,000
Waste Discharge
Requirements
Primary Compound
Name
Controlling
Limit (ppb)
Source Inhibition
Criteria (ppb)
Treatment
Process
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) 30,000
Waste Discharge
Requirements
Chloroform 60 Exposure Limits 1,000(2)
Anaerobic
Digestion
Ethylbenzene 1,659 Exposure Limits 200,000(3) Activated Sludge Toluene 2,075 Exposure Limits 200,000(3) Activated Sludge 1) Jenkins, D.I., and Associates. 1984. Impact of Toxics on Treatment Literature Review. 2) Russell, L.L., C.B. Cain, and D.I. Jenkins. 1984. Impacts of Priority Pollutants on Publicly Owned Treated Works Processes: A Literature Review. 1984 Purdue Industrial Waste Conference. 3) Anthony, R.M., and L.H. Briemburst. 1981. Determining Maximum Influent Concentrations of Priority Pollutants for Treatment Plants. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 53(10):1457-1468. 4) U.S. EPA. 1986. Working Document; Interferences at Publicly Owned Treatment Works. September 1986.

2.6 Evaluation of Existing Data
The City of Visalia provided the following data for the local limits evaluation:
 Daily WWTF flow and influent/effluent sampling
742
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 9 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc  WWTF Priority Pollutant scans
 Biosolids sampling
 SIU sampling
 Septage sampling
The sampling data provided above was for the period of January 2007 to September 2010. This data is shown in Appendices A, B, C, and F.

The existing data was compared to the values in Table 2-4 and the criteria in Section

2.5. Table 2-5 lists the pollutants of concern and the reason the pollutant is being considered a POC.
743
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 10 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Table 2-5: Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant Effluent
concentration
more than half of
effluent standard
Sludge
concentration
more than half of
sludge disposal
standard
Influent
concentration
more than 25% of
inhibition
concentration
Required by
EPA
Existing
local limit

BOD X X

TSS X X
Ammonia X
FOG X

Arsenic X X
Boron X
Cadmium X X
Chromium X X X
Copper X X X
Lead X X X
Mercury X X
Molybdenum X X X
Nickel X X
Selenium X X
Silver X X X
Sodium X
Zinc X X X X
Chloride X
Cyanide X X X X
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate X
Pentachlorophenol X
Tetrachloroethene X
Edosulfan II X
Endrin X
Heptachlor X
Bromodichloromethane X
Bromoform X
4,4' DDE X
744
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 11 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

2.7 Sampling Plan
A review of the existing City of Visalia information showed there was additional information needed to complete the local limits evaluation.

The City of Visalia has no recent (last five years) monitoring data for residential or commercial users. A sampling plan was needed to address additional information needed for the evaluation. The residential samples were taken to cover every day of the week over at least a two week period (Week 1 – Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, Week 2 – Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday). The exact dates were adjusted as needed to fit into existing staff work schedules and the availability of the laboratory to perform the required tests. For the sampling at the WWTF, samples were obtained covering at least two different days. No sampling was performed within 48 hours of a measurable precipitation event. Commercial sampling required only one day of sampling. Table 2-6 lists the pollutants that should be monitored, the location, number of samples, test methods, and the preferred detection limit. Test methods listed are EPA test methods except those beginning with SM, which are Standard Methods test procedures.

Residential Sampling
The residential sampling was conducted to cover geographically diverse areas of the City. Based on the layout of the wastewater collection system the following locations were sampled to provide the residential sampling information:
 Comstock
 Hillsdale
 Evergreen
 Mary and County Center
Commercial Sampling
A majority of the commercial establishments within the City are restaurants. The sampling for the commercial loading was conducted at a commercial shopping area that includes some restaurants. The following location was sampled to represent commercial loading:
 Linwood
 Alley off Court
Treatment Plant
Samples and estimates of flow for the following processes were obtained:
 Plant influent
 Primary effluent
 Secondary effluent prior to chlorination
 Feed to anaerobic digesters
745
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 12 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc  Plant final effluent
Treatment Plant Influent Return Flows
Samples and estimates of flow for the following processes were obtained:
 Scum funnels
 GBT Filtrate
 Supernatant Pit
 SRS (Septage) Station
In addition to the sampling information, the basis-of-design for the treatment plant is needed to ascertain the design loadings for the non-conservative pollutants (ammonia, BOD, and TSS).

Table 2-6: Sampling Plan Information
Pollutant Residential
(seven sampling
events)
Commercial
(one sampling
event)
Treatment
Plant (two
sampling
events)
Treatment Plant
influent return
flow streams
(two sampling
events)
Test
Method
Preferred
Detection
Limit

BOD X X X X SM
5210B
2 mg/L

TSS X X X X SM
2540D
1 mg/L
Ammonia X X X X 350.1 1 mg/L
FOG (HEM) X X X X 1664 10 mg/L

Arsenic X X X 200.8 1 ug/L
Boron X X X 200.7 0.05 mg/L
Cadmium X X X 200.8 0.05 ug/L
Chromium X X X 200.8 1 ug/L
Copper X X X 200.8 2 ug/L
Lead X X X 200.8 0.5 ug/L
Mercury X X X X 1631 0.5 ng/L
Molybdenum X X X 200.8 1 ug/L
Nickel X X X 200.8 1 ug/L
Selenium X X X 200.8 1 ug/L
Silver X X X 200.8 1 ug/L
Pollutant
Residential
(seven sampling
events)
Commercial
(one sampling
event)
Treatment
Plant (two
sampling
Treatment Plant
influent return
flow streams
Test
Method
Preferred
Detection
Limit
746
City of Visalia
SECTION TWO Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 13 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc events) (two sampling
events)
Sodium X X X 200.7 1 mg/L
Zinc X X X 200.8 5 ug/L
Chloride X X X X 300.0 2.0 mg/L
Cyanide X X X SM4500 5 ug/L
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate X X X 625 5 ug/L
Pentachlorophenol X X X 625 10 ug/L
Tetrachloroethene X X X 624 0.5 ug/L
Endosulfan II X X X 608 0.05 ug/L
Endrin X X X 608 0.05 ug/L
Heptachlor X X X 608 0.05 ug/L
Bromodichloromethane X X X 624 0.5 ug/L
Bromoform X X X 624 0.5 ug/L
4,4' DDE X X X 608 0.05 ug/L
747
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 14 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc 3 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEADWORKS LOADINGS
After determining the POCs (Table 2-5) and gathering the additional sampling data, the maximum allowable headworks loadings (MAHLs) can be calculated. The MAHL is the estimated upper limit of a particular pollutant loading to the WWTF intended to prevent pass through or interference. The MAHL for each POC is calculated by the following steps:

1. Calculation of WWTF removal efficiency for the POC;

2. Calculate the allowable headworks loading (AHLs) for the various environmental criteria (such as WDR limits, water quality limits, sludge disposal limits, inhibition values);

3. Designate the MAHL as the most stringent allowable headworks loading for the POC.

3.1 WWTF Removal Efficiencies
Based on the sampling data collected from the City of Visalia WWTF, the removal efficiencies for the POCs were calculated. The removal efficiencies shown in Table 3-1 are the average removal percentages for each POC. The detailed data used to calculate the removal efficiencies is contained in Appendix A. For purposes of calculating the removal efficiencies, any reported concentration that was below the detection limit was assumed to be half the detection limit. Any negative removal efficiencies were assumed to be zero.

Table 3-1: Summary of WWTF Removal Efficiencies
POC Removal Efficiency Number of
Samples
BOD 98.81% 567
TSS 98.65% 919
Ammonia 44% 88
FOG 96% 4
Arsenic 29% 4
Boron 2% 6
Cadmium 67%1 6
Chromium 20% 6
Copper 88% 6
Lead 62% 6
748
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 15 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc POC Removal Efficiency Number of
Samples
Mercury 95% 5
Molybdenum 35% 4
Nickel 37% 6
Selenium 40% 6
Silver 40% 6
Sodium 3% 5
Zinc 79% 6
Chloride 0% 5
Cyanide 69%1 5
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 83% 6
Pentachlorophenol 0%2 6
Tetrachloroethene 0%2 6
Endosulfan II 0%2 4
Endrin 0%2 5
Heptachlor 0%2 5
Bromodichloromethane 0%2 6
Bromoform 0%2 6
4,4’ DDE 0%2 6
1 EPA median removal percentage used since most results were below detection limit.
2 Influent and Effluent samples were all below detection limit.

The sampling plan results showed that for all samples, pentachlorophenol, tetrachloroethene, endosulfan II, endrin, heptachlor, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, and 4,4’ DDE were not present in the influent or effluent of the WWTF.

Therefore, these pollutants were removed from consideration as POCs.

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected above the detection limit in some of the regular monthly WWTF effluent samples. However, the field blanks obtained during those sampling events showed concentrations greater than the effluent sample values.

This data is shown in Appendix B. Based on this information, the effluent concentrations for bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate are considered to be below the detection limit. Therefore, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was removed from consideration as a POC.
749
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 16 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc The sampling plan results also showed that the return of WWTF recycle flows to the headworks had a minimal impact on the headworks loading to the WWTF. The return flows are from the scum funnels, GBT filtrate, supernatant pit and the septage receiving station. These flows are estimated to make up approximately 2% of the headworks flow.

3.2 Discharge Permit and Water Quality AHLs
The RWQCB issued the WWTF Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) that regulates the discharge from the plant. The AHL for POCs with WDR limitations is shown in Equation 1.

Equation 1 – AHL based on WDR limits
AHLwdr = (8.34)(Cwdr)(Qwwtf)
(1-Rwwtf)
Where:

AHLwdr = AHL based on WDR limit, lb/day
Cwdr = WDR permit limit, mg/L
Qwwtf = WWTF average flow rate, MGD
Rwwtf = Plant removal efficiency, as decimal

8.34 = Conversion factor
Table 3-2 shows the allowable headworks loading for the POCs based upon the limitations contained in the WDR.

Table 3-2: WDR Based AHLs
WWTF WDR Select Removal Allowable
Pollutant Flow Limit Removal Efficiency Headworks
(MGD) (mg/l) Efficiency (%) (lbs/day)
(Qwwtf) (Cwdr) (from list) (Rwwtf)
Lead 12.18 0.05 User Entered 62.19 13.434
Ammonia 12.18 25 User Entered 43.89 4525.7652
BOD 12.18 30 User Entered 98.81 256354.5218
TSS 12.18 30 User Entered 98.65 226555.1037
The WDR issued does not contain limitations for all the POCs mentioned in Table 2-5.

For the pollutants without limitation in the WDR, the EPA guidance recommends using AHLs based on State or Federal Water Quality Standards. The water quality standards can be based upon short term aquatic life affects (acute) or long term affects (chronic).

Water quality standards can also be based upon human health effects. The human health effects can be from drinking of the water, recreational use of the water, or consumption of aquatic life. According to the WDR, the discharge to Mill Creek is 750
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 17 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc protected for agricultural water supply, water contact and noncontact water recreation, warm freshwater habitat, and groundwater recharge. The criteria used for this comparison is discussed in Section 2.4. The AHL for POCs that have water quality standards is shown in Equation 2.

Equation 2 – AHL based on Water Quality limits
AHLwq = (8.34)[(Cwq)*(Qstr+Qwwtf) – (Cstr*Qstr)]
(1-Rwwtf)
Where:

AHLwq = AHL based on water quality criteria, lb/day
Cwq = State or Federal water quality standard, mg/L
Cstr = Receiving stream background concentration, mg/L
Qwwtf = WWTF average flow rate, MGD
Qstr = Receiving stream (upstream) flow rate, MGD
Rwwtf = Plant removal efficiency, as decimal

8.34 = Conversion factor
The equation allows for instantaneous mixing of the discharge with the receiving stream. Since there is normally no flow in Mill Creek upstream of the WWTF discharge, the receiving stream concentration and receiving stream flow were considered to be zero.

Table 3-3 shows the allowable headworks loading for the POCs based upon the water quality standards.

Table 3-3: Water Quality (Chronic) Based AHLs
WWTF Receiving
Receiving
Stream Chronic Removal Allowable
Pollutant Flow
Stream
Flow Concentration WQS Efficiency Headworks
(MGD) (MGD) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) (lbs/day)
(Qwwtf) (Qstr1) (Cstr) (Cwq) (Rwwtf)
Arsenic 12.18 0.00 0 0.15000 28.98 21.4539
Cadmium 12.18 0.00 0 0.00027 67.00 0.0831
Copper 12.18 0.00 0 0.00930 88.14 7.9671
Cyanide 12.18 0.00 0 0.00520 69.00 1.7039
Lead 12.18 0.00 0 0.00320 62.19 0.8598
Mercury 12.18 0.00 0 0.00077 95.17 1.6183
Nickel 12.18 0.00 0 0.05200 37.22 8.4145
Selenium 12.18 0.00 0 0.00500 40.26 0.8501
Zinc 12.18 0.00 0 0.12000 79.37 59.0870
Ammonia 12.18 0.00 0 25.00000 43.89 4525.7652
Chloride 12.18 0.00 0 230.00000 0.00 23363.676
751
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 18 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Table 3-4 shows the allowable headworks loading for the POCs based upon the agricultural water supply standards.

Table 3-4: Water Quality (Agricultural Water Supply) Based AHLs WWTF Receiving
Receiving
Stream Agricultural Removal Allowable
Pollutant Flow Stream Flow Conc WQS Efficiency Headworks (MGD) (MGD) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) (lbs/day)
(Qwwtf) (Qstr2) (Cstr) (Cwq) (Rwwtf)
Arsenic 12.18 0.00 0 0.10000 28.98 14.3026
Molybdenum 12.18 0.00 0 0.01000 35.00 1.5628
Boron 12.18 0.00 0 0.70000 1.85 72.4485
Chloride 12.18 0.00 0 106.00000 0.00 10767.6072
Table 3-5 shows a summary of the water quality based AHLs. The most restrictive (lowest) loading for each POC has been highlighted.

Table 3-5: Summary of Water Quality Based AHLs
Allowable Allowable Allowable Allowable
Pollutant Headworks Headworks Headworks Headworks
(NPDES) (CHRONIC) (ACUTE) (WATER QUALITY)
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Arsenic - 23.4539 14.3026 14.3026
Cadmium - 0.0831 - 0.0831
Copper - 7.9671 - 7.9671
Cyanide - 1.7039 - 1.7039
Lead 13.4337 0.8598 - 0.8598
Mercury - 1.6183 - 1.6183
Molybdenum - - 1.5628 1.5628
Nickel - 8.4145 - 8.4145
Selenium - 0.8501 - 0.8501
Zinc - 59.0870 - 59.0870
Ammonia 4525.7652 4525.7652 - 4525.7652
BOD 256354.5218 - - 256354.5218
TSS 226555.1037 - - 226555.1037
Boron - - 72.4485 72.4485
Chloride - 23363.6760 10767.6072 10767.6072
FOG 22573.6000 - - 22573.6000

3.3 Biosolids Disposal Based AHLs
752
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 19 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc The biosolids produced at the treatment plant are eventually land applied. The Federal sludge disposal regulations, 40 CFR Part 503, establish limitations for certain metals that are normally seen in industrial discharges. Additionally, California Title 22 contains additional pollutant limitations on the land application of biosolids. These limitations are converted to AHLs for the POCs using Equation 3.

Equation 3 – AHL based on Biosolids Disposal limits
AHLbsol = (0.0022)(Cbsol)(Qbsol)
(1-Rwwtf)
Where:

AHLbsol = AHL based on biosolids disposal limit, lb/day Cbsol = Biosolids limitation, mg/kg dry sludge
Qbsol = Total sludge flow to disposal, dry metric tons per day Rwwtf = Plant removal efficiency, as decimal

0.0022 = Conversion factor
Table 3-6 shows a summary of the biosolids disposal based AHLs. Where a limitation existed for a pollutant in both 503 and Title 22, the most stringent (lowest) limit is used in the table. Details of the Title 22 land application calculations are contained in Appendix C.

Table 3-6: Summary of Biosolids Disposal Based AHLs
WWTF Sludge Flow Land Application Removal Allowable
Pollutant Flow to Disposal Standard Efficiency Headworks (MGD) (MTD) (mg/kg) (%) (lbs/day)
(Qwwtf) (Qbsol) (Cbsol) (Rwwtf) (Lhw)
Arsenic 12.18 4.358636364 41(1) 28.98 1.3568
Cadmium 12.18 4.358636364 17.86074(2) 67.00 0.2556
Chromium 12.18 4.358636364 2833.905(2) 20.41 133.173
Copper 12.18 4.358636364 1500(1) 88.14 16.3185
Lead 12.18 4.358636364 300(1) 62.19 4.6255
Mercury 12.18 4.358636364 17(1) 95.17 0.1713
Molybdenum 12.18 4.358636364 18(1) 35.00 0.4931
Nickel 12.18 4.358636364 420(1) 37.22 10.8190
Selenium 12.18 4.358636364 35.21127(2) 40.26 0.8387
Silver 12.18 4.358636364 566.781(2) 40.42 13.4456
Zinc 12.18 4.358636364 2800(1) 79.37 33.8280
(1)Based on 40 CFR Part 503 regulations.(2)Based on California Title 22 calculations. 753
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 20 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

3.4 Inhibition Based AHLs
Certain pollutant concentrations in wastewater or sludge can cause operational problems for biological treatment processes. The City of Visalia WWTF operates the following biological processes that may be subject to inhibition issues: activated sludge, trickling filters, and anaerobic sludge digestion. The WWTF has not had historical issues with pollutants causing upsets of the biological processes. The EPA guidance document contains inhibition values for pollutants that have the potential to upset biological treatment processes. These inhibition limitations are converted to AHLs for the POCs using Equation 4, Equation 5, and Equation 6.

Equation 4 – AHL based on Activated Sludge Inhibition Values AHLact = (8.34)(Cact)(Qwwtf)
(1-Rprim)
Where:

AHLact = AHL based on activated sludge inhibition, lb/day Cact = Inhibition criterion for activated sludge, mg/L
Qwwtf = WWTF average flow rate, MGD
Rprim = Removal efficiency from headworks to primary treatment effluent, as decimal (assumed using EPA removal values)

8.34 = Conversion factor
Table 3-7 shows the calculated AHLs based on activated sludge inhibition values.

Table 3-7: Activated Sludge Inhibition Based AHLs
WWTF
Activated
Sludge Removal Allowable
User
Entered
Pollutant Flow Inhibition Level Efficiency Headworks Removal (MGD) (mg/l) (%) (lbs/day) Efficiency
(Qwwtf (Cact) (Rprim) (Lhw) (%)
Arsenic 12.18 0.1 91.90 125.4089 91.90
Cadmium 12.18 1 90.00 1015.812 90.00
Chromium 12.18 1 49.30 200.3574 49.30
Copper 12.18 1 96.10 2604.646 96.10
Cyanide 12.18 0.1 90.00 101.5812 90.00
Lead 12.18 1 80.00 507.9060 80.00
Mercury 12.18 0.1 93.20 149.3841 93.20
Nickel 12.18 1 55.20 226.7438 55.20
Zinc 12.18 0.3 96.00 761.8590 96.00
Ammonia 12.18 480 0.00 48758.98 0.00
754
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 21 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Equation 5 – AHL based on Trickling Filter Inhibition Values AHLtric = (8.34)(Ctric)(Qwwtf)
(1-Rprim)
Where:

AHLtric = AHL based on trickling filter inhibition, lb/day Ctric = Inhibition criterion for trickling filters, mg/L Qwwtf = WWTF average flow rate, MGD
Rprim = Removal efficiency from headworks to primary treatment effluent, as decimal (assumed using EPA removal values)

8.34 = Conversion factor
Table 3-8 shows the calculated AHLs based on trickling filter inhibition values.

Table 3-8: Trickling Filter Inhibition Based AHLs
WWTF
Trickling
Filter Select Removal Allowable
EPA
Guidance
Pollutant Flow
Inhibition
Level Removal Efficiency Headworks Removal
(MGD) (mg/l) Efficiency (%) (lbs/day) Efficiency
(Qwwtf) (Ctric) (from list) (Rprim) (Lhw) (%)
Chromium 12.18 3.5
Default (Through
Trick. Fil.) 55.00 790.076 55.00
Cyanide 12.18 30
Default (Through
Trick. Fil.) 59.00 7432.77 59.00
Equation 6 – AHL based on Anaerobic Digestion Inhibition Values (Conservative Pollutants) AHLdig = (8.34)(Cdiginb)(Qdig)
Rwwtf
Where:

AHLdig = AHL based on anaerobic digestion inhibition, lb/day Cdiginb = Inhibition criterion for sludge digester, mg/L Qdig = Sludge flow rate to digester, MGD
Rwwtf = Plant removal efficiency, as decimal

8.34 = Conversion factor
Table 3-9 shows the calculated AHLs based on anaerobic digester inhibition values for conservative pollutants.

Table 3-9: Anaerobic Digester Inhibition (Conservative Pollutants) Based AHLs 755
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 22 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc WWTF Sludge Flow Anaerobic Digester Removal Allowable
Pollutant Flow to Digester Inhibition Level Efficiency Headworks (MGD) (MGD) (mg/l) (%) (lbs/day)
(Qwwtf) (Qdig) (Ccrit) (Rwwtf) (Lhw)
Arsenic 12.18 0.03833 1.6 28.98 1.7651
Cadmium 12.18 0.03833 20 67.00 9.5425
Chromium 12.18 0.03833 130 20.41 203.661
Copper 12.18 0.03833 40 88.14 14.5071
Lead 12.18 0.03833 340 62.19 174.764
Nickel 12.18 0.03833 10 37.22 8.5876
Silver 12.18 0.03833 13 40.42 10.2811
Zinc 12.18 0.03833 400 79.37 161.1051
Equation 7 – AHL based on Anaerobic Digestion Inhibition Values (Non-Conservative Pollutants) AHLdig = (Cdiginb) * Linf
(Cdig)
Where:

AHLdig = AHL based on anaerobic digestion inhibition, lb/day Cdiginb = Inhibition criterion for sludge digester, mg/L Cdig = Existing pollutant level in sludge, mg/L
Linf = WWTF influent loading, lb/day
Table 3-10 shows the calculated AHLs based on anaerobic digester inhibition values for non-conservative pollutants.

Table 3-10: Anaerobic Digester Inhibition (Non-Conservative Pollutants) Based AHLs
WWTF
Average
Influent Average
Digester
Pollutant
Anaerobic
Digester Allowable
Pollutant Flow Conc Influent Load Conc Inhibition Level Headworks (MGD) (mg/l) (lbs/day) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lbs/day)
(Qwwtf) (Linf) (Cdig) (Cdiginb) (Lhw)
Cyanide 12.18 2.50 253.9530 3.73 1 68.0839
Ammonia 12.18 95.50 9701.0046 4214.25 1500 3452.929
Table 3-11 shows a summary of the inhibition based AHLs. The most restrictive (lowest) loading for each POC has been highlighted.

Table 3-11: Summary Inhibition Based AHLs
756
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 23 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Allowable Allowable Allowable Allowable Allowable
Pollutant Headworks Headworks Headworks Headworks Headworks

(ACT.

SLUDGE)
(TRICK.

FILTER)
(DIG. -
CONSERV.)
(DIG. - NONCONS.) (INHIB)
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Arsenic 125.4089 - 1.7651 - 1.7651
Cadmium 1015.812 - 9.5425 - 9.5425
Chromium 200.3574 790.0760 203.6605 - 200.3574
Copper 2604.646 - 14.5071 - 14.5071
Cyanide 101.5812 7432.770 - 68.0839 68.0839
Lead 507.9060 - 174.7642 - 174.7642
Mercury 149.3841 - - - 149.384
Nickel 226.7438 - 8.5876 - 8.5876
Silver - - 10.2811 - 10.2811
Zinc 761.8590 - 161.1051 - 161.1051
Ammonia 48758.97 - - 3452.9292 3452.92

3.5 POC Maximum Allowable Headworks Loadings
The maximum allowable headworks loading is the lowest of the AHLs calculated for each POC. Influent loadings below the MAHL will lead to compliance with the AHLs based on all environmental and treatment plant criteria. Table 3-12 shows a summary of AHLs as well as the MAHL for each POC.
757
City of Visalia
SECTION THREE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 24 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Table 3-12: Maximum Allowable Headworks Loadings
Allowable Allowable Allowable Maximum
Pollutant Headworks Headworks Headworks Allowable
(WATER QUALITY) (INHIBITION) (SLUDGE) Headworks
(lbs/day) (lbs/d) (lbs/d) (MAHL - lbs/d)
Arsenic 14.3026 1.7651 1.3568 1.3568
Cadmium 0.0831 9.5425 0.2556 0.0831
Chromium - 200.3574 133.1733 133.1733
Copper 7.9671 14.5071 16.3185 7.9671
Cyanide 1.7039 68.0839 - 1.7039
Lead 0.8598 174.7642 4.6255 0.8598
Mercury 1.6183 149.3841 0.1713 0.1713
Molybdenum 1.5628 - 0.4931 0.4931
Nickel 8.4145 8.5876 10.8190 8.4145
Selenium 0.8501 - 0.8387 0.8387
Silver - 10.2811 13.4456 10.2811
Zinc 59.0870 161.1051 33.8280 33.8280
Ammonia 4525.7652 3452.9292 - 3452.9292
BOD 256354.5218 - - 256354.5218
TSS 226555.1037 - - 226555.1037
Boron 72.4485 - - 72.4485
Chloride 10767.61 - - 10767.61
FOG 22573.6000 - - 22573.6000
758
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 25 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc 4 DESIGNATING LOCAL LIMITS
After the calculation of the maximum allowable headworks loadings for the POCs, the POCs that require a local limit must be determined. The EPA guidance document recommends developing local limits for those POCs where the average influent loading exceeds 60% of the MAHL. Table 4-1 shows a comparison of MAHLs with the average headworks loadings for each POC. The highlighted POCs are those whose average influent loadings exceed 60% of the MAHL and will be evaluated for local limits.

Table 4-1: Comparison of MAHLs with Average Headworks Loadings Maximum Average Average
Pollutant Allowable Influent Percent
Headworks Loading Loaded
(MAHL - lbs/d) (lbs/day) (%)
Arsenic 1.3568 1.0959 80.7732
Cadmium 0.0831 0.1060 127.5781
Chromium 133.1733 0.4472 0.3358
Copper 7.9671 4.0814 51.2283
Cyanide 1.7039 0.2541 14.9108
Lead 0.8598 0.4302 50.0408
Mercury 0.1713 0.0058 3.3700
Molybdenum 0.4931 0.2642 53.5811
Nickel 8.4145 0.5098 6.0590
Selenium 0.8387 0.0825 9.8349
Silver 10.2811 0.7183 6.9870
Zinc 33.8280 15.8541 46.8668
Ammonia 3452.9292 2471.1932 71.5680
BOD 256354.5218 33233.2884 12.9638
TSS 226555.1037 35048.0272 15.4700
Boron 72.4485 0.1075 0.1483
Chloride 10767.6072 5447.2961 50.5897
FOG 22573.6000 5793.2500 25.6638
Based on the information shown in Table 4-1, there is no local limit necessary for molybdenum, selenium, boron, and chloride. No local limit is necessary for ammonia since a review SIU data for ammonia shows little or no ammonia in the industrial discharge and the influent loading is 71.6% of the MAHL for ammonia. 759
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 26 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

4.1 Residential and Background Loadings
There are many other sources of wastewater to the WWTF besides the regulated industrial user flows. These other sources include domestic (residential) waste, storm water, inflow and infiltration, and commercial dischargers. Because the WWTF does not control the discharges from these sources, the loading contributed from these uncontrolled sources must be deducted from the MAHL to determine the loading available for industrial dischargers.

The City of Visalia has a separated sewer system so storm water is conveyed via a dedicated piping system to minimize the volume of storm water entering the sewer collection system and the WWTF. Additionally, the collection system does not have significant volumes of inflow and infiltration. Therefore, the loadings from storm water and inflow and infiltration to the WWTF are considered to be negligible.

The City of Visalia has performed sampling in residential and commercial areas to determine the expected loadings from these sources. This sampling data is contained in Appendix D. The loading from these sources is calculated by Equation 8.

Equation 8 – Residential and Background Loading Calculation Lunc = (Cunc) * (Qunc) * 8.34
Where:

Lunc = Uncontrolled loading, lb/day
Cunc = Uncontrolled pollutant concentration, mg/L
Qunc = Uncontrolled flow rate, MGD

8.34 = Unit conversion factor

4.2 Septage Loadings
The City of Visalia WWTF accepts septage waste from licensed haulers. Since the septage haulers are not subject to local limits like industrial users, the loading the WWTF receives from septage haulers needs to be subtracted from the MAHLs when determining the loadings available for industrial users. The City of Visalia samples some septage discharges and records the volume of septage received. This septage hauler information is shown in Appendix E. Equation 9 is used to calculate the loading from septage haulers.

