Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, October 2, 2023 (part 4 of 5)

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-2A and AIR-2B.

Impact 3.3-2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. To result in a less than significant impact, the following must be met:
• Regional analysis: emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the District’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the District in its GAMAQI.

Regional Emissions
Air pollutant emissions have both regional and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the Project.

Localized emissions from Project construction and operation are assessed under Impact 3.3-3— Sensitive Receptors using concentration-based thresholds that determine if the Project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance.

The primary pollutants of concern during construction and operation of the Project are ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOX, ROG, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the state and national ozone standards.

Therefore, if the Project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the Project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial emissions generated by the Project may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants. The SJVAPCD’s annual emission significance 933
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-27 thresholds used for the Project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
• 100 tons per year CO
• 10 tons per year NOX
• 10 tons per year ROG
• 27 tons per year SOX
• 15 tons per year PM10
• 15 tons per year PM2.5
The Project does not contain sources that would produce substantial quantities of SO2 emissions during construction and operation. Modeling conducted for the Project show that SO2 emissions are well below the SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds, as shown in the modeling results contained in Appendix C. No further analysis of SO2 is required.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions were modeled using the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. The results of the modeling are presented in Table 3.3-5 and Table 3.3-6. For large plan areas, individual residential tracts and commercial projects are constructed gradually with the various construction activities happening throughout the buildout period. The specific timing of individual development projects contemplated under the proposed Specific Plan is unknown and are dependent on market demand and other factors; therefore, the annual average construction emissions were calculated for comparison to the annual threshold of significance (see Table 3.3-5). In addition, the maximum annual emissions are presented and compared to the applicable thresholds in Table

3.3-6.

The emissions reflect compliance with SJVAPCD regulations that apply to construction activities.

As shown in Table 3.3-5, the annual average emissions are below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. The maximum annual emissions exceed the applicable threshold for regional emissions of NOX.
934
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-28 Table 3.3-5
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated)
22 Construction Activity Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Tier 1 Multifamily
Residential 2.11 5.18 6.83 1.07 0.46
Phase 1 Tier 2 Multifamily
Residential 1.10 2.76 3.72 0.48 0.22
Phase 1 Single-family Residential 6.38 30.92 36.39 4.18 2.16 Phase 1 Commercial 1.44 5.75 7.46 1.54 0.57
Phase 2 Multifamily Residential 6.96 22.22 35.20 10.20 3.17 Phase 2 Single-family Residential 11.90 42.83 63.17 11.17 3.97 Phase 2 Commercial 0.32 2.07 2.61 0.30 0.15
Phase 2 Basin 0.07 0.64 0.64 0.14 0.07
Average Annual Construction
Emissions (15 Years)1

2.02 7.49 10.40 1.94 0.72
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No No No No No
Notes:
1 Average annual construction emissions were calculated by summing emissions for all construction activities and then dividing by the anticipated construction duration of 15 years.

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Calculations use unrounded numbers; therefore, totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

Table 3.3-6
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary –
Maximum Annual Emissions by Development Year (Unmitigated) Construction Year
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Annual Emissions (2022) 0.22 2.29 1.53 0.60 0.33
Total Annual Emissions (2023) 1.56 13.14 14.96 2.07 1.04 Total Annual Emissions (2024) 2.45 8.84 10.74 1.45 0.66 Total Annual Emissions (2025) 1.20 9.57 12.66 1.56 0.68 Total Annual Emissions (2026) 2.31 13.10 15.66 2.62 1.22 Total Annual Emissions (2027) 5.15 15.67 20.28 4.02 1.58 Total Annual Emissions (2028) 1.96 11.62 15.07 3.34 1.20 22 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 91. 935
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-29 Total Annual Emissions (2029) 1.16 8.46 11.61 2.92 0.93 Total Annual Emissions (2030) 1.02 5.93 10.66 2.33 0.69 Total Annual Emissions (2031) 0.98 5.90 10.47 2.33 0.69 Total Annual Emissions (2032) 0.96 5.89 10.36 2.34 0.69 Total Annual Emissions (2033) 3.83 3.96 7.28 1.19 0.37
Total Annual Emissions (2034) 0.60 3.00 5.24 0.80 0.25
Total Annual Emissions (2035) 0.91 2.83 5.25 0.80 0.24
Total Annual Emissions (2036) 5.20 2.14 4.19 0.69 0.20
Total Annual Emissions (2037) 0.79 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.01
Maximum Annual Emissions 5.20 15.67 20.28 4.02 1.58
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No Yes No No No
Notes:

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

ROG = reactive organic gasesNOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Calculations use unrounded numbers; therefore, totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

As shown in Table 3.3-5, annual average emissions are below the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds; however, construction of the Project exceeds the regional threshold for NOX under the unmitigated scenario presented in Table 3.3-6. Therefore, the regional construction emissions have potentially significant impact on a project basis and mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2A requires the Project applicant, Project sponsor, or construction contractor for individual development projects under the Specific Plan to provide documentation to the City of Visalia that the construction fleet meets the following requirement: all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower meet EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards. Table 3.3-7 provides the emission estimates with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2A.
936
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-30 Table 3.3-7
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary – Maximum Annual Emissions by Development Year (Mitigated)
Construction Activity
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Annual Emissions (2022) 0.05 0.63 1.77 0.50 0.24
Total Annual Emissions (2023) 0.69 3.77 16.55 1.56 0.57 Total Annual Emissions (2024) 1.89 3.16 11.79 1.13 0.37 Total Annual Emissions (2025) 0.70 5.51 13.89 1.28 0.42 Total Annual Emissions (2026) 1.57 7.45 17.72 2.20 0.83 Total Annual Emissions (2027) 4.26 6.80 22.55 3.54 1.15 Total Annual Emissions (2028) 1.36 5.54 16.65 3.03 0.91 Total Annual Emissions (2029) 0.81 5.13 12.42 2.73 0.74 Total Annual Emissions (2030) 0.73 4.94 11.23 2.30 0.65 Total Annual Emissions (2031) 0.69 4.91 11.05 2.30 0.65 Total Annual Emissions (2032) 0.66 4.90 10.94 2.31 0.65 Total Annual Emissions (2033) 3.55 2.87 7.74 1.15 0.33
Total Annual Emissions (2034) 0.40 1.69 5.57 0.78 0.23
Total Annual Emissions (2035) 0.72 1.68 5.59 0.79 0.23
Total Annual Emissions (2036) 5.05 1.23 4.45 0.68 0.19
Total Annual Emissions (2037) 0.78 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.01
Maximum Annual Emissions 5.05 7.45 22.55 3.54 1.15
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No No No No No
Notes:

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

ROG = reactive organic gasesNOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Calculations use unrounded numbers; therefore, totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

As shown in Table 3.3-7, impacts would be less than significant on a project-level basis after incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2A. Therefore, regional construction emissions would have a less-than-significant impact on a project basis with the incorporation of mitigation. 937
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-31 Operational Emissions (Non-Permitted)
Non-permitted operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from three main sources: area sources, energy consumption, and motor vehicles (or mobile sources). Project buildout for Phase 1 is assumed to occur in 2028, while buildout for Phase 2 of the Project would be completed in 2037. The SJVAPCD considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations. Furthermore, the SJVAPCD considers permitted and non-permitted emission sources separately when making significance determinations related to criteria pollutants. The emissions modeling results for non-permitted Project operational sources are summarized in Table 3.3-8.

As shown in Table 3.3-8, the non-permitted operational emissions exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 after compliance with Rule 9510. The Project emissions include quantification of compliance with regulations and project design features that would reduce Project emissions. The combined Project emissions show the unmitigated emissions before and after compliance with Rule 9510, which applies to the unmitigated baseline. Non-permitted Project operational emissions would result in a significant impact. 938
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-32 Table 3.3-8
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Non-Permitted Sources)23 Phase and Year
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 (with design features)
Area 6.19 0.54 8.90 0.08 0.08
Energy 0.13 1.09 0.48 0.09 0.09
Mobile 10.84 17.07 99.47 25.21 6.87
Phase 1 Total 17.16 18.70 108.85 25.39 7.04
Phase 2 (with design features)
Area 10.35 0.95 15.62 0.15 0.15
Energy 0.21 1.79 0.76 0.14 0.14
Mobile 2.99 6.93 40.24 17.35 4.69
Phase 2 Total 13.54 9.67 56.62 17.65 4.98
Combined Project Phases 1 and 2
Area 16.54 1.49 24.52 0.23 0.23
Energy 0.34 2.88 1.24 0.23 0.23
Mobile 13.83 24.00 139.71 42.56 11.56
Total Project Emissions (NonPermitted) 30.71 28.37 165.47 43.02 12.02 Significance threshold 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Notes:

ROG = reactive organic gasesNOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

As shown in Table 3.3-8, the operational emissions exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10. Therefore, Project operational emissions would result in a significant impact prior to the incorporation of mitigation. Mitigation Measure AIR-2A and Mitigation Measure AIR-2B are recommended to reduce emissions from all development under the Specific Plan.

These measures would help reduce operational emissions; however, at the time of this analysis, 23 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 94. 939
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-33 the precise emission reductions associated with these measures cannot be accurately determined because of a lack of sufficient information about how the proposed Specific Plan would operate and to what extent the measures would affect those activities. Projects subject to project-level review would be required to assess residual impacts after incorporation of all applicable measures; however, it is not anticipated that all future development would be subject to discretionary review. Therefore, the Project may continue to exceed the applicable thresholds of significance even after incorporation of mitigation. This represents a significant impact.

Operational Emissions (Permitted Sources)
Estimated emissions from permitted sources are shown in Table 3.3-9. VOC emissions from gasoline transfer and dispensing activities at the proposed gas station were calculated based on maximum VOC limits as shown in Table 3.3-10. For the proposed gasoline station, an estimated throughput of 25.6 million gallons of gasoline per year based on project-specific information was used.

Table 3.3-9
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Permitted Sources) Phase and Year
Emissions (tons per year)

ROG/VOC
1 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Permitted Sources
Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing
Activities 9.97 — — — —
Total Project Emissions
(Permitted) 9.97 — — — —
Significance threshold 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No No No No No
Notes:

VOC = volatile organic compounds ROG = reactive organic gasesNOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter
1 Although there are slight differences in the definition of ROG and VOCs, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

As shown above in Table 3.3-9, estimated emissions from the permitted sources associated with the proposed Costco gasoline station included as part of the Specific Plan would not exceed any applicable criteria pollutant regional threshold.
940
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-34 Factors used to estimate the VOC emissions were obtained from the SJVAPCD and are shown below in Table 3.3-10.

Table 3.3-10
Emission Factors Used to Estimate Regional Criteria Pollutants from the Proposed Gasoline Dispensing Station
Process
Emission Factor
(lb VOC/1,000 gal gasoline) Toxic Speciation
Tank Filling Loss 0.15 Vapor
Vehicle Refueling 0.356 Vapor
Breathing Loss 0.024 Vapor
Hose Permeation 0.009 Vapor
Spillage 0.24 Liquid
Conclusion
The Project’s operational emissions exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10; therefore, this is considered a significant impact. The EIR for the Visalia General Plan identifies proposed General Plan policies to reduce air quality impacts that have since become policies included in the adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia. The EIR identified General Plan policies that would reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent feasible and found regional air quality impacts to be significant and unavoidable. The reduction measures for regional emission impacts from the City of Visalia’s General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan’s consistency with the measures are provided below in Table 3.3-11.

Table 3.3-11
Proposed Specific Plan’s Consistency with Measures Identified in the General Plan EIR to Reduce Air Quality Impacts
General Plan Reduction Measure Project Consistency
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.

Consistent. Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10
Prohibitions is a control measure that is one of the
main strategies from the 2006 PM10 Plan 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 Project, or
individual developments contemplated under the
941
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-35 proposed Specific Plan, will be required to prepare
a DCP 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.

AQ-P-3. Support implementation of the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s
regulations on the use of wood-burning fireplaces,
as well as their regulations for the installation of
EPA-certified wood heaters or approved woodburning appliances in new residential development and a “No Burn” policy on days
when the air quality is poor.

Consistent. The Project will comply with all existing
regulations and building codes regarding the
installation of wood-burning fireplaces and
appliances.

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 EPAcertified 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.

Consistent. Implementation of the Specific Plan will
not inhibit the ability of existing homeowners to
participate in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District’s “change out” program. In
addition, all new developments in the Specific
Plan area will comply with existing regulations and
building codes regarding the installation of woodburning fireplaces and appliances.

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.

Consistent. The City will continue to encourage
these measures in this new development in the
same way that they are already encouraging
these measures presently with existing
developments. As a mixed-use focused project,
the Project is intrinsically positioned to reduce
vehicle miles traveled and increase walkability
due the proximity of residential and commercial
development to each other.
942
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-36 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.

Drive-through businesses result in the idling of car
engines and the concentrated emission of carbon
monoxide and other tailpipe air pollutants.

Consistent. The Project will be in an auto-oriented
area and is not located in the Downtown or East
Downtown areas.

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.

Consistent. The appropriate project-specific
studies and analyses were done for the Specific
Plan in order to adequately quantify, address, and
mitigate short-term and long-term construction
and operational impacts associated with the
Specific Plan. In addition, please refer to the
consistency analysis for AQ-P-2 for the discussion
regarding Best Management Practices (BMPs).

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.

Consistent. As a Specific Plan with a focus on
mixed-use development, the Project is uniquely
positioned to reduce vehicle travel in the Project
area which in turn will reduce localized air quality
impacts when compared to non-mixed-use
focused development.

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.

The funds are disbursed in the form of grants for
projects that achieve emission reductions.

Consistent. Implementation of the Specific Plan will
not impede the ability of future developments in
the area to enter into Voluntary Emissions
Reduction Agreements.

AQ-P-13. Where feasible, replace City vehicles
with those that employ low-emission technology.

Not Applicable. This mitigation measure specifies
actions that the City must take in order to fulfill the City’s own obligations. The proposed Specific Plan
does not include municipal operations. As such, it
is not relevant to this Specific Plan.
943
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-37 As demonstrated in Table 3.3-11, the Specific Plan development would be consistent with several measures identified in the General Plan EIR, while one measure would not be applicable . In addition, the Project would comply with all local regulations required by the City of Visalia. The Project would incorporate design features and required mitigation measures (including MM AIR2A and MM AIR-B) that reduce air quality impacts. In addition, regulations adopted by the SJVAPCD and the State of California provide emission reductions that would align with requirements of the mitigation measures included in the EIR and relevant General Plan policies.

For example, Rule 9510 ISR, adopted in 2006, requires projects subject to the Rule to reduce operational NOX emissions by 33 percent and PM10 emissions by 50 percent through the implementation of design features or payment of off-site mitigation fees. Rule 4901 regulates the installation of wood burning devices in Project residences. Rule 9401 Employee Trip Reduction requires large employers to prepare plans to reduce employee trips with measures listed in the mitigation measure, among others. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and now require energy efficiency measures much more stringent than envisioned at the time the EIR was prepared. Solar panels are now required for low-rise residential projects under 2019 Title 24 and continue to be required under 2022 Title 24 standards that became effective on January 1, 2023. Individual development projects will be subject to the most recent Title 24 in effect that building permits are issued, which will ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful or inefficient. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would provide future residents, visitors, and employees connectivity within the Project site and to adjoining land uses through pedestrian and bicycle connections. The proximity of the proposed new development to existing transit and existing buildout in the City of Visalia, coupled with the design features of the proposed Specific Plan, would increase accessibility to public transportation and would improve mobility within the Project area. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would create a considerable amount of internal capture between its components to reduce VMT compared to the same level of development built with land uses geographically separated from each other.

Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would create a considerable amount of internal capture between its components to reduce VMT compared to the same level of development built with land uses geographically separated from each other; however, as described above, Project emissions will exceed significance thresholds for both construction and operations. After incorporation of MM AIR-2A, regional construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact (see Table 3.3-7). However, non-permitted emissions generated during Project operations would exceed the applicable regional thresholds for ROG, 944
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-38 NOX, CO, and PM10 even after incorporation mitigation (see Table 3.3-8). Therefore, even after mitigation, the impacts are significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
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 offroad equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards except as otherwise specified herein. If engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards 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.
945
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-39 Impact 3.3-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Significant and Unavoidable. Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The closest off-site sensitive receptors are existing residences located adjacent to the Project site to the north, east, south, and west. Since the proposed Specific Plan has two defined phases, sensitive receptors for each phase are discussed separately below. For Phase 1, the surrounding land uses are as follows:
• North—To the north of the Phase 1 area is undeveloped land and a middle school, followed by agricultural land as well as a dairy. The middle school would be considered a sensitive receptor land use.
• East—To the east of the Phase 1 area is a middle school and a planned high school, followed by a subdivision of single-family homes. The residences, the existing school, and the planned school would be considered sensitive receptor land uses. • South—To the south of the Phase 1 area is a subdivision of single-family homes, followed by another subdivision of single-family homes. The residences would be considered sensitive receptor land uses.
• West—To the west of Phase 1 is agricultural land, followed by more agricultural land.

During and following buildout of Phase 1 construction, residences proposed as part of development contemplated under the proposed Specific Plan would result in new sensitive receptors as the Project is built out.

It is anticipated that Phase 2 would begin construction once the low-density residential of Phase 1 is at 60 percent completion. Land uses and the surrounding area for Phase 2 are described below and include new land uses that are proposed as part of Phase 1. The surrounding land uses for Phase 2 are as follows:
• North—To the north of the Phase 2 area is a dairy, agricultural land, and a few rural residences.
• East—To the east of the Phase 2 area is agricultural land followed by more agricultural land.
946
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-40 • South—To the south of the Phase 2 area is the Phase 1 residential and commercial development, as well as a middle school and a planned high school. • West—To the west of the Phase 2 area is a feedlot, followed by agricultural land.

Depending on the order of buildout for Phase 2, the nearest sensitive receptors for Project activities are expected to change as newly developed uses included in Phase 2 would begin to be occupied prior to full buildout.

Construction: ROG
ROG is emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paint. ROG emissions are typically an indoor air quality health hazard concern rather than an outdoor air quality health hazard concern.

Therefore, exposure to ROG during architectural coatings is a less than significant health impact.

There are three types of asphalt that are typically used in paving: asphalt cements, cutback asphalts, and emulsified asphalts. However, SJVAPCD Rule 4641 prohibits the use of the following types of asphalt: rapid cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; slow cure asphalt that contains more than one-half (0.5) percent of organic compounds that evaporate at 500 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or lower; and emulsified asphalt containing organic compounds, in excess of 3 percent by volume, that evaporate at 500°F or lower. An exception to this is medium cure asphalt when the National Weather Service official forecast of the high temperature for the 24-hour period following application is below 50°F.

The acute (short-term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes.24 The studies conducted by the U.S. Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to assess health effects from exposure to asphalt fumes were based on occupational exposure of fumes. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction would be less than significant.
24 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Asphalt (Bitumen) Fumes. Website:
https://www.osha.gov/asphalt-fumes. Accessed April 5, 2022. 947
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-41 Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis
Emissions occurring at or near the Project have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard. The impact from localized pollutants is based on the impact to the nearest sensitive receptor.

The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an ambient air quality analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the SJVAB are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO. There is no localized emission standard for ROG and most types of ROG are not toxic and have no healthbased standard; however, ROG was included for informational purposes only. Construction and operations are addressed separately below.

Construction Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis — Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Impacts to receptors located outside the Project boundaries would occur primarily during Project construction. Construction emissions were modeled to begin as early as October 2022 and continue over the anticipated 15-year Project buildout. The use of an earlier construction schedule presents a conservative estimate of construction emission and related impacts, as emissions for the same level of activity are expected to decrease in future years due to the replacement of older equipment with cleaner models, increasingly more stringent regulations, and technological improvements.

Construction activities are expected to occur over several years as the Specific Plan area and individual developments are gradually built out. For each area, most emissions are expected to occur during the initial site preparation and grading activities and to a lesser extent during ground-up construction.

The maximum daily emissions generally occur during Project grading activities except for ROG emissions, which are highest during application of architectural coatings. In instances where the duration of the construction activity was shortened to match the expected construction schedule, daily building construction emissions may be higher than phases that are typically more intense (such as grading and site preparation) because it was assumed that an increase in construction activity would be necessary to accommodate the shortened schedule. The construction screening 948
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-42 analysis uses on-site emissions. To account for on-site travel and idling from on-road construction vehicle trips, emissions from construction vehicle trips were included after a 0.5-mile trip length was applied. The results of the construction screening analysis are presented in Table 3.3-12.

Project maximum daily construction emissions for each development area would be less than the screening threshold for all pollutants; therefore, no additional analysis is required for localized criteria pollutant impacts in regards to the Project’s potential to create an ambient air quality impact from construction.

Table 3.3-12
Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction (Unmitigated) Maximum Daily Emissions by
Development
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Tier 1 Multifamily Residential 78.93 38.87 29.21 10.47 6.03 Phase 1 Tier 2 Multifamily Residential 74.36 32.40 27.87 10.08 5.68 Phase 1 Single-family Residential 29.94 83.81 88.06 12.60 7.95 Phase 1 Commercial 37.88 27.20 21.59 10.08 5.68
Phase 2 Multifamily Residential 60.48 27.96 26.46 20.75 11.10 Phase 2 Single-family Residential 39.95 62.56 76.12 11.66 6.94 Phase 2 Commercial 7.53 25.28 18.05 9.94 5.55
Phase 2 Basin 2.92 27.97 26.47 9.94 5.55
Maximum Emissions in Development 78.93 83.81 88.06 20.75 11.10 Screening Thresholds — 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Threshold (Yes or No) — No No No No
Notes:

NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter N/A = Not applicable
Emissions shown are from the winter model output. There is no ambient air quality standard for ROG.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

Operational Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis — Maximum Daily Operational Emissions An analysis of maximum daily emissions during operation was conducted to determine if emissions would exceed 100 pounds per day for any pollutant of concern. The maximum daily operational emissions were assessed separately for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed Specific Plan and are presented by showing the maximum daily emissions for the largest individual development projects within each phase. Emissions were modeled for individual development 949
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-43 projects within the Specific Plan to reflect localized impacts. The Specific Plan is located on approximately 507 acres, while localized impacts are commonly assessed in increments of five (5) acres. The individual development projects were modeled for the operational year immediately following construction buildout for each phase, which presents a conservative analysis compared to using a later operational year. Using earlier operational years constitutes a conservative analysis because emissions decline over time as older, high-emitting vehicles are replaced with new low-emitting vehicles compliant with current emission standards. Operational emissions include emissions generated on-site by area sources such as natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, and off-site by motor vehicles accessing the Project. Most motor vehicle emissions would occur distant from the site and would not contribute to a violation of ambient air quality standards; therefore, only emissions from vehicles operating within 0.5 mile of the site were included in the assessment. The results of the screening analysis are presented in Table 3.3-

13. Table 3.3-13
Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions during Operations25 Maximum Daily Emissions per
Source Category
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Largest Individual Development Project in Phase 1 (Phase 1 Commercial/Mixed Use) Area 3.79 0.00 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.03 0.29 0.24 0.02 0.02
Mobile 27.25 21.71 146.61 7.42 2.07
Phase 1 Maximum Development
Total 31.07 22.00 146.87 7.44 2.09
Screening threshold — 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? — No Yes No No
Largest Individual Development Project in Phase 2 (Phase 2 Single-family Residential) Area 38.87 10.94 92.94 1.30 1.30
Energy 0.76 6.52 2.78 0.53 0.53
Mobile 6.00 7.90 48.50 3.60 0.98
Phase 2 Maximum Development
Total 45.63 25.36 144.21 5.42 2.81
Screening threshold — 100 100 100 100
25 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 107. 950
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-44 Exceed screening threshold? — No Yes No No
Notes:

NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter N/A = Not applicable
Emissions shown are from the winter model output. There is no ambient air quality standard for ROG.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

The Project would not exceed SJVAPCD screening thresholds for localized operational criteria pollutant impacts for NOX, PM10, or PM2.5; however, emissions would exceed the localized screening thresholds for CO. Specifically, the area-source emissions from residential uses are contributing to this exceedance. A review of the CalEEMod output files shows that the majority of area-source emissions are estimated to be from landscaping activities. The following option would reduce the operational CO emissions below the 100-pound-per-day screening threshold:
• Utilize only electric landscaping equipment in perpetuity.

As noted above, the option available to reduce the majority of CO emissions caused by areasources during operations would require the use of restricted equipment by future occupants in perpetuity. Future occupants (including residents) would have access to landscaping equipment available on the marketplace. Regulation of landscaping equipment available on the marketplace is not within the control of any individual project applicant or lead agency. Therefore, requiring the use of only electric landscaping equipment in perpetuity is neither feasible nor enforceable.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2B requires design plans that encourage the use of electric landscaping by all components of the proposed Specific Plan. It is not anticipated that any single receptor would be exposed to hazardous levels of CO from landscaping equipment because the emissions from landscaping at each home would occur at dispersed locations throughout the development.

However, commercial development projects would continue to have the potential to exceed the localized ambient air quality screening thresholds, even after compliance with regulations and the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2B; this represents a significant and unavoidable impact. A project that would not create or contribute to a carbon monoxide hotspot would not be considered to have a localized CO impact from mobile-source emissions; therefore, further analysis is provided below to address CO impacts from mobile-source emissions. As discussed below, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur in the Specific Plan area.

Operation: CO from Motor Vehicles (Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Analysis) Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles. The SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to determine when to quantify local CO 951
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-45 concentrations based on impacts to the level of service (LOS) of intersections in the Project vicinity.

Construction of the Project would result in minor increases in traffic for the surrounding road network during the duration of construction. Motor vehicles accessing the site when it becomes operational would result in an increase in daily trips that on roads serving the site. Roads serving the site have been evaluated in the City of Visalia’s General Plan EIR. The City of Visalia’s General Plan EIR shows the 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for the six most heavily trafficked intersections with the lowest LOS in Visalia. The CO concentrations in the EIR were modeled for both the year the study was done in 2012 and for projections based on the City of Visalia’s 2030 General Plan. Since the final buildout of the Project is scheduled to conclude in 2037, numbers for the 2030 General Plan would be more applicable to the proposed Project. Of the six intersections monitored and modeled as part of the EIR, the Riggin Avenue/Shirk Road intersection would be the most applicable to the proposed Project, as it is immediately adjacent to the Project area. The highest background 1-hour average CO concentration modeled in the EIR is 3.1 ppm, which is 85 percent lower than the CAAQS of 20 ppm and 92 percent lower than the NAAQS of 35 ppm. The highest background 8-hour average CO concentration modeled in the EIR is 1.9 ppm, which is 79 percent lower than the CAAQS of 9.0 ppm or the NAAQS of 9 ppm.

A sensitivity analysis using the CALINE4 CO Hotspot model was run for the General Plan EIR to determine the volume of trips that would be required to exceed the most stringent CO standard. At triple the predicted peak for General Plan buildout of 345,864 peak-hours VMT, the hourly concentration would be 9.3 ppm and an 8-hour concentration of 5.7 ppm. Based on this analysis, it is not anticipated that a CO hotspot will occur in the Plan Area. No CO hotspot modeling is required for new projects during General Plan buildout unless peak-hour VMT more than triple what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, which is not projected to occur with the proposed Specific Plan. Furthermore, CO emissions are predicted to continue to decline as old vehicles are retired and cleaner new motor vehicles take their place. Therefore, the Project’s localized impact from generation of CO from mobile sources during Project operations would be less than significant.

Operation: ROG
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from motor vehicles. Direct exposure to ROG from Project motor vehicles would not result in health effects, because the ROG would be 952
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-46 distributed across miles and miles of roadway and in the air. The concentrations would not be great enough to result in direct health effects.

Operation: PM10, PM2.5, NOX
As shown in Table 3.3-13, localized emissions of PM10, PM2.5 and NOX would not exceed the SJVAPCD screening thresholds at full Project buildout for any individual development contemplated under the proposed Specific Plan. Residential development is an insignificant source of these pollutants, except for projects that allow woodburning devices that emit PM10, PM2.5 in wood smoke. The Project will include only natural gas-fueled fireplaces and inserts that are insignificant sources of PM2.5 and PM10. The largest source of emissions from commercial projects is motor vehicles. Most motor vehicle emissions occur when employee and customer vehicles travel to and from the Project site and not during parking and idling on the site. The localized emissions of PM10, PM2.5, and NOX would not exceed the screening threshold; therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors located near the commercial sites to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations during operation.