Equation 9 – Septage Loading Calculation
Lsep = (Csep) * (Qsep) * 8.34
Where:

Lsep = Septage loading, lb/day
Csep = Septage pollutant concentration, mg/L
Qsep = Septage flow rate, MGD

8.34 = Unit conversion factor
760
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 27 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

4.3 Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings
Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings (MAILs) are the amount of pollutant loadings that the WWTF can receive from controlled sources (permitted industrial users). The MAIL for each pollutant is calculated by Equation 10.

Equation 10 – MAIL Calculation
MAIL = MAHL (1-SF) – (Lunc+SW+GA)
Where:

MAIL = Maximum allowable industrial loading, lb/day
MAHL = Maximum allowable headworks loading, lb/day
SF = Safety factor, decimal
Lunc = Loadings from uncontrolled sources, lb/day
SW = Loadings from septage waste, lb/day
GA = Growth allowance, lb/day

4.3.1 Safety Factor and Growth Allowance
The safety factor is a percentage of the MAHL set aside to account for variability in the data analyzed and other uncertainties. The EPA recommends at least a 10 percent safety factor be used. For the purposes of this local limits study, a 10 percent safety factor will be used for all pollutants.

Growth allowance is a part of the MAHL that can be held reserve to allow for potential growth or expansion within the service area. The growth allowance is normally used for those pollutants that the WWTF was designed to remove, such as BOD, TSS, and ammonia. The City of Visalia does not know of any major growth or expansions to the wastewater collection system. However, five percent will be set aside to allow for any growth that may occur during the life of the local limits. Setting aside the five percent will allow some growth without the need to revise the local limits.

4.4 Local Limits Allocations
There are two common approaches to allocating the available MAIL to the significant industrial users. The two common methods are uniform allocation and Industrial User specific allocation. Different allocation methods can be used for each pollutant.

4.4.1 Uniform Allocation
The uniform allocation method yields one limit per pollutant that will apply to all SIUs.

This allocation method requires that the MAIL for the pollutant be divided by the total flow from all SIUs, even those that do not discharge the pollutant. This method can be overly stringent because some IUs that do not discharge a pollutant will be given an allocation of the MAIL that they may not need. Equation 11 shows the method to calculate a local limit using the uniform allocation method. 761
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 28 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Equation 11 – Uniform Allocation Calculation
Clim = MAIL / [(Qsiu) * 8.34]
Where:

Clim = Uniform concentration limit, mg/L
MAIL = Maximum allowable industrial loading, lb/day
Qsiu = Total flow rate from SIUs, MGD

8.34 = Unit conversion factor

4.4.2 IU Specific Allocation
There are two methods to divide the MAIL for each pollutant among only the SIUs that discharge that particular pollutant. These methods develop SIU-specific discharge limits. Any SIU that discharges at or below the background level is given a background allocation.

The SIU Contributory Flow method is similar to the Uniform Allocation method except that the portion of the MAILs above the background level is divided by the flow rate from those SIUs discharging the pollutant above background. Equation 12 shows the SIU Contributory Flow Allocation calculation.

Equation 12 – SIU Contributory Flow Allocation Calculation Clim = [MAIL – Lback] / [(Qsiupol) * 8.34]
Where:

Clim = Uniform concentration limit, mg/L
MAIL = Maximum allowable industrial loading, lb/day
Lback = Background loading allocation for SIUs for which no contributory flow limit is being established for that pollutant, lb/day Qsiupol = Total flow rate from SIUs discharging the pollutant, MGD

8.34 = Unit conversion factor

4.4.3 The Mass Proportion Allocation
The mass proportion allocation method allocates the MAIL to each SIU in proportion to the SIU’s loading of that pollutant. To calculate the allowable loading for a SIU the portion of the MAIL above background is multiplied by the ratio of the current loading from SIU X to the current total loading of a pollutant from all SIUs. This calculation is shown in Equation 13.

Equation 14 shows the conversion of the mass allocation to a concentration. 762
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 29 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Equation 13 – Mass Proportion Allocation Calculation
LallX = [LcurrX / LcurrT ] * [MAIL - Lback]
Where:

LallX = Allowable loading allocated to SIU X, lb/day
LcurrX = Current loading from SIU X, lb/day
MAIL = Maximum allowable industrial loading, lb/day
Lback = Background loading allocation for SIUs for which no contributory flow limit is being established for that pollutant, lb/day Equation 14 – Mass Proportion Conversion to Concentration Limit ClimX = LallX / [(QX) * 8.34]
Where:

ClimX = Discharge limit for SIU X, mg/L
LallX = Allowable loading allocated to SIU X, lb/day
QX = Flow rate from SIU X, MGD

8.34 = Unit conversion factor

4.5 Uniform Allocation of Local Limits
Table 4-2 is a summary of the collected information and the proposed local limits based on the uniform allocation method. The details of the calculations in Table 4-2 are shown in Appendix F.
763
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 30 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.docTable 4-2: Uniform Allocation of Local Limits Maximum Safety Growth Nonindustrial Nonindustrial Nonindustrial Hauled Waste Hauled Waste Hauled Waste Allowable Local Basis Pollutant Allowable Factor Allowance Concentration Flow Loading Concentration Flow Loading Industrial Limit of Headworks (%) (%) (mg/l) (MGD) (lbs/day) (mg/l) (MGD) (lbs/day) Loading (mg/l) Limitation (MAHL - lbs/d) (SF) (GA) (Cdom) (Qdom) (Ldom) (Chw) (Qhw) (Lhw) (MAIL - lbs/day) (Cind) Arsenic 1.3568 10 10 0.0012 9.887966 0.0998 0.1587 0.011434 0.0151 0.9705 0.0510 SludgeCadmium 0.0831 10 10 0.0001 9.887966 0.0058 0.0383 0.011434 0.0036 0.0571 0.0030 Water QualityChromium 133.1733 10 10 0.0033 9.887966 0.2730 0.2521 0.011434 0.0240 106.2416 5.5857 SludgeCopper 7.9671 10 10 0.0320 9.887966 2.6389 4.2631 0.011434 0.4065 3.3282 0.1750 Water QualityCyanide 1.7039 10 10 0.0009 9.887966 0.0709 0.0000 0.011434 0.0000 1.2922 0.0679 Water QualityLead 0.8598 10 10 0.0014 9.887966 0.1130 0.5129 0.011434 0.0489 0.5259 0.0277 Water QualityMercury 0.1713 10 10 0.0000 9.887966 0.0004 0.0118 0.011434 0.0011 0.1355 0.0071 SludgeMolybdenum 0.4931 10 10 0.0010 9.887966 0.0825 0.0805 0.011434 0.0077 0.3044 0.0160 SludgeNickel 8.4145 10 10 0.0037 9.887966 0.3059 0.2572 0.011434 0.0245 6.4011 0.3365 Water QualitySelenium 0.8387 10 10 0.0006 9.887966 0.0495 0.0390 0.011434 0.0037 0.6178 0.0325 SludgeSilver 10.2811 10 10 0.0001 9.887966 0.0049 0.0035 0.011434 0.0003 8.2196 0.4322 InhibitionZinc 33.8280 10 10 0.1678 9.887966 13.8386 28.7321 0.011434 2.7399 10.4839 0.5512 SludgeAmmonia 3452.9292 10 10 28.4300 9.887966 2344.4980 890.0000 0.011434 84.8700 332.9753 17.5064 InhibitionBOD 256354.5218 10 10 305.68 9.887966 25208.0957 - 0.011434 0.0000 179875.5217 9457.0764 Water QualityTSS 226555.1037 10 10 299.5 9.887966 24698.4581 - 0.011434 0.0000 156545.6248 8230.4914 Water QualityBoron 72.4485 10 10 0.24 9.887966 19.7918 0.0005 0.011434 0.0000 38.1670 2.0067 Water QualityChloride 10767.6072 10 10 56.26 9.887966 4639.5167 650.0000 0.011434 61.9837 3912.5853 205.7068 Water QualityFOG 22573.6000 10 10 76.52 9.887966 6310.2705 1650.0000 0.011434 157.3433 11591.2662 609.4186 Water Quality 764
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 31 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

4.6 IU Specific Allocation of Local Limits
Based on the uniform allocation method, the proposed local limits for some pollutants are significantly lower than the existing local limits. These pollutants are: cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc. The proposed local limits for these pollutants are also significantly lower than the concentrations seen in the discharge from the SIUs. Sampling data for the SIUs is in Appendix G.

The City currently imposes silver local limits for Josten’s Printing and Publishing and Voltage Multipliers of 4.0 mg/L and 1.0 mg/L, respectively. The mass loading associated with these two SIUs was subtracted from the MAIL before it was distributed amongst the remaining silver contributing SIUs.

IU Specific Allocated local limits are meant to be applied to all industrial users regulated by the IPP. In order to provide additional protection, only 80% of the MAIL will be allocated via the IU Specific Allocation method. This will allow an additional amount of safety in the case where an industry that has not historically discharged a pollutant may discharge that pollutant above background concentrations.

Table 4-3 is a summary of the collected information and the proposed local limits based on the IU Specific Allocation method. Details of the IU Specific Allocation calculations are in Appendix H.

Table 4-3: IU Specific Allocation of Local Limits
Pollutant MAIL
(lb/day)
Uncontrolled
Discharge
Conc (mg/L)
Total IU flow
below
Uncontrolled
Conc (MGD)
Lback
(lb/day)
[Unc Conc x
IU flow below
Unc Conc]
Total IU flow
above
Uncontrolled
Conc (MGD)
IU
Specific
Allocation
Local
Limit
(mg/L)
Cadmium 0.0571 0.0001 2.2166 0.00129 0.0643 0.08
Copper 3.3282 0.032 2.164 0.5775 0.1166 2.14
Cyanide 1.2922 0.0009 2.2773 0.0163 0.0033 36.97
Lead 0.5259 0.0014 2.182 0.0249 0.0986 0.48
Mercury 0.1355 4.76x10-6 1.9236 7.64x10-5 0.357 0.04
Nickel 6.4011 0.0037 2.171 0.067 0.1096 5.53
Silver 8.2196 0.0001 2.1763 0.0011 0.0563 12.40
Zinc 10.484 0.1678 2.211 3.0944 0.0696 9.12
765
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 32 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc

4.7 Comparison of Proposed and Existing Limits
Table 4-4 shows a comparison of the proposed local limits to the existing local limits and calculated local limits. Existing local limits for boron and pentachloropenol have been eliminated. Proposed local limits that are greater than the existing local limits are recommended to remain at the existing local limit value to prevent any lessening of local limits. Table 4-4 shows the recommended local limits based upon this evaluation.

Table 4-4: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Local Limits Pollutant Existing Local
Limit
Calculated Local
Limit
Allocation
Method
Proposed Local
Limit
Arsenic 0.05 mg/L 0.05 mg/L Uniform 0.05 mg/L
Boron 1.60 mg/L Not needed None
Cadmium 0.02 mg/L 0.08 mg/L IU Specific 0.02 mg/L
Chromium 3.44 mg/L 5.59 mg/L Uniform 3.44 mg/L
Copper 1.97 mg/L 2.14 mg/L IU Specific 1.97 mg/L
Cyanide 0.16 mg/L 36.97 mg/L IU Specific 0.16 mg/L
Lead 0.30 mg/L 0.48 mg/L IU Specific 0.30 mg/L
Mercury 0.02 mg/L 0.04 mg/L IU Specific 0.02 mg/L
Nickel 2.86 mg/L 5.53 mg/L IU Specific 2.86 mg/L
Silver1 0.76 mg/L 12.40 mg/L IU Specific 0.76 mg/L
Zinc 0.64 mg/L 9.12 mg/L IU Specific 0.64 mg/L
Pentachlorophenol 0.15 mg/L Not needed None
Oil & Grease 200 mg/L 609 mg/L Uniform 200 mg/L
BOD5 18,161 lb/day 89,538 lb/day2 Not applicable 18,161 lb/day TSS 41,633 lb/day 41,633 lb/day2 Not applicable 41,633 lb/day 1 Josten’s Printing and Voltage Multipliers retain silver limits of 4.0 mg/L and 1.0 mg/L, respectively.
2 Plant design capacity.

4.8 Protection of the Treatment Works, Collection System, and Workers

4.8.1 Fume Toxicity
There are certain pollutants that can cause a fire or explosion, corrosive structural damage at the treatment plant, obstruction of flow, inhibition of biological activity due to heat, or discharges that cause the formation of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes. 766
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 33 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Explosive and flammable pollutants discharged to a WWTF can threaten the integrity of the collection system and the health and safety of the workers. Under the right conditions, the accumulation of such pollutants in treatment works can produce explosions or fires. There are no POCs listed in Table 2-5 that are listed in the EPA Guidance Manual as being potentially explosive.

The fume toxicity level of a pollutant discharged to a WWTF indicates the likelihood that a WWTF worker will suffer an adverse health effect when the level is approached or exceeded. This level can be measured by the time weighted average threshold limit value (TWA-TLV), which is the concentration to which a worker can be exposed for eight hours per day, 40 hours per week and not have any acute or chronic adverse health effects. Similarly, short-term exposure limits (STELs) are concentrations to which a worker should not be exposed for longer than 15 minutes or more than four times per day (with at least one hour between each exposure).

There were three POCs identified in Table 2-4 that have fume toxicity exposure limits that indicate they may create a toxicity exposure issue for collection system workers.

The three POCs were chloroform, ethylbenzene, and toluene. The fume toxicity discharge screening level can be calculated using Equation 15. The discharge screening level is the concentration in the treatment works above which a local limit may be necessary.

Equation 15 – Calculation of Discharge Screening Level
Clvl = Cvap / H
Where:

Clvl = Discharge screening level, mg/L
Cvap = Exposure limit at 1 atm and 25o
C, mg/m3
H = Henry’s Law Constant, (mg/m3)/(mg/L)
Table 4-5: Fume Toxicity Discharge Screening Levels
Pollutant Exposure
limit (mg/m3
)
Henry’s Law
Constant
(mg/m3)/(mg/L)
Discharge
Screening
Level (mg/L)
Maximum
Concentration
Sampled
(mg/L)
Chloroform 9.76 163.5 0.06 0.028
767
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 34 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc Ethylbenzene 542.50 327.0 1.659 <0.0005
Toluene 565.50 272.5 2.075 0.0019
Based on the maximum concentrations sampled in the treatment works and the fume toxicity discharge screening levels, no local limits are needed for chloroform, ethylbenzene or toluene based upon the protection of the treatment works, collection system and workers.

4.8.2 Oil and Grease
Based on the uniform allocation of the oil and grease maximum allowable industrial loading, the local limit would be 669 mg/L. This local limit is based upon protecting the WWTFs ability to meet the WDR oil and grease limitation.

However, by its very nature, grease will adhere to many types of surfaces with sewers especially vulnerable to grease build-up. The cool internal surfaces of sewers provide ideal locations on which thin layers of grease can build up. Over a period of time, clumps of grease will build up to the point that the sewer can be completely choked.

Grease also accumulates due to cooling and dilution of surfactants, that allows the grease to separate and collect on all sewer system surfaces, including wetwells at pump stations, where controls can become fouled and prevent pumps from operating properly.

Based on the residential (background loading) monitoring data, the average background oil and grease concentration is 76.5 mg/L. The average SIU concentration for oil and grease is 133 mg/L. The average oil and grease concentration into the WWTF is 57 mg/L.

The most commonly used local limit for oil & grease is 100 mg/L. The City currently has a limit of 200 mg/L. The 100 mg/L limit is not based upon any empirical evidence but rather on general correlations and an industry consensus that this level limits the build up of oil and grease in the collection system. The federal pretreatment regulations, 40 CFR 403.5(b)(6), prohibit “petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause interference or pass through.” In most municipalities, oil and grease limits of 100 mg/L to 300 mg/L are protective of the collection system. Limits may need to vary depending on different factors, such as the number of wet wells, type of sewers, slope of sewers, flow in sewers, maintenance of the sewers, and history of grease related clogs.

Based upon the concentrations of oil and grease from residential and industrial sources and the history of grease, the current local limit of 200 mg/L is protective of the collection system and should remain.

4.9 Public Participation
The EPA General Pretreatment Regulations encourages public participation by requiring public notices or hearings for local limits development. The City of Visalia must publish a notice (including a notice for a public hearing) in a newspaper of general 768
City of Visalia
SECTION FOUR Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 35 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc circulation within the jurisdiction served by the WWTF. All comments regarding the proposed local limits as well as any request for a public hearing must be filed with the Approval Authority (the RWQCB) within 30 days. The Approval Authority is required to account for all comments received when deciding whether to approve or deny the proposed local limits. The decision is then provided to the City and other interested parties, and published in the newspaper. All comments received are made available to the public for inspection and copying.

The City should notify the existing SIUs and other interested parties, individually, of the proposed limits and announce a public comment period in the local newspaper. This public comment period can be open while the proposed limits are submitted to the Approval Authority for initial review. During the comment period, the public may present technical challenges to the rationale for a particular local limit.

4.10 Implementation
Upon approval from the RWQCB, the approved limits need to be added to the existing sewer use ordinance. Once integrated in the sewer use ordinance, the approved local limits can be included into the permits issued to the SIUs. 769
City of Visalia
SECTION FIVE Local Discharge Limits Development

Page 36 ends

H:\(1) AGENDAS for Council - DO NOT REMOVE\2011\6-20-2011\Item 11q Attachment - Visalia Local Limits Report.doc 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Local Limits Development Guidance.

Washington, D.C., July 2004.
770
APPENDIX A – WWTF Sampling Data
771
APPENDIX B – Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Sampling Data 772
APPENDIX C – WWTF Biosolids Data
773
APPENDIX D – Residential Background Sampling Data
774
APPENDIX E – Septage Hauler Sampling Data
775
APPENDIX F – Local Limits Calculations (Uniform Allocation) 776

REPORT TO CITY OF VISALIA PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: September 11, 2023
PROJECT PLANNER: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Phone No.: (559) 713-4636
Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Consideration of the following items:

Specific Plan No. 2021-13: A request to establish a new specific plan (Carleton Acres Specific Plan) consisting of approximately 507 acres, including districts for low, medium, and high density residential, commercial mixed use, neighborhood commercial, parks / open space, and public institutional. Full buildout of the plan will accommodate for approximately 3,262 dwelling units, approximately 205,000 square feet of leasable commercial area, 17 acres of parks / trails / recreational facilities, 17 acres for a drainage basin, and a future elementary school site, to be developed across Urban Development Boundary Tiers I, II, and III.

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14: A request to amend the location and acreage of General Plan land use designations within 507 acres, resulting in the redistribution of Residential Low, Medium, and High Density, Parks / Recreation, Commercial Neighborhood, and Public Institutional designations, and the establishment of a Commercial Mixed Use designation.

Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No. 2021-05: A request to annex 468.3 acres, located within the City of Visalia Urban Development Boundary Tiers II and III, into the Visalia city limits. The annexation request includes authorizing the detachment from County Service Area No. 1 in accordance with State and County requirements and authorizing the City Manager to sign and enter into a PreAnnexation Agreement. (APN: 077-100-108 only) Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590: A request to subdivide 100.86 acres into 375 lots for single-family dwellings and additional park lots, landscape / lighting district lots, and remainder lots, to be located within the R1-5 (Single-Family Residential, minimum 5,000 square foot lot size) zone district upon annexation to the Visalia city limits. The subdivision site is bound by the Shannon Parkway alignment to the north, Shirk Street to the west, and the Roeben Street alignment to the east, between 300 and 800 feet north of Riggin Avenue. (APN: 077-100-108 only)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04: A request to subdivide an existing 468-acre parcel into eight parcels for commercial use, having a gross acreage of 28.7 acres, plus a remainder parcel. (APN: 077-100-108 only)
Recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse Number 2021050418).

Project Applicant: West Star Construction Inc.

Project Location: The proposed Project is located on approximately 507 acres, generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north (APN 077- 100-108 and 077-100-105.)
777

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Final Environmental Impact Report:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2023-42, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2021050418), including a Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the project, based upon the findings in said resolution.

Specific Plan No. 2021-13, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14, Annexation No. 2021-05:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve these entitlements, as conditioned, based on the findings in Resolution Nos. 2023-43, 2023-44, and 2023-45. Staff’s recommendation is based on the conclusion that the request is consistent with the Visalia General Plan and the required findings for each respective entitlement.

Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04:

Staff recommends approval of the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04, as conditioned, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution Nos. 2023-46 and 2023-47. 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 required findings for each respective entitlement.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move to recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse Number 2021050418), according to Resolution No. 2023-42.

I move to recommend approval of Specific Plan No. 2021-13, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-43.

I move to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2023-44.

I move to recommend approval of Annexation No. 2021-05, based on the findings in Resolution No. 2023-45.

I move to approve Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-46.

I move to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04, based on the findings and conditions in Resolution No. 2023-47.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants, West Star Construction, Inc. and Hayes Ranch LLC, have filed entitlement applications for the development of a 507-acre new community, containing residential, commercial, and quasi-public elements, on property that is largely located outside of City Limits, within the Tier II and Tier III urban development boundaries. One parcel that is 29 acres in size is already within the City limits, part of Tier I, and will be included in the specific plan area.

The property is planned to be developed with a mixture of residential product types, including single-family residences on City standard-size lots which is the subject of the tentative subdivision map. The property is also planned to be developed with two separate commercial sites, including one site within Tier II that is anticipated to include a Costco warehouse store. Entitlements for this project consist of an annexation, tentative subdivision map, commercial tentative parcel map, 778
adoption of a specific plan (which includes the establishment of alternative development standards), and a general plan amendment. A conditional use permit is required for the Costco warehouse store, and it is anticipated that this application will come separately to Planning Commission at a future date once their site plan is perfected. The project site is currently vacant, and has a long history of agricultural use as explained in the specific plan.

The request for development across the two growth tiers is being made in accordance with General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-22, which allows for City Council approval of master plans (or, in this case, a specific plan), following Planning Commission review and recommendation, for sites under a single ownership, which includes developmental land within multiple development tiers.

Annexation No. 2021-05 is a request to annex parcels totaling approximately 468 acres located outside the city limits and within Tulare County (see Exhibit “E”). Upon annexation, the Zoning designations for the project area will consist of the following, consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designations as proposed through the General Plan Amendment. • R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area), • R-M-2 (Multi-Family Residential, one unit per 3,000 square feet site area), • R-M-3 (Multi-Family Residential, one unit per 1,200 square feet site area), • C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use),
• C-N (Neighborhood Commercial),
• Q-P (Quasi-Public).

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14 is requested to redistribute land use designations that are located upon several sites that are under a single ownership. Current and proposed land use designations are summarized as follows:

Land Use Designation Zoning Designation Existing ac. Proposed ac.

Low Density Residential R-1-5 designation 349.5 305.4
Medium Density Residential R-M-2 designation 75.8 No change High Density Residential R-M-3 designation 31.4 No change Commercial Mixed Use C-MU designation 0.0 28.7
Neighborhood Commercial C-N designation 11.4 6.4
Public Institutional QP designation 9.9 13.0
Basin QP designation 0.0 17.3
One parcel that is 29 acres in size is already within the City limits, part of Tier I, is entirely designated High Density Residential and is not affected by the General Plan Amendment.

Currently, the Tier II portion contains all 31.4 acres of the High Density Residential designation and approximately half (about 40 acres) of the Medium Density Residential (see General Plan Land Use Map at end of attachments). The changes in designation will achieve a more even distribution of the Low, Medium, and High Density Residential land use designations among the 468-acre parcel and between Tiers II and III (see concept plan attached as Exhibit “A”). The Neighborhood Commercial, currently in Tier II, will move to Tier III, and a new commercial designation (Commercial Mixed Use) will be established in Tier II. The Public Institutional designation is and will remain in Tier III.

Specific Plan No. 2021-04 establishes the Carleton Acres Specific Plan (“Plan”, see Exhibit “B”), which is applicable to the entire area within Tiers II and III plus an existing undeveloped parcel 779
within Tier I. The purpose of the Plan is to carry out establish land use and development patterns over the Tier II and III areas in accordance with General Plan Policy LU-P-22. This is further done through the establishment of a Development Agreement, which sets criteria for development between growth tiers and specific improvements to be installed with each tier.

Full buildout of the plan will accommodate for up to 3,262 dwelling units, up to 205,000 square feet of leasable commercial area, 17 acres of parks / trails / recreational facilities, 17 acres for a drainage basin, and a future elementary school site, to be developed across Urban Development Boundary Tiers I, II, and III.

The Plan establishes a master land use plan (see Exhibit “A”), together with the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14. The Plan further provides design and development standards for the property’s residential communities, providing some deviations to City development standards for rear yard setbacks. There are six residential product types or building configurations anticipated by the Plan for the single and multi-family designations, in addition to six allowable architectural themes permitted for the residences. The Plan does not serve as a Planned Residential Development in that there are no small lots or private streets currently proposed through the subdivision map, nor are there any specific home models proposed for use with the plan. Subsequent development of the multi-family designated parcels could establish private streets if developed through a tentative subdivision map and conditional use permit.

Throughout the Plan are policies and standards applicable to commercial development (Section

4.4), single-family residential (Section 5.4.1), multi-family residential (Section 5.4.2), residential architecture (Sections 5.6.2 and 5.6.3), and site elements including landscaping, parking, and signage (Sections 6.8 and 6.9). Design principles are also included for landscape (Section 6.2).

A key feature of the Specific Plan is a pedestrian trail and riparian buffer along the Modoc Ditch that is referred to in the Plan as the Modoc Greenway (see Section 6.5.2.3). This will be established alongside the existing segments of Modoc Ditch at the Shannon Parkway and on Akers Street north of Shannon Parkway (see Figure 7.N for a Shannon Parkway cross section).

The Greenway is comprised of a Class I bike trail and heavily landscaped bioswales serving as groundwater recharge swales, all maintained by the Landscape and Lighting District. Additional Class I trails are placed throughout the plan area to connect the various residential land use designations to schools, parks, and commercial areas. Parks and trails will have uniform features and amenities, such as landscaping, lighting features, and open space features. The Plan goes into more clear detail in Sections 6, 7, and 8 on the development’s circulation, infrastructure, administration and implementation.

The Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map is a request to subdivide 100.86 acres into a 375-lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of 3.71 dwelling units per gross acre (see Exhibit “C”). The subdivision map covers the entirety of the single-family residential area that is within Tier II, with remainder lots created for the multi-family residential areas.

The subdivision, through dedication, will establish right-of-way necessary for curb-to-curb development of collector streets Roeben Street and Shannon Parkway within the subdivision.

Three round-abouts are shown on the map, proposed for the intersections of Shannon & Roeben (collector/collector), Roeben & Sedona (collector/local), and Denton & Sedona (local/local). The subdivision, along with the rest of the specific plan, continues the use of round-abouts along collector streets, including one round-about placed in each quadrant of the plan area.

The subdivision contains several typical lot sizes grouped throughout the map, ranging as small as 50’ x 105’ lots and as large as 70’ x 115’, with all lots corresponding to the R-1-5 zone or Low Density Residential designation.
780
The subdivision map will include the creation of several lettered lots maintained through a Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD). Outlots A through E will be established for purpose of containing landscaping and block walls along Shirk Street, Shannon Parkway, and Roeben Street, and portions of lots adjacent to interior street sides on the corner lots. Outlots F, G, H, and I as well as portions of Outlots D and E establish open space and landscaping in corners of the round-abouts. Outlot J will be an approximately 0.50-acre pocket park in the middle of the subdivision.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04 is a request to subdivide the 28.7 gross acres of Commercial Mixed Use designation on the northeast corner of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue into eight parcels, plus a 443 acre for the remainder of the existing parcel (see Exhibit “D”). The map coincides with the commercial development layout depicted in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan concept plan (Exhibit “A”). This includes establishment of a future Costco Warehouse store on Parcel 1, gas station and car wash on Parcels 2 and 3, and conceptual commercial development on Parcels 4 through 8. Reciprocal access and utility easements are established between the Costco portion and the conceptual commercial development and for the creation of access points along Riggin Avenue and Shirk Street.

The project site is within the City’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB) Tier 2 and 3 and is subject to City’s Agricultural Preservation Ordinance. This is discussed in greater detail in the Agricultural Preservation Ordinance section of the staff report below.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Existing General Plan Land Use
Designation:
• Low Density Residential
• Medium Density Residential
• High Density Residential
• Neighborhood Commercial
• Public Institutional
Existing County Zoning: AE-40, excepting AE-20 for Modoc Ditch adjacent to City limits and south along Akers Street
Zoning upon annexation to City: • R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential 5,000 square foot minimum site area),
• R-M-2 (Multi-Family Residential, one unit per 3,000
square feet site area),
• R-M-3 (Multi-Family Residential, one unit per 1,200
square feet site area),
• C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use),
• C-N (Neighborhood Commercial),
• Q-P (Quasi-Public).