Operation: CO
As shown in Table 3.3-13, emissions generated by the Project would exceed the localized screening thresholds for CO. Although the Project exceeds the 100-pound-per screening threshold for CO, the majority of the estimated emissions are from landscaping equipment for residential developments. Furthermore, the Project’s operational impacts from CO are assessed by evaluating the Project’s potential to create or contribute to a CO hotspot. emissions of CO from mobile sources would not have a localized significant impact. The ARB has identified the need to reduce emissions from small off-road engines used in California, and the SJVAPCD currently facilitates the Clean Green Yard Machines Voucher Program that provides incentives for the replacement of landscape maintenance equipment to lawn care providers in the San Joaquin Valley. Mitigation Measure AIR-2B is required to decrease emission of CO from landscaping equipment. If assessed for elevated CO concentrations in smaller areas and with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2B, it is not anticipated that any single receptor would be exposed to hazardous levels of CO from landscaping equipment because the emissions from landscaping at each home, business, or public use would occur at dispersed locations throughout the development. However, because commercial development projects may continue to exceed or substantially contribute to an area-wide exceedance, even after the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2B, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Construction: Toxic Air Contaminants
953
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-47 Project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. The SJVAPCD’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years.

However, SJVAPCD comment letters in recent years have emphasized that multi-year construction projects are also of concern in the San Joaquin Valley and have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to significant health risk impacts. Construction equipment fleet operators are subject to ARB’s In Use Offroad Equipment Fleet Regulation, which requires the use of increasing amounts of lower-emitting equipment that will help to limit exposure to sensitive receptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3A would ensure that projects that have the potential to cause a significant impact would be evaluated. Due to the uncertainties related to the potential for construction emissions to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of TACs that could exceed applicable thresholds, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Operation: Toxic Air Contaminants
Project Operations as Toxic Air Contaminants Generator
The proposed Specific Plan contemplates the development of residential uses, commercial uses, and public facilities within the Specific Plan area to complement and support a developing area of the City of Visalia. Specific land uses included in the proposed Specific Plan include up to 3,262 dwelling units (a mix of densities and both single-family and multi-family uses), 35.1 acres of commercial uses, and park and public spaces. Unlike warehouses or distribution centers, the daily vehicle trips generated by development under the proposed Specific Plan would be primarily generated by passenger vehicles. Passenger vehicles typically use gasoline engines rather than the diesel engines that are found in heavy-duty trucks. Gasoline-powered vehicles do emit TACs in the form of toxic organic gases, some of which are carcinogenic. Compared to the combustion of diesel, the combustion of gasoline had relatively low emissions of TACs. Thus, residential and most neighborhood commercial projects produce limited amounts of TAC emissions during operation and thus have not been subject to project TAC analysis. Consistent with SJVAPCD guidance, an operational Health Risk Assessment would not be necessary for most land uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan. Specifically, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan is not expected to result in significant health impacts during operation from buildout of residential uses; however, uses allowed under the commercial portion of the 954
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-48 Specific Plan could include uses that could results in truck deliveries that could expose existing or planned sensitive receptors to potentially significant levels of DPM from on-site and localized travel and on-site and localized idling.

In addition, the commercial portions of the Specific Plan could include uses that could emit elevated levels of known carcinogenic substances within distances of existing or planned sensitive receptors that would warrant further analysis. Prior to mitigation, the impact for the Project to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants during Project operations is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure AIR-3A (which would require further evaluation of commercial uses to evaluate the development’s potential to expose future sensitive receptors to evaluated levels of TACs during operations) is required to reduce the impact to the extent feasible.

Although the exact uses and placements for most of the commercial development contemplated under the proposed Specific Plan are still yet to be determined at this time, the Specific Plan includes a proposed Costco in the commercial mixed use land use in Phase 1. Because the planned location of the Costco gasoline station, warehouse, and other relevant parameters are known, health risk impacts were evaluated as part of the preparation of this Specific Plan. The results of the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared to evaluate the gasoline fueling and warehouse activities are summarized below, while the full HRA is included in Appendix B of Appendix C. The Costco HRA represents implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3A for the Costco development.

Project Operations as Toxic Air Contaminants Generator – Proposed Costco Gasoline Station and Warehouse
Out of the toxic compounds emitted from gasoline stations, benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene have cancer toxicity values. However, benzene is the TAC which drives the risk, accounting for 85 percent of cancer risk from gasoline vapors. Furthermore, benzene constitutes more than three to four times the weight of gasoline than ethylbenzene and naphthalene, respectively (SCAQMD 2015). The specific processes associated with fuel storage tanks and fuel dispensers that emit air toxics include loading, breathing, refueling, and spillage, as described below:
• Loading – Emissions occur when a fuel tanker truck unloads gasoline into the storage tanks. The storage tank vapors, displaced during loading, are emitted through its vent pipe. (A required pressure/vacuum valve installed on the tank vent pipe significantly reduces these emissions.)
955
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-49 • Breathing – Emissions occur through the storage tank vent pipe as a result of temperature and pressure changes in the tank vapor space.
• Refueling – Emissions occur during motor vehicle refueling when gasoline vapors escape through the vehicle/nozzle interface.
• Spillage – Emissions occur from evaporating gasoline that spills during vehicle refueling.

Health risk impacts from the proposed gasoline station were estimated in the “Human Health Risk Assessment for the Operation of the Proposed Gasoline Dispensing Facility and Warehouse within the Carleton Acres Specific Plan in Visalia, California” memorandum prepared by Ramboll US Consulting Inc., dated February 23, 2023 (included as Appendix B of Appendix C).

Results of the health risk analysis from operations of the proposed gasoline station and warehouse are summarized in Table 3.3-14.

Table 3.3-14
Summary of the Health Impacts from Operations from the
Proposed Costco Gasoline Station and Warehouse
Exposure Scenario
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(Risk per
Million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index1
Acute NonCancer
Hazard from
Maximum
Hourly
Benzene
Residential 6.6 0.0 0.2
Sensitive 0.4 0.0 0.0
Worker 4.0 0.1 0.5
Applicable Threshold of Significance 20 1 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold in Any
Scenario? No No No
1 Chronic and acute hazard indices shown as 0.0 are non-zero values; however, they are below a meaningful reporting level for this analysis.

Source: Appendix B of Appendix C.

As shown above in Table 3.3-14, the calculated health metrics from the proposed Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold, the non-cancer hazard index significance threshold, or the acute non-cancer hazard in any scenario analyzed.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors (including future residents within the Specific Plan area) from Project-generated TACs from gasoline fueling activities and operational DPM from the proposed Costco gasoline station and warehouse. Mitigation Measure AIR-3A has thus been fully implemented for the Costco development.
956
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-50 Mitigation Measure AIR-3A, which requires further evaluation of proposed commercial and commercial mixed-use development within the Specific Plan area, would require individual projects to reduce impacts to an acceptable level. Although individual development projects would be required to implement all feasible and enforceable mitigation to reduce a significant impact, information is insufficient to determine whether impacts would be less-than-significant after incorporation of all applicable mitigation. Therefore, this impact remains significant.

Project Operations Land Use Compatibility: ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Recommendations The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will “help keep California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution”, including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. In the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015) (Case No. S213478) the California Supreme Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment’s impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Although the Court ruled that impacts from the existing environment on projects are not required to be addressed under CEQA, land uses such as gasoline stations, dry cleaners, distribution centers, and auto body shops can expose residents to high levels of TAC emissions if they are close to the project site. Information regarding the location of existing TAC sources is provided for disclosure purposes only and not as a measure of the Project’s significance under CEQA.

Consistency with these recommendations is assessed as follows:

Heavily traveled roads. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.

Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. The Project is located on the northwest corner of N. Akers Street and W. Riggin Avenue in Visalia, California. The traffic volumes on the road segments nearest the Project are available for Akers Street east of the Project site for 2018 and Riggin Avenue south of the Project site for 2020. The traffic volume of Akers 957
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-51 Street was 3,220 trips per day in 2018. The traffic volume on Riggin Avenue was 9,150 trips per day in 2020. No roads serving the Project would exceed this criterion. 26 Distribution centers. ARB also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. The Project is not located within 1,000 feet of a distribution center.27 Fueling stations. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). ARB recommends a 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. The nearest gas station is located at 1300 N Demaree Street, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project site. 28 In addition, potential health risks from fueling operations associated with the proposed Costco included as part of the Specific Plan were evaluated as part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan (see Appendix C).

Dry cleaning operations. ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, ARB recommends consultation with the local air district. The nearest dry-cleaning operation is approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project site at 5219 W Goshen Avenue.29 Auto body shops. Auto body shops have the potential to emit TACs related to painting. The nearest auto body shop is located at 601 E Acequia Avenue approximately 4.0 miles southeast of the Project site, which is beyond the distance that would result in a measurable impact.30 Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational offroad activities. 26 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 112. 27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
958
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-52 The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. During 2000–2018, a total of 65,438 coccidioidomycosis cases were reported in California; median statewide annual incidence was 7.9 per 100,000 population and varied by region from 1.1 in Northern and Eastern California to 90.6 in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, with the largest increase (15-fold) occurring in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Incidence has been consistently high in six counties in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Tulare, and Merced counties) and Central Coast (San Luis Obispo County) regions. California experienced 6,490 new cases of Valley fever in 2020. A total of 195 Valley fever cases were reported in Tulare County in 2020.31 The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1) Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface)
2) Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire pits
3) Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
4) Areas with high salinity soils
5) Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available) 6) Packrat middens
7) Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils 8) Sandy, well-aerated soil with relatively high water-holding capacities Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1) Cultivated fields
31 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2021. Coccidioidomycosis in California Provisional Monthly Report January 2021. Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID
/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciinCAProvisionalMonthlyReport.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2021. 959
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-53 2) Heavily vegetated areas (e.g. grassy lawns)
3) Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
4) Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g. ammonium sulfate) have been applied 5) Areas that are continually wet
6) Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
7) Soils containing abundant microorganisms
8) Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil.

The Project site is situated in a city growth area. The Project includes urbanization of a site that was formerly used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a low probability of the site having C. immitis growth sites and exposure to the spores from disturbed soil.

Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. The Project will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with the District’s Regulation VIII. Therefore, this regulation, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores, would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant.

During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, because most of the Project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This condition would preclude the possibility of the Project providing habitat suitable for C. immitis spores and for generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur, there are no such areas in the Project area. 32 Therefore, development of the Project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Impacts would be less than significant.
32 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 114. 960
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-54 Conclusion
In summary, the Project would not exceed SJVAPCD localized emission daily screening levels for any criteria pollutant during Project construction. The localized emissions of PM10, PM2.5, and NOX would not exceed the screening thresholds during Project operations. Furthermore, the Project would not have a significant impact in regard to ROG during Project operations. The Project would not be a suitable habitat for Valley fever spores and is not in area known to have naturally occurring asbestos. However, the Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs from construction and/or operations of the Project and may expose sensitive receptors to significant levels of CO during Project operations. Therefore, the Project could result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors. As the exact timing, details surrounding potential sources, and exact locations and occupancy of planned residential receptors is unknown at this time, the impact is considered significant.

Mitigation measures are included to reduce the severity of potential impacts; however, impacts are still significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AIR-2A, AIR-2B, and the following:

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:

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.
961
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-55 Impact 3.3-4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant. Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

Two situations create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. According to the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, impacts of existing sources of odors on the Project are not subject to CEQA review. Therefore, the analysis to determine if the Project would locate new sensitive receptors near an existing source of odor is provided for informational purposes only. The SJVAPCD has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Table 3.3-15.

Table 3.3-15
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources33
Odor Generator Screening
Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g.,
auto body shop) 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
33 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015a. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

Revised March 19, 2015. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2022 and April 5, 2023.
962
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-56 According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:
• Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and
• Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people located near existing odor sources.

Project Analysis
Project as a Generator
Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The Project would not engage in any of these activities. Therefore, the Project would not be considered a generator of objectionable odors during operations.

During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project’s site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Project as a Receiver
With the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, analysis of odor impacts on receivers is not required for CEQA compliance. Therefore, the following analysis is provided for information only. There are two potential odor sources in the screening area of the Project: a dairy directly across the street to the north of the Project and a feedlot directly across the street to the west. Additionally, the next closest odor sources are a landfill located 1.1 miles to the north of the Project site and a chemical manufacturing plant 1.1 miles to the southwest of the Project site. There are various other odor sources in the vicinity of the Project area; however, they are all located more than 2.5 miles away (with the exception of the odor sources mentioned previously). As this distance is far beyond the screening distance for every listed odor source provided by the SJVAPCD, they are not relevant to the Specific Plan area.

As a mixed-use development that includes residential development, the Project has the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing odor sources. As previously mentioned, residences may 963
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-57 be located within 50 feet of both the feedlot to the west as well as the dairy to the north of the Project area.

For all facilities outlined above, there are existing residential uses located closer to each facility than the proposed Specific Plan. Considering all of the information, the uses in the specific plan area vicinity would not cause substantial odor impacts to future residents occupying development built out under the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan would not place odor-sensitive receptors near an existing or planned source of odor affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, operational odor impacts in terms of the planning area as an odorsensitive receptor would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Cumulative Impacts
In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed Project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants of concern for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin). A project would be considered to have a significant cumulative impact if its contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative air quality impact). The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to air quality is the Air Basin. The SJVAPCD’s attainment statuses are a result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the Air Basin. For pollutants that the Air Basin is designated as non-attainment for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a cumulative impact exists regardless of the project’s incremental contribution. Significance thresholds established by the SJVAPCD are used to manage total regional and local emissions within the Air Basin based on the Air Basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants.

Cumulative impacts from the proposed Project are as follows:
• As identified in Impact 3.3-1, the Project would conflict with the applicable air quality plans and impacts were demonstrated to be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation. Because the Project-level impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, coupled with consideration that other projects in the Air Basin could also 964
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-58 conflict with these plans a cumulative impact exists. Because the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact was determined to be significant, the impact is considered to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
• Cumulative criteria pollutant impacts are discussed in Impact 3.3-2 and, within that analysis, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts were demonstrated to be significant and unavoidable. As such, cumulative impacts, even with mitigation, are considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
• As identified in Impact 3.3-3, after mitigation, the Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs from construction and/or operations of the Project and may expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of CO during Project operations.

As the exact timing, details surrounding potential sources, and extract locations and occupancy of planned residential receptors is unknown at this time, the impact is considered significant at the Project level. As such, cumulative impacts, even with mitigation, are considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. • As identified in Impact 3.3-4, the Project would not result in other emissions such as odors.

Therefore, evaluation of the information supports a finding that the Project’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable under this impact because the proposed Project’s local impact would be less than significant.
965
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-1

3.4 Biological Resources
This section of the DEIR addresses the biological resources present within the proposed Project area. The section includes a discussion of the special-status species that may potentially occur within the proposed Project area as well as any sensitive habitats in the area. It also recognizes the potential impacts of implementing the proposed Project on such resources and identifies mitigation measures, where appropriate. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to this topic. The information and analysis presented in this Section are based on the desktop review and reconnaissance site survey conducted by Colibri Ecological Consulting, LLC (Colibri). The full biological evaluation is provided in Appendix D.

Environmental Setting
The City of Visalia is located in the center of the Central Valley in the western part of Tulare County. Agricultural lands form a perimeter around the City, which is mostly urbanized.

Scattered Valley oaks exist in and around the City and along water courses creating riparian corridors, along areas of pristine Valley oak woodland and Valley oak riparian woodland. The Project site is underlain by Akers-Akers saline-sodic complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes and Grangeville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The Project site is at an elevation of 304–312 feet above mean sea level.
1 Desktop Review
Colibri obtained a USFWS species list for the Project as a framework for the evaluation and reconnaissance survey. In addition, the California Natural Diversity Data Base and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants were searched for records of special-status plant and animal species from the vicinity of the Project site. Regional lists of special-status species were compiled using USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS database searches confined to the Visalia 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle, which encompasses the Project site, and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Traver, Monson, Ivanhoe, Goshen, Exeter, Paige, Tulare, and Cairns Corner). A local list of special-status species was compiled using CNDDB records from within 5 miles of the Project site. Species that lack a special-status designation by state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups were omitted from the final list. Species for which the Project site does not provide habitat were eliminated from further consideration. Aerial imagery from Google Earth and other sources, 1 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 11.
966
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-2 USGS topographic maps, the Web Soil Survey, the National Wetlands Inventory, and relevant literature were also searched.

The USFWS species list for the Project included eight species listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA.2 Of those eight species, none are expected to occur on or near the Project site due to either (1) the lack of habitat, (2) the Project site being outside the current range of the species, or (3) the presence of development that would otherwise preclude occurrence, as demonstrated in Table 3.4-1. As identified in the species list, the Project site does not occur in USFWS-designated or proposed critical habitat for any species.

Searching the CNDDB for records of special-status species from the Visalia 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles produced 210 records of 41 species.3 Of those 41 species, four were not considered further because state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups do not recognize them through special designation.4 Of the remaining 37 species, 23 are known from within 5 miles of the Project site, as demonstrated in Figure 3.4-1. Of those 23 species, 21 are not expected to occur on or near the Project site due to either (1) the lack of habitat, (2) the Project site being outside the current range of the species, (3) their absence during the reconnaissance survey, or (4) a combination thereof. The remaining two species, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), could occur on or near the Project site. One additional species known to occur from within seven miles of the Project site, Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii), could occur on or near the Project site. 2 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 11.
3 Ibid. Table 1 of Appendix D.
4 Ibid. Appendix D.
967
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-3 Table 3.4-1
Special Status Species, Listing Status, Habitat and Occurrence Potential5 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Federally and State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)

FE, SE,
1B.1
Chenopod scrub,
pinyon and juniper
woodland, and valley
and foothill grassland
at 150–3300 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site includes
routinely disturbed
agricultural land cover.

Hoover’s spurge3
(Euphorbia hooveri)
FT, 1B.2 Vernal pools and
depressions.

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

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)

FE, SE,
1B.1
Cismontane
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland with
bark, dark clay soils at
300–3000 feet
elevation.

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

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)

FT, SE,
1B.1
Vernal pools at or
below 2700 feet
elevation.

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

Crotch bumble bee3
(Bombus crotchii)
SCE Open grassland and
scrub supporting open
flowers with short
petals.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
agricultural land cover and
lacked suitable flowering
plants.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
FT Elderberry (Sambucus
sp.) plants with stems >
1-inch diameter at
ground level.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is outside the
current known range of this
species; no elderberry
5 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 12.
968
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-4 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
plants were found in the
survey area.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp3
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT Vernal pools; some
artificial depressions,
stock ponds, vernal
swales, ephemeral
drainages, and
seasonal wetlands.

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pools or other
potentially suitable aquatic
features were found in the
survey area.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp3
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE Vernal pools, clay
flats, alkaline pools,
and ephemeral stock
tanks.

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pools, clay flats,
alkaline pools, or
ephemeral stock tanks
were found in the survey
area.

Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus)
FT, SE River channels and
tidally influenced
sloughs.

None. Habitat lacking; no
connectivity to the aquatic
habitat this species
requires.

California red-legged frog
(Rana draytonii)
FT, SSSC Creeks, ponds, and
marshes for breeding;
burrows for upland
refuge.

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

California tiger salamander3
(Ambystoma californiense)
FT, ST Vernal pools or
seasonal ponds for
breeding; small
mammal burrows for
upland refugia in
natural grasslands.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site and
surrounding lands consisted
of agricultural land cover
that has been intensively
farmed at least since 1985
(Google 2021); no seasonal
water bodies in the survey
area; the Project site is
outside the current known
range of this species.

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
(Gambelia sila)
FE, SE, FP Upland scrub and
sparsely vegetated
None. Habitat lacking;
Project site consisted of
agricultural land cover; the
Project site is outside the
969
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-5 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
grassland with small
mammal burrows.
current known range of this
species.

Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
FT, ST Marshes, sloughs,
ponds, or other
permanent sources of
water with emergent
vegetation, and
grassy banks or open
areas during active
season; uplands with
underground refuges
or crevices during
inactive season.

None. Habitat lacking; no
suitable aquatic resources
in the survey area; the
Project site is outside the
current known range of this
species.

Swainson’s hawk3
(Buteo swainsoni)
ST Large trees for nesting
with adjacent
grasslands, alfalfa
fields, grain fields, or
other low-growing
agricultural crops or
open areas for
foraging.

Moderate. The Project site
lacked nesting habitat but
provided potential
foraging habitat;
additionally, potential nest
trees were within 0.5 miles
of the Project site.

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

None. Habitat lacking; no
suitable aquatic resources
or suitable agricultural land
in the survey area.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo3
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, SE Open woodlands with
dense, low vegetation
along waterways.

None. Habitat lacking; the
last record of this species in
the vicinity was from 1919;
all habitat within 5 miles is
thought to have been
destroyed by agricultural
development.

San Joaquin kit fox3
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
FE, ST Grassland and upland
scrub and fallowed
agricultural lands
adjacent to natural
None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area consisted of
agricultural land cover,
lacked adjacent natural
970
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-6 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
grasslands or upland
scrub.
lands, and the most recent
records from within 5 miles
were from 2003.

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

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area consisted of
agricultural land cover that
lacked adjacency to
natural land cover.

State Species of Special Concern
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
SSSC Wet meadows,
canals, bogs, marshes,
and reservoirs in
grassland, forest, and
woodland.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site includes
routinely disturbed
agricultural land cover.

Western spadefoot3
(Spea hammondii)
SSSC Open areas with
sandy or gravelly soils
in mixed woodland,
grassland, coastal
sage scrub, chaparral,
sandy washes,
lowlands, river
floodplains, alluvial
fans, playas, alkali
flats, foothills, and
mountains with nearby
rainpools for breeding.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site supported
routinely disturbed
agricultural land cover.

Northern California legless
lizard3
(Anniella pulchra)
SSSC Moist warm loose soil
with plant cover in
beach dunes,
chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, sandy
areas and stream
terraces.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site supported
routinely disturbed
agricultural land cover.
971
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-7 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Northwestern pond turtle3
(Actinemys marmorata)
SSSC Ponds, rivers, marshes,
streams, and irrigation
ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation
and woody debris for
basking and adjacent
natural upland areas
for egg laying.

None. Habitat lacking; no
suitable water bodies were
found in the survey area.

Burrowing owl3
(Athene cunicularia)
SSSC Grassland and upland
scrub with friable soil;
some agricultural or
other developed and
disturbed areas with
ground squirrel
burrows.

Low. The Project site
provided some fallow fields
with ground squirrel
burrows that could host
burrowing owl.

Loggerhead shrike3
(Lanius ludovicianus)
SSSC Open areas with short
vegetation and wellspaced shrubs or low
trees for nesting.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site supported
routinely disturbed
agricultural land cover.

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

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site and
surrounding area are too
fragmented and routinely
disturbed to support this
species.

Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
SSSC Arid or semi-arid
locations in rocky
areas and sparsely
vegetated grassland
near water. Rock
crevices, caves, mine
shafts, bridges,
building, and tree
hollows for roosting.

None. Habitat lacking; no
rocky areas, caves, mines,
bridges, buildings, or
suitable trees in the survey
area.

Western mastiff bat3 SSSC Roosts in crevices in
cliff faces, buildings,
trees, and tunnels in
open semi-arid and
None. Habitat lacking;
roosting habitat is not
present in the survey area.
972
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-8 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
arid habitats such as
conifer forest, oak
woodland, coastal
scrub, chaparral,
grassland, desert
scrub, and urban
areas.

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

None. Habitat lacking; no
vernal pools or wet saline
flats were found in the
survey area.

Brittlescale3
(Atriplex depressa)
1B.2 Alkaline or clay soils in
chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps,
playas, valley and
foothill grassland, and
vernal pools below
1000 feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area lacked clay
soils and consisted of
disturbed agricultural land
cover.

California alkali grass3
(Puccinellia simplex)
1B.2 Scrub, meadows,
seeps, grassland,
vernal pools, saline
flats, and mineral
springs below 3000
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site consisted of
agricultural land cover.

California satintail3
(Imperata brevifolia)
2B.1 Moist to wet sites in
arid desert canyons,
or rocky slopes, near
seeps, springs, and
streams below 1700
feet elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area lacked clay
soils and consisted of
disturbed agricultural
lands.

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

None. Habitat lacking; no
saline areas or vernal pools
were found in the survey
area.
973
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-9 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Earlimart orache3
(Atriplex cordulata var.
erecticaulis)
1B.2 Saline or alkaline soils
in Central Valley and
foothill grassland
below 230 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area is above the
elevational range of this
species.

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

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area is above the
elevational range of this
species.

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

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey consisted of
disturbed agricultural
lands.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
1B.2 Poorly drained, fine,
alkaline soils in
chenopod scrub,
cismontane
woodland, and valley
and foothill grassland
at 10–2800 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey consisted of
disturbed agricultural
lands.

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

Low. Ditches within the
Project site could support
this species.

Spiny-sepaled buttoncelery3
(Eryngium spinosepalum)
1B.2 Vernal pools and
swales in valley and
foothill grassland at
330–4200 feet
elevation.

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

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

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area is above the
974
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-10 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
elevational range of this
species.

Vernal pool smallscale
(Atriplex persistens)
1B.2 Alkaline vernal pools in
the Central Valley
below 377 feet
elevation.

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

Winter’s sunflower
(Helianthus winteri)
1B.2 Steep, south-facing
grassy slopes, rock
outcrops, and road
cuts at 590–1509 feet
elevation.

None. Habitat lacking; the
survey area is below the
elevational range of this
species.
975
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-11 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Status1 Potential to Occur2
FE = Federally listed Endangered None: Species or sign not observed; conditions unsuitable for occurrence.

FT = Federally listed Threatened Low: Neither species nor sign observed; conditions marginal for occurrence.

FP = State Fully Protected Moderate: Neither species nor sign observed; conditions suitable for occurrence.

SCE = State Candidate Endangered High: Neither species nor sign observed; conditions highly suitable for occurrence.

SE = State listed Endangered Present: Species or sign observed; conditions suitable for occurrence.

ST = State listed Threatened
SR = State-designated Rare
SSSC = State Species of Special Concern
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank1: Threat Ranks1:
1B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere.

0.1 – seriously threatened in California (> 80% of
occurrences).
2B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California but more common elsewhere.

0.2 – moderately threatened in California (20-80% of
occurrences).
3 – plants about which more information is needed. 0.3 – not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences).
4 – plants have limited distribution in California.

976
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-12 Figure 3.4-1
CNDDB Species within 5 miles of Project site6
6 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 20.
977
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-13 Field Surveys
Land Use and Habitats
The Project site supported agricultural land that has been used for cultivation since at least 1985.7 The Project site was bordered by almond orchards to the east and west, two small dairies on the western and northwestern boundaries, and residential development to the south. Ridgeview Middle School formed most of the eastern border of the Project site. The northwestern portions of the Project site supported vineyards, the southwestern portions supported row crops of corn, and a small parcel just west of Ridgeview Middle School supported row crops of soybean.

Portions of the Project site in the southeasternmost corner and in the western portion of the Project site were fallow. Most of the surrounding land use in the vicinity of the Project site was agricultural or dense residential.

Observed Species
A total of 17 plant species (five native and 12 nonnative), 16 bird species, and one mammal species were observed during the survey (Table 3.4-2).