Surrounding General Plan &
Land Use:

North: Agriculture / Dairy farm, agriculture
South: Residential Very Low Density, Residential Low
Density, Residential Medium Density / Residential,
church, water storage tank, vacant dairy
East: Public Institutional, Residential Low Density / Ag.

West: Light Industrial / Dairy farm, agriculture
781
Environmental Review: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for Carleton Acres Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse #2021050418
Special Districts: None
Site Plan Review: SPR No. 2022-073; R&P 05/04/2022 (Concept Plan) SPR No. 2022-164; R&P 10/12/2022 (Residential Map)
SPR No. 2022-174; R&P 11/9/2022 (Commercial Map)

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

RELATED PROJECTS
None.

PROJECT EVALUATION
Staff supports the annexation based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

Specifically, Annexation No. 2021-05 will facilitate a new community on a 468-acre site in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan land use designations that exist within the project site, and will complement existing development to the south and east.

Furthermore, staff recommends approval of Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14, and Specific Plan No. 2021-13, based on the project’s consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) and the Visalia Housing Element for approval of the tentative subdivision map. The subdivision map proposes to develop a parcel of land that is designated for residential development at a density prescribed in the 2030 Visalia General Plan.

Annexation No. 2021-05
The project proponents have filed an application to initiate annexation of the 468-acre project site into the Visalia City limits. In addition to the project site, the final annexation area will include acreage from the adjoining public streets – Shirk Street, Avenue 320, and Akers Street. The site will be pre-zoned to zoning districts that are consistent with the subject site’s corresponding land use designations proposed through the General Plan Amendment. The annexation can be supported on the basis that the proposal is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-21, which allows for the annexation and development of residential land to occur within the Tier II Urban Development Boundary consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.

The annexation of the Tier III Urban Development Boundary portion is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-22, which allows for annexation before development is permitted in Tier III under Policy LU-P-21. The policy explicitly allows for a project to annex and develop while the City still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier II designation.

The site can be serviced with all the requisite utility and infrastructure available to serve the site upon development. Cities can approve tentative maps prior to final approval of the annexation by the local agency formation commission (i.e., LAFCO) but cannot approve a final subdivision or parcel map until after the land is annexed and the annexation is recorded through the Tulare County Recorder. Staff has included this requirement as conditions of approval in the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04. 782
While the City finds the annexation of the 468-acre parcel consistent with City policies, subject to the Development Agreement, Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will need to analyze that the annexation will not cause an impact towards exceeding a 10-year supply of residential land within the existing City limits, as a guideline for determining conformance with State Government Code 56377.

Development Agreement Regarding Expansion to Growth Tier III A Development Agreement has been prepared by staff to accompany the proposed project (see Exhibit “F”), based upon the proposal of a master-planned site that spans between Tiers II and III.

Specifically, Land Use Policy LU-P-22 allows for master-planned sites that are under a single ownership or unified control to be annexed and developed, subject to the City Council approval of a master plan (in this case, a specific plan) and a development agreement. The intent of the development agreement is to spell out “details regarding the overall development, density/intensity and phasing, infrastructure needs and financing, and what each party would do”.

The development agreement, once entered into between the City and the landowner or developer, would enable the property to annex and develop within Tier III, subject to criteria, while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier II designation.

The project proponent, Hayes Ranch, LLC, has requested to allow the Carleton Acres Specific Plan development to begin growth in the Tier II area and to have continuous growth from south to north into the Tier III portion of the plan (see memo attached as Exhibit “G”). The memo cites how the property is in unified control and has been master-planned in an effort to facilitate better infrastructure and financial arrangements.

Staff’s draft Development Agreement recommends that certain criteria be met before the City will process any subdivision map entitlement in the Tier III area. The intent is to ensure that substantial progress and investment is made in the Tier II area, such that no portion of the Tier II area is being passed over prior to the Tier III area. The criteria are summarized as follows:

Prior to the processing of a Tier III tentative subdivision map:
• All phases and lots specified in the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 shall have final maps recorded with the Tulare County Recorder. • Permits for new dwelling units shall be issued for:
o At least 80% of lots located within the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map (i.e., 300 lots),
o At least 80% of units associated with the 5.5-acre Tier II Medium Density Residential area as indicated by Table 2-1 in the Specific Plan (i.e., 44 units), and o At least 80% of units associated with either the 3.6-acre Tier II Medium Density Residential area or the 9.7-acre Tier II High Density Residential areas as indicated by Table 2-1 in the Specific Plan (i.e., 29 units or 117 units respectively).

This cumulatively equates to construction in at least three of the four stand-alone land use districts in Tier II prior to approvals of any development in Tier III. This requirement does not involve the 29.3-acre R-M-3 zoned site located inside the City limits situated in Tier I. • Improvements for Circulation Element streets, pedestrians trail and landscaping, and other public areas shown in the Tier II area shall be completed. • A street (i.e., Sedona Avenue or Shannon Parkway) shall be constructed between Roeben and Ridgeview Middle School to provide circulation within the site, reducing reliance on arterial streets.
783
General Plan Consistency
Land Use Element Policies
The subdivision’s design pattern and lot pattern consisting of a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is consistent with the site’s Residential Low Density land use designation. The entire site has been designated for residential land uses since the adoption of the Visalia General Plan in 2014.

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

Low Density Residential
Areas of the project designated as Low Density Residential are shown on the concept plan with a street pattern and lotting pattern, though only the area in Tier II is presently being subdivided.

The tentative subdivision map will be developed at a density of 3.71 dwelling units per gross acre and 5.85 dwelling units per net acre. For the Tier III (a.k.a. Phase 2) portion of the Low Density Residential, Specific Plan Table 2-1 anticipates that this portion is proposed to be 5 dwelling units per gross acre.

Land Use Policy LU-P-55 states: “this designation is intended to provide for single-family subdivisions.” Compatibility with the surrounding area is required by the General Plan in the decision to approve the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision meets all codified standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as well as all General Plan policies pertaining to residential development. Staff finds that the proposed tentative subdivision map is compatible with existing residential development within the Low Density Residential land use designation situated south of Riggin Avenue and east of Akers Street.

Medium and High Density Residential
The areas of the Specific Plan designated as Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential are anticipated for future development upon annexation. At this time, no development plans have been submitted to the City for consideration. The Specific Plan affirms that future development within these areas will be developed with approximately 10 dwelling units per gross acre for Medium Density Residential properties and approximately 15 dwelling units per gross acre in the High Density Residential properties.

Land Use Policy LU-P-56 states: “[The Medium Density Residential] designation can accommodate a mix of housing types including small-lot single-family, townhouses, two- and fourplexes, and garden apartments on infill lots or new development areas within walking distance of neighborhood nodes and corridors. … Development standards will ensure that new development contributes positively to the larger community environment.” Land Use Policy LU-P-57 states: “[The High Density Residential] designation is appropriate for some infill sites and new areas in close proximity to neighborhood centers and major transportation routes. ... Development standards will ensure that new development contributes positively to the creation of neighborhood nodes or districts.” Specific Plan Section 5.5 calls out four multi-family product types or building configurations that can be utilized in the new community: cluster single-family; townhouses, duplexes and fourplexes, and apartment buildings. The Plan further provides a highly detailed set of architectural design guidelines (Section 5.6) that ensures high-quality character, which is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-52 that states “Facilitate high-quality building and site design for multi-family developments … by creating and adopting design guidelines to be used in the development review and approval process.”
784
The Specific Plan has been designed in a manner that plots all multi-family residential designations within one-half mile of the two commercial nodes located at the corners of Shirk/Riggin and Akers/Avenue 320. Furthermore, all designations contain frontage or adjoining proximity to arterial roadways.

Neighborhood Commercial
The existing 11.4-acre Neighborhood Commercial designation on the site is the sole commercial designation serving the entire one-mile block that constitutes most of the project area. The Plan proposes to move its location within the plan area and reduce its size to 6.4 acres.

With this changes, the designation is still consistent with all aspects of Land Use Policy LU-P67. The policy states that shopping centers in Neighborhood Commercial areas shall have a total size of 5 to 12 acres, be no closer than one mile from other General Plan-designated Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial locations, and be integrated with surrounding neighborhood uses in terms of design, with negative impacts minimized. The nearest General Plan designation from the proposed Akers/ Avenue 320 site is one mile away at the future intersection of Linwood & Shannon Parkway.

Commercial Mixed Use
The Plan proposes a new 28.7-acre Commercial Mixed Use designation at the intersection of Shirk & Riggin to facilitate the development of a Costco Warehouse and additional supporting commercial uses. The proposed change in land use and the conceptual development plan associated with the request is consistent with General Plan policies that pertain to Commercial Mixed Use. The land use designation is suitable for this location based on the site’s proximity to two arterial streets and the anticipated types of uses within the commercial site.

General Plan Policy LU-P-66, which in part states that the Commercial Mixed Use designation shall “allow for either horizontal or vertical mixed use development and a range of commercial, service, office, and residential uses”, does not provide any locational criteria.

Visalia’s existing Costco store is located at the intersection of Cameron & Stonebrook, which is designated as Regional Commercial on the General Plan land use and zoning maps. It would therefore be reasonable for the Regional Commercial land use and zoning designation to also be contemplated for the subject site.

A review of the City’s Land Use Element finds that either the Regional Commercial or Commercial Mixed Use designations could be considered for this site and use consistent with the Element’s policies. While the Land Use Element’s policies would not strictly prohibit placement of either designation at this corner, staff feels that a Commercial Mixed Use (C-MU) designation is better suited for the site and is still able to accommodate a Costco or another big box store. Being that the site would facilitate a second Costco store within Visalia, a case could be made that Costco is not a strictly regional land use in the context of Visalia. Unlike the Regional Commercial zone, the Commercial Mixed Use zone requires a conditional use permit for any single retail use exceeding 60,000 square feet.

Staff’s recommendation is based on C-MU designations that do tend to be freestanding at major intersections, whereas Regional Commercial is concentrated along corridors (i.e., Mooney, Cameron). The C-MU designation is also favorable since the concept plan proposed by the applicant, supported by the commercial tentative parcel map, shows a limited amount of smaller scale commercial pads along Riggin Avenue.

Staff further recognizes that the 28.7-acre C-MU designation is only being requested in order to accommodate a new Costco store at this location, and that staff’s support of a 28.7-acre designation is solely based upon the proposed Costco. As such, in the unanticipated circumstance 785
that Costco decides not to build at this location, and if no alternative commercial tenant of similar size and compatibility is found to replace the Costco, staff would recommend through Draft Development Agreement Article 4 that a Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment be processed to reduce the gross acreage associated with the C-MU designation to approximately 10 acres or less.

Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 66589.5) The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards, including design review, if they were in effect at the time that the housing development application was deemed complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and that there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact1.

The project is considered to be consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and single-family residential development standards. The lots proposed for the Carleton Acres Phase 1 subdivision meet density standards for the \ Low Density Residential land use designation and will be compatible with surrounding developed residential areas.

Furthermore, the subdivision will develop a network of local streets, improve adjacent arterial public roadways, and construct new collector public roadways, thereby facilitating increased street connectivity to accommodate future growth areas.

Background on Specific Plans
Specific plans are a type of guiding and policy utilized in California jurisdictions. Whereas general plans provide context, land uses, objectives and goals for an entire jurisdiction (i.e., county-wide or city-wide), a specific plan covers part of an area covered by the general plan. When being written for a particular document, a specific plan can also include zoning regulations for the mix of land uses within it, including architectural standards if desired. Specific plans may be voluntarily initiated by one or more property owners, or may be required or recommended by a general plan document. In this instance, the Carleton Acres Specific Plan is being proposed based on Visalia General Plan Policy LU-P-22.

Specific plans are regulated by state law per Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457, and regulated by Visalia city law per Municipal Code Chapter 12.04 (see Related Plans and Policies for full text).

Development Standards
In most circumstances, Carleton Acres Specific Plan and the related tentative subdivision map proposed to follow codified standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance regarding lot size, setbacks, and so on. The Plan does not propose the utilization of small lots or private streets with the single-family residential portions of the Plan, and no specific development details have been proposed for any multi-family residential portions of the Plan. Subsequent development of the multi-family designated parcels could establish private streets if developed through a tentative subdivision map and conditional use permit.

The proposed setbacks and deviations to the City’s Zoning Ordinance standards are discussed here.

Single-family Residential. For single-family residential, wherein lots in Tier II are being established through the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, the City’s Zoning Ordinance standards will be utilized, excepting for the rear yards. 1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).
786
All lots will have lot depths ranging from approximately 105 feet to 115 feet, excepting lots located on 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. • Rear yards. City standard rear yard setbacks are 25 feet with allowance for one-story structure to go to 20’ subject to open space requirements. The developer proposes allowing
reduced setbacks as low as 7’ or 10’ due to the configuration of certain one-story residences that places open space equal or greater than the minimum rear yard setback area within a portion of the side/rear of the lot (an example is shown in the Figure 1 to the right).

Staff is granting this setback on the basis that all single-family zoned lots in the Specific Plan will be subject to this standard and that the site does not and will not directly abut other similarly zoned lots. Additionally, the open space that is traditionally contained within a rear yard setback area is still provided behind the residence.

Multi-family Residential. For multi-family residential, the City’s Zoning Ordinance standards will be utilized, excepting for the rear yards.
*Criteria
Exception if the rear yard is to be used for parking.

Exception if open space is provided elsewhere.

Planned Unit Development with individual lots allow 0’ setbacks, overall development shall follow the above setback requirements.
3-R Cluster Lot Private Yards: Each building shall have a private yard. The yard should be 200 SF minimum. One side having a minimum 7’ wide dimension. • Rear yards. City standard rear yard setbacks are 15 feet in the R-M-3 zone and 25 feet in the R-M-2 zone. The developer proposes allowing reduced setbacks depending on the product type if certain conditions can be met, as further summarized in the tables on Specific Plan pages 77 through 80. Staff is granting these setbacks on the basis that all multi-family zoned areas in the Specific Plan will be subject to this standard. The variation 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.
60’ minimum lot width: 20-ft.; 7-ft. is allowed if:
• single story,
• over 1,500 SF of useable open space in the rear,
• minimum lot depth of 112’ and space for
accessory dwelling unit
50’ minimum lot width: 10-ft., with open space
requirements:
• 12% minimum of site area to be open space in
the rear, including setbacks
Minimum Lot Area Front Side Street
Side Rear
R-M-2: One unit per 2,000 sq. ft.

R-M-3: One unit per 1,200 sq. ft.
15-ft. to habitable space.
22-ft. to garage
5-ft. (0-ft if
attached) 10-ft. 10 to 25-ft.*
Figure 1: Example single-family
residential plot and rear yard setback.
787
in the rear yard setbacks still require that common open space setbacks be met in accordance with City standards.

Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts
A Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) will be required for the long-term maintenance of the out lots, which include blocks walls, streetlights, landscaping, and all park amenities as noted on Exhibit “C”.

The block walls along street frontages will be similar to City standard block walls but with a fluted block top as depicted in Specific Plan Figure 6.D.

Traffic Circulation and Street Improvements
Street improvements to arterial, collector, and local roadways will be required within the specific plan area as development progresses. The full circulation plan for the entire project, including street cross sections, is shown in Specific Plan Section 7. Street improvements will be completed in phases, wherein the initial improvements related to the project will focus on the streets surrounding the single-family residential and mixed use commercial components in Growth Tier II. Phase 1 in the Specific Plan refers to areas in Growth Tiers I and II, while Phase 2 refers to area in Growth Tier III.

Phase 1
Arterial Streets. Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue are designated 110-foot wide arterial streets with four travel lanes at full buildout. Both roadways are currently improved as two-lane County roadways with only Riggin Avenue having frontage improvements on the south side. The commercial parcel map will provide irrevocable offers of dedication for these roadways. The initial development phase will improve these streets, resulting in a full width of Riggin between Shirk and Roeben Street and a 2/3 width of Shirk between Riggin and Shannon Parkway. The 2/3 buildout refers to two northbound and one southbound travel lane, wherein future development on the west side of Shirk will be responsible for completing the full improvements. Cross sections are shown on Specific Plan Figures 7.B through 7.E and in some cases incorporate bike lanes with a planter strip separation from vehicle travel lanes.

Collector Streets. Roeben Street and Shannon Parkway are designated 84-foot wide collector streets with two travel lanes at full buildout. Both roadways are currently unconstructed. The tentative subdivision map will provide dedication for the roadways to allow for 2/3 buildout along the Phase 1 frontages. In this context, the 2/3 buildout refers to full improvements on the development side plus an 18-foot median and travel lane in each direction. Future development on the east side of Roeben will be responsible for completing the full improvements. The north side of Shannon Parkway will be completed with Phase 2 of the Specific Plan. Cross sections are shown on Specific Plan Figures 7.J through 7.O and in some cases incorporate bike lanes with a planter strip separation from vehicle travel lanes.

As part of the pedestrian trail improvements, there will be a 12-foot wide pedestrian/bike path on the west side of Roeben west of the future high school. The cross section of Roeben shows the pedestrian/bike path being within the 84-foot right of way, with an additional 5-foot LL&D lot on the subdivision site.

Local Streets. Denton Street is a future 60-foot wide local street located on the east side of the Commercial Mixed Use site. The commercial parcel map will provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for Denton, and travel/parking lanes will be constructed with the commercial development connecting to Phase 1A of the single-family subdivision, with frontage improvements completed with adjoining development.
788
Sedona Avenue is a 60-foot wide local street that currently exists south of Ridge View Middle School and will ultimately extend westerly to Shirk Street. The applicant will be constructing Sedona west of Roeben with the single-family subdivision. The segment from Roeben east to the existing round-about is intended to be built with adjoining development. Cross sections are shown on Specific Plan Figures 7.P and 7.Q.

As part of the pedestrian trail improvements, there will be a 12-foot wide pedestrian/bike path along Prescott Avenue, parallel to Riggin Avenue, providing connection between the commercial, multi-family, and school uses. Cross sections shown on Specific Plan Figures 7.R and 7.S show the pedestrian/bike path straddle between the right of way and a landscape & lighting lot.

Phase 2
Future development in the Tier III portion will include the extension of improvements along Shirk Street, Roeben Street, and Shannon Parkway.

Additional improvements along the frontages of arterial roadways Akers Street and Avenue 320 (Kibler) will be installed with development in a 2/3 buildout configuration. Cross sections are shown on Specific Plan Figures 7.F through 7.I.

Phase 2 improvements include the Modoc Greenway improvements to be located within L&LD lots on the opposite side of Modoc Ditch from Shannon Parkway and Akers Street (see Specific Plan Figures 7.I and 7.N).

Traffic Impact Study
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the proposed project (ref.: Carleton Ares Specific Plan Traffic Study. Ruettgers & Schuler, March 2023). The purpose of the study is to analyze traffic conditions related to buildout of the Carleton Acres 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). A roadway capacity analysis was conducted for Riggin Avenue between Shirk and Akers Street.

The TIS concluded that various intersection improvements are needed at 5-year increments, corresponding with anticipated build-out conditions at 5-year intervals. Intersection improvements are summarized in Table 1a (Table 3.17-15 in the EIR) and queue length improvements are summarized in Tables 7a, 7b, and 7c (Table 3.17-11 in the EIR).

Roadway improvements are also required in the form of widening Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Akers Street with the initial Phase 1 improvements (identified as “2023” conditions in the TIS).

Mitigation measures have been included in the Environmental Impact Report to address the roadway deficiencies described above. Measure TRA-1 requires the payment of Transportation Impact Fees based on the City’s adopted fee schedule, in tandem with the issuance of building permits. Measure TRA-2 requires that the project will be responsible for paying its pro-rata fair share cost percentages and/or constructing the recommend on-site improvements and site improvements identified in the tables specified above.

At full buildout of the Specific Plan (identified as “2046” conditions in the TIS), all study intersections are expected to operate with minimal delay (at or above LOS D) during peak hours, both with and without project traffic, or can be mitigated to operate at an acceptable LOS, excepting for five intersections:
789
• Rd 67 / Betty Dr (Goshen / County of Tulare)
• Dinuba Blvd / Riggin Ave
• Akers St / Ferguson Ave
• Demaree St / Goshen Ave
• Demaree St / Mineral King Ave
As a result, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project EIR concludes that full buildout of the Specific Plan will result in significant and unavoidable impacts.

A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis was also conducted using the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Model by comparing the project’s expected VMT per capita to regional averages, and ensuring that the City meets or exceeds the significance threshold of 84% of the existing regional service population for mixed-use projects. The Tulare County Region VMT is

28.2% based on the TCAG model, meaning that the Visalia threshold is 23.7%. The TIS concluded that the project’s VMT per service population is 18.5%, which is less than the Visalia threshold. Therefore, the project’s impacts to VMT are concluded to be less than significant under CEQA.

Riggin Avenue Widening
The project’s March 2023 TIS concluded that roadway improvements shall include widening Riggin Avenue from two lanes to four lanes between Shirk Street and Akers Street with the initial Phase 1 improvements.

A draft focused traffic study prepared in association with the Costco development (ref.: Visalia Costco Warehouse Focused Traffic Study. Kittelson & Associates, “Draft” August 2023) confirms the widening of Riggin to four travel lanes between Shirk and Akers is a suggested improvement with Phase 1.

Planning for the widening of Riggin has required coordination efforts between the City, applicant, and Southern California Edison based on issues described below.

Currently there are 15 transmission/power poles along Riggin that will ultimately need to be relocated to outside of the four planned travel lanes. Edison anticipates a June 2025 completion date for moving the poles, despite coordination efforts that have been ongoing for years. The applicant has been actively working and submitting plans to Edison to coordinate street widening improvements and power pole relocation for the segment between Shirk and Roeben.

The project’s traffic consultant has prepared supplemental analysis to identify the traffic impact upon Riggin Avenue that examines multiple scenarios of certain land uses developing in Phase

1. The objective of this analysis was to confirm that the development of the Phase 1 single-family residential portion of the project alone would not incur a Level of Service (LOS) that requires widening of Riggin Avenue, and to examine the impact of Costco together with other types of Phase 1 development.

The supplemental analysis concludes the following:
• The development of Low, Medium, and High Density Residential housing units in Phase 1 only, with no commercial development, would remain within LOS C, which meets City standards for acceptable traffic flow on a two-lane roadway. • The development of Costco alone, without the development of any residential uses or the commercial pads fronting Riggin, would remain within LOS C. • However, with the development of Costco alone, the addition of 13 additional Peak Hour Trips would raise the traffic level to LOS D, which would trigger widening. The 13 additional 790
trips could be in the form of the construction of 13 single-family residences or construction of the retail pads in front of Costco.

Staff finds that while certain scenarios are presented in the supplemental analysis, other Phase 1 development scenarios involving more than one land use type could occur but have not been explored, and that additional information could be provided on stages of the development of Riggin.

Considering all traffic study findings discuss above, staff holds to the fact that the widening of Riggin Avenue is an essential and necessary improvement associated with the development of Costco in the Phase 1 plan. Staff is therefore recommending to the City Council, through Draft Development Agreement Article 5, that the applicant take all necessary steps to pursue widening Riggin Avenue before final occupancy of Costco. Staff will continue to consult with the applicant on clearer language in the Development Agreement regarding the staged development of Riggin from west to east joining with Akers, and different scenarios that may result in only certain stages being widened. This is also notwithstanding the mutual understanding that the timing and sections of the power pole relocation along Riggin may postpone the widening or result in a temporary circulation pattern while poles are still being relocated.

Agricultural Preservation Ordinance Requirements
The 468-acre project site is in the City’s Tier II and III urban development boundary and is designated as Prime Farmland as defined per the Tulare County Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. As a result, the development of this site is subject to the City’s recently adopted Agricultural Preservation Ordinance.

On May 15, 2023, the City Council approved the second and final reading of Ordinance No. 2023- 02, which adopts an addition to the Visalia Municipal Code referred to as Title 18 “Agricultural Land Preservation”, Chapter 18.04 “Agricultural Land Preservation Program”. This code creates an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) to implement Visalia General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-34.

The APO established a process for the required preservation of agricultural land through the acquisition of agricultural conservation easements or the payment of an in-lieu fee for projects subject to the provisions of the ordinance.

The developer of the project is subject to complying with the requirements of the adopted APO since the site is located with the Tier II urban development boundary. The preserved land obligation shall be calculated at a ratio of one acre of preserved land for each acre of converted land. Converted land acreage shall be calculated by determining the applicable project acreage less the acreage of exclusions. In addition, the preserved land obligation, as established in Section 18.04.070(A), shall be preserved through acquisition of an agricultural easement in accordance with Section 18.04.080, unless eligible for payment of an in-lieu fee in accordance with Section 18.04.090.

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

Infrastructure
Water Service: Staff has included Condition No. 5 that requires a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company if, prior to development of the subdivision, the determination of water availability letter lapses.
791
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 specific plan area. 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.

A sewer analysis has been prepared for the site consistent based upon a request from the Public Works Department (see Exhibit “H”). After a thorough review of the documents and since these additional subdivisions are not planned for immediate construction, while also not factoring in any further continuing growth, it appears that the Wastewater Treatment Facility possesses the capacity to effectively accommodate this tier of development. As mentioned in a previous email, It is crucial to highlight that any projects scheduled up until 2026 can be accommodated within our current capacity. However, for developments beyond that timeframe, it will be essential for us to engage in discussions and initiate the formulation of plans and resolutions. This approach aims to ensure that we sustain our 80 percent utilization threshold and avoid surpassing the plant's capacity.

Storm Drainage: The storm drainage system will have to be extended to the boundaries of the development where future connection and extension is anticipated. The storm drain system will be sized in order to service the entire specific plan area. A storm drainage plan for each development proposal will be required to be submitted to the City for approval.

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 maps have been found to be
consistent with the City’s General Plan and the
proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 1 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Parcel Maps.
(b) That the design or improvement of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.

The proposed design and improvement of the
maps have been found to be consistent with the
City’s General Plan and Carleton Acres Specific
Plan. This is included as recommended Finding
No. 2 of the Tentative Subdivision and Parcel
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, Medium
Density Residential, and Parks/Recreation, and is
developed at densities that are within the allowed
ranges of the specified land use designations. This
792
is included as recommended Finding No. 3 of the
Tentative Subdivision and 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 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 improvements 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. 7 of the Tentative
Subdivision and 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 maps have been found
to not cause serious public health problems. This
is included as recommended Finding No. 2 of the
Tentative Subdivision and 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 maps does not conflict
with any existing or proposed easements located
on or adjacent to the subject property. This is
included as recommended Finding No. 4 of the
Tentative Subdivision and Parcel Maps.

Environmental Review
A Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2021050418), incorporated herein by reference, has been prepared in association with the Carleton Acres Specific Plan project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR has determined that all project impacts were either less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of the following impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable:
• Aesthetics – Degrade existing visual character (project and cumulative level) • Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Loss of farmland (project and cumulative level) • Air Quality – Conflict with Air Quality Plan / Exceed criteria pollutant thresholds (project and cumulative level)
• Hydrology & Water Quality – Water supply (cumulative level only) • Transportation – Conflict with Plan/Program (project and cumulative level) • Utilities & Service Systems – Water supply (cumulative level only) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15091 and 15092, the City, as the Lead Agency, may still approve a project for which the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the project. This requires the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for each environmental impact that falls into the category of significant and 793
unavoidable.

The decision to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by factual documentation that supports the decision that:

1. There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant impact; and,

2. Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.

The findings and recommended conclusions for each of the six environmental analysis areas noted above are contained in the resolution recommending certification of the EIR.

Mitigation Measures
The EIR further disclosed mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The measures address the following resources:
• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Agricultural for the loss of prime farmland and addressing conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. • Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Air Quality for impacts during construction and for evaluating potential health risk impacts within close distance of sensitive land uses. • Five (5) mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources for impacts of the project to special-status wildlife species (i.e., Sanford’s arrowhead, Swainson's Hawk, Burrowing Owl, nesting birds).
• 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.
• Two (2) mitigation measures pertaining to Geology & Soils for the submittal of plans for storm water pollution and pollutant discharge and for geotechnical analysis. • Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Hazards & Hazardous Materials for the testing of potentially hazardous soil and groundwater and the identification of abandoned oil wells.
• Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Noise to address noise-sensitive land uses, construction of block walls along arterial roadways, installation of specific blowers for Costco’s drive-through car wash, and bus movements along public roadways. • Three (3) mitigation measures pertaining to Transportation for the payment of transportation impact fees, paying pro-rata fair share cost percentages and/or constructing recommended on-site and site-adjacent improvements, and submitting a construction traffic control plan.
• Four (4) mitigation measures pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources to address site inspections by a tribal monitor and measures in the event that resources are discovered.

Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed Project. This Draft EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
• No Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and the site would remain in agricultural production.
• Alternate Locations Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would be developed 794
on a different site of similar size and scale.
• Reduced (50%) Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would be reduced by 50% (overall site acreage, residential units, commercial acreage, and recreational facilities).

Public Review and Recommendation
Circulation of the Draft EIR followed a Notice of Availability period wherein the Draft EIR was duly noticed and conducted for the project for a 45-day public review and comment period from May 4 to June 19, 2023. The City of Visalia is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIR. Three comment letters were received during this public review period, from California Department of Fish & Wildlife, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and Lozano Smith, Attorneys at Law on behalf of Visalia Unified School District. City staff and the consultant have prepared responses to the comments received (refer to the Final EIR, dated August 2023). The Draft Program EIR, including the technical appendices, all the comments received and the responses to these comments, constitute the Final EIR.

The Planning Commission is asked to review the overall content of the Final EIR, the responses to the comments received to date, and consider any further testimony received during the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make its recommendations on the Final EIR and entitlements, including recommendations to the City Council where they have final authority. The recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council in Resolution form to be included in the materials presented to the City Council for its final determination. The certification of the EIR for this projects rests with the final approving body, which is the City Council.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2021050418 The findings are incorporated into Resolution No. 2023-42.

If the Planning Commission finds that the Annexation, Specific Plan, and General Plan Amendment are consistent with the intent of the General Plan, staff recommends that the following findings be made:

Annexation No. 2021-05

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 468 acres of AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive 20-acre) and AE-40 (Agricultural Exclusive 40-acre) County zone district to QP (Quasi-Public) zone, R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size) zone, R-M-2 (Multi-family Residential, one unit per 3,000 square feet), R-M-3 (Multi-family Residential, one unit per 1,200 square feet), C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use), and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial), 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 3 per the Council Election Voting District Map.

5. That the project is consistent with the project description contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2021050418) for the project associated with this Annexation, 795
specifically for development is identified and described in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this Annexation request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14

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

2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment creating 28.7 acres of Commercial Mixed Use and 17.3 acres of Basin will not impose new land uses or development that will adversely affect the subject site or adjacent properties.

3. That the General Plan Amendment will help facilitate additional residential units within the Tier II and III Urban Development Boundaries, and that the proposed tentative subdivision map resulting from the amended General Plan land use map is compatible with the adjacent residential uses.

4. That the project is consistent with the project description contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2021050418) for the project associated with this General Plan Amendment, specifically for development is identified and described in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this General Plan Amendment request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

Specific Plan No. 2021-13

1. That the Carleton Acres Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with adopted local ordinance – in particular, Chapter 12.04 of the Visalia Municipal Code.

2. That the Carleton Acres Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with adopted State law – in particular, Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code.

3. That the Carleton Acres Specific Plan is consistent with the Visalia General Plan, and in particular, satisfactorily meets the intent of LU-P-22

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

5. That the project is consistent with the project description contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2021050418) for the project associated with this Specific Plan adoption, specifically for development is identified and described in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration of this Specific Plan adoption request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590

1. That the proposed location and layout of the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained, is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance, and the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan. The 101-acre 796
project site, which is the site of the proposed 375 lot single-family residential subdivision, is consistent with Land Use Policy LU-P-19 of the General Plan. Policy LU-P-19 states “ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.”

2. That the proposed Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The project site does not directly abut any existing developed uses, and development standards contained within the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the Carleton Acres Specific Plan will address land use conflicts with future adjacent multi-family residential, commercial, public institutional, and light industrial uses.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map. The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is adjacent to land zoned for residential development, and the subdivision itself is designated as Low Density Residential, and developed at a density that is within the allowed range for Low Density Residential development.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative subdivision map and the project’s density, which is consistent with the proposed Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation while being developed at 3.71 dwelling units per gross acre. The design of the proposed subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The 375-lot subdivision is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. Areas of dedication will be obtained as part of the tentative map recording for new street improvements, including the construction of curb, gutter, curb return, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and pavement.

5. That the proposed location of the tentative subdivision map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed location of the subdivision is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. Multiple General Plan policies identify the implementation of development standards to ensure that new single-family residential development will contribute to positive land use compatibility. The size of the property combined with the number of residential lots proposed is consistent and compatible with existing surrounding residential development. The proposed project will result in the creation of new single-family residential developments which, for the Low Density Residential portion at a density of 3.71 units per acre, is consistent with General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and the R-1-5 zoning designation that will be applied to the site when annexed into the city limits.

6. That there is no evidence that the project would cause quantifiable significant unavoidable impacts on public health and safety. The project is consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development standards. The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 66589.5) requires local agencies to approve housing developments that are consistent with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete. A local agency cannot disapprove a project or lower its density unless it finds by a preponderance of the 797
evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the impact.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

8. That the project is consistent with the project description contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2021050418) for the project associated with this Tentative Subdivision Map, specifically for development is identified and described in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission’s consideration of this Tentative Subdivision Map request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04

1. That the proposed location and layout of the tentative parcel map, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan.

2. That the proposed tentative parcel map, its improvement and design, and the conditions under which it will be maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor is it likely to cause serious public health problems. The project site does not directly abut any existing developed uses, and development standards contained within the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the Carleton Acres Specific Plan will address land use conflicts with future adjacent multi-family residential uses.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative parcel map. The project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, and the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is situated on land designated Commercial Mixed Use development.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed tentative parcel map which is consistent with the underlying Commercial Mixed Use Land Use Designation and zone. The design of the proposed parcel map 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 commercial map. The commercial parcel map is designed to comply with the City’s Engineering Improvement Standards. Areas of dedication will be obtained as part of the tentative map recording for new street improvements, including the construction of curb, gutter, curb return, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, and pavement.

5. That the proposed location of the tentative parcel map is in accordance with the Visalia General Plan and the objectives of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed location of the parcel map 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 commercial development will contribute to positive land use compatibility.

7. That the design of the parcel map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

8. That the proposed parcel sizes resulting from the parcel map are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance’s Planned Development and Commercial zone standards since they are part of a specific plan established through Specific Plan No. 2021-13 for adoption of the Carleton Acres Specific Plan.

9. That the project is consistent with the project description contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2021050418) for the project associated with this Tentative Parcel Map, specifically for development is identified and described in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan, and for which said FEIR is recommended to be certified by the City Council precedent to the Planning Commission’s consideration of this Tentative Parcel Map request, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Visalia Environmental Guidelines.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Annexation No. 2021-05

1. Upon annexation, the territory shall be zoned QP (Quasi-Public) zone, R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 square feet minimum lot size) zone, R-M-2 (Multi-family Residential, one unit per 3,000 square feet), R-M-3 (Multi-family Residential, one unit per 1,200 square feet), C-MU (Commercial Mixed Use), and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial), consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designations as proposed through the General Plan Amendment.

2. That the applicant(s) enter into a Pre-Annexation Agreement with the City which memorializes the required fees, policies, and other conditions applicable to the annexation. The draft PreAnnexation Agreement is attached herein as Attachment “B” of Resolution No. 2023-45. The agreement is subject to final approval by the City Council of the City of Visalia.

Specific Plan No. 2021-13

1. That the Carleton Acres Specific Plan be adopted in substantial compliance with the Specific Plan attached as Attachment “A” of Resolution No. 2023-43.

2. That the Carleton Acres Specific Plan be developed in accordance with the development agreement, attached as Exhibit “F”, which shall be signed and recorded prior to the recording of any final maps.

3. That the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Final Environmental Impact Report certified for the project (State Clearinghouse 2021050418) and all conditions of this project be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project.

Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590

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. 2022- 164 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 be prepared in substantial compliance with the subdivision map in Exhibit “C”.

3. That development standards for this map shall be in compliance with those defined in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan.
799

4. That the mitigation measures found within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the Carleton Acres Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report are hereby incorporated as conditions of the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590.

5. That prior to the issuance of any residential building permit on the site, the applicant / developer shall obtain and provide the City with a valid Will Serve Letter from the California Water Service Company.

6. That approval of the Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2021-05, 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 PreAnnexation Agreement for Annexation No. 2021-05.

7. That the Project be null and void unless General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14 and Specific Plan No. 2021-13 are approved by the City of Visalia.

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

9. That the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Final Environmental Impact Report certified for the project (State Clearinghouse 2021050418) and all conditions of this project be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04

1. That the parcel 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. 2022-174 incorporated herein by reference.

2. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04 be prepared in substantial compliance with the parcel map in Exhibit “D”.

3. That development standards for this map shall be in compliance with those defined in the Carleton Acres Specific Plan.

5. That approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04 shall not become effective unless Annexation No. 2021-05, 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. 2021-05.

6. That the Project be null and void unless General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14 and Specific Plan No. 2021-13 are approved by the City of Visalia.

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

8. That the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and its mitigation measures adopted with the Final Environmental Impact Report certified for the project (State Clearinghouse 2021050418) and all conditions of this project be met during construction and upon final occupancy and ongoing operation of the project.
800

APPEAL INFORMATION
Annexation No. 2021-05, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14, Specific Plan No. 2021-13 For the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Specific Plan, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory only. The final decision will be by the Visalia City Council following a public hearing. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s recommendation in this matter is not appealable.

Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04
According to the City of Visalia Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.28.080, an appeal to the City Council may be submitted within ten days following the date of a decision by the Planning Commission. An appeal with applicable fees shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk at 220 North Santa Fe St., Visalia, CA, 93292. The appeal shall specify errors or abuses of discretion by the Planning Commission, or decisions not supported by the evidence in the record.

The appeal form can be found on the City’s website at:
https://www.visalia.city/government/committees/planning_commission/default.asp. 801
Attachments:
• Related Plans and Policies
• Resolution No. 2023-42 – Recommendation of certification of Final EIR • Resolution No. 2023-43 – Specific Plan No. 2021-13
• Resolution No. 2023-44 – General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14 • Resolution No. 2023-45 – Annexation No. 2021-05
- Attachment “A” – Annexation Area
- Attachment “B” – Annexation Agreement
• Resolution No. 2023-46 – Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 • Resolution No. 2023-47 – Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-04 • Exhibit "A" – Plan Area Concept
• Exhibit “B” – Carleton Acres Specific Plan
• Exhibit “C” – Carleton Acres Phase 1 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5590 • Exhibit "D" – Commercial Parcel Map
• Exhibit “E” – Annexation Area
• Exhibit “F” – Draft Development Agreement
• Exhibit “G” – Memorandum regarding request for Tier III development • Exhibit “H” – Sewer Analysis
• Draft Environmental Impact Report
• Final Environmental Impact Report
• Comments from Site Plan Review Item Nos. 2022-073
• Comments from Site Plan Review Item Nos. 2022-164
• Comments from Site Plan Review Item Nos. 2022-174
• General Plan Land Use Map
• Zoning Map
• Aerial Map
• Location Map
Available online via City of Visalia Website:
• Draft EIR Appendices A through I: https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=53414 • Draft EIR Appendices J: https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=53415 802

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

General Plan Land Use Policies:

LU-P-19: Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy. The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern.

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

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

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

LU-P-22: Allow for City Council approval of master plans, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, for sites under a single ownership or unified control, which may include developable land within both multiple development tiers. Allow for pre-zoning of this master planned land, subject to execution of a development agreement between the City and the land owner conforming to the requirements of Government Code Section 65864 et seq., with the project allowed to annex and develop while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier I or Tier II designation.

An approved master-planned site then could be annexed before development is permitted in Tier II or Tier III under Policy LU-P-21. The development agreement would spell out details on overall development, density/intensity and phasing, infrastructure needs and financing, and what each party would do. This policy will allow large land owners, with Council approval, to have a longer time frame for development and infrastructure planning, consistent with the vision of the General Plan, and also “nail down” the numbers for their financial partners while still maintaining the City’s interest in having concentric growth through a phasing plan.

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

LU-P-56: Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Medium Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre.

This designation can accommodate a mix of housing types including small-lot single-family, townhouses, two- and four-plexes, and garden apartments, on infill lots or new development areas within walking distance of neighborhood nodes and corridors. Medium Density Residential development may also be permitted on corner lots in single-family zones and in 803
infill areas where it can be made to be consistent with adjacent properties through the conditional use process. Development standards will ensure that new development contributes positively to the larger community environment. Projects on sites larger than five acres or involving more than 60 units will require discretionary review.

LU-P-57 Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the High Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 15 to 35 dwelling units per gross acre, accommodating townhouses, two- and four-plexes, and multistory condominium and apartment buildings.

The designation is appropriate for some infill sites and new areas in close proximity to neighborhood centers and major transportation routes. High Density Residential development may also be permitted in infill areas where it can be made to be consistent with adjacent properties through the conditional use permit process. Development standards will ensure that new development contributes positively to the creation of neighborhood nodes or districts. Projects on sites larger than five acres or involving more than 60 units will require discretionary review.

LU-P-66 Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Commercial Mixed Use designation on the Land Use Diagram, to allow for either horizontal or vertical mixed use development and a range of commercial, service, office, and residential uses.

New development in Commercial Mixed Use Areas should have an FAR of at least 0.4 and up to 1.0 for commercial space. If residential uses are included, density may be up to 35 dwelling units per gross acre. Commercial development must be part of all new development in the Commercial Mixed Use district.

LU-P-67 Update the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Neighborhood Commercial designation on the Land Use Diagram, intended for small-scale commercial development that primarily serves surrounding residential areas, wherein small office uses as well as horizontal or vertical residential mixed use are also supported. Provide standards to ensure that neighborhood commercial uses are economically-viable and also integrated into neighborhoods, with multimodal access and context-sensitive design.

Neighborhood Commercial development shall be subject to design review and public input. If residential uses are included, density should be 10 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre.

Shopping centers in Neighborhood Commercial areas shall have the following characteristics:
• Anchored by a grocery store or similar business offering fresh produce, poultry, fish and meat;
• Include smaller in-line stores of less than 10,000 square feet; • Total size of 5 to 12 acres or as shown on the Land Use Diagram; and • Integrated with surrounding neighborhood uses in terms of design, with negative impacts minimized.
• Located no closer than one mile from other General Plan-designated Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial locations, or from existing grocery stores. • No individual tenant shall be larger than 40,000 square feet in size.

Standards for Neighborhood Commercial development also shall require design measures that create a walkable environment and require local street and pedestrian connections.

Alterations and additions in existing nonconforming centers may be permitted, subject to design review and conditions of approval to minimize neighborhood impacts. 804
Municipal Code Chapter 12.04 ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC PLANS

12.04.010 Adoption.

A. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any specific plan, or amendment to any specific plan, and submit their findings and recommendation to city council.

B. City council shall reject or adopt by resolution the specific plan, or specific plan amendment, by a majority vote. (Prior code § 7197.0)

12.04.020 Application to ordinances of city council.

Nothing in this chapter applies to the adoption or amendment of any ordinance by the legislative body, except ordinances expressly adopting or amending a specific plan initiated pursuant to this chapter. (Prior code § 7197.1)

12.04.030 Rules and regulations.

The city council may determine and establish administrative rules and procedures for the application and enforcement of specific plans and regulations, and may assign or delegate such administrative functions, powers and duties to the planning or other agency as may be necessary or desirable. (Prior code § 7197.2)

12.04.040 Boards in aid of administration.

The city council may create boards of review, appeal, and adjustment, in connection with any portion of the specific plan. (Prior code § 7197.3)

12.04.050 Street improvement--Conformance with plan.

No street shall be improved and no sewers or connections or other improvements shall be laid or authorized in any street within any territory for which there is an adopted specific street or highway plan until the matter has been referred to the planning commission for a report as to conformity with such specific street or highway plan unless one of the following conditions applies:

A. The street has been accepted, opened or has otherwise received the legal status of a public street prior to the adoption of the plan;
B. It corresponds with streets shown on the plan;
C. It corresponds with streets shown on a subdivision map or record of survey approved by the legislative body;
D. It corresponds with streets shown on a subdivision map previously approved by the planning commission;
E. It is a local residential street not shown on the specific plan and is approved by the site plan review committee. (Prior code § 7197.4)

12.04.060 Open space and landscaping--Conformance with plan.

No street shall be improved, no sewers or connections or other improvements shall be laid or public building or works, including school buildings, constructed within any territory for which the Council has adopted a specific plan regulating the development of the use of open-space land and landscaping until a finding has been made that the open space and landscaping are in substantial compliance with the adopted specific plan. (Prior code § 7197.5)

12.04.070 Improvements--Cost distribution.

The cost of all public improvements of specific benefit to the area for which there is an adopted specific plan may be distributed among all properties in the plan area based on benefit. City council shall assess the cost of improvements to each property, based on the benefit to that property. The assessment process shall include public hearing affording each property owner affected an opportunity to be heard.

The public hearing process may be waived on any parcel where the property owner has voluntarily agreed to the assessment. This agreement shall be recorded and run with the property ownership. The parcel assessment may be collected at the time of building permit issuance and may replace other existing fees where the same improvements are paid for through a new collection method. (Prior code § 7197.6)
805
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.12 R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE

17.12.010 Purpose and intent.

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

17.12.015 Applicability.

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

17.12.050 Site area.

The minimum site area shall be as follows:

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

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

17.12.060 One dwelling unit per site.

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

17.12.080 Front yard.

A. The minimum front yard shall be as follows:

Zone Minimum Front Yard
R-1-5 Fifteen (15) feet for living space and side-loading garages and twenty-two (22) feet for front-loading garages or other parking facilities, such as, but not limited to, carports, shade canopies, or porte cochere. A Porte Cochere with less than twenty-two (22) feet of setback from property line shall not be counted as covered parking, and garages on such sites shall not be the subject of a garage conversion.

R-1-12.5 Thirty (30) feet
R-1-20 Thirty-five (35) feet
B. On a site situated between sites improved with buildings, the minimum front yard may be the average depth of the front yards on the improved site adjoining the side lines of the site but need not exceed the minimum front yard specified above.
806
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.

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. 807

17.12.130 Fences, walls and hedges.

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

Chapter 17.60 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS

17.60.010 Authority for adoption and applications.

These regulations are adopted under the authority of Government Code Sections 65864--65869.5.

A. Applications.

1. The city planner shall prescribe the form for each application, notice and documents provided for or required under these regulations for the preparation and implementation of development agreements.

2. The city planner may require an applicant to submit such information and supporting data as the city planner considers necessary to process the application.

B. Fees. The city council shall by separate resolution fix the schedule of fees and charges imposed for the filing and processing of each application and document provided for or required under these regulations.

C. Qualification as an Applicant. Only a qualified applicant may file an application to enter into a development agreement. A qualified applicant is a person who has legal or equitable interest in the real property that is the subject of the development agreement. Applicant includes authorized agent. The city planner may require an applicant to submit proof of his interest in the real property and of the authority of the agent to act for the applicant. Before processing the application, the city planner may obtain the opinion of the city attorney as to the sufficiency of the applicant's interest in the real property to enter into the agreement.

D. Proposed Form of Agreement. Each application shall be accompanied by the form of development agreement proposed by the applicant. This requirement may be met by designating the city's standard form of development agreement and including specific proposals for changes in or additions to the language of the standard form.

E. Review of Application. The city planner shall endorse on the application the date it is received. He shall review the application and may reject it if it is incomplete or inaccurate for processing. If he finds that the application is complete, he shall accept it for filing. The city planner shall review the application and determine the additional requirements necessary to complete the agreement. After receiving the required information, a staff report and recommendation shall be prepared, which shall state whether or not the agreement as proposed or in an amended form would be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7740)

17.60.020 Hearing and notice.

A. The planning commission and city council shall each hold a public hearing on each application for a development agreement. The city planner shall give notice of intention to consider adoption of the development agreement. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing a notice to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the property that is the subject of the proposed development agreement, and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. The form of the notice of intention to consider adoption of the development agreement shall contain:

1. The time and place of the hearing;

2. A general explanation of the matter to be considered including a general description of the area affected;

3. Other information required by specific provision of these regulations or which the city planner considers necessary or desirable.
808
B. The failure of any person entitled to notice required by law or these regulations to actually receive such notice, does not affect the authority of the city to enter into a development agreement. No action, inaction or recommendation regarding the proposed development agreement shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by a court by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission ("error") as to any matter pertaining to petition, application, notice, finding, record, hearing, report, recommendation, or any matters of procedure whatever unless after an examination of the entire case, including the evidence, the court is of the opinion that the error complained of was prejudicial and that by reason of the error the complaining party sustained and suffered substantial injury, and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred or existed. There is not presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury was done if error is shown. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7741)

17.60.030 Action by planning commission.

A. After the public hearing, the planning commission shall make its recommendation in writing to the city council. The recommendation shall include the planning commission's determination whether or not the following findings can be made:

1. That the proposed development agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and/or any proposed amendment to the general plan or applicable specific plan submitted simultaneously and in conjunction with the proposed development agreement;

2. That the proposed development agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located;

3. That the proposed development agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice;

4. That the proposed development agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare;

5. That the proposed development agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values.

B. The recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendation. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7742)

17.60.040 Action by city council.

A. After the city council completes the public hearing, it may accept, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission. It may, but need not, refer matters not previously considered by the planning commission during its hearing back to the planning commission for report and recommendation.

B. The planning commission may, but need not, hold a public hearing on matters referred back to it by the city council.

C. The city council may not approve the development agreement unless it finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan, and any applicable specific plan. Any proposed change in the general plan or applicable specific plan must be approved prior to, but simultaneously with, the approval of the development agreement.

D. If the city council approves the development agreement, it shall do so by the adoption of an ordinance. Upon the ordinance approving the development agreement taking effect, the city may enter into the agreement. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7743)

17.60.050 Amendment or cancellation of agreement by mutual consent.

Either party may propose an amendment to or cancellation in whole or in part of the development agreement previously entered into. The procedure for such proposing and adoption of an amendment or cancellation is the same as the procedure for entering into an agreement in the first instance, as prescribed by Sections 17.60.010 through 17.60.040. However, where the city initiates the proposed 809
amendment to or cancellation in whole or in part of the development agreement, it shall first give notice to the property owner of its intention to initiate such proceedings at least thirty (30) days in advance of the giving of notice of intention to consider the amendment or cancellation required by this section. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7744)

17.60.060 Recordation.

Within ten days after the city enters into the development agreement, the city clerk shall have the agreement recorded with the county recorder. If the parties to the agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel the agreement as provided in Section 17.60.050, or if the city terminates or modifies the agreement as provided in Section 17.60.050 for failure of the applicant to comply in good faith with the terms or conditions of the agreement, the city clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with the county recorder. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7745)

17.60.070 Periodic review.

A. Time for and Initiation of Review. The city planning staff shall review the development agreement every twelve (12) months from the date the agreement is entered into. The time for review may be modified either by agreement between the parties or by initiation in one or more of the following ways:

1. Recommendation of the planning staff;

2. Affirmative vote of at least three members of the planning commission;

3. Affirmative vote of at least three members of the city council.

B. Notice of Periodic Review. The city planner shall begin the review proceeding by giving notice to the property owner that the city intends to undertake a periodic review of the development agreement.

Following the review of the development agreement, the city planner shall make a determination that the property owner has made good faith performance and compliance with the terms of the agreement. If such finding is made by the city planner, no further action on the part of the city need be taken. If the city planner finds reasonable cause or evidence that the property owner has not demonstrated good faith performance and compliance with the terms of the agreement, such finding constitutes grounds for referring the matter of periodic review before the planning commission in public hearing. The city planner shall give the notice at least thirty (30) days in advance of the time at which the matter will be considered by the planning commission.

C. Public Hearing. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing at which the property owner must demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. The burden of proof on this issue is upon the property owner.

D. Findings Upon Public Hearing. The planning commission shall determine upon the basis of substantial evidence whether or not the property owner has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

E. Procedure Upon Findings.

1. If the planning commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the agreement during the period under review, the review for that period is concluded;

2. If the planning commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence that the property owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the agreement during the period under review, the planning commission may recommend to the city council that the agreement be modified or terminated. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: Ord. 9605 § 30 (part), 1996: prior code § 7746)

17.60.080 Modification or termination.

A. If, upon a finding under Section 17.60.070(E)(2), the planning commission recommends the modification or termination of the agreement, the city council shall give notice to the property owner of its intention to consider such modification or termination. The notice shall contain:

1. The time and place of the council meeting at which the matter is to be considered; 810

2. A statement as to whether the city proposes to terminate or to modify the development agreement;

3. Other information that the city considers necessary to inform the property owner of the nature of the proceeding.

B. Action by City Council. At the time and place set for the consideration of modification or termination, the property owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The city council may modify or terminate the agreement. The council may, but need not, refer the matter back to the planning commission for further proceedings. The council may impose those conditions to the action it takes as it considers necessary to protect the interests of the city. The decision of the council is final. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7747)

17.60.090 Moratorium on further development.

In the event that the applicant fails to complete the agreement as specified under Section 17.60.060, or the agreement is terminated as specified under Section 17.60.080, the city council shall enact an urgency ordinance placing a moratorium on further development activities on the property which is the subject of the agreement so terminated. The moratorium shall continue until such time as a new development agreement is executed; or until the property is rezoned or other regulations or controls on the development of the property are enacted that the city considers sufficient to protect its interests. (Ord. 2017-01 (part), 2017: prior code § 7748)
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65450 - 65457
65450. After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, the planning agency may, or if so directed by the legislative body, shall, prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. 65451. (a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.
65452. The specific plan may address any other subjects which in the judgment of the planning agency are necessary or desirable for implementation of the general plan. 65453. (a) A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. (b) A specific plan may be repealed in the same manner as it is required to be amended. 65454. No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan.
811
65455. No local public works project may be approved, no tentative map or parcel map for which a tentative map was not required may be approved, and no zoning ordinance may be adopted or amended within an area covered by a specific plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan.
65456. (a) The legislative body, after adopting a specific plan, may impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the specific plan. The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, they defray but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the specific plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. As nearly as can be estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance with the applicant’s relative benefit derived from the specific plan. It is the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge persons who benefit from specific plans for the costs of developing those specific plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to the specific plan. (b) Notwithstanding Section 66016, a city or county may require a person who requests adoption, amendment, or repeal of a specific plan to deposit with the planning agency an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan, amendment, or repeal prior to its preparation by the planning agency.
(c) Copies of the documents adopting or amending the specific plan, including the diagrams and text, shall be made available to local agencies, and shall be made available to the general public as follows:
(1) Within one working day following the date of adoption, the clerk of the legislative body shall make the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, available to the public for inspection.
(2) Within two working days after receipt of a request for a copy of the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, accompanied by payment for the reasonable cost of copying, the clerk shall furnish the requested copy to the person making the request.
(d) A city or county may charge a fee for a copy of a specific plan or amendments to a specific plan in an amount that is reasonably related to the cost of providing that document. 65457. (a) Any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is certified, the exemption specified in this subdivision applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.
(b) An action or proceeding alleging that a public agency has approved a project pursuant to a specific plan without having previously certified a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan, where required by subdivision (a), shall be commenced within 30 days of the public agency’s decision to carry out or approve the project. 812
City of Visalia
To: Planning Commission
From: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Cc: Paul Bernal, Community Development Director
Date: September 11, 2023
Re: Late Correspondence for Planning Commission Agenda Item regarding Carleton Acres
The Planning Division received correspondence by email after business hours on Friday, September 8, 2023. The correspondence received raises various environmental concerns regarding the project and questions regarding the availability of certain environmental studies.

The e-mail received regarding these concerns is attached to this memo.

In response to certain requests found in the email, project information and data can be found in the Appendix of the Environmental Impact Report for soil samples (Appendix G:

Environmental Site Assessment), hydrology report (Appendix H: Water Supply Assessment), and transportation report with “vehicle miles travelled” (Appendix J: Traffic Impact Study).

ATTACHMENTS
• E-mail received September 11, 2023
813
-----Original Message-----
From: jeffrey Falconer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:09 PM
To: Brandon Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Details on public hearing regarding development at Riggins between Shirk and Akers [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Greetings Brandon.

I received the notice of availability regarding Final EIR for the developments within that area. How do I get a copy of the soil samples; hydrology report; and transportation report plus projected VMT report for the variety of construction projects?
Also Specific Plan # 2021-13, General Plan Amendment # 2021-14, Tentative Parcel Map #2023-04 AP 077-100-108 and 077-100-105. And anything else that I can review.

My concern as discussed with Paul - the impact on air quality related to the students currently attending the middle school and the air quality relative to the construction of the potential new elementary school.

My concern is the fact construction will be disturbing agricultural land that has endured years of pesticide applications. When the middle school was built it took a long period of time to attain soil quality required for construction of a school building site. Any chance there exists the soil testing results for the schools built on Ferguson and northward - Was that 4 or 5 schools including Ridgeview Middle School in the last 8 or more years? A need to have brown soil for building site before ground breaking? This may seem over cautious. I desperately want to do my part to question on behalf the safety of current and future students. With a record diagnosis of asthma in our youth more than the state average, it gives me reason to be certain of the youths’ safety.