Table 3.4-2
Species Observed During Site Reconnaissance8
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Plants
Family Amaranthaceae
Palmer's amaranth Amaranthus palmeri Native
Family Asteraceae
Canada horseweed Erigeron canadensis Native
Common sunflower Helianthus annuus Native
Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Nonnative
7 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 21.
8 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 23.
978
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-14 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Family Chenopodiaceae
Big saltbush Atriplex lentiformis Native
White goosefoot Chenopodium album Nonnative
Family Convolvulaceae
Ivyleaf morning glory Ipomoea hederacea Nonnative
Family Lamiaceae
White horehound Marrubium vulgare Nonnative
Family Poaceae
Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Nonnative
Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus Nonnative
Wall barley Hordeum murinum Nonnative
Wild oat Avena fatua Nonnative
Family Polygonaceae
Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare Nonnative
Family Portulacaceae
Common purslane Portulaca oleracea Nonnative
Family Solanaceae
Coyote tobacco Nicotiana attenuata Native
Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium Nonnative
Family Zygophyllaceae
Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Nonnative
Birds
Family Accipitridae
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii MBTA, CFGC
979
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-15 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Family Cathartidae
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura MBTA, CFGC
Family Charadriidae
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus MBTA, CFGC
Family Columbidae
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura MBTA, CFGC
Family Corvidae
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos MBTA, CFGC
Family Fringillidae
House finch Haemorhous mexicanus MBTA, CFGC
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria MBTA, CFGC
Family Hirundinidae
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica MBTA, CFGC
Family Icteridae
Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus MBTA, CFGC
Family Mimidae
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos MBTA, CFGC
Family Passerellidae
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus MBTA, CFGC
Family Passeridae
House sparrow Passer domesticus --
Family Sturnidae
European starling Sturnus vulgaris --
Family Trochilidae
980
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-16 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna MBTA, CFGC
Family Turdidae
American robin Turdus migratorius MBTA, CFGC
Family Tyrannidae
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans MBTA, CFGC
Mammals
Family Procyonidae
Raccoon Procyon lotor Native
MBTA = Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC § 703 et seq.); CFGC = Protected under the California Fish and Game Code (FGC §§ 3503 and 3513).

Nesting Birds
Migratory birds could nest on or near the Project site. Bird species that may nest on or near the property include, but are not limited to, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos).

Regulated Habitats
One potentially jurisdictional feature (a retention pond along the western border of Ridgeview Middle School) was outside of the Project site but partially within the survey area. No impacts to this feature are anticipated. Modoc Ditch (which is likely regulated by the SWRCB and CDFW) runs east-west across the middle of the Project site.9 The National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2021b) lists Modoc Ditch as an intermittent riverine streambed that is seasonally flooded and excavated. Another channelized creek, Mosquito Creek – Cross Creek, runs east-west along the southern half of the Project site (Figure 10) and is likely regulated by the SWRCB and CDFW. The National Wetlands Inventory also lists Mosquito Creek – Cross Creek as an intermittent riverine streambed that is seasonally flooded and excavated. Lastly, an unnamed canal runs north – south 9 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Figures 9-11.
981
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-17 along the northeastern boundary of the Project site (Figure 11) and may also be a regulated by the SWRCB and CDFW. It is not listed on the National Wetlands Inventory. No impacts to these features are anticipated. If there are changes to the proposed Project, further delineation of their boundaries and consultation with the SWRCB and CDFW may be required.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704)(MBTA) makes it unlawful to “take” (kill, harm, harass, etc.) any migratory bird listed in 50 Code of Federal Regulations 10, including their nests, eggs, or products. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many other species.

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973
Section 3 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines an endangered species as any species or subspecies “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat are designated through publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. Designated endangered and threatened animal species are fully protected from “take” unless an applicant has an incidental take permit issued by the USFWS under Section 10 or incidental take statement issued under Section 7 of the ESA. A take is defined as the killing, capturing, or harassing of a species. Proposed endangered or threatened species, or their critical habitats, are those for which a proposed regulation, but no final rule, has been published in the Federal Register.

State of California Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) declares that deserving plant or animal species will be given protection by the State because they are of ecological, educational, historical, recreational, aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the State. CESA establishes 982
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-18 that it is State policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated as rare, threatened, or endangered through official listing by the California Fish & Game Commission.

Listed species are given greater attention during the land use planning process by local governments, public agencies, including the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and landowners than are species that have not been listed.

On private property, endangered plants may also be protected by the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977. Threatened plants are protected by CESA, and rare plants are protected by the NPPA. However, CESA authorizes that “Private entities may take plant species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA and CESA through a Federal incidental take permit issued pursuant to Section 10 of the ESA, if the CDFG certifies that the incidental take statement or incidental take permit is consistent with CESA.”
In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires disclosure of any potential impacts on listed species and alternatives or mitigation that would reduce those impacts.

California Environmental Quality Act—Treatment of Listed Plant and Animal Species ESA and CESA protect only those species formally listed as threatened or endangered (or rare in the case of the State list). Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines “endangered” species of plants or animals as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy and “rare” species as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens. Therefore, a project normally will have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. The significance of impacts to a species under CEQA must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction despite legal status or lack thereof.

Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code
Streambeds and other drainages that occur within the Planning Area are subject to regulation by the CDFW. Please note that although the agency is now called the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, the State Code is still named the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code. For purposes of this document, these terms are interchangeable. The CDFW considers most drainages to be “streambeds” unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. A stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel with banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or sub983 Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-19 surface flow that supports, or has supported, riparian vegetation. CDFW jurisdiction typically extends to the edge of the riparian canopy, and therefore, usually encompasses a larger area than Corps jurisdiction.

Porter-Cologne Act
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has determined in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that reduce federal jurisdiction over Waters of the U.S., that the State would require that a Report of Waste Discharge be required for any discharge of waste, including fill, into “waters of the state”, other than those projects requiring a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit and the State’s CWA Section 401 Certification of the federal permit, under the authority of the state Porter-Cologne Act. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) is responsible for issuing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to protect state surface and groundwater quality after reviewing a Report of Waste Discharge.

Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code These sections of the Fish and Game Code prohibit the “take or possession of birds, their nests, or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a “take.” Such a take would also violate Federal law protecting migratory birds.

Incidental Take Permits (i.e., Management Agreements) are required from the CDFW for projects that may result in the incidental take of species listed by the State of California as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. The permits require that impacts to protected species be minimized to the extent possible and mitigated to a level of insignificance.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia General Plan
Under City of Visalia General Plan policies, any new development would have to ensure minimal disruption/loss of habitat that could support special status animal species. Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCP) will be required for development that would potentially affect sensitive habitat. The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act allows a process for developing NCCPs under DFG direction. NCCPs provide regional protection of wildlife diversity, while allowing compatible development. The following policies apply to the Project:
984
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-20 Objective OSC-0-10: Protect and enhance natural vegetation throughout the Planning Area, especially types that are considered sensitive natural communities by the Department of Fish and Game.

Policy OSC-P-30: Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development projects involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies.

Policy OSC-P-31: Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: (1) avoidance; (2) onsite mitigation, and (3) offsite mitigation.

Policy OSC-P-35: Use native trees in street and public landscaping designs, where appropriate, to preserve Visalia’s character.

Policy OSC-P-37: Design selected storm water ponds and retention basins to serve a dual role as wildlife habitat by planting species appropriate for food and cover needs. Work with a trained professional in design, selection, and management of each site.

Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
o Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
o Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 985
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-21 o Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally-protected wetlands (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
o Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery site;
o Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
o Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.4-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Table 3.4-1, one special-status plant species and two special-status animal species could occur on or near the Project site, as detailed below.

Sanford’s arrowhead
Sanford’s arrowhead is an aquatic emergent, rhizomatous perennial herb in the family Alismataceae with a CRPR of 1B.2. It is endemic to the Central Valley of California where it occupies ponds, ditches, sloughs, marshes, and slow-moving rivers below 984 feet elevation; it flowers May–October.10
One CNDDB record from 2018 is known from approximately 7 miles northeast of the Project site.

Although this species was not detected during the reconnaissance survey, which was conducted 10 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 27.
986
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-22 within the blooming period, aquatic habitat on and near the Project site could support this species. However, the frequent disturbance to these water conveyance features through vegetation clearing minimizes the potential of this species to occupy these habitats.

Implementation of BIO-1 will ensure any impacts to Sanford’s arrowhead are less than significant.

Burrowing owl
Burrowing owl is a member of the family Strigidae recognized as a species of special concern by the CDFW. Burrowing owl depends on burrow systems excavated by other species such as California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and American badger (Taxidea taxus).

Burrowing owl uses burrows for protection from predators, weather, as roosting sites, and dwellings to raise young. It commonly perches outside burrows on mounds of soil or nearby fence posts. Prey types include insects, especially grasshoppers and crickets, small mammals, frogs, toads, and lizards. The nesting season begins in March, and incubation lasts 28–30 days.

The female incubates the eggs while the male forages and delivers food items to the burrow-nest; young then fledge between 44 and 53 days after hatching. Adults can live up to 8 years in the wild.11
There are two CNDDB records, from 1998 and 2006, of burrowing owl from within 5 miles of the Project site. Several California ground squirrel burrows that could support this species were found on the periphery of the Project site and within the fallow fields on the Project site. These fallowed fields could provide foraging habitat and thus support burrowing owl. However, the habitat is routinely disked, which minimizes the potential of this area to support this species.

Mitigation measure BIO-2 shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Swainson’s hawk
Swainson’s hawk is a state listed as threatened raptor in the family Accipitridae. It is a migratory breeding resident of Central California. It uses open areas including grassland, sparse shrubland, pasture, open woodland, and annual agricultural fields such as grain and alfalfa to forage on small mammals, birds, and reptiles. After breeding, it eats mainly insects, especially grasshoppers. Swainson’s hawks build small to medium-sized nests in medium to large trees near foraging habitat. The nesting season begins in March or April in Central California when this species returns to its breeding grounds from wintering areas in Mexico and Central and South 11 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 27.
987
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-23 America. Nest building commences within one to two weeks of arrival to the breeding area and lasts about one week. One to four eggs are laid and incubated for about 35 days. Young typically fledge in about 38–46 days and tend to leave the nest territory within 10 days of fledging.

Swainson’s hawks depart for the non-breeding grounds between August and September.12 There are three CNDDB records, from 2012–2017, of Swainson’s hawk from within 5 miles of the Project site. The fallow fields of the Project site provide potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, and several potential nest trees were observed within 0.5 mile of the Project site. Therefore, the potential for this species to occur is moderate. Mitigation measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 shall be required to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk.

As described above, significant impacts to special status species could occur; however, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would provide specific avoidance and protection measures that will help ensure that potential impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

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 would require: (i) salvaging or relocating affected plants, or (ii) articulating when salvaging/relocating plants is required.
12 Ibid. Page 28.
988
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-24 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 Mitigation13 and Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. 14 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.

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 Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. 15 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.
13 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.
14 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. 15 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. 989
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-25 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. 16 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 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.

Impact 3.4-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or have a substantial adverse effect on federally or state-protected wetlands (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The proposed Project site does not support any sensitive natural communities. No riparian habitat, wetlands or other sensitive natural community is present and the site does not overlap critical habitat. Therefore, the Project would have no impacts to sensitive natural communities.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
16 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. 990
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-26 Impact 3.4-3: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery site?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project could impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the MBTA and CFGC. Migratory birds are expected to nest on and near the Project site. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort can be considered take under the MBTA and CFGC. Loss of fertile eggs or nesting birds, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, could constitute a significant effect if the species is particularly rare in the region. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, and grading that disturb a nesting bird on the Project site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 shall be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure
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, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A 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 completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons. 991
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-27 Impact 3.4-4: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. No trees or biologically sensitive areas will be impacted and there is no adopted.

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan has been adopted in the area. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measure
None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Would the Project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources?
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to biological resources are the geographic areas covered by the City of Visalia General Plan / EIR and the County of Tulare General Plan / EIR. Mitigation measures associated with this topic are included to ensure that potential impacts to biological resources remains less than significant at a project level. Cumulative development would result in the conversion of existing potential habitat to urban uses. Both the City’s and County’s General Plan EIR, in addition to regional, State and federal regulations, include policies and measures that mitigate impacts to biological resources associated with future development.

As described in this impact section, the Project will involve developing a 507-acre parcel that currently supports agriculture into a mixed-use residential development. The Project site could provide habitat for the CRPR 1B.2 Sanford’s arrowhead, foraging habitat for the state listed as threatened Swainson’s hawk, and habitat for state species of special concern burrowing owl.

However, implementing Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would reduce any impacts to less than significant, resulting in a less than considerable contribution to cumulative impacts. As development occurs in the region, the City and County will review projects on a case-by-case basis at the time each is considered for approval. Most projects in the region would generally occur within or around urban areas that have either been previously disturbed or are near existing 992
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-28 urban development. However, some future projects may occur on undeveloped portions of the City and County that could result in potential impacts to biological resources. However, these projects would likely be required to implement mitigation measures in order to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. Compliance with applicable state and federal permit requirements for these resources would be required for all future projects, which would ensure that these projects would not significantly affect sensitive biological resources or contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to such resources in the area.

Implementation of the proposed Project, with mitigation, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to biological resources. 993
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-1

3.5 Cultural Resources
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project on cultural, archaeological and historical resources.

Cultural resources include prehistoric-era archaeological sites, historic-era archaeological sites, Native American traditional cultural properties, sites of religious and cultural significance, and historical buildings, structures, objects, and sites. The importance of any single cultural resource is defined by the context in which it was first created, current public opinion and modern yet evolving analysis. From the analytical perspective temporal and geographic considerations help to define the historical context of the Project area.

A Cultural Resources Survey was prepared for the Project by ASM Affiliates, Inc. (December 2021) and is the basis for analysis for the discussion herein (see Appendix E). Tribal consultations pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 are addressed in Section 3.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources.

Environmental Setting
Natural Environment
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 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.

The elevation of the Project area ranges between 303 ft. and 315 ft. amsl. Currently this region can be characterized as a dry open valley bottom now utilized for agriculture. Prior to reclamation and channelization, the region would have been a low-lying, water-rich area characterized by streams, sloughs, marshes, and swamps. Occasionally inundated by floodwaters, in many years portions of this region would have been swampy during the winter rainy season and marsh land during other parts of the year. Historical and recent land-use has changed the vegetation that was once present within and near the Project area. The immediate Project location historically most 994
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-2 likely fell within the Valley Grassland community, however, with Riparian Woodlands present along streams and freshwater marshes common in the area.1 Ethnography and Ethnohistory
Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. According to the Cultural Resources Survey Report, the Project area was located in Telamni territory (generally Visalia and Goshen), but no known historical villages were located in the general area. Village locations were instead concentrated to the east, in the foothills, or west, closer to the Tulare Lake shore. The Yokuts settlement pattern was largely consistent, regardless of specific tribe involved. Winter villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses (as these existed circa AD 1800), with dispersal phase family camps located at elevated spots on the valley floor and near gathering areas in the foothills.

Most Yokuts groups, again regardless of specific tribal affiliation, were organized as a recognized and distinct tribelet; a circumstance that almost certainly pertained to the tribal groups noted above. Tribelets were land-owning groups organized around a central village and linked by shared territory and descent from a common ancestor. The population of most tribelets ranged from about 150 to 500 peoples (Kroeber 1925).

Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of Euro-American diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. Cook (1978) estimates that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokuts people continue to reside in the southern San Joaquin Valley today, including at the nearby Santa Rosa Rancheria.2
1 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), page 5 (Appendix D). 2 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), pages 5-7 (Appendix D). 995
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act (1966)
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the most prominent federal law dealing with historic preservation. The NHPA established guidelines to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice.” The NHPA includes regulations specifically for federal land-holding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to NEPA are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and the NEPA requirements concerning cultural resources can be addressed through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA process.

Provisions of NHPA establish a National Register of Historic Places (The National Register) maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Offices of Historic Preservation, and grants-in-aid programs. At the federal level, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) carries out reviews under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation of 1966, as amended.

State of California Regulations
In the State of California, the process of reviewing projects and decisions that may impact cultural resources including historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources is conducted under several different federal, state, and local laws. CEQA requires that public agencies consider the effects of their actions on historical resources eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.

Additionally, California Public Resources Code 5024 requires consultation with OHP when a project may impact historical resources located on State-owned land. California State law (SB 18) requires cities and counties to notify and consult with California Native American Tribes about proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places (“cultural places”).

California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
California State law also provides for the protection of cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources identified in CEQA documents. Under 996
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-4 CEQA, a cultural resource is considered an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines are similar to those described under the NHPA. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on The National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR. State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed.

The CRHR can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 5097) specify the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non-federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC.

California Government Code 65352.3-5, Local Government – Tribal Consultation California Government Code Sections 65092, 65351, 65352, 65352.3 and 65352.4, formally known as Senate Bill (SB) 18.

These regulations regulate the consultation with California Native American tribes having traditional lands located within the jurisdiction of applicable cities and counties. The intent of the underlying legislation was to provide all California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission, an opportunity to consult with specific local governments for the purpose of preserving and protecting their sacred places. Such consultations apply to the preparation, adoption and amendment of general plans.

The Notice of Preparation, which briefly describing the proposed Project, including a map of the Project area, was sent to the State Clearinghouse which notifies Native American representatives of the opportunity to comment on the proposed Project. To date, no comments or concerns have been received.

California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) is a statewide system for managing information on the full range of historical resources identified in California. CHRIS is a cooperative partnership between the citizens of California, historic preservation professionals, 997
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-5 twelve Information Centers, and various agencies. This system bears the following responsibilities: integrate newly recorded sites and information on known resources into the California Historical Resources Inventory; furnish information on known resources and surveys to governments, institutions, and individuals who have a justifiable need to know; and supply a list of consultants who are qualified to do work within their area.

Typically, the initial step in addressing cultural resources in the project review process involves contacting the appropriate Information Center to conduct a record search. A record search should identify any previously recorded historical resources and previous archaeological studies within the project area, as well as provide recommendations for further work, if necessary. Depending on the nature and location of the project, the project proponent or lead agency may be required to contact appropriate Native American representatives to aid in the identification of traditional cultural properties.

If known cultural resources are present within the Project area, or if the Project area has not been previously investigated for the presence of such resources, the Information Center may recommend a survey for historical, archaeological, and paleontological sites. Cultural resources that may be adversely affected by an undertaking should be evaluated for significance. For archaeological sites, a significance evaluation typically involves conducting test excavations. For historical sites or standing structures, historical research should be conducted and an architectural evaluation may be warranted. If significant, the resource should be protected from adverse impacts. Data recovery excavations may be warranted in the case of unavoidable damage to archaeological sites. If human burials are present, the appropriate coroner’s office should be contacted. A professional archaeologist and appropriate Native American representatives should also be consulted.

When an initial study identifies the existence, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA is applicable to discretionary actions by state or local lead agencies. Under CEQA, lead agencies must analyze impacts to cultural resources. Significant impacts under CEQA occur when 998
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-6 “historically significant” or “unique” cultural resources are adversely affected, which occurs when such resources could be altered or destroyed through project implementation. Historically significant cultural resources are defined by eligibility for or by listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In practice, the federal NRHP criteria for significance applied under Section 106 are generally (although not entirely) consistent with CRHR criteria (see PRC § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, § 4852 and § 15064.5(a)(3)). In addition, pursuant to CEQA and Public Resources Code § 21084.1, historical resources included on a local register or otherwise determined locally to be historically significant shall also be considered.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia Historic Preservation Ordinance
The Historic Preservation Ordinance, adopted in 1979 and updated in 2001, established the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC). HPAC is responsible for periodically updating the Local Register, nominating properties to the State and Federal Registers, and reviewing planning and development actions related to historic structures or in the Historic District. With regard to zoning changes and applications for planned development permits within the historic district, HPAC’s recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission for its consideration. For applications for construction, exterior alteration, enlargement, or sign permits within the historic district or for “exceptional” or “focus” structures outside the district, HPAC has the power to approve, modify, or disapprove applications based on the criteria set forth in the Ordinance. Where HPAC has disapproved an application, the Building Official may only issue permits when authorized by the City Council. HPAC also reviews all applications for the demolition or moving of structures within the historic district or listed on the Local Register.

The Historic Preservation Ordinance allows HPAC to deny demolition or moving permits for buildings listed as “exceptional” on the Local Register, and to apply a six-month moratorium on demolition for other historically-listed structures, during which time alternatives are to be sought.

In general, owners are encouraged to maintain historic structures and make every reasonable effort to find compatible uses for them.

City of Visalia General Plan
The following lists goals and policies from the City of Visalia General Plan pertaining to cultural resources that are applicable to the proposed Project. 999
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-7 LU-O-27: Provide adequate area for office developments in areas where they can be effectively integrated into surrounding areas and/or where they can provide close-in employment opportunities.

LU-O-29: Ensure the continued viability of Visalia’s existing commercial areas and enable the conversion of older or historic houses to office uses, where appropriate.

LU-P-48 Preserve established and distinctive neighborhoods throughout the City by maintaining appropriate zoning and development standards to achieve land use compatibility in terms of height, massing and other characteristics; providing design guidelines for high-quality new development; supporting housing rehabilitation programs; and other means.

H-O-1: Assure the recognition of the City’s history through the preservation of historic sites, structures and featuring zoning overlay designation and discretionary review procedures for the Historic District.

H-O-2: Maintain historic residential areas as healthy, cohesive neighborhood units, and assure consistency of appearance within the historic area through conservation plans and historic preservation guidelines.

H-O-3: Support efforts to use the Local Register of Historic Structures and the Historic District to identify and promote community history through the use of walking tours and other public outreach.

H-O-4: Promote the maintenance and identification of historic resources in the community as key components of tourism and increased economic diversity for the City.

H-O-5: Promote the benefits of historic property ownership through programs such as tax incentives, available grants and loans, including but not limited to Federal Tax credits and similar programs for properties within the Historic District or on the Local Register of Historic Structures. 1000
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-8 OSC-O-11: Preserve and protect historic features and archaeological resources of the Visalia planning area including its agricultural surrounding for aesthetic, scientific, educational and cultural values.

OSC-P-42: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
• Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive; • Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA); • Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity (defined as areas identified according to the National Historic Preservation Act as part of the Section 106 process); and • Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval. In the event that previously unidentified historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports that will be used as guidelines.

Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would cause any of the following conditions to occur:
o Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5; or
o Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5; or
1001
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-9 o Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Under CEQA, significant cultural resources are those archaeological resources and historical properties that:
o Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
o Are associated with the lives of persons important in our past; o Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values; or
o Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Unique resources under CEQA, in slight contrast, are those that represent:

An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC § 21083.2(g)).

Preservation in place is the preferred approach under CEQA to mitigating adverse impacts to significant or unique cultural resources.
1002
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-10 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.5-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? OR
Impact 3.5-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. A Cultural Resources Survey was prepared for the Project and is the basis for analysis for the discussion herein (see Appendix D) and is summarized herein.

Archival Records Search
An archival records search conducted by the staff of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (IC), California State University Bakersfield, on July 19, 2021. The records search was completed to determine: (i) if prehistoric or historical archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the study areas; (ii) if the Project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists prior to the initiation of this field study; and/or (iii) whether the general area within which the Project lies was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive. Records examined included archaeological site files and maps, the NRHP, Historic Property Data File, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historic Interest.

The records search indicated there have been no previous cultural or historical studies that have been conducted within the Project area and no cultural resources of any kind are known to exist within it. Historical maps that included the Project area were consulted to identify potential historical structures or resources. According to USGS topographic quandrangles, historical aerials, and Google Earth imagery, the Project area has undergone minimal development since at least the early twentieth century.3
Field Survey
An intensive Phase I cultural resources survey for the Project study area was conducted by ASM Associate Archaeologist Robert Azpitarte, B.A., with the assistance of ASM Assistant Archaeologists Maria Silva, B.A., Cameron Jackson, B.A., and Maggie Lemus, B.A. The field methods employed 3 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), pages 13 (Appendix D). 1003
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-11 included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surface for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features (e.g., bedrock mortars, historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil, burnt animal bone). Special attention was paid to any exposed ground surface areas, rodent burrow spoils piles, cut-banks, cleared edges of disturbed areas, and other spots with better ground surface visibility. The survey methodology was designed to include the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they have been present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site integrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation Instructions for Recording Historic Resources, using DPR 523 forms.

No prehistoric cultural resources were identified within the Project area as a result of the intensive pedestrian survey. However, two late nineteenth-century irrigation ditches were identified within the Project area: Wutchumna Ditch and Modoc Ditch. Both ditches are earthen in construction and they bisect the Project parcel in a general east-west direction.

Both ditches date from 1870 – 1880 and reflect the establishment of an irrigation system in this portion of Tulare County. They thus could be potentially eligible for CRHR listing due to their association with this important historic event (CRHR Criterion 1). They have no known association with an important historical figure (CRHR Criterion 2) and, as common property types, are not notable in terms of design, materials or engineering (CRHR Criterion 3). They also lack research value not better provided by historical records and documents (CRHR Criterion 4).

Both ditches, however, have experienced changes in alignment, alterations to their immediate and landscape surroundings (including suburbanization along certain of their segments and the construction of modern bridge crossings), and the replacement of their original water control features with modern equipment (such as concrete culverts and metal gates). Both ditches therefore lack integrity of original location, setting, design, materials and feeling and they cannot convey their historical association.

The Wutchumna and Modoc ditches are recommended as not CRHR eligible and they do not constitute significant or unique historical resources under CEQA due to their lack of integrity. No other cultural resources of any kind were identified during a Phase I study of the Project study 1004
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-12 area. The proposed Carleton Specific Plan Project therefore does not have the potential to result in adverse impacts to known historical properties.4
Determination
As previously described, according to the records search and site survey, there are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area. Project construction and operation would occur on existing disturbed lands (most recently in agricultural use); however, further disturbance associated with the Project could potentially discover buried sensitive historical, archaeological or cultural resources. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, mitigation measure CUL – 1 included herein will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

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 and/or paleontologist (as applicable) shall determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist 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.
4 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), page 19 (Appendix D). 1005
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-13 Impact 3.5-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Although soil-disturbing activities associated with development in accordance with the proposed project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human remains would not be significant.

Project development would occur on existing disturbed lands; however, further disturbance could potentially uncover human remains. This would be a potentially significant impact.

However, mitigation measure CUL-2 included herein will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

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 determines that Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) require that he give notice to the Native American 1006
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-14 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 Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) if any of the circumstances established by that provision become applicable
Cumulative Impacts
Would the Project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources?
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to cultural resources is all of Tulare County. Development in Tulare County and the San Joaquin Valley has likely resulted in the loss or degradation of historic and/or archaeological resources. As discussed above, implementation of mitigation measures will ensure that Project implementation avoids and/or minimizes a cumulative loss of these resources if they are found during Project activities.

Implementation of the proposed Project, with mitigation, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to cultural resources. 1007
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-1

3.6 Energy
This section of the DEIR analyzes the Project’s potential impacts on energy resources. The data utilized for analysis of this section is based on the Energy Analysis Report (EAR) (combined in Appendix C as “Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas / Energy Analysis Report”) prepared for this Project by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. The full EAR can be reviewed in Appendix C. No NOP comments were received pertaining to energy.

Environmental Setting
Electricity
Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on-site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands.

Energy Usage
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy consumption in California was 6,923 trillion BTU in 2020 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available), which equates to an average of 175 million BTU per capita. 1 Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 34 percent transportation, 24.6 percent industrial, 19.6 percent commercial, and 21.8 percent residential.2 Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences and commercial and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use.

While BTUs measure total energy usage, electricity is generally measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) which is the standard billing unit for energy delivered to consumers by electrical utilities. 1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed January 2023. 2 Ibid.
1008
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-2 The electricity consumption attributable to Tulare County from 2011 to 2021 is shown in Table

3.6-1. As indicated, energy consumption in Tulare County varied approximately 30 percent over the last 10 years.

Table 3.6-1
Electricity Consumption in Tulare County 2011 – 20213
Year
Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2011 3,747
2012 4,136
2013 4,317
2014 4,492
2015 4,477
2016 4,363
2017 4,244
2018 4,438
2019 4,249
2020 4,643
2021 4,878
Natural Gas
Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network, and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas provides almost one-third of the state’s total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. 3 California Energy Commission. Energy Reports. Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 2023. 1009
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-3 Natural gas is provided to the Project area by Southern California Gas. The natural gas consumption attributable to Tulare County from 2011 to 2021 is provided in Table 3.6-2. Natural gas consumption in Tulare County varied approximately 13 percent over the 10-year span.

Table 3.6-2
Natural Gas Consumption in Tulare County 2011 – 20214
Year Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of Therms)
2011 159
2012 158
2013 158
2014 151
2015 149
2016 151
2017 150
2018 157
2019 155
2020 159
2021 168
Transportation Energy
According to the U.S. Energy Administration, transportation accounted for approximately 34 percent of California’s total energy consumption in 2020. 5 In 2020, California consumed
approximately 524 million barrels, or 2 billion gallons, of gasoline (including aviation gasoline).