Also, my concern for traffic flow and congestion. We pick up our grandson every school day at Ridgeview. What a traffic jam and heavy flow. Idling really increases potential for increased air pollution!
Plus, we already have a water crisis. Increasing residential and commercial use of water and energy requires a fine line between tree plantings and green growth to sequester greenhouse gases, and the needed water supply for plant survival, plus the demand for residential water consumption. What consideration is there to require establishing filtration and recirculating of gray water? I will call the first of the week to identify how to move forward. Thank you for any assistance you might give to satisfy my concerns and provide a better understanding of the safety of the projects as it relates to our natural resources.

Regards,
Kathy Falconer 310.995.6295 - [email protected]
Sent from my iPad
814

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
Carleton Acres Specific Plan
April 2023
PREPARED BY:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
PREPARED FOR:

City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
815
Project Reference No. 048-2101
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Carleton Acres Specific Plan
Prepared for:

City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
Contact: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Phone: (559) 713-4636
Prepared by:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact: Travis Crawford, AICP
(559) 840-4414
April 2023
816

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the EIR 1-1

1.2 Type of EIR 1-2

1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR 1-2

1.4 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies 1-3

1.5 Environmental Review Process 1-3

1.6 Organization and Scope 1-6
CHAPTER TWO – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1

2.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Use 2-1

2.2 Project Description 2-6

2.3 Project Objectives 2-16

2.4 Required Approvals 2-19
CHAPTER THREE – ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

3.1 Aesthetics 3.1-1

3.2 Agriculture & Forestry Resources 3.2-1

3.3 Air Quality 3.3-1

3.4 Biological Resources 3.4-1

3.5 Cultural Resources 3.5-1

3.6 Energy 3.6-1

3.7 Geology & Soils 3.7-1

3.8 Greenhouse Gases / Climate Change 3.8-1

3.9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 3.9-1

3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality 3.10-1

3.11 Land Use & Planning 3.11-1

3.12 Mineral Resources 3.12-1

3.13 Noise 3.13-1

3.14 Population and Housing 3.14-1

3.15 Public Services 3.15-1

3.16 Recreation 3.16-1

3.17 Transportation / Traffic 3.17-1

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 3.18-1

3.19 Utilities & Service Systems 3.19-1

3.20 Wildfire 3.20-1
CHAPTER FOUR – ALTERNATIVES 4-1
CHAPTER FIVE – OTHER CEQA REQUIREMENTS 5-1
817

LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 – Regional Location Map 2-2
2-2 – City Boundary Map 2-3
2-3 – Existing General Plan Land Use Map 2-4
2-4 – Aerial Site Vicinity 2-5
2-5 – Site Layout Plan 2-8
2-6 – City of Visalia Tier Boundaries 2-9
2-7 – Parks/Recreational Facilities Plan 2-18

3.4-1 – CNDDB Species within 5 miles of Project site 3.4-12

3.8-1 – Observed and Projected Temperatures for Climate Change in the Project Area 3.8-3

3.8-2 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends 3.8-8

3.8-3 – 2019 US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector 3.8-9

3.8-4 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Scoping Plan Category in California 3.8-10

3.8-5 – California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target 3.8-60

3.10-1 – Stormdrain Master Plan 3.10-23

3.10-2 – FEMA Floodplain Map 3.10-24

3.13-1 – Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites 3.13-14

3.13-2 – Modeled Traffic Noise Receptor Locations 3.13-17

3.17-1 – Site Access Map 3.17-15

LIST OF TABLES
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ES-7
2-1 Summary of Proposed Land Uses 2-7

3.2-1 – Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary 3.2-12

3.2-2 – LESA Scoring Thresholds 3.2-12

3.3-1 – Air Quality Monitoring Summary 3.3-3

3.3-2 – Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone 3.3-4

3.3-3 – Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution 3.3-6

3.3-4 – San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status 3.3-8

3.3-5 – Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) 3.3-28

3.3-6 – Construction Air Poll. Em. Summ. Max Annual Em. by Dev. Year (Unmitigated) 3.3-28

3.3-7 – Construction Air Poll. Em. Summ. Max Annual Em. by Dev. Year (Mitigated) 3.3-30

3.3-8 – Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Non Permitted Sources) 3.3-32

3.3-9 – Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Permitted Sources) 3.3-33

3.3-10 – Em. Factors Used to Estimate Reg. Criteria Poll. From the Gasoline Disp. Station 3.3-34

3.3-11 – Proposed Specific Plan Consist. w/Measures Ident. in GP to Reduce AQ Impacts 3.3-34

3.3-12 – Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Unmitigated) 3.3-42

3.3-13 – Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operations 3.3-43

3.3-14 – Summary of Health Imp. From Operations of Costco Gasoline and Warehouse 3.3-49

3.3-15 – Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources 3.3-55

3.4-1 – Special Status Species, Listing Status, Habitat and Occurrence Potential 3.4-3

3.4-2 – Species Observed During Site Reconnaissance 3.4-13

3.6-1 – Electricity Consumption in Tulare County 2011 – 2021 3.6-2

3.6-2 – Natural Gas Consumption in Tulare County 2011 – 2021 3.6-3

3.6-3 – Construction Energy Consumption 3.6-13

3.6-4 – Long Term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption 3.6-16 818

3.6-5 – Summary of Estimated Operational Annual Energy Consumption 3.6-18

3.8-1 – Description of Greenhouse Gases 3.8-5

3.8-2 – Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.8-42

3.8-3 – Full Buildout Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (Phases 1 and 2 Combined) 3.8-45

3.8-4 – Full Buildout Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (2030 Operational Year) 3.8-47

3.8-5 – 2017 Scoping Plan Update Estimated Change in GHG Emissions by Sector 3.8-48

3.8-6 – Project Consistency with AB Scoping Plan 3.8-52

3.8-7 – Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update 3.8-56

3.10-1 – Public Water System 3.10-3

3.10-2 – Project Residential Water Demands 3.10-15

3.10-3 – Project Commercial Water Demands 3.10-16

3.10-4 – Projected Retail Water Supplies 3.10-17

3.10-5 – Comparison of Planned Land Uses to Proposed Project 3.10-18

3.10-6 – Anticipated City Water Demands and Available Supply Years 2021 – 2045 3.10-20

3.11-1 – General Plan Consistency Analysis 3.11-11

3.13-1 – Representative Environmental Noise Levels 3.13-2

3.13-2 – Human Response to Different Levels of Groundbourne Vibration 3.13-5

3.13-3 – Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 3.13-6

3.13-4 – California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines 3.13-8

3.13-5 – Visalia General Plan Noise Level Standards 3.13-10

3.13-6 – Visalia Noise Element Non-Transportation Noise Level Standard 3.13-11

3.13-7 – Visalia Municipal Code Exterior Noise Level Standards 3.13-12

3.13-8 – Visalia Municipal Code Interior Noise Level Standards 3.13-12

3.13-9 – Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites 3.13-16

3.13-10 – Project Contribution to Cumulative Traffic Noise – Cumulative 2042 Conditions 3.13-18

3.13-11 – Typical Construction Equipment 3.13-21

3.13-12 – Distances to Traffic Noise Contours 3.13-22

3.13-13 – Typical Vibration Levels During Construction 3.13-29

3.14-1 – Population Estimates 3.14-9

3.14-2 – Residential Units 3.14-10

3.15-1 – Population Estimates 3.15-10

3.15-2 – Student Generation Rates 3.15-13

3.15-3 – Proposed Project’s Anticipated Number of New Students 3.15-13

3.17-1 – Analysis Time Periods 3.17-12

3.17-2 – Project Trip Generation: Phase I 3.17-20

3.17-3 – Project Trip Generation: Phases I & II 3.17-20

3.17-4 - Project Trip Generation: Phases I, II & (50%) III 3.17-21

3.17-5 - Project Trip Generation: Phases I, II & III 3.17-21

3.17-6 – Project Trip Distribution 3.17-22

3.17-7 – Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-24

3.17-8 – Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-26

3.17-9 – Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-29

3.17-10 – Traffic Signal Warrants: Weekday 8 Hr Vehicular Vol. (Years are approximate) 3.17-32

3.17-11 – Summary of Queue Length Improvement Requirements 3.17-33

3.17-12 – Roadway LOS Weekday AM Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-34

3.17-13 – Roadway LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-34

3.17-14 – Roadway LOS Saturday Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-35

3.17-15 – Required Intersection Improvements (Years are approximate) 3.17-41 819

3.17-16 – Required Roadway Improvements (Years are approximate) 3.17-41

3.17-17 – VMT Analysis 3.17-43

3.19-1 – Public Water Systems 3.19-2

3.19-2 – Total Electricity Consumption in Tulare County 2011-2021 3.19-5

3.19-3 – Natural Gas Consumption in Tulare County 2010-2020 3.19-6

3.19-4 – WCP Wastewater Capacity and Project Wastewater Generation 3.19-22

3.19-5 – Population Estimates 3.19-23

APPENDICES
Appendix A – NOP & Comment Letters
Appendix B – Land Evaluation Site Assessment
Appendix C – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas / Energy Analysis Report Appendix D – Biological Resource Evaluation
Appendix E – Phase I Cultural Survey
Appendix F – Soils Report
Appendix G – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix H – SB 610 Water Supply Assessment
Appendix I – Acoustical Analysis
Appendix J – Traffic Study
820

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
821
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or EIR) has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project (Project). Its intent is to inform the public, regulatory agencies and the City of Visalia (City) decision makers of the potential environmental impacts the proposed Project would have on environmental factors as specified in the CEQA Guidelines. This Draft EIR, in its entirety, addresses and discloses potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the environmental resources identified in the CEQA Guidelines environmental checklist. The City of Visalia is the “Lead Agency” pursuant to CEQA and is responsible for the preparation and distribution of the Draft EIR.

CEQA Process
The City of Visalia circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project from May 20, 2021 through June 21, 2021 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2021050418), and the public. Following publication of the original NOP, changes were made to the proposed Project that consisted of an increase in commercial acreage (from 14.7 acres to 35.1 acres) and a reduction in residential units (from 3,368 units to 3,262 units).

Therefore, the Project’s NOP was re-circulated from June 2, 2022 through July 5, 2022. A scoping meeting (conducted virtually via a “Zoom” meeting) was held on June 14, 2022.

The next step in the process is circulation of this Draft EIR which will be distributed to the public for review and comment for at least 45 days. This Draft EIR is organized as follows:

Executive Summary: Summarizes the analysis contained in the Draft EIR.

Chapter 1 – Introduction: Provides a brief introduction to CEQA and the scope/contents of the Draft EIR.

Chapter 2 – Project Description: Describes the Project in detail. Includes Project location, objectives, environmental setting and regulatory context. 822
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-2
Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis: Contains the CEQA checklist. Each topic discusses environmental/regulatory setting, Project impact analysis, mitigation measures and conclusions.

Chapter 4 – Alternatives: Describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project. The proposed Project is compared to each alternatives and potential environmental impacts are analyzed.

Chapter 5 – Other CEQA Sections: Describes other required sections such as environmental effects that cannot be avoided, social effects, growth inducement, etc.

Appendices: Following the text of the Draft EIR, several appendices and technical studies have been included as reference material.

Project Location
The proposed Project is located on approximately 507-acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, while APN 077- 100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia.

However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses. Refer to Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map, Figure 2-2: City Boundary Map, Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use Designations, and Figure 2-4: Aerial Site Vicinity Map.

Project Description Summary
The Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan to develop approximately 507-acres of land into a mixed-use development. The Project will feature a variety of uses including single-family residential housing, multi-family residential housing, commercial, educational, and parks/trails facilities. The proposed Project components are summarized below. Refer also to Table 2-1:

Summary of Proposed Land Uses and Figure 2-5: Site Layout Plan. 823
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-3
Residential
The proposal features several different types of housing for a total of up to 3,262 residential units at buildout which is broken down as follows:
• Low Density Residential: Up to 1,592 units
• Medium Density Residential: 758 units
• High Density Residential: 912 units
It should be noted that the number of proposed units for the low density residential portion of the development is currently proposed to include a maximum of 1,592 units, which may be lower depending on final configuration of the lots. In addition, the 13.0 acres currently shown in Figure 2-5 for a new elementary school could potentially be converted to low density residential.

Therefore, for purposes of providing the maximum number of potential residential units, a total of 65 units was added to the total for both phases (13.0 acres X 5.0 units per acre = 65 units), for a maximum development potential of 1,592 low density residential units.

Commercial
The proposed Project includes up to 35.1 acres of commercial development in two locations within the Project for a total of approximately 205,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial area. The commercial developments will occur in the proposed Mixed Use Commercial Zone and the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The maximum size for a single or anchor tenant is proposed to be approximately 170,000 square feet within the Mixed Use Commercial Zone as shown in Figure 2-5. The first commercial area consists of up to 28.7 acres of Mixed Use Commercial at the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Road (Road 92). Anticipated uses at this location include development consisting of a Costco membership store, a Costco gas station, and a Costco car wash, as well as a drug store, retail, restaurants (including drive-throughs), and similar uses. The second commercial area consists of up to 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood at the northeast corner of the development. Anticipated uses at this location may include development such as retail, services and restaurants. The commercial facilities are located to provide efficient accessibility to residents of the Project and the surrounding areas.

Other Project Components
Other proposed uses include approximately 13.0 acres for a potential future elementary school,

17.3 gross acres for a drainage basin, and approximately 17.3 acres of parks/trails/recreational facilities. Various other infrastructure improvements (water, stormwater and wastewater 824
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-4
infrastructure, roadway improvements, and related improvements) will be required by the Project. Refer to the descriptions of these components in Chapter Two – Project Description.

Phasing
The Project is proposed to be built out in two phases as identified in Table 2-1 and as shown in Figure 2-5 (both in Chapter Two – Project Description). Although the exact timing of construction and buildout will be determined by market conditions, the Project Applicant and the City, it is anticipated that the Project would be built out over an approximately 15-year period with approximately 100 low-density residential units per year on average with the remaining buildout to be determined by demand. The Project is proposed to be generally built out in two phases as follows:

Phase 1
Phase 1 includes all of APN 077-100-105 (29.3 acres) and a portion of APN 077-100-088 (150 acres). For APN 077-100-105, the site is within the Tier 1 boundary and is currently designated by the City’s General Plan for High Density Residential. The Project intends to retain this land use designation and to develop the site as follows:
• 29.3 acres of High Density Residential (440 units)
For APN 077-100-088, Phase 1 development only includes the southern portion of the parcel (approximately 150 acres) and is included in the Tier 2 boundary. This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 9.7 acres of High Density Residential (146 units)
• 9.1 acres of Medium Density Residential (91 units)
• 100.9 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 505 units) • 28.7 acres of Commercial Mixed Use
For APN: 077-100-088, the Low Density Residential and commercial portions are anticipated to be built first.

Phase 2
Phase 2 includes the northern 329 acres of APN 077-100-088 that is within the Tier 3 boundary. This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 21.7 acres of High Density Residential (326 units)
825
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-5
• 66.7 acres of Medium Density Residential (667 units)
• 204.5 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 1,022 units) • 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood
• 17.3 acres of Basin
• 13.0 acres of Public/Institutional
The phasing of development and installation of infrastructure for Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be identified in a Development Agreement.

Refer to Chapter Two – Project Description for the full description of the Project.

Project Objectives
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following are the City of Visalia’s Project objectives:
• To provide a mixed-use development at pricing appropriate for the market, in a growing area of the City of Visalia that satisfies the City of Visalia’s policies, regulations and expectations as defined in the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other applicable plans, documents, and programs adopted by the City. • To provide a variety of housing opportunities with a range of densities, styles, sizes and values that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area.
• To provide a residential development that assists the City in meeting its General Plan and Housing Element requirements and objectives.
• To provide conveniently-located commercial development to serve north Visalia residents and the Carleton Acres development in a growing area of the City of Visalia. • To provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, parks/open space areas, landscaping and other project amenities.

Summary of Environmental Impacts
As described in Chapter 3, it was determined that all impacts were either less than significant, or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of the following:
• Aesthetics – Degrade existing visual character (project and cumulative level) 826
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-6
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Loss of farmland (project and cumulative level) • Air Quality – Conflict with Air Quality Plan / Exceed criteria pollutant thresholds (project and cumulative level)
• Hydrology & Water Quality – Water supply (cumulative level only) • Transportation – Conflict with Plan/Program (project and cumulative level) • Utilities & Service Systems – Water supply (cumulative level only) Even with the mitigation measures described in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this Draft EIR, impacts in these issue areas would be significant and unavoidable.

Summary of Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed Project.

This Draft EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
• No Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and the site would remain in agricultural production.
• Alternate Locations Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would be developed on a different site of similar size and scale.
• Reduced (50%) Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would be reduced by 50% (overall site acreage, residential units, commercial acreage, and recreational facilities).

See Chapter 4 – Alternatives for a full description of potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
State law requires that a public agency adopt a monitoring program for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the approved Project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with environmental mitigation during Project implementation and operation. Since there are potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation associated with the Project, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be included in the Project’s Final EIR, a draft of which is included herein on the following pages.
827
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-7
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Agricultural & Forestry Resources
AG – 1:

Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 478 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio. The amount of land requiring mitigation shall correspond to the amount of land associated with the issuance of the grading or building permit, or for residential land associated with a subdivision map, the amount of land associated with the subdivision map. The Project proponent shall implement one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss: Payment of in-lieu fees, mitigation banks, fee title acquisition, and/or conservation easements, on land(s) within the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, specifically within Kern County, Tulare County, Kings County, Fresno County, or Madera County.

The City shall require, at a minimum: evidence that the preserved land has adequate water supply, agricultural zoning, evidence of land encumbrance documentation, documentation that the
easement/regulations are permanent and monitored, and
documentation that the mitigation strategy is appropriately endowed.

This mitigation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Should the City of Visalia develop an Agricultural Mitigation Program, the Project proponent, at its election, may mitigate for the loss of agricultural land through compliance with the Program that is adopted by the City in lieu of mitigating on a 1:1 ratio as described above.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
828
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-8
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
AG – 2:

Reduce Conflicts Between Urban and Agricultural Uses
In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
• Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.
• A Right-to-Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area.
• Potential residents shall be informed of the Right-to-Farm Covenant at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
certificates
of occupancy
City of
Visalia
Air Quality
AIR-2A:

This measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Specific Plan to reduce emissions from construction. Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed Project, the Project applicant, Project sponsor, or construction contractor shall provide compliance with the following requirements to the City of Visalia Planning Department:
• Where portable diesel engines are used during construction, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final offroad emission standards except as otherwise specified herein. If engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
829
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-9
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment that is commercially available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the equipment at issue is available taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the Project site of equipment. If the relevant equipment is determined by the Project applicant to not be commercially available, the contractor can confirm this conclusion by providing letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that is at issue.

AIR-2B:

The following measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Specific Plan during construction to facilitate the use of electric landscaping equipment during Project operations:
• Provide electrical outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of electrically powered landscape equipment.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of
Visalia
AIR-3A:

Prior to future discretionary approval for commercial or commercial mixed-use projects, the City of Visalia shall evaluate potential health risk impacts from new development proposals for any individual development projects within 1,000 feet of an existing or planned sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit the following to the City of Visalia’s Planning Division:

Project
Applicant
Prior to
future
discretionary
approval for
commercial
or
commercial
mixed-use
projects
City of
Visalia
830
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-10 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
A Health Risk Prioritization Screening Analysis or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of TACs during project construction and operations prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant shall be required to identify and incorporate commercially feasible mitigation including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level.

Biological Resources
BIO-1: Protect Sanford’s arrowhead
If the Project will impact Modoc Ditch, Mosquito Creek – Cross Creek, or the unnamed canal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the feature(s) to be impacted on and within 50 feet of the Project site within the May–October blooming period of Sanford’s arrowhead. The survey shall be conducted during the blooming period concurrent with the start of construction or immediately preceding the start of
construction if construction will be initiated between November and April. If Sanford’s arrowhead is detected, the qualified biologist shall establish an exclusion zone of 50 feet between any population and the area of direct or indirect impacts. If a 50- foot exclusion zone cannot be established, a site-specific plan to minimize the potential for Project activities to affect individual plants shall be developed by the qualified biologist and implemented in consultation with the CDFW. Such a plan could involve salvaging and relocating affected plants.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
831
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-11 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
BIO-2: Protect burrowing owl
Conduct focused burrowing owl surveys to assess the
presence/absence of burrowing owl in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation1 and Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.
2 These involve conducting
four pre-construction survey visits.

If a burrowing owl or sign of burrowing owl use (e.g., feathers, guano, pellets) is detected on or within 500 feet of the Project site, and the qualified biologist determines that Project activities would disrupt the owl(s), a construction-free buffer, limited operating period, or passive relocation shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFW.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
BIO-3: Protect nesting Swainson’s hawks
To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the Swainson’s hawk nesting season, which extends from March through August.

If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and February, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk in accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
1 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012. 34 pp. 2 California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC). 1997. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Pages 171–177, in Lincer, J. L. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1997. The Burrowing Owl, its Biology and Management. Raptor Research Report Number 9. 832
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-12 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley.
3 These methods require six surveys,
three in each of the two survey periods, prior to project initiation. Surveys shall be conducted within a minimum 0.5- mile radius around the Project site.

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

BIO-4: Compensate for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat Compensate for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (i.e., the fallow fields on the Project site) in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to
Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California.
4 The CDFW requires that projects adversely affecting
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat provide Habitat Management (HM) lands to the department. Projects within 1 mile of an active nest shall provide one acre of HM lands for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio). Projects within 5 miles of Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
3 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWTAC). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. 5 pages. 4 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California.

California Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report #94.18. 833
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-13 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
an active nest but greater than 1 mile from the nest shall provide

0.75 acres of HM lands for each acre of urban development authorized (0.75:1 ratio). And projects within 10 miles of an active nest but greater than 5 miles from an active nest shall provide 0.5 acres of HM lands for each acre of urban
development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). No compensation is required if an active nest is not found within 10 miles of the Project site.

BIO-5: Protect nesting birds
To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.

If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
834
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-14 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

Cultural Resources
CUL – 1: In the event that historical or archaeological cultural resources are discovered during project-related activities or
decommissioning, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find, and a qualified archeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Measures may include, but are not limited to, avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological resting, and data recovery, among other options. Any previously undiscovered resources found during project-related activities within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified archaeologist.

The Lead Agency, along with other relevant or tribal officials, shall be contacted upon the discovery of cultural resources to begin coordination on the disposition of the find(s). Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the Lead Agency.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of
Visalia
835
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-15 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
CUL – 2: In order to ensure that the proposed Project does not impact buried human remains during Project construction, the Project proponent shall be responsible for on-going monitoring of Project construction. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Project proponent shall provide the City with documentation identifying construction personnel that will be responsible for on-site monitoring. If buried human remains are encountered during construction, further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall be halted until the Tulare County coroner is contacted and the coroner has made the determinations and notifications required pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determinesthat Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) require that he give notice to the Native American Heritage Commission, then such notice shall be given within 24 hours, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). In that event, the NAHC will conduct the notifications required by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Until the consultations described below have been completed, the
landowner shall further ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices where Native American human remains are located, is not disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the Most Likely Descendants on all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences and treatments, as prescribed by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b). The NAHC will mediate any disputes regarding treatment of remains in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k). The landowner shall be entitled to exercise rights established by Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
any grading
permit and
ongoing
during
construction
City of
Visalia
836
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-16 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) if any of the
circumstances established by that provision become applicable.

Geology & Soils
GEO – 1 In order to reduce on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for the site preparation, construction, and post-construction periods by a registered civil engineer or certified professional. The erosion control plan shall incorporate best management practices consistent with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The erosion component of the plan must at least meet the requirements of the SWPPP required by the Central Valley RWQCB.

If earth disturbing activities are proposed between October 15 and April 15, these activities shall be limited to the extent feasible to minimize potential erosion related impacts. Additional erosion control measures may be implemented in consultation with the City of Visalia. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the Project proponent shall submit detailed plans to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia.

The components of the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City of Visalia. Erosion control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and
construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right-of-way of designated access roads;
iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permits
City of
Visalia
837
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-17 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of
environmental concerns, pertinent laws and
regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion
control measures.

GEO – 2 The project proponent shall retain a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical analysis prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permit. The designlevel analysis shall address site preparation measures and foundation design requirements of the project. The design-level analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. Final design-level project plans shall be designed in accordance with the approved geotechnical analysis. This shall include certification of engineered fills and subgrade
preparation through monitoring of earthwork and compaction testing by a geotechnical engineer during construction.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall conduct a subsurface investigation of the Project site to evaluate the potential for elevated residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals on the site. If remedial action is required, the Project will be responsible for cleanup and any remedial actions. For portions of the project site where Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
838
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-18 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
there is known contamination, a project specific site
management plan should be prepared under the oversight of the Water Board and/or DTSC, as appropriate.

The plan shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to
contain hazardous materials.

The plan shall: (1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; (2) describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and (3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the plan.

For sites with potential residual contamination that are planned for development with an occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Visalia department of Community Development Department.
839
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-19 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
HAZ – 2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent or contractor shall provide a site plan that clearly delineates the locations of all known oil wells. A copy of the map shall be submitted to the California Department of
Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) for review and evaluation. The Project proponent will work with CalGEM to implement any remedial actions that may result from CalGEM’s review of the on-site abandoned well. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Visalia department of Community Development Department. In addition, the
Project proponent shall include information about any
abandoned wells within the Project site in the Tulare County Recorder’s title information of the Project site.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
HAZ–3 In the event that abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease in the vicinity of the well, and the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division
(CalGEM) shall be contacted for requirements and approval.

CalGEM may determine that remedial plugging operations may be required. Copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Community Development Department
Project
Applicant
During
grading and
construction
activities
City of
Visalia
Noise
NOI - 1: Prior to issuance of building permits for development within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, the City of Visalia will
determine if a detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a certified professional to document potential impacts to onsite Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
840
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-20 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
and offsite noise-sensitive land uses (as determined by the City of Visalia’s General Plan and Municipal Code thresholds). When specific uses within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone are proposed that could result in a noise‐related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source and existing or proposed noise‐sensitive receptor, an acoustical analysis shall be required by the City of Visalia that quantifies Project‐related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. Potential impacts in exceedance of the City of Visalia’s standards shall require incorporation of mitigation such as increased setbacks, sound walls, equipment enclosures, site design, and enhanced building materials to reduce impacts to levels below the City of Visalia standards. Development that cannot incorporate
mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable City of Visalia standards shall not be approved. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

NOI - 2: For Project components involving new sensitive receptors (residential land uses) within the cumulative 65 dB Ldn noise contours of adjacent roadway segments (Avenue 320, Shirk Road, Riggin Avenue, and Akers Street as identified in Table

3.13-12), the City of Visalia will require construction of block walls to achieve noise attenuation to below the City’s noise thresholds. The City of Visalia Design and Improvement
Standards provide guidelines and standards for the construction of block walls, within the City of Visalia. Standard wall heights permitted by the City of Visalia range between 6‐foot to 7‐ foot Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
841
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-21 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
in height. Depending on the height and geometric relationship between the roadway and the receiver location, walls of this height range would be typically expected to provide between approximately 5‐6 dB of noise attenuation. While specific wall height requirements would generally be determined once final lot layout designs and elevations are known, wall heights of up to 7 feet will be sufficient to mitigate traffic noise within all proposed residential land uses, to below the City’s acceptable maximum allowed noise exposure levels. Evidence of
compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

NOI - 3: For the proposed drive-through car wash facility in the Mixed Use Commercial Zone, the Project shall implement an IDC 100 horsepower Predator Blower System running at 55Hz with a 10’ wall with AcoustiBlok lining. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
NOI - 4: Bus movements occurring off public roadways (but on school campus) shall not occur within ninety feet of any residential outdoor activity area. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
Transportation
842
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-22 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
TRA-1:

Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project shall pay into the City of Visalia’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. The TIF amount will be calculated based on the City’s adopted fee schedule in place at the time of the application of building permits. This will be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
TRA-2:

Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project will be responsible for paying its pro-rata fair share cost percentages and/or constructing the recommended on-site improvements and site-adjacent
improvements identified in Tables 3.17-11, 3.17-15 and 3.17-16, subject to reimbursement for the costs that are in excess of the Project’s equitable responsibility as determined by the City. This will be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
TRA-3:

Prior to the issuance of construction or building permits, the Project developer shall:

Prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to City of Visalia, as appropriate, for approval. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and shall include, but not be limited to, the following issues:
a. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials; Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
construction
or building
permits
City of
Visalia
843
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-23 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
b. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
c. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic;
d. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the project site; e. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials delivery, transmission line stringing activities, or any other utility connections;
f. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and,
g. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the AM and PM peak hour, distributing construction traffic flow across alternative routes to access the project sites, and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TRI-1: Prior to any ground disturbance, a surface inspection of the site shall be conducted by a Tribal Monitor. The Tribal Cultural Staff shall monitor the site during grading activities. The Tribal Staff shall provide pre-project-related information to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, which will include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if resources are found. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall offer the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing Project
Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbance
City of
Visalia
844
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-24 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
activities. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the tribe.

TRI-2: In the event that historical or archaeological cultural resources are discovered during project-related activities or
decommissioning, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find, and a qualified archeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of he finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with § 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Measures may include avoidance, preservation inplace, recordation, additional archaeological resting, and data recovery, among other options. Any previously undiscovered resources found during project-related activities within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate CA Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified archaeologist.

Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia
TRI-3: Upon coordination with the Lead Agency, any archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate tribal Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia
845
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-25 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.

TRI-4: If human remains are discovered during project-related activities or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987) shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of
discovery of human remains, at the direction of the County Coroner.

Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia
846
Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
847
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR or Draft EIR) has been prepared on behalf of the City of Visalia (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This chapter outlines the purpose of and overall approach to the preparation of the EIR for the proposed Project. The Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan to develop approximately 507-acres of land into a mixed-use development. The Project will feature a variety of uses including singlefamily residential, multi-family housing, commercial, educational, and parks/trails facilities. The proposal features several different types of housing for a total of up to 3,262 residential units and approximately 35.1 acres (205,000 square feet) of commercial development at buildout. The proposed Project is in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site consists of two parcels, one of which is within the unincorporated area of Tulare County and the other is within the City; however, the entire site is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary and Sphere of Influence. Refer to Chapter Two – Project Description for the full description of the Project.

An EIR responds to the requirements of CEQA as set forth in Sections 15126, 15175, and 15176 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission and City Council will use the EIR during the public review process in order to understand the potential environmental implications associated with implementing the Project.

1.1 Purpose of EIR
The City of Visalia, as Lead Agency, determined that the proposed activities constitute a “project” within the definition of CEQA. The preparation of an EIR is required by CEQA prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

This Draft EIR has been prepared according to CEQA requirements to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Project. The Draft EIR also discusses alternatives to the Project, and proposes mitigation measures that will offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts. This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, California Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the 848
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-2
Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Visalia.

An EIR must disclose the expected direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with a project, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts.

CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development.

1.2 Type of EIR
The State CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Project-level EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. A Project-level EIR is described in State CEQA Guidelines § 15161 as: “The most common type of EIR (which) examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. The project-level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of a proposed project.

1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR
The City of Visalia, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved. 849
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-3
This EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the Project. This EIR may also be used by other agencies within the area, including the Air District, which may use this EIR during the permitting process.

1.4 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies
The term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a “Trustee” agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). The Project may require permits and approvals from Trustee and Responsible Agencies, which may include, but not be limited, to the following:
• Tulare County LAFCO (annexation)
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – approval of construction and/or operational air quality permits
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (Storm Water Pollution Control Plan)

1.5 Environmental Review Process
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:

Notice of Preparation
The City of Visalia circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project from May 20, 2021 through June 21, 2021 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2021050418), and the public. Following publication of the original NOP, changes were made to the proposed Project that consisted of an increase in commercial acreage (from 14.7 acres to 35.1 acres) and a reduction in residential units (from 3,368 units to 3,262 units).

Therefore, the Project’s NOP was re-circulated from June 2, 2022 through July 5, 2022.

Six agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were presented or submitted during the public review period (June 2 – July 5, 2022). The NOP and written comments provided to the City during the 30-day public review period for the NOP are presented in Appendix A. NOP comment letters are summarized as follows:
850
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-4
• CA Department of Conservation – Geologic Energy Management Division (June 6, 2022): Identified a previous properly abandoned oil or gas well on the site. The Department provided additional guidance on the proper handling of the well. Refer to Section 3.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further information. • CA Department of Fish & Wildlife (July 11, 2022): Identified potential species in the project area and provided recommendations on handling of such species. Refer to Section 3.4 – Biological Resources for more information. • CA Department of Conservation – Division of Land Resource Protection (June 14, 2022): Identified potential farmland impacts due to loss of agricultural lands on the site. Provided suggestions for mitigation for the loss of agricultural lands. Refer to Section 3.2 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources for more information. • Native American Heritage Commission (June 8, 2022): Identified the applicable tribal consultation guidelines and requirements associated with the Project. Refer to Section

3.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources for more information.
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (June 22, 2022): Identified the District’s applicable guidelines and requirements associated with air emissions from construction and operation of the Project. Refer to Section 3.3 – Air Quality for more information.
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (June 2, 2022): Identified requirements and expectations of the Project traffic impact study. Provided additional information to support the study analysis. Refer to Section 3.17 – Transportation for more information.

Draft EIR
This document constitutes the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of the project’s direct and indirect impacts on the environment, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This Draft EIR identifies issues determined 851
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-5
to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in this EIR. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Visalia will file the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period.

Public Notice/Public Review
Concurrent with the NOC, the City of Visalia will provide a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR, and invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Consistent with CEQA requirements, the review period for this Draft EIR is forty-five (45) days. Public comment on the Draft EIR will be accepted in written form. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
[email protected]
Responses to Comments/Final EIR
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to written comments received during the public review period and to oral comments during such review period.

Entitlement Procedures / Certification of the EIR / Project Consideration The City of Visalia will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project will require the following approvals from the City of Visalia:

Specific Plan
• Certification of the Project EIR
• Approval of the Final Specific Plan
• Approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map
852
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-6
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of a General Plan Amendment
• Approval of Zone Changes
Individual Projects Within the Specific Plan
• Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment to reflect the various stages of the Project (ministerial)
• Approval of Tentative Tract Maps
• Amendments to the Specific Plan, if necessary
• Site Plan Review
• Issuance of Grading / Building Permits (ministerial)
• Public street dedications
• One or more Conditional Use Permits for anticipated uses including, but not limited to a Costco retail store, gas station and car wash
Prior to taking action to approve the project, the City of Visalia will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the City Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA. As set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the standards of adequacy require an EIR to provide a sufficient degree of analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project that intelligently take account of environmental consequences.

Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the project. A decision to approve the proposed project, for which this EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.

1.6 Organization and Scope
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include a description of the environmental setting, an 853
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-7
environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Discussion of the environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR was established through review of environmental and planning documentation developed for the project, environmental and planning documentation prepared for recent projects located within the City of Visalia, and responses to the NOP. This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:

Executive Summary
The Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the project’s environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. This chapter identifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed project.

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the proposed project, the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible agencies, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, identifies the scope and organization of the Draft EIR, and summarizes comments received on the NOP.

Chapter 2.0 – Project Description
Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, subsequent projects and activities, and a list of related agency action requirements.

Chapter 3.0 – Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Chapter 3.0 contains an analysis of environmental topic areas as identified below. Each subchapter addressing a topical area is organized as follows:

Environmental Setting. A description of the existing environment as it pertains to the topical area. 854
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-8
Regulatory Setting. A description of the regulatory environment that may be applicable to the project.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Identification of the thresholds of significance by which impacts are determined, a description of project-related impacts associated with the environmental topic, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and a conclusion as to the significance of each impact.

The following environmental topics are addressed in this Draft EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Services
• Wildfire
Chapter 4.0 – Project Alternatives
Chapter 4.0 provides a comparative analysis between the merits of the proposed project and the selected alternatives. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range 855
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-9
of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen any significant environmental effects of the project.

Chapter 5.0 – Other CEQA-Required Topics
Chapter 5.0 evaluates and describes the following CEQA required topics: growth-inducing effects, significant and irreversible effects, significant and unavoidable impacts, substantial adverse effects on protected fish, wildlife, and plant species, substantial adverse effects on human beings, and effects not found to be significant.

Chapter 6.0 – Report Preparers
Chapter 6.0 lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

Appendices
This section includes the NOP and responses to the NOP in addition to biological, cultural, hydrology, air quality/GHG, noise and traffic technical studies.

Incorporation by Reference
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft EIR has incorporated by reference the Visalia General Plan Update - Environmental Impact Report, adopted October 14, 2014 (State Clearinghouse #2010041078). That document is available for review at the City of Visalia, 315 E.

Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291.
856
Chapter 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
857
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-1
Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Use
The proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project (referred to herein as the “Project” or “proposed Project”) is located on approximately 507-acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077- 100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses. Refer to Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map, Figure 2-2: City Boundary Map, Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use Designations, and Figure 2-4: Aerial Site Vicinity Map.

The proposed Project site is located in a developing area planned as part of the City of Visalia.

Currently, Ridgeview Middle School is located adjacent to and west of Akers Street and would abut the proposed Project site. In addition, the City is currently planning a new high school that will be constructed adjacent to and west of Ridgeview Middle School and would be surrounded by the proposed Project to the north, west and south. Land uses of adjacent parcels surrounding the Project site are as follows:

Surrounding Land Uses
Location Existing Land
Use
North Dairy Farm /
Agriculture
South Residential /
Church / Water
Storage Tank
West Dairy Farm /
Agriculture
East Agriculture
858
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-2
Figure 2-1
Regional Location Map
859
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-3
Figure 2-2
City Boundary Map
860
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-4
Figure 2-3
Existing General Plan Land Use Map
861
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-5
Figure 2-4
Aerial Site Vicinity
862
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-6

2.2 Project Description
The Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan to develop approximately 507-acres of land into a mixed-use development. The Project will feature a variety of uses including single-family residential, multi-family housing, commercial, educational, and parks/trails facilities. The proposed Project components are described below. Refer also to Table 2-1: Summary of Proposed Land Uses and Figure 2-5: Site Layout Plan.

Residential
The proposal features several different types of housing for a total of up to 3,262 residential units at buildout which is broken down as follows:
• Low Density Residential: Up to 1,592 units
• Medium Density Residential: 758 units
• High Density Residential: 912 units
It should be noted that the number of proposed units for low density residential portion of the development is currently proposed to include a maximum of 1,592 units, which may be lower depending on final configuration of the lots. In addition, the 13.0 acres currently shown in Figure 2-5 for a new elementary school could potentially be converted to low density residential.

Commercial
The proposed Project includes up to 35.1 acres of commercial development in two locations within the Project for a total of approximately 205,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial area. The commercial developments will occur in the proposed Mixed Use Commercial Zone and the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The maximum size for a single or anchor tenant shall be 170,000 square feet within the Mixed Use Commercial Zone as shown in Figure 2-5. The first commercial area consists of up to 28.7 acres of Mixed Use Commercial at the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Road (Road 92). Anticipated uses at this location will include development consisting of a Costco, gas station, car wash, drug store, retail, restaurants (including drivethroughs), and similar uses. The second consists of up to 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood at the northeast corner of the development. Anticipated uses at this location may include development such as retail, services and restaurants. The commercial facilities are located to provide efficient accessibility to residents of the Project and the surrounding areas. 863
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-7
Other Project Components
Other proposed uses include approximately 13.0 acres for a potential site for a future elementary school, 17.3 gross acres for a drainage basin, and approximately 17.3 acres of parks/trails/recreational facilities. Various other infrastructure improvements (water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure, roadway improvements, and related improvements) will be required by the Project. Refer to the descriptions of these components later in this Chapter.

The Project is proposed to be built out in two phases as identified in Table 2-1 and as shown in Figure 2-5. Refer to the subsection titled Visalia Urban Growth Boundary Tiers and Project Phasing for a description of proposed Project phasing.

Table 2-1
Summary of Proposed Land Uses
Phase 1 Total
Acreage
Park /
Rec
Acreage*
Number
of Units
Proposed
Density
High Density Residential
(APN: 077-100-088) 9.7 0 146 ~15 units/acre
High Density Residential
(APN: 077-100-105) 29.3 0.8 440 ~15 units/acre
Medium Density Residential 9.1 0.1 91 ~10
units/acre
Low Density Residential 100.9 2.6 505** ~5 units/acre
Commercial Mixed Use 28.7 - N/A -
Phase 1 Total: 177.7 3.5 1,182
Phase 2 Total
Acreage
Park /
Rec
Acreage*
Number of
Units
Proposed
Density
High Density Residential 21.7 0.2 326 ~ 15
units/acre
Medium Density Residential 66.7 3.4 667 ~10
units/acre
Low Density Residential 204.5 9.0 1,022** ~5 units/acre Commercial Neighborhood 6.4 0.3 N/A -
Basin 17.3 - N/A -
Public/Institutional (or LDR)*** 13.0 0.9N/A (or 65)
~5
units/acre***
Phase 2 Total: 329.6 13.8 2,080***
Total for Both Phases: 507.3 17.3 3,262

* Park / Recreation acreage is included within each land use designation’s “total acreage”. ** The number of proposed units for low density residential portion of the development may be lower than 1,592 units depending on final configuration of the lots.
*** Includes 65 units of low density residential in place of the 13.0 acre elementary school. 864
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-8
Figure 2-5
Site Layout Plan
865
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-9
Visalia Urban Growth Boundary Tiers and Project Phasing The City of Visalia’s General Plan includes a three-tier system to account for future growth (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3). Thresholds were set on residential permits, commercial square-footage, industrial square-footage and regional square-footage. Tier 1 currently allows development to occur within the Tier 1 boundary, while Tiers 2 and 3 can be developed after certain thresholds are met during/after buildout of Tier 1. Under the City of Visalia’s General Plan Policy LU-P-22, an approved specific-planned site can be annexed before development is permitted in Tier 2 or Tier 3. Annexations are reviewed within the context of the regulations and polices in the CorteseKnox-Hertzberg Local Governments Reorganization Act of 2000 and the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Policy and Procedure Manual regarding development and inventory of existing vacant land designed for urban uses in the City limits. The City of Visalia’s General Plan Policy LU-P-22 allows the City Council to approve master-planned developments for sites under single ownership or unified control, which may include developable land within multiple Tiers. A Development Agreement will be prepared, which is a separate document that details the overall development, density, phasing, infrastructure needs and financing, as well as outlines the responsibilities of each party. The Development Agreement and the Master Plan have a consistent vision with Visalia’s General Plan and the City’s interest in growth through phasing. Figure 2-6 below identifies the City’s Tier boundaries relative to the Project site.

Figure 2-6
City of Visalia Tier Boundaries
866
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-10
The Project is proposed to be built out in two phases as identified in Table 2-1 and as shown in Figure 2-5. Although the exact timing of construction and buildout will be determined by market conditions, the Project Applicant and the City, it is anticipated that the Project would be built out over an approximate 15-year period with approximately 100 low-density residential units per year on average with the remaining buildout to be determined by demand. The Project is proposed to be generally built out in two phases as follows:

Phase 1
Phase 1 includes all of APN 077-100-105 (29.3 acres) and a portion of APN 077-100-088 (150 acres).

For APN 077-100-105, the site is within the Tier 1 boundary and is currently designated by the City’s General Plan for High Density Residential. The Project intends to retain this land use designation and to develop the site as follows:
• 29.3 acres of High Density Residential (440 units)
For APN 077-100-088, Phase 1 development only includes the southern portion of the parcel (approximately 150 acres) and is included in the Tier 2 boundary. This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 9.7 acres of High Density Residential (146 units)
• 9.1 acres of Medium Density Residential (91 units)
• 100.9 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 505 units) • 28.7 acres of Commercial Mixed Use
For APN: 077-100-088, the Low Density Residential portion will be built first.

Phase 2
Phase 2 includes the northern 329 acres of APN 077-100-088 that is within the Tier 3 boundary.

This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 21.7 acres of High Density Residential (326 units)
• 66.7 acres of Medium Density Residential (667 units)
• 204.5 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 1,022 units) • 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood
• 17.3 acres of Basin
• 13.0 acres of Public/Institutional
867
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-11
The timing of development and installation of infrastructure for Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be identified in a Development Agreement.

Site Circulation and Access
The overall layout of the proposed Project is block form, with shortened roadway lengths and cul-de-sacs in order provide limited thru-traffic and to create a walkable urban environment. The site has been designed with 13 points of ingress and egress. Additional access points will be provided for the commercial uses that are proposed to occur at the southwest corner of the site and for the high-density residential development at the northwest corner of the site. The following is a summary of roadway improvements that will be required:

Arterials
W. Riggin Avenue, N. Shirk Road (Road 92), N. Akers Street (Road 100), and Avenue 320 are classified as arterial roads in the City’s Circulation Element with a right-of-way of 110 feet. The arterials in the Plan Area will include two through-lanes of traffic in each direction, as well as a left-turn channelization when needed. When applicable, road rightof-way may be required for improvements at intersections to allow for right turn movements. Four arterials border the proposed Project with two existing lanes. When project is fully developed Riggin will have four lanes. N. Shirk Road, N. Akers Street and Avenue 320 shall have two lanes in one direction and one lane in the opposite direction.

Widening of W. Riggin Avenue, N. Shirk Road and N. Akers Street will be necessary with right-of-way dedications.

Collectors
Shannon Parkway and N. Roeben Street are designated as collectors and serve to connect arterial and local roadways within the Plan Area. Shannon Parkway and N. Roeben Street will feature two lanes of traffic (single lane in each direction) within an 84-foot right-ofway.

Local Streets
The remaining streets within the Plan Area, including Sedona Avenue, are classified as local and will be developed to residential street standards. Most local streets within the Plan Area will have a right of way width of 60 feet. A combination of speed tables and roundabouts will be used as traffic calming devices.
868
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-12
The Project will be responsible for construction of internal roadways as well as for potential improvements to surrounding roadways to accommodate the Project. The Project also includes improvements and landscaping along the frontage roads and within the site itself.

Infrastructure
The Project will require connection to various City-operated utility and infrastructure systems. These include City-provided services such as sewer/wastewater, water and stormwaterfacilities. Non-Cityprovided infrastructure includes natural gas (to be provided by Southern California Gas Company) and electrical services (to be provided by Southern California Edison). The Project will be responsible for construction of connection points to the City’s existing infrastructure. Proposed infrastructure improvements for sewer/wastewater, water and stormwater facilities are described below.

Sewer/Wastewater
Sewer/wastewater generated by the Project will be treated by the City’s Water Conservation Plant. The Project proposes to install and extend all City master planned sewer lines to the extent determined by the City Engineer per development phasing plans. The system supporting the proposed development will tie in with the existing sewer system along North Akers Street and Sedona Avenue. A minimum 8” sanitary sewer main and appurtenances will be extended from N. Roeben Street, N. Akers Street, N. Shirk Road, Shannon Parkway, and Sedona Avenue. A 36” sanitary sewer line is proposed along Avenue 320, and a 42” sanitary sewer line is proposed along Shirk Road. The extension of sewer mains shall comply with the standards established in the City’s sewer and storm master plan.

Water
Potable water is anticipated to be supplied to the Project by Cal Water. The Project will require the extension of pipelines to accommodate future growth, including the installation of 12” mains to connect to the Project Area. A 12” main on Akers Street will be extended north of the Ridgeview Middle School. A 12” main will be extended from Shirk Road to the intersection of Riggin Avenue. A 12” main located on Riggin Avenue will also be extended from Shirk Road to Roeben Street. A planned completion of a main on Riggin Avenue to Akers Street will also serve the Project Area. Major streets around the property will require a 12” main, and interior streets will require an 8” main. Fire hydrants will be located every 600 feet of linear residential and 500 feet of linear commercial.
869
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-13
Stormwater
The stormwater drainage system for the Project will be designed in compliance with City standards to ensure adequate facilities to serve the Project. The Project will discharge stormwater runoff through a proposed storm drain system that drains into a proposed drainage basin onsite.

A site survey was conducted to identify the appropriate location of the drainage basin based on site slopes and other factors. The basin is proposed to be integrated into the western edge of the Project Area at the northeast corner of Shirk Road and Shannon Parkway. The proposed basin location is in the lowest elevation of the Project site and is in the natural drainage/low area of the development. This allows for natural stormwater runoff. The basin is approximately 17.3 gross acres, 11.4 net acres, with a capacity of 97.8 acre/feet. The 97.8 acre/feet of capacity is in excess of the 89.69 acre/feet of storage capacity that would be required by the Project. Half of the basin is proposed to be completed for Phase 1. In addition to serving the proposed development, the basin will be designed to accommodate storm drainage for the existing Ridgeview Middle School, the proposed High School, future elementary school, and the City Park at the intersection of Akers Street and Riggin Avenue. A bioswale will be used to collect storm water from developments adjacent to the existing Modoc Ditch. The bioswale shall be connected to the proposed basin. The location of the bioswale adjacent to the bike path trail will enhance the landscape space.

Proposed infrastructure improvements are identified below, by phase.

Phase 1

1. Extension of 42” sewer trunk line along Shirk from the Shirk and Riggin intersection. The sewer trunk line is to extend north to Phase 2.

2. Extension of 12” water line from the Shirk and Riggin intersection. The water line is to extend north to Phase 2.

3. A 10” sanitary sewer main and appurtenances shall be extended from North Roeben Street, Shannon Parkway, and Sedona Avenue.

4. Extension of 8” water line along Shannon Parkway from Shirk to Roeben.

5. Installation of storm drainage facility. Partial completion of proposed storm basin located within Phase 2.

6. Installation of improvements along Shirk frontage to Phase 2. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 8’ wide landscape, 7’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes, median (18’ wide) and 12’ wide travel lane.

7. Installation of improvements along Riggin from Shirk to where improvements are already in place near Akers. Including 6’ tall block wall at residential, 7’ wide sidewalk, 870
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-14
5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ wide buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes and 18’ wide median

8. Installation of improvements along Sedona at existing roundabout to Shirk. Including: 5’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 8’ wide parking, (2) 12’ wide travel lanes, 8’ wide parking, curb/gutter, 5’ wide planter, 5’ wide sidewalk.

9. Installation of improvements along Shannon Parkway from Roeben to Shirk. Including:
6’ tall block wall, 9’ wide landscape, 6’ wide sidewalk, 10’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 5’ wide bike lane, 5’ wide buffer, 12’ wide travel lane, 15’ wide median and 12’ wide travel lane.

10. Installation of improvements along Roeben from Riggin to Shannon Parkway. Including:
6’ tall block wall, 5’ wide planter, 6’ wide sidewalk, 6’ wide bike trail, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 8’ wide parking, 12’ wide travel lane, 11’ wide median, and 12’ wide travel lane

11. Installation of three roundabouts: Shannon Parkway and Roeben, Sedona and Denton, and Roeben and Sedona.

Phase 2

1. Extension of 42” sewer trunk line along Shirk to Ave 320.

2. Extension of 36” sewer trunk line along Ave 320 from Shirk to Akers.

3. A minimum 10” sanitary sewer main and appurtenances shall be extended Along Pratt from Shirk to Roeben.

4. Extension of 12” water line along Shirk to Ave 320., Ave 320 between Shirk & Akers, and Akers from Shannon Parkway to Ave 320.

5. Completion of proposed storm basin located within Phase 2.

6. Installation of improvements along Roeben from Shannon Parkway to Ave. 320. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 5’ wide planter, 6’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 8’ wide parking, 5’ wide bike lane, 12’ wide travel lane, 11’ wide median, 12’ wide travel lane, curb/gutter, 5’ wide planter, 6’ wide bike trail, 6’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, and 6’ tall block wall.

7. Installation of improvements along Shirk frontage. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 8’ wide landscape, 7’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes, median (18’ wide) and (1) 12’ wide travel lane.

8. Installation of improvements along Shannon Parkway from Roeben to Akers. Including:
12’ wide travel lane, 15’ wide median, 12’ wide travel lane, 8’ wide parking, 5’ wide planter, 6’ wide sidewalk, 10’ wide ditch access & decomposed granite walking path, existing 19’ wide Modoc Ditch, 12' wide ditch & police access, 18' wide bioswale, 12' wide class 1 bike trail, 6' wide planter, and 6’ tall block wall.

9. Installation of improvements along Akers to Ave. 320. Including: 6’ wide planter, 12' wide class 1 bike trail, 18' wide bioswale, +/-12’ wide ditch & police access, existing 32’ wide Modoc Ditch, +/-10’ wide ditch access and walking path, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ 871
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-15
wide bike lane, 4’ wide buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes, median (18’ wide) and (1) 12’ travel lane.

10. Installation of improvements on Ave. 320 from Akers to Shirk. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 8’ landscape, 7’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ wide buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes, median (18’ wide) and (1) 12’ wide travel lane.

11. Complete the installation of improvements along Shannon Parkway from Roeben to Shirk. Including: 8' wide parking, curb/gutter, 5' wide planter, 6’ wide sidewalk, 10' wide ditch access & decomposed granite walking path, existing 19' wide Modoc Ditch, 12' wide ditch & police access, 18' wide bioswale, 12' wide class 1 bike trail, and 6' wide landscaping.

Parks, Trails and Open Space
The Project will provide a variety of public recreational facilities, including trails within the development that will be accessible by the public. A Landscaping and Lighting Act Assessment District shall be formed, prior to recordation of the final map. The purpose is for the maintenance of the landscaping, fences and/or walls along the public street frontages and open space areas of the subdivision. The Landscape and Lighting Act Assessment District shall include the operational and maintenance cost for the street lights within the subdivision and along streets abutting the subdivision. The Landscape and Lighting Act Assessment District shall include the provisions for the City to collect payment from the subdivider to cover the estimated cost to operate and maintain the improvements of the District prior to assessments occurring on the property tax roll.

Refer to Figure 2-7 for the general location of the proposed recreational facilities, which are described as follows:

Modoc Greenway: Modoc Ditch is an existing site feature along the northern portion of Akers and runs east/west through the center of the site. A trail will be installed along the existing Modoc Ditch. The trail will be located north of Shannon Avenue and the existing Modoc Ditch. Modoc Greenway will be installed along Akers Street, immediately west of the roadway and the existing Modoc Ditch. The Greenway will include a Class 1 bike trail with landscaping on either side and tree clusters will provide shade for the users. The Modoc Greenway will connect to the nearby basin trail. The trail will provide a route for residents to access school sites, the commercial areas of the development, and neighborhoods throughout Carleton Acres.

Trails: The network of trails proposed by the Project will provide convenient walking and biking options for residents to connect throughout Carleton Acres. Modoc Greenway is the main east/west and north/south trail facility within the development and will serve as a connection 872
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-16
point for other smaller trails. As described above, Modoc Greenway will be a Class 1 bike trail with landscaping on either side. Other trails throughout Carleton Acres will be 22’ wide (6’ walking & 6’ bike lane with 5’ landscaping on each side). These trails are as follows:
• Trail to connect the proposed high school to the future elementary school site (north & south) within the development.
• Trail to connect the future elementary school to Modoc Greenway to the east. • Trail along Roeben to connect the proposed high school, to the medium and high density residential along Riggin and to the commercial center at the northeast corner of Riggin and Shirk.
• Around the basin, a trail will connect Modoc Greenway to the high-density development in the northwest corner of the site.

Parks: Parks within residential neighborhoods will range from 0.5 to 1 acre in size. Parks may be within a neighborhood or be located along the Modoc Greenway. Each park may include an open grass space, playground, picnic area, barbeque grills, seating, and drinking fountain. Shade trees will be provided and, where possible, drought-tolerant/native species will be encouraged. Parks will be located and designed to provide social activities within the development.

2.3 Project Objectives
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following are the City of Visalia’s Project objectives:
• To provide a mixed-use development at pricing appropriate for the market, in a growing area of the City of Visalia that satisfies the City of Visalia’s policies, regulations and expectations as defined in the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other applicable plans, documents, and programs adopted by the City. • To provide a variety of housing opportunities with a range of densities, styles, sizes and values that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area.
• To provide a residential development that assists the City in meeting its General Plan and Housing Element requirements and objectives.
• To provide conveniently-located commercial development to serve north Visalia residents and the Carleton Acres development in a growing area of the City of Visalia. 873
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-17
• To provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, parks/open space areas, landscaping and other project amenities.
874
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-18
Figure 2-7
Parks/Recreational Facilities Plan
875
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-19

2.4 Required Approvals
City of Visalia
The City of Visalia will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project will require the following approvals from the City of Visalia:

Specific Plan
• Certification of the Project EIR
• Approval of the Final Specific Plan
• Approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of a General Plan Amendment
• Approval of Zone Changes
Individual Projects Within the Specific Plan
• Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment to reflect the various stages of the Project (ministerial)
• Approval of Tentative Tract Maps
• Amendments to the Specific Plan, if necessary
• Site Plan Review
• Issuance of Grading / Building Permits (ministerial)
• Public street dedication
• One or more Conditional Use Permits for anticipated uses including, but not limited to a Costco retail store, gas station and car wash
Other Public Agencies Approval and Consultation
The Project will require various permits and/or entitlements from regulatory agencies.