California has the highest number of motor vehicles registered and vehicle miles than any other state.6
4 California Energy Commission. Energy Reports. Gas Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx Accessed December 2021. 5 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed January 2023. 6 U.S. Energy Information Administration. California Profile Analysis. Updated February 18, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA. Accessed January 2023. 1010
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-4 According to the Board of Equalization (BOE), statewide taxable sales figures estimate a total of 181 million gallons of gasoline and 66 million gallons of diesel fuel were sold in Tulare county in 2021.
7 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards.

Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007
This Act set increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for motor vehicles and includes the following provisions related to energy efficiency:
• Renewable fuel standards (RFS)
• Appliance and lighting efficiency standards
• Building energy efficiency
This Act requires increasing levels of renewable fuels to replace petroleum. The U.S. EPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure transportation fuel sold into the US contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel.

The RFS programs regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel products, and other stakeholders and were created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RFS program established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the US. As required under the act, the original RFS program required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the Act, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways that laid the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions through the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and for encouraging the development and 7 California Energy Commission. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874 Accessed January 2023. 1011
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-5 expansion of the nation’s renewable fuels sector. The updated program is referred to as RFS2 and includes the following:
• EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; • EISA increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; • EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one; and
• EISA required by the U.S. EPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.8
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternate energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.”
Federal Vehicle Standards
The CAFE law, first introduced in 1975, has become more stringent over time. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011; and, in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.

In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of carbon dioxide (CO2) in model year 2025, on an average industry fleetwide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking.

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavyduty trucks for model years 2014 – 2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption 8 U.S. EPA. Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Overview for Renewable Fuel Standard. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuelstandard-program/overview-renewable-fuel-standard. Accessed December 2021. 1012
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-6 are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

In August 2016, the EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018-2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021-2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion MT and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.9
In August 2018, the USEPA and NHTSA released a notice of proposed rulemaking called Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). This rule would modify the existing CAFE standards and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks, and establish new standards covering model years 2021-2026. SAFE standards are expected to uphold model year 2020 standards through 2026.10
State of California Regulations
Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill 138 (Bowen Chapter 568, Statues of 2002) requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the state’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public and safety (Public Resources Code §25301(a)).

The 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) was adopted in March 2022, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in 9 U.S. Department of Transportation. Briefing Room. EPA and DOT Finalize Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/epa-and-dot-finalize-greenhouse-gas-and-fuel-efficiencystandards-heavy-duty-trucks. Accessed January 2023. 10 U.S. Department of Transportation. SAFE. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ‘SAFE’ Vehicles Rule. https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe. Accessed January 2023. 1013
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-7 California.11 The IEPR provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of energy issues facing the state. The IEPR discusses building decarbonization, energy reliability, decarbonizing California’s gas system, and the state’s energy demand forecast.

State of California Energy Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental end energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24) Part 6 of the Title 24 refers to California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings which was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in California. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2022 Standards went into effect January 1, 2023, replacing the 2019 standards.

Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be identified as 11 California Energy Commission. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report. Accessed January 2023. 1014
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-8 meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC).

CALGreen contains both mandatory and voluntary measures. For nonresidential land uses, there are 39 mandatory measures including, but not limited to, exterior light pollution reduction, wastewater reduction by 20 percent, and commissioning of projects over 10,000 square feet. Two tiers of voluntary measures apply to nonresidential land uses, for a total of 36 additional elective measures.

California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. Starting in 2020, the 2019 standards improve upon existing standards, focusing on three key areas: proposing new requirements for installation of solar photovoltaics for newly constructed low-rise residential buildings; updating current ventilation and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) requirements; and extending Title 24 Part 6 to apply to healthcare facilities. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are approximately 53 percent more efficient than the 2016 Title 24 Energy Standards for residential development and approximately 30 percent more efficient for nonresidential development.

Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, 2030 Carbon Target and Adaptation, issued by Governor Brown in April 2015, set a target of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030. To achieve this ambitious target, Governor Brown identified five key goals for reducing GHG emissions in California through 2030:
• Increase the amount of renewable electricity provided state-wide to 50 percent; • Double energy efficiency savings achieved in existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner;
• Reduce petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; • Reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants; and • Manage farms, rangelands, forests, and wetlands to increasingly store carbon.

Executive Order B-55-18
In 2018, Governor Brown signed EO B-55-18 to achieve carbon neutrality by moving California to 100 percent clean energy by 2045. This Executive Order also includes specific measures to reduce GHG emissions via clean transportation, energy efficient buildings, directing cap-andtrade funds to disadvantaged communities, and better management of the state’s forest land. 1015
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-9 Senate Bill (SB) 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) In January 2009, California SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, went into effect. The objective of SB 375 is to better integrate regional planning of transportation, land use, and housing to reduce sprawl and ultimately reduce GHG emissions and other air pollutants. SB 375 tasks CARB to set GHG reduction targets for each of California’s 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Each MPO is required to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS is a growth strategy in combination with transportation policies that will show how the MPO will meet its GHG reduction target. If the SCS cannot meet the reduction goal, an Alternative Planning Strategy may be adopted that meets the goal through alternative development, infrastructure, and transportation measures or policies.

In 2010, CARB released the proposed GHG reduction targets for the MPOs. The proposed reduction targets for the Tulare CAG region were 13 percent by year 2020 and 16 percent by year 2035 beginning in October of 2018.
12 Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2017. The 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report recommended accelerating that goal to 20 percent by 2010, and the 2004 Energy Report Update further recommended increasing the target to 33 percent by 2020. The state’s Energy Action Plan also supported this goal. In 2006 under Senate Bill 107, California’s 20 percent by 2010 RPS goal was codified. The legislation required retail sellers of electricity to increase renewable energy purchases by at least one percent each year with a target of 20 percent renewables by 2010. Publicly owned utilities set their own RPS goals, recognizing the intent of the legislature to attain the 20 percent by 2010 target.

In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08 requiring that “all retail sellers of electricity shall serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020.” The following year, Executive Order S-21-09 directed CARB to enact regulations to achieve the goal of 33 percent renewables by 2020.
12 California Air Resources Board. Regional Plan Targets. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communitiesprogram/regional-plan-targets. Accessed January 2023. 1016
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-10 In 2015, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 350 to codify ambitious climate and clean energy goals. One key provision of SB 350 is for retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure “half of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030.” The State’s RPS program was further strengthened by SB 100 in 2018. SB 100 revised the State’s RPS Program to require retail sellers of electricity to serve 50 percent and 60 percent of the total kilowatt-hours sold to retail end-use customers be served by renewable energy sources by 2026 and 2030, respectively, and to require that 100 percent of all electricity supplied come from renewable sources by 2045.

Executive Order S-01-07 Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation CARB initially adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation in 2009, identifying it as one of the nine discrete early action measures in the 2008 Scoping Plan to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The LCFS regulation defines a Carbon Intensity, or “CI,” reduction target (or standard) for each year, which the rule refers to as the “compliance schedule.” The LCFS regulation requires a reduction of at least 10 percent in the CI of California’s transportation fuels by 2020 and maintains that target for all subsequent years.

CARB has begun the rulemaking process for strengthening the compliance target of the LCFS through the year 2030. For a new LCFS target, the preferred scenario in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies an 18 percent reduction in average transportation fuel carbon intensity, compared to a 2010 baseline, by 2030 as one of the primary measures for achieving the state’s GHG 2030 target. Achieving the SB 32 reduction goals will require the use of a low carbon transportation fuels portfolio beyond the amount expected to result from the current compliance schedule.13
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) Program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017-2025. The components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases with requirements for greater numbers of zeroemission vehicles into a single package of standards. By 2025, new automobiles under California’s 13 California Air Resources Board. CARB amends Low Carbon Fuel Standard for wider impact. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/index.php/news/carb-amends-low-carbon-fuel-standard-wider-impact. Accessed January 2023. 1017
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-11 Advanced Clean Car program will emit 34 percent less global warming gases and 75 percent less smog-forming emissions.

EO B-48-18, issued by Governor Brown in 2018, establishes a target to have five million ZEVs on the road in California by 2030. This Executive Order is supported by the State’s 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update, which expands upon the State’s 2016 ZEV Action Plan. While the 2016 plan remains in effect, the 2018 update functions as an addendum, highlighting the most important actions State agencies took in 2018 to implement the directives of EO B-48-18.

Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project will have a significant impact related to energy if it will:
o Result in a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
o Conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.6-1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant. The Project would result in a less than significant impact as it will not entail wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. While the Project implementation could increase the demand for electricity and natural gas within the Project area and could increase the demand for gasoline and diesel consumption in the region during construction and operation of new land use developments(as described below), it involves a necessary and efficient use of energy resources.

Construction Energy Consumption
Project construction is assumed to be completed over approximately 15 years. Construction activities would consume energy through the operation of heavy off-road equipment, trucks, and worker traffic. Construction equipment fuel consumption for each Phase of development was based on equipment lists generated using CalEEMod default values. Equipment fuel consumption was calculated using Offroad2017 v1.0.1 with data for Tulare County. Fuel 1018
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-12 consumption was estimated assuming all equipment would be diesel-powered, and based on the horsepower, usage hours, and load factors from the CalEEMod model runs prepared for the Project’s air quality analysis.

Based on the anticipated construction schedule and hours of use, off-road construction equipment would result in the consumption of approximately 317,589 gallons of diesel fuel in Phase 1 and 483,671 gallons of diesel fuel for Phase 2, for a total of 801,260 gallons over the entire construction period.

Worker, vendor, and haul trips would result in approximately 53,183,343 VMT over the entire construction period (9,347,418 Construction VMT in Phase 1 and 43,835,925 Construction VMT in Phase 2). Fuel consumption averages were calculated for worker, vendor, and haul trips separately and per phase based on data from EMFAC 2017 for Tulare County. EMFAC 2017 was used, as this database corresponds with the data used in CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. The calculated averages for fuel economy based on the EMFAC2017 data as it pertains to this project for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are 27.8 miles/gallon (mi/g) and 31.7 mi/g for worker trips, 9.4 mi/g and

9.9 mi/g for vendor trips, and 6.7 mi/g and 7.4 mi/g for haul trips, respectively. The results indicate that construction trips would consume approximately 443,792 gallons of motor fuel for Phase 1 development and 1,868,512 gallons of motor fuel for Phase 2 development for a total of 2,312,304 gallons over the entire projected 15-year construction period.

Although the proposed Project would result in the consumption of an estimated 801,260 gallons of diesel from off-road equipment and 2,312,304 gallons of motor vehicle fuels during construction, the Project is expected to use equipment and fuel in a manner that is typical for mixed-use projects in California. Construction equipment fleet turnover and increasingly stringent state and federal regulations on engine efficiency, combined with local, state, and federal regulations limiting engine idling times and requiring recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during Project construction.

Considering these factors that optimize transportation fuel use and that the Project would be built to meet demand for housing and commercial space, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful and inefficient use of energy resources during construction, and impacts would be less than significant. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix C. Construction energy use is summarized in Table 3.6-3.
1019
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-13 Table 3.6-3
Construction Energy Consumption14
Activity Energy Consumption
Activity
Consumption Amount
Phase 1
Construction
Equipment Diesel
Fuel Use
Off-road
Construction
Equipment fuel
13,588,140
Horsepower Hours
(total)
317,589 gallons
(diesel)
On-road
Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Worker 7,816,457 VMT (miles)
280,977 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Vendor 1,525,642 VMT (miles)
162,021 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Haul 5,320 VMT (miles) 793 gallons (diesel)
Phase 1
Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Subtotal
9,347,418 VMT (miles)
443,792 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Phase 2
Construction
Equipment Diesel
Fuel Use
Off-road
Construction
equipment fuel
20,714,975
Horsepower Hours
(total)
483,671 gallons
(diesel)
On-road
Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Worker 36,953,280 VMT (miles)
1,164,765 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Vendor 6,877,805 VMT (miles)
703,096 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Haul 4,840 VMT (miles) 651 gallons (diesel)
Phase 2
Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Subtotal
43,835,925 VMT (miles)
1,868,512 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
14 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 144.
1020
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-14 Activity Energy Consumption
Activity
Consumption Amount
Notes:

VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source of data for construction and VMT: CalEEMod 2020.4.0 Source of data for consumption rates: EMFAC 2017 (see Appendix A of Appendix C).

Modeling results and calculations are provided in Appendix A of Appendix C.

Operation Energy Consumption
Long-term energy consumption associated with the Project includes electricity and natural gas consumption by residents and businesses, energy required for water supply, treatment, distribution, and wastewater treatment, and motor vehicle travel. These are discussed individually below. In addition, this analysis evaluates whether renewable features could be incorporated into the proposed Project.

Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption
During operations, the proposed Project would consume natural gas for space heating, water heating, and cooking associated with the land uses on the Project site. The natural gas consumption was estimated using the CalEEMod default values and results. The results of the analysis indicate that the Phase 1 development would consume approximately 23,553,340 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas per year and Phase 2 development would consume 38,770,625 kBTU of natural gas per year for a total of 62,323,965 kBTU per year during operation. It should be noted that these estimates were based on CalEEMod default consumption values, which do not take into account the current Title 24 regulations and, therefore, represent a conservative estimate of natural gas consumption.

In addition to the consumption of natural gas, the proposed Project would use electricity for lighting, appliances, and other uses associated with the Project. Electricity use during operations was estimated using CalEEMod default values. The results of the modeling indicate that Phase 1 development would use approximately 9,025,740 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) of electricity per year, Phase 2 development would use 13,587,571 kWh per year, and the total is 22,613,311 kWh per year for phases of the proposed Project. Title 24 (2022 standards) requires the installation of solar panels in residential developments, including most newly constructed single-family homes and low-rise multi-family developments. Variations in the amount installed can be due to local 1021
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-15 conditions and project design. In addition, some projects may use community solar instead of rooftop solar installations. Although the energy estimates show total consumption, most electricity used by the residential portions of the proposed Project is expected to be generated by zero emission renewable sources because rooftop photovoltaic solar is required for all newly constructed single-family residences that would produce electricity that would be used at those homes. In addition, commercial development associated with the proposed Project may install solar panels voluntarily to take advantage of energy cost savings that are increasingly possible as the cost of solar has declined over time.

As described above, the proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in demand for electricity from SCE. However, the Project would be designed to meet the most recent Title 24 standards. Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. Title 24 is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies. The Project would also be built to meet demand for housing and commercial space, and therefore, the Project would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of electricity or natural gas during operation of the project, and would be less than significant.

Fuel Consumption
During operation of the proposed Project, vehicle trips would be generated by the Project. The Project was modeled with CalEEMod using project-specific trip generation rates and default trip lengths. The results show that the vehicle trips generated would result in approximately 62,519,489 VMT per year from Phase 1 development and 43,217,718 VMT from Phase 2 development for a total of 105,737,207 VMT from the Project. As shown in Table 3.6-4, the proposed Project would result in the consumption of an estimated 2,175,089 gallons per year of transportation fuel for Phase 1 and 1,270,556 gallons per year of transportation fuel for Phase 2. 1022
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-16 Table 3.6-4
Long Term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption15
Vehicle Type Percent of
Vehicle Trips
Annual VMT Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 1
Passenger Cars (LDA) 53.0 33,145,359 37.19 891,279
Light Trucks and Medium
Duty Vehicles (LDT1, LDT2,
MDV)

39.9 24,952,085 27.76 898,915
Light-Heavy to HeavyHeavy Diesel Trucks
(LHD1, LHD2, MHDT,
HHDT)

4.9 3,087,803 10.02 308,155
Motorcycles (MCY) 1.5 941,746 38.01 24,776
Other (OBUS, UBUS, SBUS,
MH) 0.6 392,496 7.55 51,965
Phase 1 Total 100% 62,519,489 - 2,175,089
Phase 2
Passenger Cars (LDA) 49.4 21,358,912 42.44 503,327
Light Trucks and Medium
Duty Vehicles (LDT1, LDT2,
MDV)

46.2 19,951,790 33.64 593,118
Light-Heavy to HeavyHeavy Diesel Trucks
(LHD1, LHD2, MHDT,
HHDT)

3.1 1,340,730 11.0 121,739
Motorcycles (MCY) 0.4 165,515 38.07 4,347
Other (OBUS, UBUS, SBUS,
MH) 0.9 400,700 8.35 48,025
Phase 2 Total 100% 43,217,718 — 1,270,556
15 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 144.
1023
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-17 Vehicle Type Percent of
Vehicle Trips
Annual VMT Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phases 1 and 2 Combined
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Total Annual Fuel Consumption
(gallons of gasoline and diesel combined)
3,445,645
Notes:

VMT = vehicle miles traveled
“Other” consists of buses and motor homes.

Source of data for vehicle trips and VMT: CalEEMod 2020.4.0 Source of Tulare County miles/gallon for years modeled (2028 for Phase 1 and 2037 for Phase 2): EMFAC 2017.

Modeling results are provided in Appendix A of Appendix C.

Various federal and state regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program, would serve to reduce the Project’s transportation fuel consumption progressively into the future. In addition, the Project will include bike lanes and trails that will increase trips by walking and bicycling. In addition, state and federal regulatory requirements addressing fuel efficiency are expected to increase fuel efficiency over time as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are retired. The efficiency standards and light/heavy vehicle efficiency/hybridization programs contribute to increased fuel efficiency and therefore would reduce vehicle fuel energy consumption rates over time. While the Project would increase the consumption of gasoline and diesel proportionately with projected population growth, the Project will be built to accommodate expected population growth and demand for housing and commercial space and would, therefore, not result in wasteful fuel use. The Project would be built to meet demand for housing and commercial space, therefore, energy impacts related to wasteful and inefficient use of transportation fuel during Project operations would be less than significant.

In summary, as described above, the Project would result in less than significant impacts, and it would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to project design features that will comply with the City’s design guidelines and regulations that apply to the Project, such as Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code that apply to commercial and residential buildings. The installation of solar panels required by 2022 Title 24 standards is required for most residential development. 1024
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-18 Furthermore, various federal and state regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program, would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand by the Project.

With the adherence to the increasingly stringent building and vehicle efficiency standards as well as implementation of the Project’s design features that would reduce energy consumption, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. As such, the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact, due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. A summary of the Project’s estimated operational energy consumption is provided in Table 3.6-5.

Table 3.6-5
Summary of Estimated Operational Annual Energy Consumption16 Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Phase 1
Electricity Consumption 9,025,740 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 23,553,340 kBTU/year
Total Vehicle Fuel Consumption 2,175,089 gallons/year (gallons of gasoline and diesel)
Phase 2
Electricity Consumption 13,587,571 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 38,770,625 kBTU/year
Total Vehicle Fuel Consumption 1,270,555 gallons/year (gallons of gasoline and diesel)
Notes:
kWh = kilowatt-hour
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source: Appendix A of Appendix C.
16 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 145.
1025
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-19 Based on the analysis herein, the Project would not result in the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Impact 3.6-2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant. The Project would comply with all applicable goals and measures identified in the City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City of Visalia has adopted local plans that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, many of which are summarized in the CAP. Actions that the City took to increase energy efficiency taken prior to adoption of the Climate Action Plan are summarized below.
• In January 2007, the Visalia City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the U.S. Mayors “Cool Cities” Climate Protection Agreement, which sets the goal of reducing City‐wide CO2 emissions.
• The City participated in an initiative called the Southwest Solar Transformation Initiative, a regional team of public and private entities committed to advancing solar power adoption across the partner municipalities in the Southwest United States. This facilitated an increase in solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in Visalia’s community. • The City of Visalia promoted and raised community awareness of the Energy Upgrade California program.
• The City of Visalia coordinated Direct Install opportunities for businesses in Visalia through the Southern California Edison Small Business Direct Install Program. As part of this program, SCE contracts with energy efficiency experts to provide free services to SCE business customers to increase energy efficiency.
• Facilitated and promoted the Southern California Gas Weatherization Program, which provided Energy Savings Assistance Programs to residential SoCalGas customers. • Community Service Employment Training (CSET), a private nonprofit corporation that serves as the community action agency for Tulare County, has been working closely with Visalia’s low‐income residents for a number of years to weatherize their homes. • In 2000, the City established a partnership with the Urban Tree Foundation to plant over 3,000 trees in the Downtown and along streets and medians. In 2004, the City Council adopted the Street Tree Ordinance, which requires all new commercial and residential 1026
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-20 development to plant street trees. Additionally, landscape standards require shade over at least 25 percent of area in city pocket parks.
• The City encouraged the use of Compact Fluorescent Lights throughout the community.

The most recent City of Visalia General Plan and CAP build on the efforts that were in place at the time the 2013 CAP was being developed. The City of Visalia General Plan includes goals and strategies related to energy efficiency. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project:
• A-P-16. Support State efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions through local action that will reduce motor vehicle use, support alternative forms of transportation, require energy conservation in new construction, and energy management in public buildings, in compliance with AB 32.

New development can help create pedestrian environments with buildings oriented to the street, continuous walkways and sidewalks, limited blank walls, pedestrian-scaled buildings and signage, parking screened from street view, landscaping and shading, and places for people to rest and meet.

Construction
As discussed under Impact 3.6-1, the proposed Specific Plan would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. The proposed Specific Plan would comply with these regulations. Consistent with A-P-16, LU-P-39, and LU-P63, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase the use of energy conservation 1027
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-21 features and renewable sources of energy within the City due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan includes residences, commercial development, and schools, and it is designed for ease of travel using alternative transportation methods such as biking or walking, facilitated by the presence of bike lanes and trails throughout the Project area. Thus, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct policies of the City of Visalia General Plan and CAP aimed at reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, construction-related energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Specific Plan would be served with electricity provided by SCE. SCE’s 2019 Green Rate 50 percent option includes 67.5 percent eligible renewable resources, including wind, geothermal, solar, eligible hydroelectric, and biomass and biowaste; 4 percent large hydroelectric;

8.1 percent natural gas; 4.1 percent nuclear; 0.1 percent other; and 16.3 percent unspecified sources of power. SCE’s 2019 Green Rate 100 percent option includes 100 percent eligible renewable resources, composed entirely of solar. Approximately 43 percent of the electricity that SCE delivered in 2020 was a combination of renewable and GHG-emissions-free resources. 17 SCE is
ahead of schedule in meeting the California’s RPS 2020 mandate of serving its load with at least 33 percent RPS-eligible resources. SCE would be required to meet California’s RPS standards of 60 percent by 2030 and carbon-free sourced-electricity by 2045.

Part 11, Chapter 4 and 5, of the State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards establishes mandatory measures for residential and nonresidential buildings, including solar, electric vehicle (EV) charging equipment, bicycle parking, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency. The proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with these mandatory measures, notably to incorporate renewable energy generation.

The proposed Specific Plan would locate housing next to jobs in order to reduce or eliminate motor vehicle travel for home-to-work trips and provide connectivity through pedestrian and bicycle connections. Compliance with these mandatory measures would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, operational 17Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 148.
1028
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-22 energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.

The Project was reviewed for consistency with local and State of California plans that aim to reduce GHG emissions in Chapter 3.8. These plans also serve as the applicable energy plans. The ARB 2008 Scoping Plan required by AB 32 and the ARB 2017 Scoping Plan provide the State’s strategy for achieving legislated GHG reduction targets. Although the primary purpose of the Scoping Plans is to reduce GHG emissions, the strategies to achieve the GHG reduction targets rely on the use of increasing amounts of renewable fuels under the LCFS and RPS, and energy efficiency with updates to Title 24 and the CalGreen Code. The 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan addresses issues pertaining to energy efficiency in California’s buildings, industrial, and agricultural sectors. Buildings constructed to implement the Project will meet the latest efficiency standards. Vehicles and equipment are expected to become more energy efficient over time, as vehicle and equipment manufactured and/or sold in the regional will continue to be subject to Statewide regulations.

The Project is consistent with applicable plans and policies discussed above and would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of nonrenewable energy sources; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. Potential cumulative impacts on energy would result if the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and future projects, would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This could result from development that would not incorporate sufficient building energy efficiency features, would not achieve building energy efficiency standards, or would result in the unnecessary use of energy during construction and/or operation. The cumulative projects within the areas serviced by the energy service providers would be applicable to this analysis; this includes existing aging structures that are energy inefficient. Projects that include development that would have the potential to consume energy in an inefficient manner would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact. 1029
Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-23 As previously described, the proposed Project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to various design features, including installation of solar, EV charging equipment, bicycle parking, as well as following standards that promote energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency. Similar to the proposed Project, newly constructed cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen, which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial and residential buildings. Over time, CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require the proposed Project and newly constructed cumulative projects to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy.

Furthermore, various federal and state regulations - including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program -would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects.

Development associated with buildout of the proposed Project would be required to accommodate growth. As discussed above, new development and land use turnover would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (the CALGreen Code), which could decrease estimated electricity and natural gas consumption compared to existing structures. Furthermore, energy consumed by development in the Project area would continue to be subject to the regulations described in the Regulatory Setting of this Section. For these reasons, energy that would be consumed by the Project is not considered unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful. Considering the information provided above, the proposed Project, in conjunction with other cumulative development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact to energy resources. Impacts are not cumulatively considerable.
1030
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-1

3.7 Geology/Soils
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of implementing the proposed Project on geology and soils. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to this topic.

Environmental Setting
Geologic Setting
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 Visalia area is basically flat, lying at an elevation of approximately 330 feet above sea level. The St. Johns River flows through the northeastern portion of the City. The river, as well as smaller streams and canals, form alluvial fans.

The San Joaquin Valley represents the southern portion of the Great Central Valley of California.

The San Joaquin Valley is a structural trough up to 200 miles long and 70 miles wide. It is filled with up to 32,000 feet of marine and continental sediments deposited during periodic inundation by the Pacific Ocean and by erosion of the surrounding mountains, respectively. Continental deposits shed from the surrounding mountains form an alluvial wedge that thickens from the valley margins toward the axis of the structural trough. This depositional axis is below to slightly west of the series of rivers, lakes, sloughs, and marshes, which mark the current and historic axis of surface drainage in the San Joaquin Valley.

Sediments comprising the Tulare Lake subbasin include younger and older alluvium, flood-basin deposits, lacustrine and marsh deposits and continental deposits. Younger alluvium consists of a heterogeneous complex of interstratified discontinuous beds of unsorted to fairly well sorted clay, silt, sand, and gravel. This unit is very permeable but largely above the water table. Older alluvium consists of poorly sorted lenticular deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, which may be loosely consolidated to cemented. Older alluvium is moderately to highly permeable and yields large quantities of water to wells. The unit is a major aquifer in the subbasin. Flood basin deposits are relatively impermeable silt and clay with some moderately to poorly permeable sand layers. This unit is not an important source of ground water, but locally, may yield sufficient supplies for domestic and stock use. Lacustrine and marsh deposits are reduced deposits of silt, clay, and fine sand. In the subsurface, lacustrine clay interfingers as tongues with continental and alluvial deposits. The lacustrine and marsh deposits include the Corcoran Clay which underlies the subbasin at depths ranging between about 300 and 900 feet. Continental deposits consist of 1031
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-2 poorly sorted lenticular deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These deposits are moderately to poorly permeable and yield low to large quantities of water to wells. Land subsidence of one to four feet due to deep compaction of fine-grained units has occurred in the subbasin. (California's Groundwater Bulletin 118, 2006).1
Topography
The Project site is located in northern Visalia, to the northeast of the West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Road intersection. The immediate area is primarily agriculture with residential to the south, and the Ridgeview Middle School to the southeast. The 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.2
Soils
A Custom Soil Resource Report was prepared for the Project (Appendix F). According to that Report, the soil on the Project site consists primarily of Akers-Akers and Grangeville sandy loam soils. Akers-Akers soils consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granite rock. The soil is well drained and is suitable for various crop productions, cattle/dairy production and building site development.3 Grangeville sandy loam soils consist of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite rock sources. This type of soil is typically used for a variety of crops as well as for urban development.4
Faults
The City of Visalia is in a seismically stable region of the State. While the southern San Joaquin Valley contains some small faults, the closest of these are 30 miles away, and none are known to be active. In comparison to many regions in California, Visalia exhibits relatively little tectonic activity. The major fault systems in the area include the San Andreas Fault, located 75 miles away 1 Carleton Acres Phase I ESA (June 2021), Appendix G, page 14. 2 Ibid, page 13.
3 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AKERS.html (accessed Sept. 2021). 4 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GRANGEVILLE.html (accessed Sept. 2021). 1032
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-3 from Visalia, and the Owens Valley Fault Group, located east of the Sierras and more than 125 miles away from the City.5
Asbestos
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material once commonly used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before the EPA banned such uses in the 1970s. Asbestos can also be atmospherically deposited from vehicle brake shoes. Naturally occurring asbestos can be found in serpentinite or other metamorphosed ultramafic rocks such as dunite, peridotite, and pyroxenite. According to large scale mapping of ultramafic rocks in California, no known ultramafic rocks outcrops are present in the City of Visalia.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act was enacted in 1997 to “reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program.” To accomplish this, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). This program was significantly amended in November 1990 by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act (NEHRPA), which refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives.

NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improvement of building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improvement of mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results.

The NEHRPA designates FEMA as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. 5 Visalia General Plan EIR (2014), page 3.7-4.
1033
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-4 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The primary legislation pertaining to fossils from National Park Service (NPS) and other federal lands is the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470aaa 1-11) which was enacted on March 30, 2009 within the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

PRPA directs the Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service) and the Department of the Interior (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife Service) to manage and protect paleontological resources on Federal land using scientific principles and expertise.

State Regulations
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
“Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the State Geologist is responsible for identifying and mapping seismic hazards zones as part of the California Geologic Survey (CGS). The CGS provides zoning maps of non-surface rupture earthquake hazards (including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides) to local governments for planning purposes. These maps are intended to protect the public from the risks associated with strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides or other ground failure, and other hazards caused by earthquakes. For projects within seismic hazard zones, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires developers to conduct geological investigations and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures into project designs before building permits are issued.”
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of a project on unique paleontological resources. CEQA requires an assessment of impacts associated with the direct or indirect destruction of unique paleontological resources or sites that are of value to the region or the state.

California Building Code
“The California Building Code” is another name for the body of regulations known as the California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.), Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. 1034
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-5 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone Act), signed into law December 1972, requires the delineation of zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazards associated with fault rupture and to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across these traces.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia Building Code
The City of Visalia adopted the California Building Code as the City’s building code and ordinance (Title 15: Buildings and Construction). The Subdivision Ordinance requires that a preliminary soils report be provided as part of the application for a tentative subdivision map, unless the city engineer determines that no preliminary analysis is necessary (Title 16:

Subdivisions).

General Plan Seismic Safety Element
The existing Visalia General Plan incorporates the Seismic Safety Element completed in 1974 by the Five-County Seismic Safety Committee, with participation from the Tulare Council of Governments. The Safety Element determines that ground shaking is the main potential hazard in the southern Central Valley, and the risk of ground shaking in the Visalia area is low. The Element includes a number of policies, calling for the creation of a public relations and education program to build awareness; development of an Earthquake Disaster Plan; consideration of seismic hazards in the environmental impact assessment process; and adoption and enforcement of the Uniform Building Code, among others.

Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural or man-made hazards. Visalia participates in the preparation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) which covers Tulare County and eleven participating cities. The plan has been designed to meet four goals; (1) significantly reduce life loss and injuries, (2) minimize damage to structures and property, as well as disruption of essential services and human activities, (3) protect the environment, and (4) promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy. 1035
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-6 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. o Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides?
o Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? o Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
o Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? o Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? o Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.7-1: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
1036
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-7 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. This impact analysis evaluates the proposed Project’s potential to expose persons or structures to seismic hazards (fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and landsliding). Each of these hazards and their potential environmental impacts are discussed below.

Fault Rupture
The City of Visalia is in a seismically stable region of the State. While the southern San Joaquin Valley contains some small faults, the closest of these are 30 miles away, and none are known to be active. In comparison to many regions in California, Visalia exhibits relatively little tectonic activity. The major fault systems in the area include the San Andreas Fault, located 75 miles away from Visalia, and the Owens Valley Fault Group, located east of the Sierras and more than 125 miles away from the City.6 Because there are no faults in the Project area, there is limited risk of ground rupture.

Strong Ground Shaking
As described above, there is not a significant risk of significant ground shaking due to seismic activity. Although the City of Visalia is located in an area of low seismic activity, the regional faults have the potential to produce high-magnitude earthquakes throughout the area. The City of Visalia is located on alluvial deposits, which tend to experience greater ground shaking intensities than areas located on hard rock. However, the distance to the faults that are the expected sources of the shaking would be sufficiently great that the effects should be minimal.

To ensure that impacts remain less than significant, the City of Visalia, as well as Project’s Specific Plan,requires the applicant to prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical study that complies with all applicable seismic design standards of the California Building Standards Code. The design-level 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 6 Visalia General Plan EIR (2014), page 3.7-4.
1037
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-8 through monitoring of earthwork and compaction testing by a geotechnical engineer during construction. Seismic design standards account for peak ground acceleration, soil profile, and other site conditions and they establish corresponding design standards intended to protect public safety and minimize property damage. This geotechnical study would ensure potential ground shaking impacts remain less than significant.

Seismic Related Ground Failure (including Liquefaction) Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. In order for liquefaction to occur, three criteria must be met: “low density”, coarse-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of less than about 50 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large-magnitude earthquake. Since the depth to groundwater in the Project area is estimated to be approximately 110 feet bgs7, there is a negligible risk of liquefaction occurring at the Project site during a design level seismic event. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.

Landsliding
There are no substantial slopes on or near the Project site. Therefore, the opportunity for slope failure in response to the long-term geologic cycle of uplift, mass wasting, and difference of slopes is unlikely. Compliance with all applicable seismic design standards of the California Building Standards Code would ensure that design features would not present a hazard involving landslides. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
7 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels (accessed Sept. 2021). 1038
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-9 Impact 3.7-2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Soils on the Project site consists primarily of AkersAkers and Grangeville sandy loam soils. Akers-Akers soils consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granite rock. The soil is well drained and is suitable for various crop productions, cattle/dairy production and building site development.8 Grangeville sandy loam soils consist of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite rock sources. This type of soil is typically used for a variety of crops as well as for urban development.9 Construction activities associated with the Project involves ground preparation work for the proposed development of the site. These activities could expose barren soils to sources of wind or water, resulting in the potential for erosion and sedimentation on and off the Project site.

Grading of the Project site would be minimized and would follow the existing topography of the Project site to the greatest extent feasible to limit potential erosion and maintain existing drainage patterns. The temporary and permanent site roadways would be graded and compacted prior to road construction. Any existing vegetation would be scarified and grubbed for the development of temporary and permanent access roads, and the soil surface would be smoothed, moisture conditioned, and compacted with a crown in the center and swale on the side to prepare the roadway surface. Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, development of access roads, and disturbance of soils during construction activities would result in the disturbance of an area greater than 1 acre and would temporarily increase erosion, runoff, and sedimentation.

Construction activities would also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils at the construction sites and staging areas.

During grading, erosion prevention measures would be implemented, including the separation of topsoil, whereby topsoil is separated and stockpiled separately from subsoil and stabilized to prevent erosion. When Project construction is complete, stripped subsoil and topsoil would be replaced as required. Other erosion and sediment control measures would include watering for dust control and soil compaction during grading and throughout construction activities.

The Applicant and/or contractor would be required to employ appropriate sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 8 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AKERS.html (accessed Sept. 2021). 9 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GRANGEVILLE.html (accessed Sept. 2021). 1039
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-10 (SWPPP) that would be required and submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized through implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) fugitive dust control measures (See Section 3.3 – Air Quality). Once construction is complete, the Project would not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Mitigation Measure GEO – 1 (requirement to prepare a SWPPP) will ensure that impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

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-ofway of designated access roads; iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
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. 1040
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-11 Impact 3.7-3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. As previously discussed herein, the proposed Project would not be located within an area identified as a landslide hazard area. The proposed Project is located on relatively flat agricultural fields, and the threat of a landslide occurring on or adjacent to the project site is considered low. Therefore, potential impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be located on soils that exhibit low to moderate potential for liquefaction during an earthquake, and the potential for lateral spreading to occur is considered low. A design-level geotechnical analysis will be required as identified in Mitigation Measure GEO – 2. The site would be designed in accordance with engineering design standards and structural improvement requirements to withstand the effects of soil settlement and collapsible soils. Engineered compacted fill would likely be used during construction in accordance with building code requirements, which would reduce the potential for lateral spreading of soils from Project construction. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO – 2, and structural/foundation design in accordance with the City of Visalia and current California Building Code standards, ground shaking impacts on the proposed Project area would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation 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 design-level 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.
1041
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-12 Impact 3.7-4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously described, the soils present on the Project site have low to moderate potential for expansion. As discussed under Impact 3.7-3 above, the proposed Project would be designed in accordance with all applicable building code requirements and structural improvement requirements, which would also address expansive soil hazards.

Engineered compacted fill would likely be used during construction in accordance with building code requirements, which would reduce the potential for impacts from expansive soil on Project development. Therefore, with foundation and structural design in accordance with the City of Visalia and current California Building Code standards, impacts from expansive soil on the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Impact 3.7-5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed Project will connect to the City’s wastewater/sewer system (Please refer to Section 3.19 – Utilities for the discussion pertaining to Project-related wastewater and connection to the City’s sewer system). The Project does not include the construction, replacement, or disturbance of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Impact 3.7-6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Paleontological resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. A review of the cultural and historical resources was provided in Section 3.5 and 3.17, Cultural Resources and 1042
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-13 Tribal Resources, respectively. There are currently no unique geologic features located in the Project Area.

While the discovery of paleontological resources within the Project footprint is considered unlikely, Project buildout would adhere to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 which requires all earth-disturbing work to be temporarily suspended or redirected until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the records, in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines. In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be implemented in the case of any inadvertent discoveries. With adherence to these regulatory requirements and measures, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure
CUL-1, as described in Section 3.5.

Cumulative Impacts
Would the project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to geology, soils, seismicity, or paleontological resources? Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to geology and soils is generally site-specific rather than cumulative in nature because each project site has different geological considerations that would be subject to review. Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the Visalia or Tulare County General Plan may result in individual project risks associated with geology and soils. For example, there will always be a chance that a fault located anywhere in the state (or region) could rupture and cause seismic ground shaking.

Additionally, grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.

While some cumulative impacts may occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the City’s General Plan goals, objectives and policies, as well as State and federal regulations, will reduce the risk to people in the region. Considering the protection granted by local, state, and federal agencies and their requirements for the seismic design, as discussed above, the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to geological or soils resources.
1043
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-1

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section discusses regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed Project. The information and analysis presented in this section are based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Reports (AQGGA) prepared for this Project by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. The full AQGGA can be reviewed in Appendix C. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to this topic.

Environmental Setting
Climate Change
Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages.

Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance, specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C.

Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios.1 The report also concluded that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Consequences of Climate Change in California
In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following2:
1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 45.
2 Ibid.
1044
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-2 • Reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies.

It can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower. • Increased risk of large wildfires. If rain increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant “fuel” available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. • Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range.

This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
• A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences.

During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches.

If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century.

Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
• An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness.
• A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of nonnative species. 1045
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-3 Consequences of Climate Change in the Visalia Area
Figure 3.8-1 displays a chart of measured historical and projected annual average maximum temperatures in the Project area. As shown in the figure, temperatures are expected to rise in the low and high GHG emissions scenarios. The results indicate that temperatures by the end of the century are predicted to increase by 5.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) under the low emission scenario and 8.6°F under the high emissions scenario.3
Figure 3.8-1
Observed and Projected Temperatures for Climate Change in the Project Area4 Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, CO2, methane, NOX, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and 3 Ibid. Page 48.
4 Ibid, Page 47.
1046
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-4 aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. It is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.

Climate change is driven by forcings and feedbacks. Radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming energy and outgoing energy in the climate system. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. Radiative forcing values are typically expressed in watts per square meter. A feedback is a climate process that can strengthen or weaken a forcing. For example, when ice or snow melts, it reveals darker land underneath which absorbs more radiation and causes more warming. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The global warming potential of a gas is essentially a measurement of the radiative forcing of a GHG compared with the reference gas, CO2.

Individual GHG compounds have varying global warming potential and atmospheric lifetimes. CO2, the reference gas for global warming potential, has a global warming potential of one. The global warming potential of a GHG is a measure of how much a given mass of a GHG is estimated to contribute to global warming. To describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the carbon dioxide equivalent is used. The calculation of the carbon dioxide equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent reference gas, CO2. For example, CH4’s warming potential of 25 indicates that CH4 has 25 times greater warming effect than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. A carbon dioxide equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its global warming potential.

GHGs defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (see the Climate Change Regulatory Environment section for a description) include CO2, CH4, NOX, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. They are described in Table 3.8-1. A seventh GHG, nitrogen trifluoride, was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. The global warming potential amounts are from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The AR4 GWP amounts, incorporated into the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, are used in this analysis. Although the newer IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) includes new global warming potential amounts, ARB continues to use AR4 rates for inventory purposes, including the 2018 inventory released on October 19, 2020, to ensure consistency with past inventories. Until such time as ARB updates its Scoping Plan inventories to utilize AR5 GWPs, it is appropriate to continue using AR4 GWPs for CEQA analyses, which are based on Scoping Plan consistency.
1047
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-5 Table 3.8-1
Description of Greenhouse Gases5
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical
Properties Sources
Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) is a
colorless GHG. It has a lifetime
of 114 years. Its global warming
potential is 298.

Microbial processes in soil and
water, fuel combustion, and
industrial processes.

Methane
Methane is a flammable gas
and is the main component of
natural gas. It has a lifetime of
12 years. Its global warming
potential is 25.

Methane is extracted from
geological deposits (natural gas
fields). Other sources are landfills,
fermentation of manure, and
decay of organic matter.

Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an
odorless, colorless, natural GHG.

Carbon dioxide’s global
warming potential is 1. The
concentration in 2005 was 379
parts per million (ppm), which is
an increase of about 1.4 ppm
per year since 1960.

Natural sources include
decomposition of dead organic
matter; respiration of bacteria,
plants, animals, and fungus;
evaporation from oceans; and
volcanic outgassing.

Anthropogenic sources are from
burning coal, oil, natural gas,
and wood.

Chlorofluorocarbons
These are gases formed
synthetically by replacing all
hydrogen atoms in methane or
ethane with chlorine and/or
fluorine atoms. They are
nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble, and chemically
unreactive in the troposphere
(the level of air at the earth’s
surface). Global warming
potentials range from 124 to
14,800.

Chlorofluorocarbons were
synthesized in 1928 for use as
refrigerants, aerosol propellants,
and cleaning solvents. They
destroy stratospheric ozone. The
Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer
prohibited their production in
1987.

Perfluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbons have stable
molecular structures and only
break down by ultraviolet rays
about 60 kilometers above
Earth’s surface. Because of this,
they have long lifetimes,
between 10,000 and 50,000
years. Global warming
potentials range from7,390 to
12,200.

Two main sources of
perfluorocarbons are primary
aluminum production and
semiconductor manufacturing.

Sulfur hexafluoride
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an
inorganic, odorless, colorless,
and nontoxic, nonflammable
gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200
This gas is man-made and used
for insulation in electric power
transmission equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in
5 Ibid, Page 49.
1048
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-6 Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical
Properties Sources
years. It has a high global
warming potential of 22,800.
semiconductor manufacturing,
and as a tracer gas.

Nitrogen trifluoride
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was
added to Health and Safety
Code section 38505(g)(7) as a
GHG of concern. It has a high
global warming potential of
17,200.

This gas is used in electronics
manufacture for semiconductors
and liquid crystal displays.

The State has begun the process of addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants.

Senate Bill (SB) 605, approved by the governor on September 14, 2014, required the ARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants by January 1, 2016.

ARB was required to complete an emission inventory of these pollutants, identify research needs, identify existing and potential new control measures that offer co-benefits, and coordinate with other state agencies and districts to develop measures. The Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy was approved by the ARB in March 2017. The strategy calls for reductions of 50 percent from black carbon, 40 percent from methane, and 40 percent from HFCs from the 2030 Business as Usual (BAU) inventory for these pollutants.6
The short-lived climate pollutants include three main components: black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane. Fluorinated gases and methane are described in Table 3.8-1 and are already included in the California GHG inventory. Black carbon has not been included in past GHG inventories; however, ARB will include it in its comprehensive strategy.7 Ozone is another short-lived climate pollutant that will be part of the strategy. Ozone affects evaporation rates, cloud formation, and precipitation levels. Ozone is not directly emitted, so its precursor emissions—VOC and NOX on a regional scale and CH4 on a hemispheric scale—will be subject of the strategy.8
Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter. Black carbon is formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. Sources of black carbon within a jurisdiction may include exhaust from diesel trucks, vehicles, and equipment, as well as smoke from biogenic combustion. Biogenic combustion sources of black carbon include the burning of biofuels used for transportation, the burning of biomass for electricity generation and heating, prescribed burning of 6 Ibid, Page 50.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
1049
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-7 agricultural residue, and natural and unnatural wildfires. Black carbon is not a gas but an aerosol— particles or liquid droplets suspended in air. Black carbon only remains in the atmosphere for days to weeks, whereas other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for years. Black carbon can be deposited on snow, where it absorbs sunlight, reduces sunlight reflectivity, and hastens snowmelt. Direct effects include absorbing incoming and outgoing radiation; indirectly, black carbon can also affect cloud reflectivity, precipitation, and surface dimming (cooling).

Global warming potentials for black carbon were not defined by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report. The ARB has identified a global warming potential of 3,200 using a 20-year time horizon and 900 using a 100-year time horizon from the IPCC Fifth Assessment. Sources of black carbon are already regulated by ARB, and air district criteria pollutant and toxic regulations that control fine particulate emissions from diesel engines and other combustion sources. Additional controls on the sources of black carbon specifically for their GHG impacts beyond those required for toxic and fine particulates are not likely to be needed.

Water vapor is also considered a GHG. Water vapor is an important component of our climate system and is not regulated. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased CO2 allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.9 Emissions Inventories
An emissions inventory is a database that lists, by source, the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere of a geographic area during a given time period. Emissions worldwide were approximately 43,286 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2012. As shown in Figure 3.8-2, China was the largest GHG emitter with over 10 billion metric tons of CO2e, and the United States was the second largest GHG emitter with over 6 billion metric tons of CO2e.10 9 Ibid, Page 51.
10 Ibid.
1050
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-8 Figure 3.8-2
Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends11
Figure 3.8-3 presents 2019 United States GHG emissions by economic sector. Emissions decreased from 2018 to 2019 by approximately 1.7 percent. This decrease was driven largely by a decrease in emissions from fossil fuel combustion resulting from a decrease in total energy use in 2019 compared to 2018 and a continued shift from coal to natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector.

Total U.S. emissions have increased by 1.8 percent from 1990 to 2019 (from 6,437 MMT CO2e in 1990 to 6,558 MMT CO2e in 2019).
12 11 Ibid.
12 Ibid, page 51.
1051
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-9 Figure 3.8-3
2019 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector13 Figure 3.8-3 shows the contributors of GHG emissions in California between years 2000 and 2019 by Scoping Plan category. The main contributor was transportation. The second highest sector in 2019 was industrial, which includes sources from refineries, general fuel use, oil and gas extraction, cement plants, and cogeneration heat output. Emissions from the electricity sector account for 14 percent of the inventory and have shown a substantial decrease in 2019 due to increases in renewables. ARB reported that California’s GHG emissions inventory was 418.2 MMTCO2e in 2019. 13 Ibid, Page 52.
1052
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-10 Figure 3.8-4
Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Scoping Plan Category in California14 Regulatory Setting
International Regulations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was tasked with assessing the scientific, 14 Ibid, Page 53.
1053
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-11 technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Convention) On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the Convention. Under the Convention, governments gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions at average of five percent against 1990 levels over the five-year period from 2008–2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
Paris Agreement
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a landmark agreement on December 12, 2015 in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the twodecade-old global climate effort. Culminating in a four-year negotiating round, the new treaty ends the strict differentiation between developed and developing countries that characterized earlier efforts, replacing it with a common framework that commits all countries to put forward their best efforts and to strengthen those efforts in the years ahead. This includes, for the first time, requirements that all parties report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts and undergo international review.

The agreement and a companion decision by parties were the key outcomes of the conference, known as the 21st session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, or COP 21. Together, the Paris Agreement and the accompanying COP decision:
• Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees;
1054
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-12 • Establish binding commitments by all parties to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them; • Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs, and to undergo international review; • Commit all countries to submit new NDCs every five years, with the clear expectation that they will “represent a progression” beyond previous ones; • Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too;
• Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025; • Extend a mechanism to address “loss and damage” resulting from climate change, which explicitly will not “involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;” • Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid “double counting;” and • Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country’s NDC.15
Between June 1, 2017 and January 20, 2021, the United States had temporarily withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Federal Regulations
Prior to the last decade, there were no concrete federal regulations of GHGs or major planning for climate change adaptation. Since then, federal activity has increased. The following are actions regarding the federal government, GHGs, and fuel efficiency.

Greenhouse Gas Endangerment
Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate four GHGs, including CO2, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether 15 Ibid, Page 55.
1055
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-13 emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed in the section “Clean Vehicles” below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the United States Supreme Court declined to review an Appeals Court ruling upholding the EPA Administrator findings.16 Clean Vehicles
Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.

The first phase of the national program applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and mediumduty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon; that is, if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut CO2 emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012–2016). The EPA and the National Highway Safety Administration issued final rules on a second-phase joint rulemaking, establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for 16 Ibid, Page 56.
1056
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-14 model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012 (EPA 2012b). The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.

The EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, which became effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that began in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20- percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10-percent reduction for gasoline vehicles, and a 15-percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10-percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years.

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010. The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the United States, and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA.

New Source Review
The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010 that establishes thresholds for GHGs, which will define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these Clean Air Act permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to the revisions to the federal code of regulations, the EPA states:
1057
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-15 This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the Clean Air Act, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to greenhouse gas sources, starting with the largest greenhouse gas emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phase-in. The rule also commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps addressing smaller sources, but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting for greenhouse gas emissions until at least April 30, 2016.

The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.

As required by a settlement agreement, the EPA proposed new performance standards for emissions of carbon dioxide for new, affected, fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units on March 27, 2012.

New sources greater than 25 megawatts would be required to meet an output based standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle technology. President Trump signed the Executive Order on Energy Independence (E.O. 13783), which calls for a review of the Clean Power Plan. On October 16, 2017, the EPA issued the proposed rule Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources:

Electric Utility Generating Units an Energy Independence.

Cap-and-Trade
Cap-and-Trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded, or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. There is no federal GHG Cap-andTrade program currently; however, some states have joined to create initiatives to provide a mechanism for Cap-and-Trade.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is an effort to reduce GHGs among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Each state caps carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, auctions carbon dioxide emission allowances, and invests the proceeds in strategic energy programs that further reduce 1058
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-16 emissions, save consumers money, create jobs, and build a clean energy economy. The Initiative began in 2008.

The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners are California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Currently, only California and Quebec are participating in the Cap-and-Trade program.17
State of California Regulations
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions.

This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.

AB 32. The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “Greenhouse gases” as defined under AB 32 include CO2, methane, NOX, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs. The ARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following:

Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.

The ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMTCO2e on December 6, 2007. Therefore, to meet the State’s target, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a BAU scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, which 17 Ibid, Page 58.
1059
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-17 do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (ARB 2008a). At that rate, a 28 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, ARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the effects of the 2008 recession and slower forecasted growth.

The 2020 inventory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 MMTCO2e.

Therefore, under the updated forecast, a 21.7 percent reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels.

Calculation of the original 1990 limit approved in 2007 was revised in 2014 using the scientifically updated IPCC AR4 global warming potential values, to 431 MMTCO2e. ARB approved 431 MMTCO2e as the 2020 emission limit with the approval of the First Update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014.18
ARB 2008 Scoping Plan. The ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 to comply with AB 32. The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG target include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
18 Ibid, Page 59.
1060
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-18 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program is a key element of the Scoping Plan. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. The program conducted its first auction in November 2012. Compliance obligations began for power plants and large industrial sources in January 2013. Other significant milestones include linkage to Quebec’s Cap-and-Trade system in January 2014 and starting the compliance obligation for distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels in January 2015.
19 The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, ensuring that the 2020 statewide emission limit will not be exceeded. An inherent feature of the Cap-and-Trade Program is that it does not guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions reductions are guaranteed only on an accumulative basis. As summarized by ARB in the First Update:

The Cap-and-Trade Regulation gives companies the flexibility to trade allowances with others or take steps to cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own facilities. Companies that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance instruments. Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turn in fewer allowances. But as the cap declines, aggregate emissions must be reduced. In other words, a covered entity theoretically could increase its GHG emissions every year and still comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program if there is a reduction in GHG emissions from other covered entities. Such a focus on aggregate GHG emissions is considered appropriate because climate change is a global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative. 20 The Cap-and-Trade Program works with other direct regulatory measures and provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions more than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively fewer emissions reductions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions less than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively more emissions reductions. Thus, the Cap-and-Trade Program assures that California will meet its 2020 GHG emissions reduction mandate:
19 Ibid, Page 60.
20 Ibid.
1061
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-19 The Cap-and-Trade Program establishes an overall limit on GHG emissions from most of the California economy—the “capped sectors.” Within the capped sectors, some of the reductions are being accomplished through direct regulations, such as improved building and appliance efficiency standards, the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] LCFS, and the 33 percent [Renewables Portfolio Standard] RPS. Whatever additional reductions are needed to bring emissions within the cap is accomplished through price incentives posed by emissions allowance prices.

Together, direct regulation and price incentives assure that emissions are brought down costeffectively to the level of the overall cap. The Cap-and-Trade Regulation provides assurance that California’s 2020 limit will be met because the regulation sets a firm limit on 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions. In sum, the Cap-and-Trade Program will achieve aggregate, rather than site specific or project-level, GHG emissions reductions. Also, due to the regulatory architecture adopted by ARB in AB 32, the reductions attributed to the Cap-andTrade Program can change over time depending on the State’s emissions forecasts and the effectiveness of direct regulatory measures.
21 AB 398. The Governor signed AB 398 on July 25, 2017 to extend the Cap-and-Trade Program to 2030.

The legislation includes provisions to ensure that offsets used by sources are limited to 4 percent of their compliance obligation from 2021 through 2025 and 6 percent from 2026 through 2030. AB 398 also prevents Air Districts from adopting or implementing emission reduction rules from stationary sources that are also subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program. 22 SB 32 and 2017 Scoping Plan. The Governor signed SB 32 on September 8, 2016. SB 32 gives ARB the statutory responsibility to include the 2030 target previously contained in Executive Order B-30-15 in the next Scoping Plan update. SB 32 states that “In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state [air resources] board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017. The major elements of the framework proposed to achieve the 2030 target are as follows:

1. SB 350
• Achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030. 21 Ibid, Page 61.
22 Ibid, Page 60.
1062
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-20 • Doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.

2. Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
• Increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020).

3. Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) • Maintaining existing GHG standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles. • Put 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the roads. • Increase ZEV buses, delivery and other trucks.

4. Sustainable Freight Action Plan
• Improve freight system efficiency.
• Maximize use of near-zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy.
• Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.

5. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy • Reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.
• Reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.

6. SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
• Increased stringency of 2035 targets.

7. Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program
• Declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada. • ARB will look for opportunities to strengthen the program to support more air quality cobenefits, including specific program design elements. In Fall 2016, ARB staff described potential future amendments including reducing the offset usage limit, redesigning the allocation strategy to reduce free allocation to support increased technology and energy investment at covered entities and reducing allocation if the covered entity increases criteria or toxics emissions over some baseline.

8. 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the refinery sector. 1063
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-21

9. By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
2022 Scoping Plan and AB 1279. ARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan on December 16, 2022 that addresses long-term GHG goals set forth by AB 1279.23 The 2022 Scoping Plan outlines the State’s pathway to achieve carbon neutrality and an 85 percent reduction in 1990 emissions goal by 2045. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, ARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.

The key elements of ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan focus on the transportation sector, where reductions are primarily influenced by regulations at the state level. Under the 2022 Scoping Plan, the State will lead efforts to meet the 2045 carbon neutrality goal through implementation of the following objectives:24
• Reimagine roadway projects that increase VMT in a way that meets community needs and reduces the need to drive.
• Double local transit capacity and service frequencies by 2030. • Complete the High-Speed Rail (HSR) System and other elements of the intercity rail network by 2040.
• Double local transit capacity and service frequencies by 2030. • Complete the High-Speed Rail (HSR) System and other elements of the intercity rail network by 2040.
• Expand and complete planned networks of high-quality active transportation infrastructure.
• Increase availability and affordability of bikes, e-bikes, scooters, and other alternatives to light-duty vehicles, prioritizing needs of underserved communities. • Shift revenue generation for transportation projects away from the gas tax into more durable sources by 2030.
23 The Final 2022 Scoping Plan was released on November 16, 2022 and adopted by ARB on December 16, 2022. 24 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2022-scoping-plan-documents. November 16. Accessed January 11, 2023. 1064
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-22 • Authorize and implement roadway pricing strategies and reallocate revenues to equitably improve transit, bicycling, and other sustainable transportation choices. • Prioritize addressing key transit bottlenecks and other infrastructure investments to improve transit operational efficiency over investments that increase VMT. • Develop and implement a statewide transportation demand management (TDM) framework with VMT mitigation requirements for large employers and large developments.
• Prevent uncontrolled growth of autonomous vehicle (AV) VMT, particularly zeropassenger miles. • Channel new mobility services towards pooled use models, transit complementarity, and lower VMT outcomes.
• Establish an integrated statewide system for trip planning, booking, payment, and user accounts that enables efficient and equitable multimodal systems. • Provide financial support for low-income and disadvantaged Californians’ use of transit and new mobility services.
• Expand universal design features for new mobility services. • Accelerate infill development in existing transportation-efficient places and deploy strategic resources to create more transportation-efficient locations. • Encourage alignment in land use, housing, transportation, and conservation planning in adopted regional plans (RTP/SCS and RHNA) and local plans (e.g., general plans, zoning, and local transportation plans).
• Accelerate production of affordable housing in forms and locations that reduce VMT and affirmatively further fair housing policy objectives.
• Reduce or eliminate parking requirements (and/or enact parking maximums, as appropriate) and promote redevelopment of excess parking, especially in infill locations. • Preserve and protect existing affordable housing stock and protect existing residents and businesses from displacement and climate risk.

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting 1065
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-23 the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, ARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on residential and mixed-use projects. Specifically, ARB states:
“The recommendations outlined in this section apply only to residential and mixed-use development project types. California currently faces both a housing crisis and a climate crisis, which necessitates prioritizing recommendations for residential projects to address the housing crisis in a manner that simultaneously supports the State’s GHG and regional air quality goals. CARB plans to continue to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.” (Page 21 of Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan) Considering the information summarized above, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed-use residential development.

SB 375—The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. SB 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards. California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required the ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011.

The standards are to be phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in an approximately 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in about a 30 percent reduction.

Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. 1066
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-24 These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation, rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multi-speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant. 25 The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will reduce pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The regulations will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California.

SB 1368—Emission Performance Standards. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted SB 1368, which was subsequently signed into law by the governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant.

Because of the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal-fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants. Accordingly, the new law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, of 1,100 lbs CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh).

SB 1078—Renewable Electricity Standards. On September 12, 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1078, requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with 25 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, Page 64.
1067
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-25 renewable energy by 2020. Governor Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB (Executive Order S-21- 09) to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. The ARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23. In 2011, the state legislature adopted this higher standard in SB X1-2. Renewable sources of electricity subject to the legislation include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas.

SB 350—Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. The legislature recently approved and the governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include: an increase in the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Provisions for a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum statewide were removed from the Bill because of opposition and concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and local publicly owned utilities.
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States. 26 SBX 7-7—The Water Conservation Act of 2009. The legislation directs urban retail water suppliers to set individual 2020 per capita water use targets and begin implementing conservation measures to achieve those goals. Meeting this statewide goal of 20 percent decrease in demand will result in a reduction of almost 2 million acre-feet in urban water use in 2020. Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the Project all require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions.

SB 100 California Renewable Portfolio Standard (2018). The goal of the program is to achieve that 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. The bill approved by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018 would require that 26 Ibid, Page 66.
1068
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-26 retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt-hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.

Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of state agencies.

Executive Order S-3-05. On June 1, 2005, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels. • By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. • By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order B-30-15. On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s executive order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The executive order sets a new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and directs the ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMCO2e. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. As with Executive Order S-3- 05, this executive order is not legally enforceable against local governments and the private sector.

Legislation that would update AB 32 to make post 2020 targets and requirements a mandate is in process in the State Legislature.

Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The governor signed Executive Order S 01- 07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for 1069
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-27 Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, the ARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. This analysis supporting development of the protocols was included in the State Implementation Plan for alternative fuels (State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007) and was submitted to ARB for consideration as an “early action” item under AB 32. The ARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard on April 23, 2009.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard was subject to legal challenge in 2011. Ultimately, ARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation to the Board for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low-carbon fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement. The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the regulation on November 16, 2015. The regulation was amended in 2018 to strengthen and smooth carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030, in-line with GHG reduction target enacted through SB 32. 27 Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “. . . first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Orders B-55-18 Carbon Neutrality by 2045 (2018). This Executive Order signed on September 10, 2018 sets a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The executive order directs ARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal. This goal is in addition to the statewide targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
27 Ibid, Page 67.
1070
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-28 California Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601–1608: Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the State and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment.

Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code, effective January 1, 2023.

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 code) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect January 1, 2011. The code is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent update consisting of the 2016 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2017. Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The Code recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided the ordinances include a minimum 50-percent diversion requirement. The code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official. 1071
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-29 The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 code) requires:
• Short-term bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for five percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1).
• Long-term bicycle parking. For buildings with over 10 tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for five percent of tenant-occupied motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space (5.106.4.1.2).
• Designated parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2).
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling. (5.410.1).
• Construction waste. A minimum 50-percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and 80 percent for new homes and 80-percent for commercial projects. (5.408.1, A5.408.3.1 [nonresidential], A5.408.3.1 [residential]). All (100 percent) of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled (5.408.3).
• Wastewater reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by one of the following methods:
o The installation of water-conserving fixtures or
o Using nonpotable water systems (5.303.4).
• Water use savings. Twenty percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35, and 40 percent reductions (5.303.2, A5303.2.3 [nonresidential]). • Water meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (5.303.1). • Irrigation efficiency. Moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas (5.304.3).
• Materials pollution control. Low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particleboard (5.404).
• Building commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to 1072
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-30 ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies (5.410.2).

Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance) was required by AB 1881 Water Conservation Act. The bill required local agencies to adopt a local landscape ordinance at least as effective in conserving water as the Model Ordinance by January 1, 2010. Reductions in water use of 20 percent consistent with (SBX-7-7) 2020 mandate are expected for the ordinance. Governor Brown’s Drought Executive Order of April 1, 2015 (EO B-29- 15) directed DWR to update the ordinance through expedited regulation. The California Water Commission approved the revised ordinance on July 15, 2015, which became effective on December 15, 2015. New development projects that include landscaped areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the ordinance. The update requires:
• More efficient irrigation systems
• Incentives for graywater usage
• Improvements in on-site stormwater capture
• Limiting the portion of landscapes that can be planted with high water use plants • Reporting requirements for local agencies.

CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction for lead agencies for assessing the significance of impacts of GHG emissions:
• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; or
• The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those 1073
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-31 goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

Section 15064.4(c) states that a lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.

Section 156437 of the CEQA Guidelines includes the following discussion regarding thresholds of significance.
(d) Using environmental standards as thresholds of significance promotes consistency in significance determinations and integrates environmental review with other environmental program planning and regulation. Any public agency may adopt or use an environmental standard as a threshold of significance. In adopting or using an environmental standard as a threshold of significance, a public agency shall explain how the particular requirements of that environmental standard reduce project impacts, including cumulative impacts, to a level that is less than significant, and why the environmental standard is relevant to the analysis of the project under consideration. For the purposes of this subdivision, an “environmental standard” is a rule of general application that is adopted by a public agency through a public review process and that is all of the following:
(1) a quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in an ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, plan or other environmental requirement; (2) adopted for the purpose of environmental protection; (3) addresses the environmental effect caused by the project; and, (4) applies to the project under review.

CEQA emphasizes that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f)).

California Supreme Court GHG Ruling
In a November 30, 2015 ruling, the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) v.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on the Newhall Ranch project, concluded that 1074
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-32 whether the project was consistent with meeting statewide emission reduction goals is a legally permissible criterion of significance, but the significance finding for the project was not supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence. The Court offered potential solutions to address this issue summarized below.

Specifically, the Court advised that:
• Substantiation of Project Reductions from BAU. A lead agency may use a BAU comparison based on the Scoping Plan’s methodology if it also substantiates the reduction a particular project must achieve to comply with statewide goals. The Court suggested a lead agency could examine the “data behind the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual model” to determine the necessary project-level reductions from new land use development at the proposed location.
• Compliance with Regulatory Programs or Performance Based Standards. “A lead agency might assess consistency with A.B. 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from particular activities. (See Final Statement of Reasons, supra, at p. 64 [greenhouse gas emissions ‘may be best analyzed and mitigated at a programmatic level.’].) To the extent a project’s design features comply with or exceed the regulations outlined in the Scoping Plan and adopted by the Air Resources Board or other state agencies, a lead agency could appropriately rely on their use as showing compliance with ‘performance based standards’ adopted to fulfill ‘a statewide . . . plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.’ (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a)(2), (b)(3); see also id., § 15064(h)(3) [determination that impact is not cumulatively considerable may rest on compliance with previously adopted plans or regulations, including ‘plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions’].)” • Compliance with GHG Reduction Plans or Climate Action Plans (CAPs). A lead agency may utilize “geographically specific GHG emission reduction plans” such as climate action plans or greenhouse gas emission reduction plans to provide a basis for the tiering or streamlining of project-level CEQA analysis.
• Compliance with Local Air District Thresholds. A lead agency may rely on “existing numerical thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions” adopted by, for example, local air districts.
1075
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-33 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulations Climate Change Action Plan
On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD Governing Board approved a proposal called the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP began with a public process bringing together stakeholders, land use agencies, environmental groups, and business groups to conduct public workshops to develop comprehensive policies for CEQA guidelines, a carbon exchange bank, and voluntary GHG emissions mitigation agreements for the Board’s consideration. The CCAP contains the following goals and actions:
• Develop GHG significance thresholds to address CEQA projects with GHG emission increases.
• Develop the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange for banking and trading GHG reductions. • Authorize use of the SJVAPCD’s existing inventory reporting system to allow use for GHG reporting required by AB 32 regulations.
• Develop and administer GHG reduction agreements to mitigate proposed emission increases from new projects.
• Support climate protection measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as toxic and criteria pollutants. Oppose measures that result in a significant increase in toxic or criteria pollutant emissions in already impacted areas.

On December 17, 2009, the SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted “Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,” and the policy “District Policy—Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.” The SJVAPCD concluded that the existing science is inadequate to support quantification of the impacts that project-specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change. The SJVAPCD found the effects of project-specific emissions to be cumulative, and without mitigation, their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered cumulatively considerable. The SJVAPCD found that this cumulative impact is best addressed by requiring all projects to reduce their GHG emissions, whether through project design elements or mitigation.28 The SJVAPCD’s approach is intended to streamline the process of determining if project-specific GHG emissions would have a significant effect. Projects exempt from the requirements of CEQA, and projects complying with an approved plan or mitigation program, would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted 28 Ibid, Page 73.
1076
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-34 by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources, and must have a certified final CEQA document.

For non-exempt projects, those projects for which there is no applicable approved plan or program, or those projects not complying with an approved plan or program, the lead agency must evaluate the project against performance-based standards and would require the adoption of design elements, known as Best Performance Standards (BPS), to reduce GHG emissions. The BPS have not yet fully been established, though they must be designed to achieve a 29 percent reduction when compared with the BAU projections identified in ARB’s AB 32 2008 Scoping Plan.

The SJVAPCD has not yet adopted BPS for development projects, so quantification of Project emissions is required. The SJVAPCD has not updated its guidance to address SB 32 2030 targets.29 San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange
The SJVAPCD initiated work on the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange in November 2008. The purpose of the carbon exchange is to quantify, verify, and track voluntary GHG emissions reductions generated within the San Joaquin Valley. However, the SJVAPCD has pursued an alternative strategy that incorporates the GHG emissions into its existing Rule 2301—Emission Reduction Credit Offset Banking that formerly only addressed criteria pollutants. The SJVAPCD is also participating with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), of which it is a member, in the CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx). The GHG Rx is operated cooperatively by air districts that have elected to participate. Participating districts have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CAPCOA and agree to post only those credits that meet the Rx standards for quality. The objective is to provide a secure, low-cost, high-quality greenhouse gas exchange for credits created in California. The GHG Rx is intended to help fulfill compliance obligations or mitigation needs of local projects subject to environmental review, reducing the uncertainty of using credits generated in distant locations. The SJVAPCD currently has no credits posted to the GHG Rx as of this writing.
30 Rule 2301
While the Climate Change Action Plan indicated that the GHG emission reduction program would be called the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange, the District incorporated a method to register voluntary GHG emission reductions into its existing Rule 2301—Emission Reduction Credit Banking 29 Ibid, Page 73.
30 Ibid, Page 74.
1077
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-35 through amendments of the rule. Amendments to the rule were adopted on January 19, 2012. The purposes of the amendments to the rule include the following:
• Provide an administrative mechanism for sources to bank voluntary GHG emission reductions for later use.
• Provide an administrative mechanism for sources to transfer banked GHG emission reductions to others for any use.
• Define eligibility standards, quantitative procedures, and administrative practices to ensure that banked GHG emission reductions are real, permanent, quantifiable, surplus, and enforceable.

Local Regulations
Regional Transportation Plan
Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Tulare County and has responsibilities as Tulare County’s Council of Governments (COG), transportation authority, and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA).

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a long-range plan that every MPO is required to complete.

The plan is meant to provide a long-range, fiscally constrained guide for the future of Tulare County’s transportation system. The 2018 RTP plan extends to the year 2042 in its scope. As required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375), the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) contains a Sustainable Communities Strategy that considers both land use and transportation together in a single, integrated planning process that accommodates regional housing needs and projected growth. The 2018 RTP/SCS meets the requirements of SB 375 and demonstrates how the integrated land use and transportation plan achieves the region’s mandated GHG emission targets for passenger vehicles.31 City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan includes numerous policies aimed at reducing and controlling GHG emissions. The City of Visalia included a Climate Action Plan (CAP) as part of the General Plan Update that incorporates strategies that would help reduce GHG emissions associated with development projects. The General Plan policies included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 31 Ibid, Page 74.
1078
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-36 chapter to support the City’s objective to reduce emissions of GHGs that contribute to climate change in accordance with federal and state law (AQ-O-3) are listed below. • 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.
• AQ-P-14. Promote and expand the trip-reduction program for City employees to reduce air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gas.

The program may include carpooling and ridesharing; reimbursement of transit costs; encouragement of flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and teleconferencing. • AQ-P-15. Maintain an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and track related solid waste, energy, economic, and environmental data. Update the inventory periodically as additional data and methodologies become available. • AQ-P-16. Support State efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions through local action that will reduce motor vehicle use, support alternative forms of transportation, require energy conservation in new construction, and energy management in public buildings, in compliance with AB 32.

By proposing compact development, mixed-use centers, walkable neighborhoods, green building technology, and jobs-housing balance, the City will be helping to implement many of the strategies and programs in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan.
• AQ-P-17. Prepare and adopt a Climate Action Plan that incorporates a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Plan. The GHG Emissions Reduction Plan will quantify current and anticipated future emissions and focus on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of General Plan implementation on climate change and air quality. 1079
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-37 City of Visalia General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The General Plan EIR relies on General Plan goals and policies to mitigate GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Many of the policies are applicable at a city level and are only applicable to municipal operations, while those applicable to community development projects would apply to individual development projects through compliance with regulations. General Plan policies listed in the EIR section include AQ-P-12, AQ-P-13, AQ-P-14, AQ-P-15, AQ-P-16 and the additional measures provided below.
• T-P-20. Work with major employers and the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) to reduce total vehicle miles traveled [VMT] and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips and provide better utilization of the transportation system through development and implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that are tailored to the needs of geographic areas within the city and the time period of traffic congestion.

These may include the implementation staggered work hours, utilization of telecommunications, increased use of ridesharing in the public and private sectors, and provision for bicyclists. • T-P-41. Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development shall provide short term bicycle parking and long term bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers. Development also shall provide safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping, employment, and entertainment centers. • T-P-53. Develop flexible parking requirements in the zoning ordinance for development proposals based on “best practices” and the proven potential to reduce parking demand.

These could include projects that integrate transit facilities, incorporate a mix of uses with differing peak parking demand periods (e.g., residential and office), incorporate shared parking or common area parking, or incorporate other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies for residents or tenants (car-sharing, requiring paid parking, etc.). • T-P-67. Participate in the planning process for a potential Cross Valley Rail Line, which could provide east-west light rail service from Visalia to Huron and potentially connect to a future High Speed Rail system.
• T-P-77. Work with TCAG to ensure that the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy are consistent with Visalia’s Land Use and Transportation policies.
1080
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-38 Visalia Climate Action Plan
Visalia’s 2013 CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory of municipal and community emissions, identification and analysis of existing and proposed GHG reduction measures, and reduction targets to help Visalia work toward the State’s goal of an 80 percent reduction below baseline emissions by 2050. The plan sets 2020 and 2030 reduction targets, and it includes reduction actions for energy, transportation, and waste and resource conservation. The CAP includes targets and action steps for the municipal and community sectors. The CAP was prepared concurrently with the General Plan, with an environmental review conducted through the EIR prepared for the General Plan. The CAP includes objectives and specific policies from the proposed General Plan to address long-term emissions reduction efforts by the City.

The CAP provides the following reduction targets for Visalia’s community and municipal sectors based on the baseline year emissions and emissions projections estimates:
• A reduction target of 15% below 2005 baseline year level by 2020 (selected to be in-line with ARB’s recommended reduction targets)
• A reduction target of 30% below 2005 baseline year level by 2030 (strategy consistent with Executive Order S-3-05)
Visalia’s Climate Change Initiatives
In January 2007, Visalia’s mayor signed the “Cool Cities” pledge, part of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. By entering into this agreement, the City has adopted the goal of reducing citywide GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. As detailed in the CAP, this goal was subsequently expanded in response to ARB’s recommended reduction target of 15% below the 2005 baseline, and the City added a 2030 mitigation target to correlate with the 2030 General Plan Update and the goal of achieving an 80% reduction by 2050. In 2008, the City also became a partner with the San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization, which is a non-profit serving the eight-county region.

This partnership led to the development of the Valley Innovative Energy Watch: a partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization, and other public jurisdictions in Kings/Tulare Counties. One major task in this initiative was assisting each of the local government partners to develop comprehensive clean energy/GHG reduction plans, including the identification of baseline GHG emissions and energy use.
1081
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-39 Thresholds of Significance
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.”
The following GHG significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which were amendments adopted into the Guidelines on March 18, 2010, pursuant to SB 97 and most recently amended December 28, 2019. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
(b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Approach to Analysis
Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may take into account the following three considerations in assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. • Consideration #1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting. • Consideration #2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• Consideration #3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies 1082
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-40 address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

Visalia’s 2013 CAP provides the following reduction targets for Visalia’s community and municipal sectors based on the baseline year emissions and emissions projections estimates:
• A reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2020 (selected to be inline with ARB’s recommended reduction targets) • A reduction target of 30 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2030 (strategy consistent with Executive Order S-3-05)
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides guidance for preparing a BAU analysis. Under the SJVAPCD guidance, projects meeting one of the following would have a less than significant impact on climate change:
• Exempt from CEQA;
• Complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program; • Project achieves 29 percent GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards; and
• Project achieves AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG reductions compared with “business as usual.”
The 29 percent GHG reduction level is based on the target established by ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008. The GHG reduction level for the State to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 was reduced to 21.7 percent from BAU in 2020 in the 2014 First Update to the Scoping Plan to account for slower than projected growth after the 2008 recession. In addition, the State reported that the 2016 greenhouse gas inventory was below the 2020 target for the first time.

Furthermore, the 2017 Scoping Plan states that California is on track to achieve the 2020 target. In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan outlines objectives, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure that outlines how the State can achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045. First occupancy at the Project site is expected to occur as early as 2023, which is after the AB 32 target year. Full buildout of the single family portion is expected to take up to fifteen (15) years with the remaining to be determined by demand. Until a new threshold or BPS are identified for projects constructed after 2020, significance is based on making continued progress toward the SB 32 2030 goal.
1083
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-41 A quantitative analysis was prepared for this Project to determine the extent to which it may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting to fulfill Consideration 1. This analysis is included under Impact 3.8-1 as one of two considerations used to determine if the proposed Project would generate direct or indirect greenhouse emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment.

Consideration 2 requires the identification of BPS that are determined to meet the 29 percent reduction from BAU. The SJVAPCD intended to develop a list of BPS for development projects that were pre-determined to achieve a 29 percent reduction from BAU, but has not completed the list. However, since the SJVAPCD guidance was adopted in 2009, regulations on sources of GHG emissions applicable to development projects have been implemented that will achieve in excess of a 29 percent reduction from BAU for most projects. A BAU analysis is provided to demonstrate that the Project would exceed the current 21.7 percent reduction and the previous SJVAPCD 29 percent reduction threshold. The analysis also assesses whether the Project would achieve a 15 percent reduction from 2005 emissions by 2020 and a 30 percent reduction from 2005 emissions by 2030 to demonstrate consistency with the City of Visalia CAP targets. The analysis also addresses consistency with the SB 32 targets and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update with an assessment of the Project’s reduction from BAU based on emissions in 2030 compared with the

21.7 percent reduction and with a consistency analysis. This approach provides estimates of Project emissions in the new 2030 milestone year with the existing threshold to address Considerations 1 and 2 above. These analyses that fulfil Consideration #2 are included under Impact 3.8-1 as one of two considerations used to determine if the proposed Project would generate direct or indirect greenhouse emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment.

Consistent with Consideration #3, the analysis prepared for the Project also includes qualitative assessments of compliance with 2008 Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan, and the City of Visalia CAP to support GHG significance findings under Impact 3.8-2. This analysis is used to answer whether the proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and is included under Impact 3.8-2.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.8-1: Would the project generate direct or indirect greenhouse emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment?
1084
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-42 Less Than Significant. The proposed Project would have a significant impact if the Project would generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment.

Impact Analysis
Construction
Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 3.8-2. The SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing the significance of construction-related emissions. However, construction emissions may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. In order to account for the construction emissions, amortizations of the total emissions generated during construction were based on the assumed life of the proposed Project (30 years) and added to the operational emissions.

Table 3.8-2
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions32
Phase/Year MTCO2e per year
Phase 1
Phase 1 Tier 1 Multifamily Residential 1,420.67
Phase 1 Tier 2 Multifamily Residential 708.53
Phase 1 Single-family Residential 6,671.01
Phase 1 Commercial – mixed use 2,196.24
Phase 1 Total 10,996.45
Amortized Over 30 Years 366.55
Phase 2
Phase 2 Multifamily Residential 11,629.29
Phase 2 Single-family Residential 15,853.92
Phase 2 Commercial 516.88
Phase 2 Basin 124.53
Phase 2 Total 28,124.62
Amortized Over 30 Years 937.49
Phases 1 and 2 Combined
Grand Total for All Construction Activities 39,121.07
Amortized over 30 years 1,304.04
Notes:

Calculation totals use unrounded numbers from CalEEMod output; therefore, totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).
32 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 121.
1085
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-43 Operation
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. Sources of emissions may include motor vehicles and trucks, energy usage, water usage, waste generation, and area sources, such as landscaping activities and residential wood burning.

Business As Usual Operational Emissions
Operational emissions under the BAU scenario were modeled using CalEEMod 2020.4.0.

Modeling assumptions for the year 2005 were used to represent 2028, 2037, and 2030 BAU conditions (without the benefit of regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions). The SJVAPCD guidance recommends using emissions in 2002–2004 in the baseline scenario to represent conditions—as if regulations had not been adopted—to allow the effect of projected growth on achieving reduction targets to be clearly defined. CalEEMod defaults were used for Project energy usage, water usage, waste generation, and area sources. The vehicle fleet mix was revised to reflect the residential fleet mix approved by SJVAPCD for 2013, which is the earliest residential fleet mix provided by SJVAPCD. Full assumptions and CalEEMod model outputs are provided in Appendix A of Appendix C.
2028, 2037, and 2030 Operational Emissions
Operational emissions were modeled using CalEEMod for the years 2028 for Phase 1 development and 2037 for Phase 2 development. Phases 1 and 2 were also modeled in year 2030 to assess progress towards SB 32 reduction targets. CalEEMod assumes compliance with some, but not all, applicable rules and regulations regarding energy efficiency, vehicle fuel efficiency, renewable energy usage, and other GHG reduction policies, as described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide. The reductions obtained from each regulation and the source of the reduction amount used in the analysis are described below.

Land use-related sources are analyzed separately from permitted stationary sources of emissions. Permitted sources would be subject to Best Available Control Technologies to minimize impacts, which would be enforced as part of the permitting process.

Emissions Accounting for Applicable Regulations
The following regulations are incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors:
• Pavley I and Pavley II (LEV III) motor vehicle emission standards • ARB Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulation
1086
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-44 • 2005, 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2019 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The following regulations have not been incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors and require alternative methods to account for emission reductions provided by the regulations:
• Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements for year 2030 • Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use)
• California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water) • 2022 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24 reductions for 2013 and 2016 updates were added to CalEEMod 2016.3.2 and were carried into CalEEMod 2020.4.0. Title 24 reductions for 2019 were added to CalEEMod 2020.4.0. The proposed Project is expected to include solar panels on each single-family residential unit in quantities that meet or exceed Title 24 requirements.

RPS is not accounted for in CalEEMod 2020.4.0. Reductions from RPS for operational years 2030 and beyond are addressed by revising the electricity emission intensity factor in CalEEMod to account for the utility RPS rate forecast for 2030. The utilities will be required by SB 100 to increase the use of renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030. The latest power content label for SCE was used to estimate a revised CO2 intensity factor for use in the modeling; calculations and related sources are provided in Appendix C.

Energy savings from water conservation resulting from the Green Building Code Standards for indoor water use and California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for outdoor water use are not included in CalEEMod. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 mandates a 20 percent reduction in urban water use that is implemented with these regulations. Benefits of the water conservation regulations are applied in the CalEEMod mitigation component.

Reductions in emissions from solid waste are based on Tulare County achieving the CalRecycle 75 Percent Initiative by 2020 compared with a 45 percent baseline. Reductions are taken using the CalEEMod mitigation component.

In addition to rules and regulations, the Project would incorporate design features and would obtain benefits from its location and infrastructure that would reduce project VMT compared with default values. The Project would construct pedestrian infrastructure connecting within the project and to adjacent land uses. In addition, the Project would provide electrical outlets for landscaping equipment that would be used in accordance with statewide usage rates for this type 1087
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-45 of equipment. The Project is located approximately 5 miles from existing Downtown Visalia, providing shorter-than-average trip lengths to a job center and other important destinations.

Note that CalEEMod nominally treats these design elements and conditions as “mitigation measures,” despite their inclusion in the project description. Therefore, reported operational emissions are considered to represent unmitigated project conditions. Full assumptions and model output results are provided in Appendix C. The combined results for the full Project are presented in Table 3.8-3.