Consultation may be required and the City of Visalia will integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review requirements. These may include, but not be limited to the following:
• Tulare County LAFCO (annexation)
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – approval of construction and/or operational air quality permits
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) 876
Chapter 3

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,

IMPACTS & MITIGATION
877
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-1

3.1 Aesthetics
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project on visual character, scenic resources, views, scenic highways and sources of light and glare. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to Aesthetics.

Environmental Setting
Project Site and Surrounding Areas
The proposed Project is located on approximately 507-acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077- 100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses.

Visalia is part of the Central Valley province, one of several geomorphic provinces in California.

The Central Valley is in a basin bounded by the Sierra Nevada foothills and mountains to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west, and is filled with deep layers of sediment from the Sierra Nevada. The Project site is generally flat and averages approximately 309 feet above mean sea level. The topography in the area consists of a slight slope to the west / southwest.

The property was observed to be in varying stages of agriculture with the northern half planted with grapevines (as of July 2022) and the southern half recently disked. The proposed Project site is located in a developing area planned to be part of the City of Visalia. Currently, Ridgeview Middle School is located adjacent to and west of Akers Street and would abut the proposed Project site. In addition, the City is currently planning a new high school that will be constructed adjacent to and west of Ridgeview Middle School and would be surrounded by the proposed Project to the north, west and south.

Refer to Site Photographs 1 – 6 for representative pictures of the Project site and surrounding areas.
878
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-2 Photograph 1: View of the northwest corner looking southwest.

Photograph 2: View of the northeast corner looking southeast. 879
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-3 Photograph 3: View of the southeast corner looking northwest.

Photograph 4: View of the southeast corner looking northeast. 880
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-4 Photograph 5: View from N. Shirk Road near center of development looking east.

Photograph 6: View from Avenue 320 near center of development looking south. 881
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-5 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
There are no applicable federal regulations, plans or policies pertaining to aesthetics that are applicable to the proposed Project.

State Regulations
Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The 2019 Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards were adopted by the State of California Energy Commission (CEC) (Title 24, Parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards) went into effect on January 1, 2020. The changes included modified standards to reflect an industry shift to LED lighting, and other changes.

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

State Scenic Highways
According to the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway Program, there are no designated State Scenic Highways within the Project area or in the City of Visalia. The closest eligible State Scenic Highway is SR 198, east of SR 99, and is approximately two miles south of the Project site1.
1 California State Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lapliv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed July 2022. 882
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-6 Local Regulations
Scenic Views
Scenic views provided by the Sierra Nevada to the east and much of the rural agricultural land surrounding the City is beyond Visalia’s jurisdiction. Tulare County retains sole jurisdiction outside Visalia’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City of Visalia has authority for land use decisions that could affect scenic views within City limits or on land in the SOI that would be urbanized under the General Plan. Caltrans has jurisdiction over the design of its facilities, and Tulare Irrigation District (TID) retains control over its canals within the City. Visalia adopted its Scenic Highways Element in February 1976, in which Highway 198 is identified as a scenic resource.

Highway 198 is below grade through the city core.2
Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan includes specific goals and policies related to aesthetics and scenic resources. Those that apply to the proposed project are listed below.

OSC-P-8: Protect, restore and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation along Planning Area waterways, including the St. Johns River; Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks; and segments of other creeks and ditches where feasible, in conformance with the Parks and Open Space diagram of this General Plan.

OSC-P-10: Ensure that building and vehicle service areas, loading docks, trash enclosures and storage areas are setback back from waterways and/or screened from view from the creek corridor to minimize environmental and visual impacts.

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

OSC-P-17: Require that new development along waterways maintain a visual orientation and active interface with waterways. Develop design guidelines to be used for review and approval of subdivision and development proposals to illustrate how this can be accomplished for different land uses in various geographic settings. 2 Visalia General Plan EIR, page 3.13-4.
883
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-7 OSC-P-33: Develop a list of recommended native plants and landscaping guidelines.

Make this list and guidance accessible through the Community Development Department, the public library, and the City website.

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

OSC-P-35: Use native trees in street and public landscaping designs, where appropriate, to preserve Visalia’s character.

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

LU-P-29: Use regional and community parks and open space to enhance gateways to the City and as a buffer between adjacent communities.

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

LU-P-39: Improve tree planting, landscaping and site design standards to minimize the visual impact of large parking lots and buildings, to enhance and promote natural characteristics compatible with urban form, to minimize heat gain and promote energy conservation, and to improve stormwater infiltration.

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

LU-P-43: Work with utilities and transportation companies to landscape power line and railroad right-of-ways throughout the community and to underground utilities where possible.

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.
884
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-8 LU-P-72: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.

LU-P-106: Develop performance standards to supplement and augment design standards to minimize the negative impacts (glare, signage, noise, dust, traffic) associated with the establishment of new or expansion of existing service commercial and industrial development.

PSCU-P-11: Develop a system of natural corridors and greenways, consistent with the Parks and Open Space diagram.

Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Appendix G Checklist:
o Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
o Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? o In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
o Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.1-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are the only natural and visual resource in the Project area. Views of these distant mountains are afforded only during clear conditions due to poor air quality in the valley. Distant views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains would largely be unaffected by the development of the Project because of distance from the mountains and limited visibility of these features under 885
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-9 current conditions. In addition, the Project would not substantially impede these existing views of the mountains from adjacent viewpoints because of the low-profile nature of the development (two-story maximum) and because of the lack of existing urban development adjacent to the site that currently have views of the mountains. The City of Visalia does not identify views of these features as required to be “protected.”
The Project site is within a developing area planned to be part of Visalia. There are no scenic vistas or other protected scenic resources on or near the site. Therefore, the Project has a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

Visual character of the site is addressed further in Response 3.1-3 below.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.1-2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. See Response to Impact a, above. In addition, there are no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings located on or near the site. The 44-mile stretch of State Route 198 between State Route 99 and Sequoia National Park is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status, but is not officially designated. This includes the length of SR 198 within the Planning Area of the City of Visalia. While the City has not requested official designation, it has evaluated the corridor in the Scenic Highways Element of the existing General Plan and has taken steps to preserve and enhance the corridor’s scenic quality3. The proposed Project is located approximately two miles north of State Route 198 and would not be visible to/from State Route 198 due to intervening land uses. Thus, the Project would not impact any scenic resources associated with State Route 198. Because there are no scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or scenic highways, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
3 Visalia General Plan EIR, page 3.13-2.
886
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-10 Impact 3.1-3: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Significant and Unavoidable. The proposed Project is located in an area of Visalia that is planned for, and is undergoing urban development. The area to the west is planned for commercial/industrial development, areas to the east are planned for residential development and to the south is existing residential development. Areas to the north primarily consist of agriculture/dairy and scattered rural residences. In addition, the site is planned for urban development under the City’s General Plan. However, the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and is currently undeveloped. Implementation of the proposed Project will alter the visual character of the Project site from historically agricultural uses to urban development. This includes residential housing (up to two stories in height) and commercial components including uses such as a Costco, retail, restaurants and other similar uses. New development would incrementally reduce views to open agricultural land now available to some residents and travelers on adjacent roadways. Visual changes caused by a project are evaluated in terms of their visual contrast with the area’s predominant landscape elements and features, their dominance in views relative to other existing features, and the degree to which they could block or obscure views of aesthetically pleasing landscape elements. Although this land use conversion could be perceived by some as a negative aesthetic impact in comparison with the Project site’s current pastoral appearance, based upon the subjective nature of aesthetics, the City does not anticipate that the development of the proposed Project with residential and commercial uses will create a substantially degraded visual character or quality to the Project site or to the properties near and around the Project site. The improvements such as those proposed by the Project are typical of large City urban areas and are generally expected from residents of the City.

The proposed Project would be similar in visual appearance to existing developments found throughout the City.

The Project design is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines adopted for the City’s General Plan which apply to site layout, building design, landscaping, interior street design, lighting, parking and signage. Detailed architectural plans, color palettes and building materials as well as landscaping plans will be submitted by the Project developer to the City of Visalia Community Development Department. The plans shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits.

In addition, landscaping easements will run along the trails and some roadways and additional landscaping design will accompany the park spaces and bicycle/ pedestrian use trails. 887
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-11 Development of the proposed Project in compliance with the policies of the City of Visalia General Plan, the City Design Guidelines and development standards referenced above in the Regulatory Setting will ensure integration of new homes and non-residential structures in an aesthetically pleasing manner within the proposed development. However, because the Project would permanently alter the existing visual character of the site and area compared to existing conditions, this is considered a significant, unavoidable and irreversible impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are available.

Impact 3.1-4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Nighttime lighting is necessary to provide and maintain safe, secure, and attractive environments; however, these lights have the potential to produce spillover light and glare and waste energy, and if designed incorrectly, could be considered unattractive.

Light that falls beyond the intended area is referred to as “light trespass.” Types of light trespass include spillover light and glare. Minimizing all these forms of obtrusive light is an important environmental consideration. A less obtrusive and well-designed energy efficient fixture would face downward, emit the correct intensity of light for the use, and incorporate energy timers.

Spillover light is light emitted by a lighting installation that falls outside the boundaries of the property on which the installation is sited. Spillover light can adversely affect light-sensitive uses, such as residential neighborhoods at nighttime. Because light dissipates as it travels from the source, the intensity of a light fixture is often increased at the source to compensate for the dissipated light. This can further increase the amount of light that illuminates adjacent uses.

Spillover light can be minimized by using only the level of light necessary, and by using cutoff type fixtures or shielded light fixtures, or a combination of fixture types.

Glare results when a light source directly in the field of vision is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. The presence of a bright light in an otherwise dark setting may be distracting or annoying, referred to as discomfort glare, or it may diminish the ability to see other objects in the darkened environment, referred to as disability glare. Glare can be reduced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angles, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles. 888
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-12 Currently the sources of light in the Project area are from streetlights, vehicles traveling along adjacent roadways, security lighting from Ridgeview Middle School, and lights from housing in the area. The Project would include nighttime lighting such as streetlights, residential outdoor lighting, vehicle lights, commercial facility lighting, and other similar lighting sources.

Additional night lighting sources on the Project site, especially any unshielded light, could result in spillover light that could impact surrounding properties. This would create new sources of light that could potentially have a significant impact on nighttime light levels in the area. The City’s General Plan provides the following information pertaining to potential light and glare from new development in the City:
“The construction of new buildings in the Planning Area may result in nighttime light pollution or daytime glare. However, their impacts are likely to be insignificant. As in most typical residential areas, homes emit some light and glare during the day and evening hours. Development under the proposed General Plan would include indoor lighting and outdoor lighting for safety purposes, but would generally not be out of character with the existing urban environment, and would not rise to a level of being significant. There are a number of circumstances that mitigate the potential for new or significant sources of light pollution in Visalia. The proposed General Plan policies help to ensure that lighting for new development is held to high design standards for light pollution reduction. In addition, the proposed General Plan includes policies related to buffering between urbanized and agricultural areas, further reducing the impact of light and glare associated with urbanization on neighboring rural areas.” 4 During the entitlement process, the Project will be required to comply with the City’s policies pertaining to light and glare and City staff will review lighting plans to ensure that lighting plans will minimize spill-over light on neighboring properties. Thus, the Project will have a less than significant impact on light and glare.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
4 Visalia General Plan, Section 3.13 – Visual Resources, page 3.13-16. 889
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-13 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the existing visual character of the area, including the introduction of light and glare?
Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to aesthetics includes the viewshed of the proposed Project and the areas surrounding the Project site from which the Project could be visible to viewers in the area. As described above, the Project will result in significant aesthetic impacts with respect to the existing visual character of the project site. The landscape in northern Visalia has been changing over the years from one of generally rural residential and agricultural uses to urban uses. Construction of future projects in the area allowed under Visalia and Tulare County General Plans would be required to be in compliance with the numerous policies and programs related to the preservation and enhancements of viewsheds and the protection of scenic resources, which will help ensure that projects are consistent with the character envisioned for these areas.

Several land development proposals envisioned by the City of Visalia and Tulare County General Plans, and individual project proposals, have received their entitlements, or are seeking them in the area. The northern Visalia area and its immediate environs are, therefore, the area affected by aesthetics cumulative impacts as the area of geographical visual analysis notwithstanding their consistency with adopted plans, because the planned development would change the existing character of the area from primarily agricultural to a more suburban development pattern.

Although the urban environment that is ultimately built could be aesthetically pleasing to many, these cumulative changes will significantly modify the existing visual character and quality of the area. Based on this EIR's standards of significance, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and related projects are significant and unavoidable, and the project’s development would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact considering the project's size and scope.
890
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-1

3.2 Agricultural Resources
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project pertaining to Agricultural Resources. A California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was used to aid in the evaluation (See Appendix B). One NOP comment letter was received pertaining to this topic from the California Department of Conservation (DOC). The DOC letter outlined the requirements to evaluate loss of agricultural resources as well as suggestions for potential mitigation.

Environmental Setting
As described in Section 2.1, the Project site is located on approximately 507-acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia in Tulare County and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia, with the zoning as R-M-3 (Multi-Family Residential). APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, with the zoning as AE-40. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia.

The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes but is designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses.

The Project site is located in a developing area, with dairy farm/agricultural uses to the north and west, agricultural land uses to the east and residential area to the south. Currently, Ridgeview Middle School is located adjacent to and west of Akers Street and would abut the proposed Project site. In addition, the City is currently planning a new high school that will be constructed adjacent to and west of Ridgeview Middle School and would be surrounded by the proposed Project to the north, west and south.

The Project site does not contain land under Williamson Act Contract, however, the entire Project site is designated Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)1. The FMMP map identifies areas to the northeast, east and west as prime agricultural land. A portion of the areas to the north and the west, which 1 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

Accessed March 2022.
891
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-2
consist of dairy farms, are categorized as Confined Animal Agriculture, while a portion of the land adjacent to and east of the Project site consists of Urban and Built-Up Land.

The majority of forest land occurs in the eastern portion of Tulare County, in the Sierra Nevada foothills and Sierra Nevada. The Project site does not contain any land defined as forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or land zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The federal Farmland Protection Policy Act, part of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, was passed in response to the National Agricultural Land Study of 1980-1981, which found that millions of acres of farmland were being converted in the U.S. each year and a related report which found that much of this conversion was the result of programs funded by the federal government. The intent of the Act is to minimize the impact that federal programs have on unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that – to the extent possible – federal programs are administered to be compatible with state and local government and private programs and policies to protect farmland.

State of California Regulations
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation uses the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil classifications to classify agricultural lands under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. These designated agricultural lands are included in the farmland maps used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural resources. The California Department of Conservation has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications. The categories are described below. In addition to mapping existing farmland, the FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use changes throughout California. 892
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-3
California Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 defines agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts. Collectively, land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance is referred to as “agricultural land.” These same classifications of farmland are described as Important Farmland under the FMMP and are the also used in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G as the farmland classifications on which impacts on agricultural resources are to be evaluated.

Prime Farmland. This farmland 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 necessary to produce sustained high yields. To be classified as Prime Farmland, the land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Unique Farmland. This is farmland of lesser quality soils used 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. The land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Statewide Importance. This is farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance. This is farmland of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

Grazing Land. Grazing land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum contiguous mapping area for Grazing Land is 40 acres.

Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one building unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public and transportation uses, and other developed purposes.

Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category, including low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; animal confinement facilities; mines; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and 893
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-4
nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use as a means of preserving California’s prime agricultural lands from urbanization. Prime Farmland under the Williamson Act includes land that qualifies as Class I and II under the Natural Resources Conservation Service classification of land. Through the voluntary contracts between landowners and a city or county, the owners agree to retain their lands in agricultural or other open space uses for a minimum of 10 years.

In return for entering into a Williamson Act contract, landowners receive property tax relief on the lands under contract. This relief is provided through the assessment of lands based upon their income-producing value rather than their market value, which may be considerably higher. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971. The Project site contains no lands that are subject to a Williamson Act Contract.

Local Regulations
Tulare County General Plan
The Tulare County General Plan has a number of policies that apply to projects within the County of Tulare.2 The following General Plan policies apply to the proposed Project: Policies designed to promote future development patterns that focus growth within established community areas and to mitigate loss of agricultural lands include the following:

LU-2.5 Agricultural Support Facilities wherein the County shall encourage beneficial reuse of existing or vacant agricultural support facilities for new businesses (including non-agricultural uses);
PF-1.2 Location of Urban Development wherein the County shall ensure that urban development only takes place in the following areas:
2 Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update, Part 1 – Goals and Policies Report. 894
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-5

1. Within incorporated cities and CACUDBs;

2. Within the UDBs of adjacent cities in other counties, unincorporated communities, planned community areas, and HDBs of hamlets;

3. Within foothill development corridors as determined by procedures set forth in Foothill Growth Management Plan;

4. Within areas set aside for urban use in the Mountain Framework Plan and the mountain sub-area plans; and

5. Within other areas suited for non-agricultural development, as determined by the procedures set forth in the Rural Valley Lands Plan; PF-1.3 Land Uses in UDBs/HDBs wherein the County shall encourage those types of urban land uses that benefit from urban services to develop within UDBs and HDBs.

Permanent uses which do not benefit from urban services shall be discouraged within these areas. This shall not apply to agricultural or agricultural support uses, including the cultivation of land or other uses accessory to the cultivation of land provided that such accessory uses are time-limited through Special Use Permit procedures;
PF-1.4 Available Infrastructure wherein the County shall encourage urban development to locate in existing UDBs and HDBs where infrastructure is available or may be established in conjunction with development. The County shall ensure that development does not occur unless adequate infrastructure is available, that sufficient water supplies are available or can be made available, and that there are adequate provisions for long term management and maintenance of infrastructure and identified water supplies;
PF-2.4 Community Plans wherein the County shall ensure that community plans are prepared, updated, and maintained for each of the communities. These plans shall include the entire area within the community’s UDB and shall address the community’s short and long term ability to provide necessary urban services.

City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia’s General Plan has a number of policies that apply to agricultural lands.

Policies designed to promote future development patterns that focus growth within established community areas and to mitigate loss of agricultural lands include the following:
895
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-6
LU-O-11 Maintain Visalia as a separate and distinct community.

LU-O-12 Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses.

LU-O-13 Minimize urban sprawl and leap-frog development by encouraging compact, concentric and contiguous growth.

LU-P-19 Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.

The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its boundaries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern...

LU-P-20 Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.

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

Residential: after permits for 5,850 housing units have been issued; and, Commercial: after permits for 480,000 square feet of commercial space on designated Commercial, Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use, Office, and Service Commercial land have been issued.
896
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-7
LU-P-28 Continue to use natural and man-made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.

LU-P-34 Work with Tulare County and other state and regional agencies, neighboring cities, and private land trust entities to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries and to promote the use of agricultural preserves, where they will promote orderly development and preservation of farming operations within Tulare County. Conduct additional investigation of the efficacy of agricultural conservation easements by engaging local, regional, and state agencies and stakeholders in order to further analyze their ongoing efforts and programs that attempt to mitigate impacts from the conversion of agricultural lands through the use of agricultural conservation easements. Support regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, specifically at the county level. Tulare County’s General Plan 2030 Update Policy contains two policies (AG-1.6 Conservation Easements and AG-1.18 Farmland Trust and Funding Sources) that discuss establishing and implementing an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The City supports the implementation of these measures by the County, in which the City may then participate. Such a regional program could include a fee to assist and support agricultural uses, and would be most feasibly and strategically developed on a countywide or other regional basis. 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 easement 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 897
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-8
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-35 Adopt the County’s Right-to-Farm ordinance to support continued agricultural operations at appropriate locations within the City limits, with no new provisions.

Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Appendix G Checklist.

Would the project:
o 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? o Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? o 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))?
o Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? o 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?
898
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-9
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.2-1: 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? Significant and Unavoidable. According to the FMMP,3the 507-acre proposed Project site is classified as Prime Farmland. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia, with the zoning as R-M-3 (MultiFamily Residential). APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, with the zoning as AE-40 (Exclusive Agriculture-40 acres minimum). However, both parcels are within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia. The Project site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses and is located in both Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the City’s future growth threshold boundaries.

The City has evaluated the Project’s farmland conversion impacts utilizing the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA) 4, which the California Department of Conservation developed to provide lead agencies with a methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code §21095.)
The LESA is composed of six different factors, which are divided into two sets: Land Evaluation (LE) and Site Assessment (SA) factors. Two LE factors (Land Capability Classification Rating and Storie Index Rating) are based upon measures of soil resources quality and intended to measure the inherent, soil-based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. Four SA factors (Project Size Rating, Water Resource Availability Rating, Surrounding Agricultural Lands Rating, and Surrounding Protected Resource Lands Rating) are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land.

The two sets of factors are evenly weighted, meaning the two LE factors and four SA factors are of equal importance; however, for a given project, each of these six factors is separately rated in 3 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed December 2022. 4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Accessible at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/qh_lesa.aspx. Accessed November 2022. 899
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-10 a 100-point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points.

This final project score becomes the basis for making a determination of the potential impact’s level of significance for the project, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds.

Land Evaluation Factors
The LESA includes two LE factors, discussed below, that are separately rated.

The Land Capability Classification Rating (LCC): The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops and the risk of damage to soils when used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receiving the highest rating (Class I). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils.

The Storie Index Rating: The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a zero to 100 scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are considered in the Storie Index rating: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors such as drainage or salinity.

In some situations, only the United States Department of Agriculture’s LCC information may be available. In those cases, the Storie Index ratings can be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists; however, if limitation of time and/or resources restrict the derivation of the Storie Index rating for a given project, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating.

Site Assessment Factors
The four SA factors that are separately rated and included in the LESA are discussed below.

The Project Size Rating: The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining what grouping generates the highest Project Size score. The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating.

The Water Resources Availability Rating: The Water Resources Availability rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non-drought.
900
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-11 The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating: Determination of the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is based upon identification of a project’s Zone of Influence (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands close to a given project. The LESA rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of the ZOI that accounts for surrounding lands (up to a minimum of 0.25 mile from the project boundary) is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use.

The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating: The Surrounding Protected Resource Land rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating, and it is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long-term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following:
• Williamson Act contracted lands
• Publicly owned lands maintained as a park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban and industrial uses Final LESA Scoring
A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all the individual LE and SA factors have been scored and weighted. The LESA is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the LE factors and 50 percent is derived from the SA factors. The final LESA score was determined for the proposed Project and the modeling results are described in Table 3.2-1.
901
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-12 Table 3.2-1
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary Category Factor Factor
Scores
Factor
Weight
Weighted
Factor
Points
Land
Evaluation
Land Capability
Classification 100 0.25 25
Storie
Index 80.66 0.25 20.17
LE Subtotal 0.50 45.17
Site
Assessment
Project
Size 100 0.15 15
Water Resource
Availability 100 0.15 15
Surrounding
Agricultural Land 80 0.15 12
Surrounding
Protected
Resource Lands
40 0.05 2
SA Subtotal 0.50 44
Final LESA Score: 89.17
LESA Thresholds of Significance
The LESA is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project’s conversion of agricultural lands during the CEQA process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score and the component LE and SA separate subscores. In this manner, the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score but a very low SA score, or vice-versa). The LESA scoring thresholds are described in Table 3.2-2.

Table 3.2-2
LESA Scoring Thresholds
Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 points Not considered significant
40 to 59 points Considered significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points
60 to 79 points Considered significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points
80 to 100 points Considered significant
902
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-13 LESA Results and Impact Determination
According to the LESA Threshold of Significance, the total score of 89.17 for the proposed Project site is considered significant. As such, the Project is subject to the City’s General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-34 which requires mitigation for the loss of farmland.

The Project consists of 507 acres, of which approximately 29.3 acres are already within the City limits of Visalia (zoned R-M-3) and, being within Tier I, are not subject to the City’s agricultural mitigation policy. The 29.3 acres of prime farmland was previously evaluated under the City’s General Plan EIR, adopted in October 2014 (State Clearinghouse #2010041078). The remaining 478 acres are within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, are currently zoned AE-40 (Exclusive Agriculture-40 acres minimum), are within Tiers II and III, and are proposed for annexation into the City. As such, the 478 acres proposed for annexation are subject to the City’s agricultural mitigation policy (See MM AG – 1).

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 2 and Tier 3, 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 Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Tier 2 and Tier 3 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 is preparing an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance applicable to properties within Tier 2 and Tier 3 that requires a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved to agricultural land converted towards urban development. The Ordinance is anticipated to be adopted in mid-2023 and must be adopted for other pending entitlements submitted to the City of Visalia that are located within Tier 2 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 cause 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 practicable, 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 903
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-14 qualifying entity, such as a local land trust, and require the submission of 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 adopted 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.

Although the Project will comply with the City’s agricultural mitigation policy based on City General Plan Policy LU-P-34 (Mitigation Measure AG – 1), conversion of agricultural land to urban use is not directly mitigable, aside from preventing development altogether. There is no additional feasible mitigation measure that would reduce the impacts related to the Prime Farmland converted as a result of development of the proposed Project. Therefore, even with mitigation, impacts as a result of farmland conversion are considered Significant and Unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
AG - 1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 478 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importanceon the Project site at a 1:1 ratio. The amount of land requiring mitigation shall correspond to the amount of land associated with the issuance of the grading or building permit, or for residential land associated with a subdivision map, the amount of land associated with the subdivision map. The Project proponent shall implement one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss: Payment of in-lieu fees, mitigation banks, fee title acquisition, and/or conservation easements on land(s) within the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, specifically within Kern County, Tulare County, Kings County, Fresno County, or Madera County. The City shall require, at a minimum: evidence that the preserved land has adequate water supply, agricultural zoning, evidence of land encumbrance documentation, documentation that the easement/regulations are permanent and monitored, and documentation that the mitigation strategy is appropriately endowed. This mitigation shall be verified by 904
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-15 the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Should the City of Visalia develop an Agricultural Mitigation Program, the Project proponent, at its election, may mitigate for the loss of agricultural land through compliance with the Program that is adopted by the City in lieu of mitigating on a 1:1 ratio as described above.

Impact 3.2-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant With Mitigation.

Williamson Act Contract
As previously noted, the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, pursuant to Government Code Section 51200 et seq. Therefore, there would be no conflict with a Williamson Act Contract and as such, no impacts to this subject area.

Agricultural Zoning
Total Project acreage is 507 acres, of which approximately 29.3 acres are already within the City limits of Visalia (zoned R-M-3) and no land use changes are proposed for the 29.3 acres. The remaining 478 acres are within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, with the zoning as AE-40 (Exclusive Agriculture-40 acres minimum) and are proposed for annexation into the City.

Onced annexed, the zoning designations for 478 acres will be changed from agriculture to urban uses as described in Section 2.2 – Project Description. The new zoning would accommodate the proposed Project and as such, there would be no impact resulting from a zoning conflict.

However, in order to ensure that existing agricultural operations in the area can be maintained, a Right-to-Farm Covenant will be required as identified in Mitigation Measure AG – 2. After mitigation, the impact is determined to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
AG – 2 Reduce Conflicts Between Urban and Agricultural Uses In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
• Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.
905
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-16 • A Right-to-Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each residential tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area.
• Potential residents shall be informed of the Right-to-Farm Covenant at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.

Impact 3.2-3: 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)), or result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed Project site lies in the central/eastern portion of the Central Valley floor, where there is no forest land. The Project is not zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and does not propose any zone changes related to forest or timberland. As such, there are no potential impacts resulting from forest or timber land conflicts or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Impact 3.2-4: 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. The proposed Project site is located in an area that is surrounded by farmland / agricultural operations to the north, a proposed/future industrial complex to the west, existing residential to the south, and residential/agricultural land to the east. Total Project acreage is 507 acres, of which approximately 29.3 acres are already within the City limits of Visalia (zoned R-M-3) and no land use changes are proposed for the 29.3 acres. The remaining 478 acres are within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, with the zoning as AE-40 (Exclusive Agriculture-40 acres minimum) and are proposed for annexation into the City. Onced annexed, the zoning designations for the 478 acres will be changed from agriculture to urban uses as described in Section 2.2 – Project Description.
906
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-17 The existing City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) runs along the northern border of the proposed Project site along Avenue 320. The UBG represents the limits of available development for the City of Visalia in the Project area unless the UGB is amended in the future by the City and County. Therefore, development to the north is unlikely. There are existing and proposed urban developments to the south, east and west of the Project site, thus there is no possibility to induce further conversion of agricultural lands in these areas.