Table 3.8-3
Full Buildout Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (Phases 1 and 2 Combined)33 Source Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
Business as Usual 2028 (with
Regulation and
Design Features)
Percent Reduction
Area 1,462.54 1,461.66 0.06%
Energy 8,271.80 6,931.72 16.2%
Mobile 55,009.18 34,580.06 37.1%
Waste 1,577.78 1,182.91 25.0%
Water 630.47 475.50 24.6%
Amortized Construction
Emissions
1,304.04 1,304.04 0.0%
Total 68,255.81 45,935.89 32.7%
Reduction from BAU 22,319.62 —
Percent Reduction 32.7% —
Significance Threshold (AB 32 Consistency) 21.7% —
Significance Threshold (SJVAPCD) 29% —
Significance Threshold (City of Visalia CAP) 30% —
Are emissions significant? No
Notes:

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
The project achieves the SJVAPCD 29 percent reduction from BAU threshold and the 21.7 percent required to show consistency with AB 32 targets. SJVAPCD has not set a new percent reduction target for 2030.

As demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, the Project operations for the full project would achieve a reduction from BAU of 32.7 percent, which exceeds the 21.7 percent reduction required by the State to achieve the 2020 target by 11.0 percent and the SJVAPCD 29.0 percent target by 3.7 percent. No new threshold has been adopted by the SJVAPCD for the 2030 target, so in the interim the project must make continued progress toward the 2030 goal. In addition, the City of Visalia 33 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 124.
1088
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-46 identifies a reduction target of 30 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2030. The 2030 reduction target identified by the City of Visalia CAP was selected to show consistency with Executive Order S-3-05.

The ARB originally identified a reduction of 29 percent from BAU as needed to achieve AB 32 targets. The 2008 recession and slower growth in the years since 2008 have reduced the growth forecasted for 2020, and the amount needed to be reduced to achieve 1990 levels as required by AB 32. The California Department of Finance (DOF) population forecast for 2020 to 2030 predicts growth in the State of 8.1 percent by the 2030 target year or 0.8 percent per year.34 The Project includes design features that would result in reductions in energy use and support walking and bicycling. Measures that are part of the project design do not require additional mitigation measures to ensure they are accomplished.

The 32.7 percent reduction from BAU is 11.0 percent beyond the average reduction required by the State from all sources to achieve the AB 32 2020 target and therefore addresses the concern expressed in Newhall Ranch that projects should likely do more than the average to ensure they are providing a fair share of emission reductions.

An additional analysis for the 2030 operational scenario is summarized in Table 3.8-4. The 2030 analysis was prepared to show continued progress toward meeting the SB 32 2030 target. 34 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 126.
1089
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-47 Table 3.8-4
Full Buildout Project Operational Greenhouse Gases
(2030 Operational Year Scenario)
Source
Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
Business as Usual
2030 (with
Regulation and
Design Features) Percent Reduction
Area 1,462.67 1,461.66 0.07%
Energy 8,271.80 4,793.25 42.1%
Mobile 54,624.74 30,381.39 44.4%
Waste 1,577.78 1,104.45 30.0%
Water 630.47 456.61 27.6%
Amortized Construction
Emissions
1,304.04 1,304.04 0.0%
Total 67,871.51 39,501.40 41.8%
Reduction from BAU 28,370.11 —
Percent Reduction 41.8% —
Significance Threshold (AB 32 Consistency) 21.7% —
Significance Threshold (SJVAPCD) 29% —
Significance Threshold (City of Visalia CAP) 30% —
Are emissions significant? No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

As shown in Table 3.8-4, the full project at buildout under a 2030 operational year scenario would achieve a 41.8 percent reduction from BAU that would exceed the 21.7 percent reduction required by the State to achieve the 2020 target by 20.1 percent and the SJVAPCD 29.0 percent target by

12.8 percent in the 2030 operational buildout scenario. The Project would also exceed the CAP 2030 percent reduction requirement of 30 percent by 11.8 percent.

The analysis presented above does not include several new strategies proposed in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update or the recently adopted 2022 Scoping Plan. The updates provide alternatives in terms of their likelihood of implementation and ranges of reduction from the strategies.

Measures already authorized by legislation are highly likely to be implemented, while measures 1090
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-48 requiring new legislation are less likely to go forward. The State is highly likely to incorporate zero net energy buildings in future updates to Title 24 and now requires solar panels in most residential development. A new round of motor vehicle fuel efficiency standards beyond 2025 when LEV III standards are at their maximum reduction level is highly likely. Governor Newsom issued the executive order for zero-emission by 2035 (N-79-20), in January 2021. This executive order requires sales of all new passenger vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035 and additional measures aimed to eliminate emissions from the transportation sector. Changing heavy-duty trucks and off-road equipment to alternative fuels face greater technological hurdles and are less likely to provide dramatic reductions by 2030; however, ARB recently approved the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation that requires increasing percentages of zero emission trucks between 2024 and 2035.

The 2030 emission limit is 260 MMTCO2e. The ARB estimates that the 2030 BAU (reference) Inventory will be 392 MMTCO2e—a reduction of 132 MMCO2e, including existing policies and programs but not including known commitments that are already underway. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes the estimated GHG emissions by sector compared with 1990 levels that is presented in Table 3.8-5. The 2017 Scoping Plan would achieve the bulk of the reductions from electric power, industrial fuel combustion, and transportation. Cap-and-Trade would provide between 10 and 20 percent of the required reductions depending on the amounts achieved by the other reduction measures.

Table 3.8-5
2017 Scoping Plan Update Estimated Change in GHG Emissions by Sector35 Scoping Plan Sector Emissions (MMTCO2e per year)
1990 2030 Proposed
Plan Ranges
Percent Change
form 1990
Agriculture 26 24–25 -4 to -8
Residential and Commercial 44 38–40 -9 to -14
Electric Power 108 42–62 -43 to -61
High GWP 3 8–11 167 to 267
Industrial 98 77–87 -11 to -21
Recycling and Waste 7 8–9 14 to 29
Transportation (including
TCU)
152 103–111 -27 to -32
Net Sink -7 TBD TBD
Subtotal 431 300–345 -20 to -30
Cap-and-Trade Program N/A 40–85 N/A
Total 431 260 -40
35 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 126.
1091
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-49 Although 2017 Scoping Plan Update focuses on state agency actions necessary to achieve the 2030 GHG limit, the ARB considers local governments essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions. The 2030 target will require an increase in the rate of emission reductions compared to what was needed to achieve the 2020 limit, and this will require action and collaboration at all levels, including local government action to complement and support State-level actions. For individual projects, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update suggests that all new land use development implement all feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan does not define all feasible measures or attribute an amount of reductions required from new development beyond compliance with regulations. When requiring mitigation of a project’s fair share of a cumulative impact, the Lead Agency must show the nexus between the project contribution and its fair share of mitigation to reduce the impact to less than cumulatively considerable. A threshold based on local support and collaboration with State actions as described in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update does not lend itself to a quantitative determination of fair share. Requiring developers and future residents of the development to fully mitigate emissions without accounting for compliance with regulations would result in double mitigation, first by the developer and then by the residents purchasing electricity, fuel, and vehicles compliant with regulations in effect at the time of purchase and beyond that would violate constitutional nexus requirements.

In conclusion, the proposed Project would achieve reductions of 11.0 percent beyond the ARB 2020 21.7 percent target, 3.7 percent beyond the SJVAPCD 29 percent reduction from BAU requirements, and 17.7 percent beyond the 15 percent reduction identified in the City of Visalia CAP from adopted regulations and on-site design features for Project operation in 2028.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would achieve a 41.8 percent reduction when assessed for the 2030 operational year scenario, which is 11.8 percent over the City’s 2030 target of 30 percent. No new threshold has been adopted by the SJVAPCD for the SB 32 2030 target; however, the reductions from BAU by 2030 are 20.1 percent beyond the 21.7 percent required for the 2020 target. Based on this progress and the strong likelihood that the measures included in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and the 2022 Scoping Plan will be implemented, it is reasonable to conclude that the Project is consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and will contribute a reasonable fairshare contribution to achieving the 2030 target. The fair share may very well be achieved through compliance with increasingly stringent State regulations that apply to new development, such as Title 24 and CALGreen; regulations on energy production, fuels, and motor vehicles that apply to both new and existing development; and voluntary actions to improve energy efficiency in existing development. In addition, compliance with the VMT targets adopted to comply with SB 375 and implemented through the RTP/SCS may be considered to adequately address GHG 1092
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-50 emissions from passenger cars and light-duty trucks. The 2022 Scoping Plan heavily emphasizes the need for GHG reductions in the transportation sector and recognizes the need for mixed-use development to meet housing needs as well as environmental-focused goals. As the Project would comply with VMT targets adopted to comply with SB 375, would make continued progress towards 2030 GHG reduction goals, and is designed as a mixed-use development, the Project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan goals. Therefore, the impact in terms of Considerations #1 and #2 would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None Required.

Impact 3.8-2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant. The proposed Project would have a significant impact if the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. To address whether the proposed Project could conflict with an appliable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, the following analysis assesses the Project’s compliance with Consideration #3 regarding consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions. The Project’s consistency with the City of Visalia’s 2013 CAP is assessed below. The proposed Project is also assessed for its consistency with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plans. This would be achieved with an assessment of the Project’s compliance with Scoping Plan measures contained in the 2008 Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and the 2022 Scoping Plan.

City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
As detailed above in Impact GHG-1, the Project would achieve reductions of 17.7 percent beyond the 15 percent reduction below 2005 baseline year level by 2020 identified in the City of Visalia CAP from adopted regulations and on-site design features. Furthermore, the Project would achieve 2.7 percent beyond the City of Visalia’s target of 30 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2030 when assessed at Project buildout and would achieve 11.8 over the City’s 2030 target when assessed in a 2030 operational year scenario. As such, the Project would be consistent with the City of Visalia CAP. The proposed Specific Plan would provide residential uses that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area provide and would provide conveniently located commercial development to serve north Visalia residents and the 1093
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-51 Carleton Acres development in a growing area of the City of Visalia. The trails, parks, and public spaces would serve to increase walkability. The Project would comply with all applicable rules and regulations, including Building Code standards. The Project design would also support goals and policies called out in the CAP and the General Plan to reduce GHG emissions, such as providing a variety of locally serving land uses and providing connectivity and public spaces.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local plan, policy, or regulation adopted by the City of Visalia to reduce emissions of GHGs.

AB 32 Scoping Plan
The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, the ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal.

Although the Scoping Plan is now fully implemented and has achieved its goal, many of the strategies remain in effect. The Scoping Plan contains a variety of strategies to reduce the State’s emissions. As shown in Table 3.8-6, the proposed Project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the Project. As discussed earlier, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update strategies primarily rely on increasing the stringency of existing regulations with which the Project would continue to comply, support through the Project’s design, and implementation of the General Plan goals and policies.

In summary, the Project incorporates a number of features that would minimize GHG emissions.

These features are consistent with project-level strategies identified by the ARB’s Scoping Plan and the City of Visalia CAP and City of Visalia General Plan. As demonstrated in the impact analysis above, the Project would achieve a 41.8 percent from the BAU inventory by 2030; therefore, the Project would not significantly hinder or delay the State’s ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32 or SB 32 or conflict with implementation of the Scoping Plan.

The Project promotes the goals of the Scoping Plan through implementation of design measures that reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and reduction in VMT. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with any the AB 32 Scoping Plan. 1094
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-52 Table 3.8-6
Project Consistency with AB Scoping Plan36
Scoping Plan Sector Scoping Plan Measure Implementing Regulations Project Consistency Transportation California Cap-and-Trade
Program Linked to Western
Climate Initiative
Regulation for the California Cap
on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Market-Based Compliance
Mechanism October 20, 2015
(CCR 95800)
Consistent. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies
to large industrial sources such as power plants,
refineries, and cement manufacturers. However,
the regulation indirectly affects people who use
the products and services produced by these
industrial sources when increased cost of
products or services (such as electricity and fuel)
are transferred to the consumers. The Cap-andTrade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in
California, whether generated in-state or
imported. The Cap-and-Trade Program also
covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane
fuel providers and transportation fuel providers)
to address emissions from such fuels and from
combustion of other fossil fuels not directly
covered at large sources in the Program’s first
compliance period.

California Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Standards
Pavley I 2005 Regulations to
Control GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
Consistent. This measure applies to all new
vehicles starting with model year 2012. The
Project would not conflict with its
implementation as it would apply to all new
passenger vehicles purchased in California.

Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later,
associated with construction and operation of
the Project would be required to comply with
the Pavley emissions standards.
2012 LEV III Amendments to the
California Greenhouse Gas and
Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission Standards
Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 2009 readopted in 2015.

Regulations to Achieve
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Consistent. This measure applies to
transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in
California. The Project would not conflict with
36 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 130. 1095
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-53 Scoping Plan Sector Scoping Plan Measure Implementing Regulations Project Consistency Reductions Subarticle 7. Low
Carbon Fuel Standard CCR
95480
implementation of this measure. Motor vehicles
associated with construction and operation of
the Project would utilize low carbon
transportation fuels as required under this
measure.

Regional TransportationRelated Greenhouse Gas
Targets.

SB 375. Cal. Public Resources
Code §§ 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2,
21159.28
Consistent. The Project will provide mixed-use
development in the region that is consistent with
the increased development densities promoted
in the 2018 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).

Goods Movement Goods Movement Action Plan
January 2007.

Not applicable. The Project does not propose
any changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal
facilities or forms of transportation.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles 2010 Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation, the Drayage
Truck Regulation and the TractorTrailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Consistent. This measure applies to medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles that operate in the State.

The Project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure. Medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles associated with
construction and operation of the Project would
be required to comply with the requirements of
this regulation.

High Speed Rail Funded under SB 862 Not applicable. This is a statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant
or lead agency.

Electricity and Natural
Gas
Energy Efficiency Title 20 Appliance Efficiency
Regulation
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure. The Project will
comply with the latest energy efficiency
standards and incorporate applicable energy
efficiency features designed to reduce project
energy consumption.

Title 24 Part 6 Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and
Non-Residential Building
Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
Renewable Portfolio
Standard/Renewable
Electricity Standard.
2010 Regulation to Implement
the Renewable Electricity
Standard (33% 2020)
Consistent. SCE obtained 35 percent of its power
supply from renewable sources such as solar and
geothermal in 2020, and about 43 percent of the
1096
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-54 Scoping Plan Sector Scoping Plan Measure Implementing Regulations Project Consistency SB 350 Clean Energy and
Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
(50% 2030)
electricity it delivers is carbon-free. The owners of
residences within the Project and future business
within the Project would purchase power that
consists of a greater percentage of renewable
sources and could install renewable solar power
systems that will assist the utility in achieving
exceeding the renewable mandate.

Million Solar Roofs Program Tax incentive program Consistent. This measure is intended to increase solar throughout California by means of a variety
of electricity providers and existing solar
programs. Projects within the Specific Plan area
will be able to take advantage of incentives that
are in place at the time of construction. The
residential portion of the project includes
installation of solar panels.

Water Water Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
Consistent. The Project will comply with the
California Green Building Standards Code, which
requires a 20 percent reduction in indoor water
use. The Project will also comply with the MWELO
as required by the City’s development code
and water ordinance.

SBX 7-7—The Water Conservation
Act of 2009
Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance
Green Buildings Green Building Strategy Title 24 Part 11 California Green Building Code Standards
Consistent. The State will increase the use of
green building practices. The Project would
implement required green building strategies
through existing regulation that requires the
Project to comply with various CALGreen
requirements. The Project includes sustainability
design features that support the Green Building
Strategy.

Industry Industrial Emissions 2010 ARB Mandatory Reporting Regulation
Not applicable. The Project is a mixed-use
project and does not include industrial land uses.

Recycling and Waste
Management
Recycling and Waste Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of these measures. The Project is
required to achieve the recycling mandates via
compliance with the CALGreen code. The
AB 341 Statewide 75 Percent
Diversion Goal
1097
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-55 Scoping Plan Sector Scoping Plan Measure Implementing Regulations Project Consistency Project would utilize City of Visalia recycling
services.

Forests Sustainable Forests Cap-and-Trade Offset Projects Not applicable. The Project site is in an area designated for urban uses. No forested lands
exist on-site.

High Global Warming
Potential
High Global Warming
Potential Gases
ARB Refrigerant Management
Program CCR 95380
Consistent. The regulations are applicable to
refrigerants used by large air conditioning
systems and large commercial and industrial
refrigerators and cold storage system. The
Project includes development commercial
areas, could accommodate multi-family
developments, and may include public facilities
where large air conditioning systems may be
used. These systems will comply with all aspects
of applicable guidelines and regulations.

Agriculture Agriculture Cap-and-Trade Offset Projects
for Livestock and Rice Cultivation
Not applicable. The Project site is proposed for
urban development. No grazing, feedlot, or
other agricultural activities that generate
manure occur currently exist on-site or are
proposed to be implemented by the Project.
1098
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-56 Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32. Table 3.8- 7 provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures.

Table 3.8-7
Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update37
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 50% Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to
increase their renewable energy mix from
33% in 2020 to 50% in 2030.

Consistent: The Project will purchase
electricity from a utility subject to the SB 350
Renewable Mandate.

SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by
2030. This is equivalent to a 20 percent
reduction from 2014 building energy usage
compared to current projected 2030 levels
Not Applicable. This measure applies to
existing buildings. New structures are required
to comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards that are expected to increase in
stringency until residential housing achieves
zero net energy. While there are currently
existing structures in the Project area, they are
not a part of the proposed development.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure
requires fuel providers to meet an 18
percent reduction in carbon content by
2030.

Consistent. Vehicles accessing the Project site
will use fuel containing lower carbon content
as the fuel standard is implemented.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner
Technology and Fuels Scenario) Vehicle
manufacturers will be required to meet
existing regulations mandated by the LEV III
and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2
million ZEVs on the road by 2030 and
increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and buses.

Consistent. Future Project occupants and
visitors can be expected to purchase
increasing numbers of more fuel efficient
and zero emission cars and trucks each year.

The 2016 CALGreen Code requires electrical
service in new single-family housing to be EV
charger-ready. Furthermore, home and
business deliveries will be made by
increasing numbers of ZEV delivery trucks.
37 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 137.
1099
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-57 Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Sustainable Freight Action Plan The plan’s
target is to improve freight system efficiency
25 percent by increasing the value of
goods and services produced from the
freight sector, relative to the amount of
carbon that it produces by 2030. This would
be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of
zero emission operation and maximize nearzero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy
by 2030.

Not Applicable. The measure applies to
owners and operators of trucks and freight
operations. However, home deliveries are
expected to be made by increasing
number of ZEV delivery trucks.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP)
Reduction Strategy. The strategy requires
the reduction of SLCPs by 40 percent from
2013 levels by 2030 and the reduction of
black carbon by 50 percent from 2013
levels by 2030.

Consistent. The Project residences will
include only natural gas hearths that
produce very little black carbon compared
to woodburning fireplaces and heaters.

Commercial uses contemplated as part of
the proposed Project are not expected to
be sources of black carbon.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Requires Regional Transportation Plans to
include a sustainable communities strategy
for reduction of per capita vehicle miles
traveled.

Consistent. The Project will provide mixeduse residential and commercial development in the region that is consistent
with the Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(SCS) strategy to increase development
densities to reduce VMT. The Project
includes mixed-use development including
schools, residential, and commercial within
the same area, which will also contribute to
reductions in VMT.

Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post
2020 Cap-and-Trade Program continues the
existing program for another 10 years. The
Cap-and-Trade Program applies to large
industrial sources such as power plants,
refineries, and cement manufacturers.

Consistent. The post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program indirectly affects people who use
the products and services produced by the
regulated industrial sources when increased
cost of products or services (such as
electricity and fuel) are transferred to the
consumers. The Cap-and-Trade Program
covers the GHG emissions associated with
electricity consumed in California, whether
generated in-state or imported. The Capand-Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel
providers and transportation fuel providers)
to address emissions from such fuels and
from combustion of other fossil fuels not
directly covered at large sources in the
program’s first compliance period.
1100
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-58 Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The
ARB is working in coordination with several
other agencies at the federal, state, and
local levels, stakeholders, and with the
public, to develop measures as outlined in
the Scoping Plan Update and the
governor’s Executive Order B-30-15 to
reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net
carbon sequestration potential for
California’s natural and working land.

Not Applicable. The Project is residential
and commercial development and will not
be considered natural or working lands.

Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and Summary of the Project’s Consistency with California’s Post-2020 Targets
The State’s executive branch adopted several Executive Orders related to GHG emissions.

Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15 are two examples. Executive Order S-3-05 sets goals to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The goal of Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 was codified by AB 32.

The Project, as analyzed above, is consistent with AB 32. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with this component of Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order B-30-15 establishes an interim goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The 2030 goal was codified under SB 32 and is addressed by the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. The 2017 Scoping Plan provides a strategy that is capable of reaching the SB 32 target if the measures included in the plan are implemented and achieve reductions within the ranges expected. Under the 2017 Scoping Plan, local government plays a supporting role through its land use authority and control over local transportation infrastructure. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes reductions from implementation of SB 375 that applies to VMT from passenger vehicles. Tulare County targets for SB 375 are a 5 percent reduction by 2020 and a 10 percent reduction by 2035. SB 375 is implemented with the TCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS envisions expanded use of transit and an increase in development density that would encourage fewer and shorter trips and more trips by transit, walking, and bicycling in amounts sufficient to achieve the SB 375 targets.

Since the 2017 Scoping Plan has been adopted, new methodologies and threshold approaches are required to determine the fair-share contributions City development projects would need to make to achieve the 2030 target. In the meantime, however, the discussion under “Consistency with SB 32” below addresses the consistency of the proposed Project with SB 32, which provides the statutory underpinning of the 2017 Scoping Plan. The SB 32 target requires GHG emissions to be 1101
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-59 reduced from 1990 levels. No consensus has been reached around the State on a new quantitative target for new development based on consistency with the SB 32 targets.

The Executive Order S-3-05 2050 target has not been codified by legislation. Studies have shown that, in order to meet the 2050 target, aggressive pursuit of technologies in the transportation and energy sectors, including electrification and the decarbonization of fuel, will be required. Because of the technological shifts required and the unknown parameters of the regulatory framework in 2050, quantitatively analyzing the Project’s impacts further relative to the 2050 goal is speculative for purposes of CEQA.

The ARB recognized that AB 32 established an emissions reduction trajectory that will allow California to achieve the more stringent 2050 target: “These [greenhouse gas emission reduction] measures also put the State on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. This trajectory is consistent with the reductions that are needed globally to stabilize the climate.” In addition, ARB’s First Update “lays the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050,” and many of the emission reduction strategies recommended by ARB would serve to reduce the proposed Project’s post-2020 emissions level to the extent applicable by law:
• Energy Sector: Continued improvements in California’s appliance and building energy efficiency programs and initiatives, such as the State’s zero net energy building goals, would serve to reduce the proposed Project’s emissions level. Additionally, further additions to California’s renewable resource portfolio would favorably influence the Project’s emissions level.
• Transportation Sector: Anticipated deployment of improved vehicle efficiency, zero emission technologies, lower carbon fuels, and improvement of existing transportation systems all will serve to reduce the Project’s emissions level. • Water Sector: The Project’s emissions level will be reduced as a result of further desired enhancements to water conservation technologies.
• Waste Management Sector: Plans to further improve recycling, reuse and reduction of solid waste will beneficially reduce the Project’s emissions level.

For the reasons described above, the Project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets. The trajectory required to achieve the post-2020 targets is shown in Figure 3.8-5.
1102
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-60 Figure 3.8-5
California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target38
In his January 2015 inaugural address, Governor Brown expressed a commitment to achieve “three ambitious goals” that he would like to see accomplished by 2030 to reduce the State’s GHG emissions:
• Increasing the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard from 33 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030;
• Cutting the petroleum use in cars and trucks in half; and • Doubling the efficiency of existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner.

These expressions of executive branch policy may be manifested in adopted legislative or regulatory action through the state agencies and departments responsible for achieving the State’s environmental policy objectives, particularly those relating to global climate change.

Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Even though these studies did not provide an exact 38 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 135.
1103
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-61 regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could allow the State to meet the 2050 target.

ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on reducing GHG emissions in the transportation sector. Notably, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector in California are adopted and enforced by ARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of individual projects or local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.

The 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D lists potential actions that support the State’s climate goals.

However, the 2022 Scoping Plan notes that the applicability and performance of the actions may vary across the regions. The document is organized into two categories: (1) examples of planlevel GHG reduction actions that could be implemented by local governments, and (2) examples of on-site project design features, mitigation measures, that could be required of individual projects under CEQA, if feasible, when the local jurisdiction is the lead agency.

The proposed Project would include a majority of the feasible operational mitigation measures listed in the 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D as project design features. Specifically, some of the recommended operational measures would include: providing bicycle parking; creating on- and off-site safety improvements for bike, pedestrian, and transit connections; and requiring solar panels, drought-tolerant landscaping, and energy conserving appliances.

Given the proportional contribution of mobile source-related GHG emissions to the State’s inventory, recent studies also show that relatively new trends—such as the increasing importance of web-based shopping, the emergence of different driving patterns, and the increasing effect of web-based applications on transportation choices—are beginning to substantially influence transportation choices and the energy used by transportation modes. These factors have changed the direction of transportation trends in recent years and will require the creation of new models to effectively analyze future transportation patterns and the corresponding effect on GHG 1104
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-62 emissions. For the reasons described above, the proposed Project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with future year targets.

Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the Project would comply with whatever measures are enacted that state lawmakers decide would lead to an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. In its 2008 Scoping Plan, ARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.” In the First Scoping Plan Update; however, ARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target:
“energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” The 2017 Scoping Plan provides an intermediate target that is intended to achieve reasonable progress toward the 2050 target. In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan outlines objectives, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure that outlines how the State can achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045.

Accordingly, taking into account the proposed Project’s emissions, project design features, and the progress being made by the State towards reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the Project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, carbon neutral by 2045, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment. Impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None Required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The State of California, through AB 32, has acknowledged that GHG emissions are a statewide impact. Emissions generated by the proposed Project combined with past, present, and reasonably probable future projects could contribute to this impact. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that effects of GHG emissions are cumulative in nature and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s existing cumulative impacts analysis. 1105
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-63 The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research acknowledges that although climate change is cumulative in nature, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment.

As discussed above, the proposed Project would not generate significant GHG emissions and would be consistent with GHG reduction plans. Therefore, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable. 1106
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-1

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials, proximity to airports/schools, and assessment of wildfire risk. To assist in this analysis, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) was prepared by Sierra Delta Consulting, LLC (SDC) in June 2021 for the proposed Project site (See Appendix G). The California Department of Conservation – Geologic Energy Management Division (Division) provided an NOP comment letter. The letter identified that a previously plugged and abandoned well is present on the site. The well was abandoned to current Division requirements and the Division provided guidance on constructing over the well. The disposition of the well is discussed within this section.

Hazards include man--made or natural materials or man-‐made or natural conditions that may pose a threat to human health, life, property, or the environment. Hazardous materials and waste present health hazards for humans and the environment. These health hazards can result during the manufacture, transportation, use, or disposal of such materials if not handled properly.

Hazards to humans can also existing from natural or human induce wildfire and air traffic accidents.

Environmental Setting
Project Site
The Project site is located in northern Visalia, to the northeast of the West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Road intersection. The immediate area is primarily agriculture with residential to the south, and the Ridgeview Middle School to the southeast. Industrial land uses are proposed to the west of the site. The site is generally flat and averages approximately 309 feet above mean sea level. Based on archival research, it appears the Project site has been developed in various forms of agriculture since at least 1946. 1
Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause or 1 Carleton Acres Phase I ESA (June 2021), page 17.
1107
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-2 significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of.

Hazardous materials include a variety of substances such as lubricants, herbicides and pesticides, solvents, gasoline, household cleaning products, refrigerants and radioactive substances. Some are common to industrial and commercial process, while others are commonly used in households. A hazardous waste is simply the spent or used hazardous material that requires disposal. Improper transport, storage, handling, use and disposal of hazardous wastes can have significant impacts on the environment and human health.

Hazardous Sites
The Cortese List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and land owners to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.

DTSC maintains the Envirostor Data Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. This site cleanup information includes: Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Corrective Action Sites, Tiered Permit Sites, and Evaluation / Investigation Sites. The hazardous waste facilities include:

Permitted–Operating, Post-Closure Permitted, and Historical Non-Operating. According to the environmental records search conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) on 02/16/2021 revealed that there is one permitted hazardous waste facility (HWP) site located at 7227 W Doe Avenue, approximately 0.77 miles south-southwest of the proposed Project site2.