According to the LESA prepared for the Project, the site is substantially surrounded by Prime Farmland to the north (existing agriculture), east (already planned for future urban development) and west (already planned for future urban development). However, the requested General Plan Amendment and annexation is site specific and does not apply to any properties other than the proposed Project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project would result in the conversion of other farmland or forest land. In addition, Mitigation Measure AG – 2 (identified in Impact 3.2-3) will ensure that agricultural operations can be maintained on adjacent sites. The Mitigation Measure includes a Right-to-Farm Covenant, which will further reduce the likelihood of additional conversion of farmland. Therefore, the impact is less than significant after mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AG – 2.

Cumulative Impacts
Significant, Unavoidable and Cumulatively Considerable. The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is the entire State of California. This cumulative analysis is based on the Statewide FMMP map. As discussed above, the Project includes the significant impact related to the conversion of protected farmland to urban uses. The Project will be required to mitigate the loss of farmland as identified in Mitigation Measure AG – 1. However, even with mitigation, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable impact on agricultural resources.
907
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-1

3.3 Air Quality
This section of the DEIR evaluates the potential air quality impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Project. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.). The methodology follows the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District or SJVAPCD) for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources.

The information and analysis presented in this Section are based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report (AQGGEA) prepared for this Project by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. The full AQGGEA can be reviewed in Appendix C.

During the NOP comment period, the City received a letter from the SJVAPCD that identified the District’s applicable guidelines and requirements associated with air emissions from construction and operation of the Project (See Appendix A).

Environmental Setting
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. The Air Basin is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).

Climate
The climate is important for air quality because of differences in the atmosphere’s ability to trap pollutants close to the ground, which creates adverse air quality; inversely, the atmosphere’s ability to rapidly disperse pollutants over a wide area prevents high concentrations from accumulating under different climatic conditions. The Air Basin has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be 908
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-2 a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Air Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year.1
Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor.

Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution.

The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Mojave Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.

The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the San Joaquin Valley floor. This creates strong, low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to Tule fog. Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.

Existing Air Quality Conditions
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the Project area. Table 3.3-1 summarizes 2018 through 2020 published monitoring data, which is the most recent three-year period available. The table displays data from the Visalia-N. Church Street (located approximately 3.69 miles southeast of the Project site.) The data shows that during the past few years, the Project area has exceeded the standards for ozone (state and national), PM10 (state and national), and PM2.5 (state and national). The data in the table reflects the concentration of the pollutants in the air measured using air monitoring equipment. This differs from emissions, which are calculations of a pollutant being emitted over a certain period. No recent monitoring data for Tulare County or the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin was available for CO or SO2. Generally, 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

Revised March 19, 2015. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2022 and April 5, 2023.
909
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-3 no monitoring is conducted for pollutants that are no longer likely to exceed ambient air quality standards.

Table 3.3-1
Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Air Pollutant Averaging
Time
Item 2018 2019 2020
Ozone1 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.112 0.093 0.127
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 8 0 7
Ozone1 8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.095 0.082 0.103
Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 58 26 37
Days > National Standard (0.070
ppm) 36 22 53
Carbon
monoxide
(CO)
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) ND ND ND
Days > State Standard (9.0 ppm) ND ND ND
Days > National Standard (9 ppm) ND ND ND
Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2)
1 Annual Annual Average (ppm) 0.010 0.009 0.009
1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.069 0.070 0.053
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Annual Average (ppm) ND ND ND
24 Hour Max 24 Hour (ppm) ND ND ND
Days > State Standard (0.04 ppm) ND ND ND
Inhalable
coarse
particles
(PM10)
1 Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 52.0 46.3 60.5
24 hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 159.6 418.5 305.7
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 164.4 115.8 157.0
Days > National Standard (150
µg/m3)

0.0 5.0 20.2
Fine
particulate
matter
(PM2.5)
1 Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 17.4 12.3 19.6
24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 96.2 47.2 127.1
Days > National Standard (35
µg/m3)

42.3 19.9 51.2
Notes:
> = exceed ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = insufficient data ND = no data max = maximum
Bold = exceedance
State Standard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard 1 Visalia–N. Church Street Monitoring Station
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021a. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Accessed September 27, 2021.

The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways.

The clearest of these is comparable with the state and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health impact would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount by which the standard is exceeded. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air.

Table 3.3-2 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations. 910
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-4 Table 3.3-2
Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone2
Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI—51–100—Moderate
Concentration 55–70 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI—101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Concentration 71–85 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI—151–200—Unhealthy
Concentration 86–105 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI—201–300—Very Unhealthy
Concentration 106–200 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor 2 Air Now. 2021. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculator-concentration/.

Accessed August 1, 2022.
911
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-5 Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

The AQI for the 8-hour ozone standard is based on the current NAAQS of 70 parts per billion (ppb). Based on the AQI scale for the 8-hour ozone standard, the Project area experienced zero days in the last three years that would be categorized as very unhealthy (AQI 201–300), and as many as 137 days that were either unhealthy (AQI 151–200) or unhealthy for sensitive groups (AQI 101–150), violating the 70-ppb standard as measured at the Visalia–N. Church Street monitoring station. The highest reading was 103 parts per billion (ppb) in 2020, compared with the 105-ppb cutoff point for unhealthy. The most days over the standard was 58 days in 2018.

The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered moderate and would be triggered by a 24-hour average concentration of 12.1 to 35.4 µg/m3. An AQI of 101 to 150 or 35.5 to 55.4 µg/m3is considered unhealthful for sensitive groups. When concentrations reach this amount, it is considered an exceedance of the federal PM2.5 standard.

The monitoring station nearest the Project exceeded the standard on approximately 113.4 days in the three-year period spanning from 2018 to 2020. The highest number of exceedances was recorded in 2020 with 51.2 days over the standard. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children are the groups most at risk. Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

The AQI of 151 to 200 is classified as unhealthy for everyone. This AQI classification is triggered when PM2.5 concentration ranges from 55.4 to 150.4 µg/m3. At this concentration, there is increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and in the elderly. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should limit prolonged exertion. Everyone else should reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. The highest concentration recorded at the Visalia–N. Church Street monitoring station in the last three years was 127.1 µg/m3(AQI 192) in 2020. At this concentration, increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly and increased respiratory effects in general population would occur. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should avoid prolonged exertion; everyone else should limit prolonged exertion when the AQI exceeds this level. The relationship of the AQI to health effects is provided in Table 3.3-3.
912
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-6 Table 3.3-3
Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution3 Air Quality Index/
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI—51–100—Moderate
Concentration 12.1–35.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Some people who may be unusually
sensitive to particle.

Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive people
should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people:

Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch
for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath.

These are signs to take it easier.

AQI—101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Concentration 35.5–55.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Sensitive groups include people with
heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and
teenagers.

Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of
respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in
persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly.

If you have heart disease: Symptoms such as palpitations, shortness of breath, or unusual fatigue may indicate a
serious problem. If you have any of these, contact your health care provider.

AQI—151–200—Unhealthy
Concentration 86–105 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are
the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as
asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and
people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else,
3 Ibid.
913
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-7 Air Quality Index/
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor
exertion.

AQI—201–300—Very Unhealthy
Concentration 106–200 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are
the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma;
increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and
people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially
children, should limit outdoor exertion.

Attainment Status
The EPA and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.

Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.

The current attainment designations for the Air Basin are shown in Table 3.3-4. The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. 914
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-8 Table 3.3-4
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone—One Hour Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone—Eight Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
Carbon monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Merced, Madera, and Kings Counties are unclassified; others are in
Attainment
Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment No Designation/Classification
Source of State status: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013c. Area Designation Maps/State and National. 2012 State Area Designations. Page last reviewed October 18, 2017. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov /resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. Accessed April 3, 2021.

Source of National status: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021a. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants as of September 30, 2021. Website: https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed October 7, 2021 and April 5, 2023.

Source of additional status information: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2017a.

Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed August 1, 2022 and April 5, 2023.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Clean Air Act
Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970, and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA: particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and lead. The EPA labels these pollutants as criteria air pollutants because they are regulated by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines), which sets permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards. Another set of limits intended to 915
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-9 prevent environmental and property damage are called secondary standards. 4 The federal standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards. The criteria pollutants are:
• Ozone • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Lead • Sulfur dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.5 State of California Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988 to address air quality issues of concern not adequately addressed by the federal CAA at the time. California’s air quality problems were and continue to be some of the most severe in the nation, and required additional actions beyond the federal mandates. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the 10 air pollutants designated in the CCAA. The 10 state air pollutants are the six federal standards listed above as well visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The EPA authorized California to adopt its own regulations for motor vehicles and other sources that are more stringent than similar federal regulations implementing the CAA. The federal and state ambient air quality standards, relevant effects, properties, and sources of the pollutants are summarized in Table 2 of Appendix C. Additional discussion related to air pollutants and health effects is provided on pages 25 through 27 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report included as Appendix C. The discussion of Toxic Air Contaminants is provided on page 19 of Appendix C.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Clean Air Act Requirements and History. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-requirements-and-history. Accessed September 26, 2021. 5 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. May 4. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2021 and April 5, 2023. 916
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-10 Air Quality Plans and Regulations
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin or county level, and each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility: the EPA regulates at the national level, the ARB at the state level, and the District at the air basin level.

The EPA is responsible for national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans, provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards—also known as the federal standards described earlier.

A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal standards.

The SIP for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s SIP incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts; specifically, an air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which is sent to ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California State Implementation Plan. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms. The ARB then submits the SIP to the EPA for approval. After reviewing submitted SIPs, the EPA proposes to approve or disapprove all or part of each plan. The public has an opportunity to comment on the EPA’s proposed action. The EPA considers public input before taking final action on a state’s plan. If the EPA approves all or part of a SIP, those control measures are enforceable in federal court. If a state fails to submit an approvable plan or if the EPA disapproves a plan, the EPA is required to develop a federal implementation plan (FIP). The SIP approval process often takes several years.

The most recent federally approved attainment plans for the SJVAPCD are the 2007 8-hour Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The plan to address this standard was adopted by the SJVAPCD on June 16, 2016. The ARB approved the attainment demonstration plan for the San Joaquin Valley on July 21, 2016 and transmitted the plan to EPA on August 24, 2016. The plan for areas designated extreme nonattainment must demonstrate attainment of the new ozone standard by December 31, 2031. The 2016 Ozone Plan predicts attainment of the 2008 standard by 2031. On June 30, 2020, US EPA approved portions of the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards and the San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan related to the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 35 μg/m³. Additionally, EPA 917
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-11 granted an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Federal review of portions of the plan that pertain to the other PM2.5 standards will continue in 2020. The EPA Administrator signed the Final Rule revising the 8-hour ozone standard to 70 ppm on October 1, 2015. EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as Extreme nonattainment for this standard in August 2018, with an attainment deadline of 2037. The SJVAPCD is mandated under federal Clean Air Act requirements to develop a new attainment plan for the revised ozone standard by 2022.6 Areas designated nonattainment must develop air quality plans and regulations to achieve standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the exceedances. For much of the country, implementation of federal motor vehicle standards and compliance with federal permitting requirements for industrial sources are adequate to attain air quality standards on schedule. For many areas of California, however, additional state and local regulation is required to achieve the standards. Regulations adopted by California are described below.

Low-Emission Vehicle Program. The ARB first adopted Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 State Implementation Plan. In 2012, ARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments, also known as the Advanced Clean Car Program, include more stringent emission standards for model years 2017 through 2025 for both criteria pollutants and GHGs for new passenger vehicles. 7 On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program. The ARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, as well as test procedures. ARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from inuse heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others.8
6 Ibid. Page 32.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid. Page 32.
918
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-12 ARB Truck and Bus Regulation. The latest amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation became effective on December 31, 2014. The amended regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low-use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks.9 Advanced Clean Truck Regulation. The Advanced Clean Trucks regulation was approved on June 25, 2020 and has two main components, a manufacturers ZEV sales requirement and a onetime reporting requirement for large entities and fleets. Promoting the development and use of advanced clean trucks will help CARB achieve its emission reduction strategies as outlined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Senate Bill (SB) 350, and Assembly Bill (AB) 32.

The proposed regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
• Zero-emission truck sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zeroemission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 –8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. • Company and fleet reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations. This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.10
9 Ibid, Page 33.
10 Ibid, Page 34.
919
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-13 ARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and nitrous oxide (NOX) emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. The ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation.

Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOX emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501–5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).

ARB Regulation for Consumer Products. The ARB Consumer Products Regulation was last amended in January 2015. The ARB regulates the VOC content of a wide variety of consumer products sold and manufactured in California. The purpose of the regulation is to reduce the emission of ozone precursors, TACs, and GHG emissions in products that are used by homes and businesses. The regulated products include but are not limited to solvents, adhesives, air fresheners, soaps, aromatic compounds, windshield cleaners, charcoal lighter, dry cleaning fluids, floor polishes, and general cleaners and degreasers. 11 ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos. In July 2001, the ARB approved an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of best management practices to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of grounddisturbing activities. The measure establishes specific testing, notification and engineering controls prior to grading, quarrying, or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than 1 acre in size. These projects require the submittal of a Dust Mitigation Plan and approval by the air district prior to the start of a project.

Construction sometimes requires the demolition of existing buildings where construction occurs.

Buildings often include materials containing asbestos. Asbestos is also found in a natural state, known as naturally occurring asbestos. Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally 11 Ibid. Page 34.
920
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-14 contain asbestos can result in the release of fibers into the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present.

The ARB has an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations, requiring the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize emissions of asbestos-laden dust. The measure applies to road construction and maintenance, construction and grading operations, and quarries and surface mines when the activity occurs in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be found. Areas are subject to the regulation if they are identified on maps published by the Department of Conservation as ultramafic rock units or if the Air Pollution Control Officer or owner/operator has knowledge of the presence of ultramafic rock, serpentine, or naturally occurring asbestos on the site. The measure also applies if ultramafic rock, serpentine, or asbestos is discovered during any operation or activity.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of state regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020.12
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulations The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District or SJVAPCD) is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The District, in coordination with eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing air quality plans for the Air District.
12 Ibid, Page 35.
921
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-15 Ozone Plans
The Air Basin is designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone. To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the one-hour ozone standard, the District adopted an Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in 2004, with an attainment date of 2010. Although the EPA revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2005 and replaced it with an 8-hour standard, the requirement to submit a plan for that standard remained in effect for the San Joaquin Valley.

The planning requirements for the 1-hour plan remain in effect until replaced by a federal 8-hour ozone attainment plan. On March 8, 2010, the EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, including revisions to the plan, effective April 7, 2010. However, the Air Basin failed to attain the standard in 2010 and was subject to a $29-million Clean Air Act penalty.

The penalty is being collected through an additional $12 motor vehicle registration surcharge for each passenger vehicle registered in the Air Basin that will be applied to pollution reduction programs in the region. The District also instituted a more robust ozone episodic program to reduce emissions on days with the potential to exceed the ozone standards. On July 18, 2016, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. This determination is based on the most recent three-year period (2012-2014) of sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data.

The penalty fees remain in place pending submittal of a demonstration that the San Joaquin Valley will maintain the 1-hour standard for 10 years.13 The EPA originally classified the Air Basin as serious nonattainment for the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of 2013. On April 30, 2007, the District’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan, which contained analysis showing a 2013 attainment target to be infeasible. The 2007 Ozone Plan details the plan for achieving attainment on schedule with an “extreme nonattainment” deadline of 2024. At its adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District also requested a reclassification to extreme nonattainment. ARB approved the plan in June 2007, and the EPA approved the request for reclassification to extreme nonattainment on April 15, 2010.

The 2007 Ozone Plan contains measures to reduce ozone and particulate matter precursor emissions to bring the Basin into attainment with the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The 2007 Ozone Plan calls for a 75 percent reduction of NOX and a 25 percent reduction of reactive organic gases (ROG). Figure 1 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report included in 13 Ibid, Page 35.
922
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-16 Appendix C displays the anticipated NOX reductions attributed in the 2007 Ozone Plan (Source:
2007 Ozone Plan). The plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard for all Air Basin residents. The District Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. The ARB approved the plan on June 14, 2007. The 2007 Ozone Plan requires yet to be determined “Advanced Technology” to achieve additional reductions after 2021, in order to attain the standard at all monitoring stations in the Air Basin by 2024 as allowed for areas designated extreme nonattainment by the federal Clean Air Act.

The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The District’s Governing Board approved the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8- Hour Ozone Standard on June 16, 2016. The ARB approved the attainment demonstration plan for the San Joaquin Valley on July 21, 2016 and transmitted the plan to EPA on August 24, 2016.

The comprehensive strategy in this plan will reduce NOX emissions by over 60 percent between 2012 and 2031 and will bring the San Joaquin Valley into attainment of the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, no later than December 31, 2031. The 2016 Ozone Plan predicts attainment of the 2008 standard by 2031.14 To ensure that the plan is approvable with the necessary contingencies, the plan includes a “Black Box” that will require implementation of new advanced technologies and controls prior to the 2031 deadline.

The EPA Administrator signed the Final Rule revising the 8-hour ozone standard to 70 ppm on October 1, 2015. The new standard will require the District to prepare a new attainment to achieve the more stringent emission level within 20 years from the effective date of designation.15 State ozone standards do not have an attainment deadline but require implementation of all feasible measures to achieve attainment at the earliest date possible. This is achieved through compliance with the federal deadlines and control measure requirements.

Particulate Matter Plans
The Air Basin was designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for PM10. The Air Basin is also designated nonattainment of state and federal standards for PM2.5.
14 Ibid, Page 36.
15 Ibid.
923
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-17 To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the PM10 standard, the District adopted a PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plan (Amended 2003 PM10 Plan and 2006 PM10 Plan), which has an attainment date of 2010. The District adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007 to assure the San Joaquin Valley’s continued attainment of the EPA’s PM10 standard. The EPA designated the valley as an attainment/maintenance area for PM10 on September 25, 2008.

Although the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded the standard since then, those days were considered exceptional events that are not considered a violation of the standard for attainment purposes.

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan builds upon the comprehensive strategy adopted in the 2007 Ozone Plan to bring the Air Basin into attainment of the 1997 national standards for PM2.5. The EPA has identified NOX and SO2 as precursors that must be addressed in air quality plans for the 1997 PM2.5 standards. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan is a continuation of the District’s strategy to improve the air quality in the Air Basin. The EPA issued final approval of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on November 9, 2011, which became effective on January 9, 2012. The EPA approved the emissions inventory, the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology demonstration, reasonable further progress demonstration, attainment demonstration and associated air quality modeling, and the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA also granted California’s request to extend the attainment deadline for the San Joaquin Valley to April 5, 2015 and approved commitments to measures and reductions by the District and the ARB.

Finally, it disapproved the State Implementation Plan’s contingency provisions and issued a protective finding for transportation conformity determinations.

In December 2012, the District adopted the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to bring the San Joaquin Valley into attainment of the EPA’s 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m3. The ARB approved the District’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 standard at a public hearing on January 24, 2013. 16 This plan seeks to
bring the Valley into attainment with the standard by 2019.

The 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard approved by the District Governing Board on April 16, 2015—will bring the Valley into attainment of the EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2020. The plan was required to request reclassification to Serious nonattainment and to extend the attainment date from 2018 to 2020. 17 The 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard was adopted on September 15, 2016.

This plan includes an attainment impracticability demonstration and request for reclassification 16 Ibid, Page 37.
17 Ibid, Page 38.
924
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-18 of the Valley from Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment. The 2016 PM2.5 Plan is under ARB review.
18 The District adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards on November 15, 2018. This plan provides a combined strategy to address the EPA federal 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m³ and 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m³; the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m³; and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m³. This plan demonstrates attainment of the federal PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable. On June 30, 2020, US EPA approved portions of the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards and the San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan related to the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 35 μg/m³. Additionally, EPA granted an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Federal review of portions of the plan that pertain to the other PM2.5 standards were planned to continue in 2020; however, federal review of portions of the plan that pertain to the other PM2.5 is currently ongoing (SJVAPCD 2020; SJVAPCD 2022). 19 District Rules and Regulations
The District rules and regulations that may apply to the Project include, but are not limited to the following:

Rule 4102—Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public, and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.

This rule is enforced on a complaint basis.

Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling. Only compliant components are available for purchase in the San Joaquin Valley.

Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641. This regulation is enforced on the asphalt provider. 18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
925
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-19 Rule 4901—Wood-Burning Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Heaters. The purposes of this rule are to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood-burning fireplaces, wood-burning heaters, and outdoor wood-burning devices, and to establish a public education program to reduce wood-burning emissions. All development that includes wood-burning devices are subject to this rule.

Rule 4902—Residential Water Heaters. In 2009, the District amended Rule 4902 to strengthen the rule by lowering the limit to 10 nanograms per joule (ng/J) for new or replacement water heaters, and to a limit of 14 ng/J for instantaneous water heaters. Retailer compliance dates ranged from 2010 to 2012, depending on the unit type.

Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011–8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.

Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOX and PM10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site District-administered projects, or a combination of the two.

The Project is subject to Rule 9510.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia Air Quality Goals and Policies
The Visalia General Plan was adopted on October 14, 2014 (City of Visalia 2014). The General Plan lists the following policies that are supportive of improved air quality. Policies that are directly related to the Project are listed below:
• AQ-P-2. Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule. • AQ-P-3. Support implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regulations on the use of wood-burning fireplaces, as well as their regulations for the installation of EPA-certified wood heaters or approved wood-burning appliances in new residential development and a “No Burn” policy on days when the air quality is poor. 926
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-20 • AQ-P-7. Be an active partner with the Air District in its “Spare the Air” program. Encourage businesses and residents to avoid pollution-producing activities such as the use of fireplaces and wood stoves, charcoal lighter fluid, pesticides, aerosol products, oil-based paints, and automobiles and other gasoline engines on days when high ozone levels are expected and promote low-emission vehicles and alternatives to driving. • AQ-P-8. Update the Zoning Ordinance to strictly limit the development of drive-through facilities, only allowing them in auto-oriented areas and prohibiting them in Downtown and East Downtown.
• AQ-P-9. Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.
• AQ-P-11. Continue to work in conjunction with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and others to put in place additional Transportation Control Measures that will reduce vehicle travel and improve air quality and to implement Air Quality Plans.

City of Visalia General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The General Plan lists General Plan Policies to reduce air quality associated with buildout of the General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The following policies from the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases Element were identified in the EIR to help reduce VMT in the City. AQ-P-8, AQP-11, and the following:
• AQ-P-13. Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low-emission technology.

The following policies from the Land Use Element support sustainable growth, including infill and mixed-used development, which the General Plan EIR states will help reduce VMT in the City:

LU-P-44, LU-P-45, LU-P-46, LU-P-52, LUT-P-55, LUT-P-56, LUT-P-57, LU-P-72, LU-P-74, LUT-P78, LUT-P-80, LUT-P-83, LUT-P-85, LUT-P-100, and LU-P-108.

The following policies from the Land Use Element support pedestrian-oriented design, which the General Plan EIR states will help reduce VMT in the City: LU-P-74, LU-P-62, LU-P-63, LU-P-66, LU-P-91, and LU-P-93.
927
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-21 The following policy from the Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element supports biking and walking, which the General Plan EIR states will help reduce VMT in the City: PSCUP-11.

The following policies from the Circulation Element promote transit and non-motorized transportation (e.g., bicycling), which the General Plan EIR states will help reduce VMT in the City: T-P-1, T-P-29, T-P-30, T-P-31, T-P-32, T-P-33, T-P-34, T-P-35, T-P-36, T-P-37, T-P-38, T-P-44, T-P-45, T-P-46, T-P-47, TP-48, T-P-49, T-P-50, T-P-51, T-P-52, T-P-53, and T-P-54.

The following policies from the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases Element help directly reduce area and mobile sources in the Planning Area: AQ-P-2, AQ-P-3, AQ-P-7, AQ-P-8, AQ-P-9, AQ-P-11, and the measures listed below.
• AQ-P-4. Support the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s “change-out” program, which provides incentives to help homeowners replace old word-burning fireplaces with EPA-certified non woodburning appliances.

Smoke released from fireplaces and wood stoves contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and inhalable particulate matter (PM10). The change-out programs have been successful in areas of the State where emissions from woodburning fireplaces cause significant air pollution. Many grant programs offer cash rebates to encourage replacement of old wood-burning appliances with more efficient ones.
• AQ-P-12. Support the implementation of Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the District) for individual development projects that may exceed District significance thresholds.

A VERA is a voluntary mitigation measure where a project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emissions reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of emissions reduction programs and verifier of successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate projectspecific emissions by providing funds for the District’s Strategies and Incentives Program. The funds are disbursed in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. • AQ-P-13. Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low-emission technology.
928
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-22 The following policies from the Land Use Element and Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element support energy conservation, which will help reduce building energy consumption and associated area source emissions: LU-P-38 and PSCU-P-14.

The policies described above from the Land Use Element, Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element, and Circulation Element that would reduce VMT would also reduce associated mobile source emissions.

Thresholds of Significance
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.

The following air quality significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact would occur if the Project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard;
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people).

While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the District recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the lead agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The applicable District thresholds and methodologies are contained under each impact statement below.
929
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-23 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.3-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan(s). The GAMAQI indicates that projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct applicable air quality plans (AQPs). An additional criterion regarding the Project’s implementation of control measures was assessed to provide further evidence of the Project’s consistency with current AQPs. This document employs the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current AQPs:

1. Will the Project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs? This is addressed by comparing the Project’s emissions to the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants.

2. Will the Project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? The primary control measures applicable to development projects include Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions and Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review.

Contribution to Air Quality Violations
A measure for determining if a project is consistent with the air quality plans is whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air quality plans. Regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of the cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin. Individual projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation of air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project is based on its incremental contribution. Because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to contribute to violations of the applicable standards and conflict with the attainment plans.

As discussed in Impact 3.3-2 below, emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 associated with the operation of the Project would exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. Although 930
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-24 the Project would exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds for several pollutants, the Visalia General Plan EIR had already considered air quality to be a significant and unavoidable impact. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan would provide residential uses that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area and would provide conveniently located commercial development to serve north Visalia residents and the Carleton Acres development in a growing area of the City of Visalia. Several goals and policies contained in the City of Visalia’s General Plan promote walkable mixed-use development. As a mixed-use project located in a developing area of a built-up city, the proposed Specific Plan would create a considerable amount of internal capture among its components to reduce VMT compared to the same level of development built with land uses geographically separated from each other. Nonetheless, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under this criterion. 20 Compliance with Applicable Control Measures
The AQP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A description of rules and regulations that apply to the Project is provided below.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review (ISR) is a control measure in the 2006 PM10 Plan that requires NOX and PM10 emission reductions from development projects in the San Joaquin Valley. The NOX emission reductions help reduce the secondary formation of PM10 in the atmosphere (primarily ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate) and also reduce the formation of ozone. Reductions in directly emitted PM10 reduce particles such as dust, soot, and aerosols.

Rule 9510 is also a control measure in the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.

Developers of projects subject to Rule 9510 must reduce emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures, or pay off-site mitigation fees. The Project is required to comply with Rule 9510.

Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions is a control measure that is one main strategies from the 2006 PM10 for reducing the PM10 emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Residential projects over 10 acres and non-residential projects over 5 acres are required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. The 20 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 88. 931
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-25 Project, or individual developments contemplated under the proposed Specific Plan, will be required to prepare DCPs to comply with Regulation VIII.

Other control measures that apply to the Project are Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operation that requires reductions in VOC emissions during paving and Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings that limits the VOC content of all types of paints and coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These measures apply at the point of sale of the asphalt and the coatings, so Project compliance is ensured without additional mitigation measures.

The Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Therefore, the Project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan under this criterion.21 Conclusion
In conclusion, the Project’s emissions are significant for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 and would be considered inconsistent with the AQP for this criterion. The Project complies with applicable control measures of the AQP and would be less than significant for this criterion. The growth accommodated by the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan is included in the City of Visalia’s General Plan (refer to Section 3.14 – Population & Housing, specifically Impact 3.14-1 for more information regarding Project inclusion within the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan) ; therefore, it is consistent with the land use assumptions used to prepare the AQP. The Carleton Acres Specific Plan includes numerous design features to reduce motor vehicle trips and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. In addition, development contemplated under the Specific Plan would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510, which is intended to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development in the San Joaquin Valley to the extent feasible.

However, after compliance with Rule 9510, total emissions will still exceed the SJVAPCD quantitative thresholds of significance for several pollutants. Incorporation of mitigation that would reduce the proposed Project’s regional criteria and ozone precursor emissions is identified under Impact 3.3-2. Because the combined emissions from operations of development under the proposed Specific Plan would continue to exceed at least one regional threshold after compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 and incorporation of mitigation, the impact would be significant. 21 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 89. 932
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-26 Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2A and AIR-2B will reduce impacts; however, even after mitigation, impacts remain significant and unavoidable.

Visalia City CouncilOctober 2, 2023

Visalia City Council
October 2, 2023