GeoTracker is the SWRCB’s data management system for managing sites that impact groundwater, especially those that require groundwater cleanup (Underground Storage Tanks, 2 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=visalia+ca. Accessed June 2022. 1108
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-3 Department of Defense, Site Cleanup Program) as well as permitted facilities such as operating USTs and land disposal sites. The Subject Property was not identified within the GeoTracker Database. The Database did not identify any PUST facilities, or open LUST / SLIC cases in the search radius of this report (GeoTracker, 2021). There are three locations within seven miles of the proposed Project site that are listed in the GeoTracker database for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST).3 All three locations have undergone LUST cleanup and the State has closed each case.

Wildfire Hazards
In California, responsibility for wildfire prevention and suppression is shared by federal, state and local agencies. Federal agencies are responsible for federal lands in Federal Responsibility Areas. The State of California has determined that some non-federal lands in unincorporated areas with watershed value are of statewide interest and have classified those lands as State Responsibility Areas (SRA), which are managed by CAL FIRE. All incorporated areas and other unincorporated lands are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). While nearly all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, there are specific features that make certain areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather and other relevant factors (Public Resources Code [PRC] 4201-4204 and California Government Code 51175-89). As described above, the primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include slope, vegetation type and condition, and atmospheric conditions. CAL FIRE maps fire hazards based on zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones. CAL FIRE maps three SRA zones: 1) Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones; 2) High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; and 3) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Only the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are mapped for the LRA. Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. Under state regulations, areas within very high fire hazard risk zones must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life within these areas. According to LRA mapping, no land within or adjacent to the City of Visalia or the Project site is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.4 3 California Water Resource Control Board. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed June 2022. 4 California State Geoportal. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414. Accessed June 2022. 1109
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-4 Airports
The nearest public airport is the Visalia Municipal Airport, approximately 2.75 miles southwest of the Project site.

Schools
Ridgeview Middle School is part of the Visalia Unified School District and has an enrollment of 735 students.5It is located west of Akers Street and adjacent to the 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. There are no other schools located within 1/4 mile of the Project site, however, Denton Elementary School is located approximately 1/3 mile south of the Project boundary.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA) as amended, is the major federal transportation-related statute affecting the transportation of hazardous material in commerce.

The objective of the HMTA according to the policy stated by Congress is "... to improve the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation to protect the Nation adequately against risks to life and property which are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce." The HMTA empowers the Secretary of Transportation to designate as hazardous material any "particular quantity or form" of a material that "may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property." Regulations apply to "… any person who transports, or causes to be transported or shipped, a hazardous material; or who manufactures, fabricates, marks, maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests a package or container which is represented, marked, certified, or sold by such person for use in the transportation in commerce of certain hazardous materials."6 5 California Department of Education. School Profile: Ridgeview Middle. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=54722560133819. Accessed June 2022. 6 United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Transporting Hazardous Materials. https://www.osha.gov/trucking-industry/transporting-hazardous-materials. Accessed June 2022. 1110
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-5 Superfund
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as “Superfund”, was enacted on December 11, 1980. The purpose of CERCLA was to provide authorities with the ability to respond to uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances from inactive hazardous waste sites that endanger public health and the environment. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at such sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. Additionally, CERCLA provided for the revision and republishing of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) that provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also provides for the National Priorities List, a list of national priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action.

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SARA amended CERCLA on October 17, 1986.

This amendment increased the size of the Hazardous Response Trust Fund to $8.5 billion, expanded EPA’s response authority, strengthened enforcement activities at Superfund sites; and broadened the application of the law to include federal facilities. In addition, new provisions were added to the law that dealt with emergency planning and community right to know. SARA also required EPA to revise the Hazard Ranking System to ensure that the system accurately assesses the relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to review for listing on the National Priorities List.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered (licensed) by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' 7 U.S.C. Section 136 et seq.

Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) makes available federally subsidized flood insurance to owners of flood-prone properties. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, Federal 1111
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-6 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides the EPA with the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focus on waste minimization and phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste as well as corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.

State of California Regulations
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Cal/EPA has regulatory responsibility under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) for administration of the state and federal Superfund programs for the management and cleanup of hazardous materials. The DTSC is responsible for regulating hazardous waste facilities and overseeing the cleanup of hazardous waste sites in California. The Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) regulates hazardous waste through its permitting, enforcement and Unified Program activities. HWMP maintains the EPA authorization to implement the RCRA program in California, and develops regulations, policies, guidance and technical assistance/ training to assure the safe storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes.

The State Regulatory Programs Division of DTSC oversees the technical implementation of the state’s Unified Program, which is a consolidation of six environmental programs at the local level, and conducts triennial reviews of Unified Program agencies to ensure that their programs are consistent statewide and conform to standards.

Hazardous Substance Account Act (1984), California Health and Safety Code Section 25300 ET SEQ (HSAA)
This act, known as the California Superfund, has three purposes: 1) to respond to releases of hazardous substances; 2) to compensate for damages caused by such releases; and 3) to pay the 1112
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-7 state’s 10 percent share in CERCLA cleanups. Contaminated sites that fail to score above a certain threshold level in the EPA’s ranking system may be placed on the California Superfund list of hazardous wastes requiring cleanup.

California Code of Regulations
Title 3 of the CCR pertains to the application of pesticides and related chemicals. Parties applying regulated substances must continuously evaluate application equipment, the weather, the treated lands and all surrounding properties. Title 3 prohibits any application that would:
• Contaminate persons not involved in the application
• Damage non-‐‐target crops or animals or any other public or private property • Contaminate public or private property or create health hazards on said property Title 8 of the CCR establishes California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) requirements related to public and worker protection. Topics addressed in Title 8 include materials exposure limits, equipment requirements, protective clothing, hazardous materials, and accident prevention. Construction safety and exposure standards for lead and asbestos are set forth in Title 8.

Title 14 of the CCR establishes minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal.

Title 17 of the CCR establishes regulations relating to the use and disturbance of materials containing naturally occurring asbestos.

Title 19 of the CCR establishes a variety of emergency fire response, fire prevention, and construction and construction materials standards.

Title 22 of the CCR sets forth definitions of hazardous waste and special waste. The section also identifies hazardous waste criteria and establishes regulations pertaining to the storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste.

Title 26 of the CCR is a medley of State regulations pertaining to hazardous materials and waste that are presented in other regulatory sections. Title 26 mandates specific management criteria related to hazardous materials identification, packaging, and disposal. In addition, Title 26 establishes requirements for hazardous materials transport, containment, treatment, and disposal. Finally, staff training standards are set forth in Title 26.

Title 27 of the CCR sets forth a variety of regulations relating to the construction, operation and 1113
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-8 maintenance of the State’s landfills. The title establishes a landfill classification system and categories of waste. Each class of landfill is constructed to contain specific types of waste (household, inert, special, and hazardous).

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) is Part 9 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The CFC incorporates the 2009 International Fire Code of the International Code Council with necessary California amendments. The purpose of the CFC is to establish the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

California Health and Safety Code
Division 11 of the Health and Safety Code establishes regulations related to a variety of explosive substances and devices, including high explosives and fireworks. Section 12000 et seq. establishes regulations related to explosives and explosive devices, including permitting, handling, storage, and transport (in quantities greater than 1,000 pounds).

Division 12 establishes requirements for buildings used by the public, including essential services buildings, earthquake hazard mitigation technologies, school buildings, and postsecondary buildings.

Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code establishes DTSC authority and sets forth hazardous waste and underground storage tank regulations. In addition, the division creates a State superfund framework that mirrors the Federal program.

Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code establishes California Air Resources Board (CARB) authority. The division designates CARB as the air pollution control agency per Federal regulations and charges the Board with meeting Clean Air Act requirements.

California Health and Safety Code and UBC Section 13000 et seq.

State fire regulations are set forth in §13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which is divided into “Fires and Fire Protection” and “Buildings Used by the Public.” The regulations provide for the enforcement of the UBC and mandate the abatement of fire hazards. The code establishes broadly applicable regulations, such as standards for buildings and fire protection devices, in addition to regulations for specific land uses, such as childcare facilities and high‐rise structures. 1114
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-9 California Vehicle Code §31600 (Transportation of Explosives) Establishes requirements related to the transportation of explosives in quantities greater than 1,000 pounds, including licensing and route identification.

Cal/EPA Cortese List
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The list, or a site's presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Cortese List identifies the following:
• Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites
• Cease and desist order Sites
• Waste Constituents above Hazardous Waste Levels outside the Waste Management Unit Sites
• Leaking Underground Tank (LUST) Cleanup Sites
• Other Cleanup Sites
• Land Disposal Sites
• Military Sites
• WDR Sites
• Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities Sites • Monitoring Wells Sites
• DTSC Cleanup Sites
Local Regulations
City of Visalia General Plan
The purpose of the Safety and Noise Element of City of Visalia’s General Plan is to identify the natural and man-made public health and safety hazards that exist within the City, and to establish preventative and responsive policies and programs to mitigate their potential impacts. This Element addresses geologic hazards, flood hazards, hazardous materials, wildfire hazards, and safety services. The following list of goals and policies from the Safety and Noise Element are applicable to the proposed project.

S-P-15 Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.
1115
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-10 S-P-16 Promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disposal of household hazardous wastes through public education and awareness. Collection programs should be reviewed annually and expanded where appropriate.

The City will also coordinate with hazardous waste recyclers to increase the frequency of hazardous waste collection events under this program.

S-P-18 Coordinate enforcement of the Hazardous Material Disclosure Law and the implementation of the Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan with the Tulare County Health and Human Service Agency.

S-P-19 Coordinate with the Tulare County Environmental Health Division and other appropriate regulatory agencies during the review process of all proposals for the use of hazardous materials or those involving properties that may have toxic contamination, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, CAM 17 metals, asbestos, and lead.

S-P-21 Develop a community wildfire mitigation plan that identifies and prioritizes areas for hazard fuel reduction treatments, and recommend the types of methods of treatments.

S-P-27 Implement a fuel modification program, which also includes residential maintenance requirements and enforcement, plan submittal and approval process, guidelines for planting, and a listing of undesirable plant species.

Require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction.

S-P-28 Assist in solving the incendiary problem by improving law enforcement and investigation equipment, adapting equipment available in other fields; and purchasing new equipment where needed. Implement “no burn” programs, particularly in areas outside of immediate response zones of fire stations.

S-P-29 Ensure availability of adequate water supplies to meet public health and safety needs, and for resource protection, by maintaining the following order of priority for water use:
• Potable water supply, fire protection, and domestic use • Resource protection and preservation
1116
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-11 • Industrial, irrigation and commercial uses
• Water-oriented or water-enhanced recreation
• Air conditioning
S-P-30 Integrate the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan, in particular the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy sections, into the development review process, the emergency operations plan, and capital improvement program, as appropriate.

S-P-32 Continue to make available fire alarm systems, as referred to in this Element, to be tied directly and automatically to the Visalia City Fire Chief’s alarm-receiving center.

S-P-37 Continue to work with weather forecasting and public safety agencies to provide warning and protective information to residents, travelers, and visitors about severe valley fog conditions.

S-P-38 Continue to rely on the Tulare County Office of Emergency Services to maintain inventories of available resources to be used during disasters.

Tulare County Environmental Health Division
In Visalia, the Tulare County Environmental Health Division (TCEHD) is the local agency responsible for the implementation of the state-mandated Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. Tulare County has prepared a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and a Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) which serves as the County’s emergency response plan for hazardous materials emergency incidents. In addition, the TCEHD acts as lead agency to ensure proper remediation of leaking underground petroleum storage tank sites and certain other contaminated sites.

TCEHD provides three permanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) drop-off facilities in the County including one in Visalia, and operates mobile collection events throughout the year.

These services are available free of charge to any Tulare County resident.

The City of Visalia Fire Department provides some oversight of hazardous materials. The Fire Department is responsible for conducting inspections for code compliance and fire-safe practices and for investigation of fire and hazardous materials incidents. The Fire Department regulates explosive and hazardous materials under the Uniform Fire Code, and permits the handling, storage and use of any explosive or other hazardous material. 1117
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-12 Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural or man-made hazards. Visalia participates in the preparation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP) which covers Tulare County and eleven participating cities. The MJLHMP was prepared to assess the natural, technological, and human-caused risks to County communities, to reduce the potential impact of the hazards by creating mitigation strategies. The 2017 MJLHMP represents the County’s commitment to create a safer, more resilient community by taking actions to reduce risk and by committing resources to lessen the effects of hazards on the people and property of the County.

The plan has been designed to meet four goals; (1) significantly reduce life loss and injuries, (2) minimize damage to structures and property, as well as disruption of essential services and human activities, (3) protect the environment, and (4) promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy.

This plan complies with The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), Federal Register 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206, which modified the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) by adding a new section, 322 - Mitigation Planning. This law, as of November 1, 2004, requires local governments to develop and submit hazard mitigation plans as a condition of receiving Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and other mitigation project grants. The County; the Cities of Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, Visalia, and Woodlake; the Tule River Tribe; and Tulare County Office of Education staffs have coordinated preparation of the MJLHMP in cooperation with stakeholders, partner agencies and members of the public, will seek MJLHMP approval and adopt their appropriate sections.

The development, approval, and implementation of the MJLHMP can dramatically reduce future risk and loss by evaluating risk and identifying mitigation actions. The MJLHMP will also assist the County in qualifying for several types of funding offered by FEMA including Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) funds (funding for projects that are implemented before a disaster occurs), and HMGP (post-disaster funds funding for hazard reduction projects). In addition, the MJLHMP improves the County’s access to other types of Federal disaster assistance, including funds for permanent repairs. This increased eligibility for grant programs affords the County an opportunity to prepare for the future and work with neighbors to protect the local community. 1118
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-13 As the costs of damage from natural disasters continue to increase, governmental and local agencies, as well as the general public, have come to realize the importance of identifying effective ways to reduce vulnerability and losses. The MJLHMP assists entities and jurisdictions in reducing impacts from hazards by recognizing vulnerability in relation to risk, identifying resources, creating an orderly data collection process and developing strategies for risk reduction, while helping to guide and coordinate mitigation activities. The resources and information within the MJLHMP:
• Establish a basis for coordination and collaboration among agencies and the public • Assist in the integration of mitigation goals and objectives with other County and community plans
• Identify existing mitigation projects and prioritize future projects • Assist in meeting the requirements of Federal mitigation programs • Lay the foundation for future MJLHMP updates and MJLHMP maintenance In addition, the MJLHMP is designed to ensure the long-term values of the community are not compromised in the course of preparing for, responding to or recovering from, natural and manmade hazards.

Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)
The standardized emergency management system (SEMS) is a structure for coordination between the government and local emergency response organizations. It provides and facilitates the flow of emergency information and resources within and between the organizational levels of field response, local government, operational areas, regions and state management. SEMS facilitates priority setting, integrated coordination, effective flow of resources and information between all stakeholders. SEMS incorporates the use of the Incidental Command System (ICS), Master Mutual Aid Agreement (MMAA), Operational Area (OA) concept and multi-agency and interagency coordination. State agencies and local government units are to use SEMS in order to become eligible for reimbursement costs led by the state’s disaster assistance program.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air District (SJVAPCD) is a public health agency whose mission is to improve the health and quality of life for all Valley residents through efficient, effective and entrepreneurial air quality-management strategies. SJVAPCD’s ten core values include:
1119
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-14 protection of public health; active and effective air pollution control efforts with minimal disruption to the Valley’s economic prosperity; outstanding customer service; ingenuity and innovation; accountability to the public; open and transparent public process; recognition of the uniqueness of the Valley; continuous improvement; effective and efficient use of public funds; and respect for the opinions and interests of all Valley residents.7 To achieve these core values the SJVAPCD has adopted air quality plans pursuant to the California CAA and a comprehensive list of rules to limit air quality impacts. The air plans currently in effect in the SJVAB and specific rules that apply to the proposed Project are listed and described further below.

The SJVAPCD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The SJVAPCD, in coordination with the eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing air quality attainment plans for the SJVAB. The SJVAPCD also regulates asbestos demolition and other hazardous materials handling.

Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
The California Environmental Protection Agency designates specific local agencies as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA), typically at the county level. The Tulare County Environmental Health Department (EHD) is the agency that has been designated the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County. Each designated CUPA is responsible for the implementation of six statewide programs within its jurisdiction. These programs include:
• Underground storage of hazardous substances (USTs)
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMP) requirements
• Hazardous Waste Generator requirements
• California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal‐ARP) program • Uniform Fire Code hazardous materials management plan • Above Ground Storage Tanks (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan only) Implementation of these programs involves:
• Permitting and inspection of regulated facilities
• Providing educational guidance and notice of changing requirements stipulated in State or Federal laws and regulations
• Investigations of complaints regarding spills or unauthorized releases 7 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. About the District. https://www.valleyair.org/General_info/aboutdist.htm#Mission. Accessed June 2022. 1120
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-15 • Administrative enforcement actions levied against facilities that have violated applicable laws and regulations
Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item:
o Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
o Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
o Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. o Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
o For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
o Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
o Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.9-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. This impact is associated with hazards caused by the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
1121
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-16 Construction
The proposed Project consists of construction and operation of a mixed-use development that will feature single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, educational and park / trail facilities on approximately 507 acres. Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. These materials may include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance would ensure that human health and the environment are not exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (refer to Section 3.7 Geology and Soils), which ensures the Project adhere to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program through the submission and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction activities to prevent contaminated runoff from leaving the Project site. Therefore, after mitigation, no significant impacts would occur during construction activities.

Operation
The operational phase of the proposed Project would occur after construction is completed and residents and employees move in to occupy the structures on a day-to-day basis. The proposed Project includes land uses that are considered compatible with the surrounding uses, including single and multi-family residential uses, commercial uses, open space, parks / recreation areas and a stormwater basin. None of these land uses routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, with the exception of common residential and commercial hazardous materials such as cleaners, paint, petroleum products, etc. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment occur.

Handling and use of hazardous materials and the disposal of the resulting hazardous wastes would be required to follow the applicable laws and regulations, as described in the Regulatory Setting section herein.

Hazardous materials would typically be stored in their original containers prior to use. As required, the hazardous materials would be stored in each building, in locations according to compatibility and in storage enclosures (i.e., flammable material storage cabinets and biological 1122
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-17 safety cabinets) or in areas or rooms specially designed, protected, and contained for such storage, in accordance with applicable regulations. Hazardous materials would be handled and used in accordance with applicable regulations by personnel that have been trained in the handling and use of the material and that have received proper hazard-communication training. Hazardous materials reporting (i.e., California Hazardous Materials Business Planning, California Proposition 65 notification, and Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act reporting) would be completed as required.

Compliance with all federal, State and local regulations, and the City of Visalia General Plan Implementing Policies S-P-3, S-P-15 through S-P-19, S-P-21, S-P-27 through S-P-30, S-P-32, S-P-37, and S-P-38 in the Safety and Noise Element would ensure that the Project would not cause an adverse effect on the environment with respect to the use, storage, or disposal of general household and commercial hazardous substances generated from future development or uses. In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO – 1 (requirement for SWPPP and erosion BMPs) will ensure impacts remain less than significant.

Therefore, the proposed Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and any impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

Mitigation Measures:

Implement Mitigation Measure GEO – 1.

Impact 3.9-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. As previously noted, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the Project (See Appendix G). The results of the Phase I are summarized as follows:

Recognized Environmental Conditions
A recognized environmental condition (REC) refers to the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: due to release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. 1123
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-18 The Phase I report revealed evidence of RECs on or associated with the proposed Project site. The long-term use of the Project site for agricultural purposes indicates the potential for agricultural chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, etc.) to have been applied. Higher concentrations are generally associated with storage and mixing operations and localized to long-term farm staging areas.

Residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals tend to be relatively uniform, low in concentration, and confined to the upper two feet of soil (typical depth of agricultural disturbance) over areas of routine application. Even low, uniform concentrations may exceed regulatory guidelines for certain / sensitive land uses.8 Based on the results of the Phase I, the Project will require subsurface investigation to evaluate the potential for elevated residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals that could potentially be present on site. Mitigation Measure HAZ – 1 will be implemented to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
A controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) refers to a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. No CRECs were identified on the Project site.9
Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
A historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) refers to a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. No HRECs were identified on the Project site.10 Business Environmental Risks (BER)
A Business Environmental Risk (BER) refers to a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of 8 Phase I ESA (June 2021), Sierra Delta Consultants LLC, page 32 9 Ibid, page ii.
10 Ibid, page iii.
1124
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-19 a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues identified by the Phase I ESA. No BERs were identified on the Project site.

Other Issues
Although the Phase I did not identify any previous oil / gas wells on or adjacent to the site, the California Department of Conservation – Geologic Energy Management Division (Division) provided an NOP comment letter that indicated there is one (1) well on the Project site that has been abandoned to current Division requirements as prescribed by law. However, the Division recommends that the Project provide a delineation of the well location and to provide notice to present and future property owners that an abandoned well may be on site. This is identified in Mitigation Measure HAZ – 2. In addition, Mitigation Measure HAZ – 3 has been included in the event that any unknown wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities. Because the existing well has been abandoned pursuant to the Division’s requirements and because additional investigation will occur prior to issuance of grading permits (with any remedial action required),after implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ – 3, the Project’s impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

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 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.
1125
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-20 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.

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 onsite 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.

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
Impact 3.9-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Ridgeview Middle School is within ¼ mile of the proposed Project site. There are no other schools within ¼ mile, however, a new high school is planned immediately east of Ridgeview Middle School near the center area of the Carleton Acres Project 1126
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-21 area. In addition, a potential elementary school could also be located within the northern boundaries of the proposed Project.

As noted in Chapter 3.3 Air Quality, Project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from Project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years.

As identified in Chapter 3.3 Air Quality, the Project would not exceed SJVAPCD localized emission daily screening levels for any criteria pollutant, and the Project is not a significant source of TAC emissions during construction or operation. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors such as schools.

Based on the proposed Project description of a mixed use residential and commercial development, it is not reasonably foreseeable that the proposed Project will cause a significant impact by emitting hazardous waste or bringing hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Residential and general commercial developments typically do not generate, store, or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Such uses also do not normally involve dangerous activities that could expose persons onsite or in the surrounding areas to large quantities of hazardous materials. See the responses to a) and b) above regarding hazardous material handling. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.9-4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Geotracker11 and DTSC EnviroStor 12 databases). In addition, the Phase I did not identify any Geotracker or DTSC occurrences within the Project site. However, the EnviroStor Database identified Ridgeview 11 California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=visalia%2C+ca. Accessed June 2022. 12 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Visalia+california. Accessed June 2022. 1127
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-22 Middle School, adjacent site to the southeast, as a Certified Closed School Cleanup Site. The site was certified closed on 04/04/2018 with no further actions required for the school cleanup.

Ridgeview Middle School was constructed at the site in 2016. Based on the cleanup and status of the site, it is considered a low risk to the Project site. There are no hazardous materials sites that impact schools within ¼ mile of the Project site and the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.9-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest public airport is the Visalia Municipal Airport in Visalia, approximately

2.8 miles southwest of the Project site. The nearest private airport is the Swanson Ranch NR 2 Airport, approximately 8.6 miles to the northwest. There are no public or private airport land use plans that are applicable to the Project.

Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.9-6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Emergency Services Act (Government Code Section 8550-8668) provides a framework for local jurisdictions to prepare and maintain an Emergency Plan for natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life. The Tulare County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) includes planning and response scenarios for seismic hazards, extreme weather conditions, landslides, dam failure and other flooding, wildland fires, hazardous materials incidents, transportation emergencies, civil disturbance, and terrorist attacks. It is meant to work in conjunction with the State Emergency Plan. The Fire Department is represented on the County’s Emergency Council, which meets for regional coordination purposes at least four times per year. The Fire Department also houses the City’s Emergency Operations Center and lead emergency preparedness and 1128
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-23 planning for the City. In addition, the City Fire Department has specific procedures for hazardous materials emergency response.

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 City of Visalia has reviewed the Project layout and street configuration and has determined that the Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities and as such, the Project would not interfere with the City’s adopted emergency response plan. Any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.9-7: Expose people or structures either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wildfire hazard data for the City of Visalia is provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The majority of the City is considered to have either little or no threat, with very small portions having a moderate threat of wildfire.13 According to the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan Hazards and Safety Services Figure 8-4 14 ,
neither the proposed Project nor its vicinity have a high wildfire threat. In addition, and as described in the Environmental Setting section, only a very small portion of land within Tulare County is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the Local Responsibilities Area mapping program.15
There are no other factors of the proposed Project or the surrounding area that would exacerbate wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. For these reasons, the impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
13 Ibid. Page 8-12.
14 Ibid. Page 8-13.
15 California State Geoportal. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414. Accessed June 2022. 1129
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-24 Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials is generally site-specific rather than cumulative in nature because each project site has different hazardous considerations that would be subject to review. Project construction may involve the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, which may involve the use of equipment that contains hazardous materials (e.g., solvents and fuels, diesel‐fueled equipment), or the transportation of excavated soil and/or groundwater containing contaminants from areas that are identified as being contaminated.

With respect to impacts related to the creation of a hazard through upset or accident conditions involving the release of a hazardous material, the following could occur during Project construction and operation: site grading that would generate dust, inadvertently damage the existing abandoned wells, and unknown wells could be discovered. However, conformance with existing State and City regulations, as well as project safety design features, and implementation of mitigation measures GEO-1, HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, identified herein, would render this impact less than significant. This impact does not have the potential to contribute to cumulative hazards associated with other projects. The impacts would be localized, occurring only in the immediate vicinity of the project sites, and the implementation of appropriate safety measures during construction of the proposed Project would reduce the impact to a level that would not contribute to cumulative effects.

Because the project is located within ¼ mile of an existing school, with implementation of GEO1 and HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, it will not contribute to cumulative effects resulting from hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The project is not located on a listed hazardous materials site and accordingly would not contribute to cumulative impacts resulting from the creation of a significant hazard to the public due to its location.

Because of the Project’s location in an area with adequate emergency response times and the absence of project features that would physically impair emergency response or evacuation, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Similarly, the Project would not contribute to cumulative wildland fire-related impacts due to its location in an area with low wildland fire risk. Considering the protection granted by local, State and federal agencies and their requirements for the use of hazardous materials in the region, as discussed above, with implementation of GEO-1 and HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, the overall cumulative impact would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative hazards and human health impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation. 1130
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-1

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project pertaining to hydrology, water supply and water quality. To assist in evaluation of this environmental impact, an SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (Appendix H) was prepared.

Environmental Setting
Project Site
The proposed Project site is located in a developing area planned as part of the City of Visalia.

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 (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 (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.

The Project site is currently developed with agriculture, with canals and ag-wells present. The immediate area is primarily agriculture with residential to the south, and the Ridgeview Middle School to the southeast. The Project site is underlain with Akers-Akers and Grangeville sandy loam soil1. The Visalia area is basically flat, lying at an elevation of approximately 330 feet above sea level. Tulare County is located on the Central Valley floor, in the San Joaquin valley.

The Project site contains portions of three canals that are owned by the Modoc Ditch Company.

The canals are not listed on the National Wetlands Inventory.

The majority of the Project is designated Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone “X” (outside the 500- year flood zone) while small portions of the site along the northern and northwestern boundary are in Flood Zone “AE”. The AE Zone includes areas subject to risk from a 100-year flood. Urban development is allowed under both flood zones.
1 Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 2022.
1131
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-2 Water Agencies and Providers
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) Visalia provides water supplies for the City.

The Project involves annexation of the Project site into the City of Visalia. Upon annexation, the site will be added to the Cal Water Visalia District service area. Cal Water Visalia District is part of a regional group of agencies and providers within the Greater Visalia Area as follows:
• Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKGSA)
• Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD)
• Kaweah River Basin Regional Water Management Group
In the region in which the Visalia District is located, Cal Water participates with the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD), the City of Visalia and others in the Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) established under the provisions of Assembly Bill 3030. KDWCD is the lead agency in this effort. KDWCD has historically focused on the conservation of flows of the Kaweah River for groundwater recharge. Cal Water is also a stakeholder group participant to Kaweah River Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan adopted December 2014.

The Visalia District is an urban retail water supplier, as defined by CWC §10608.12. Visalia District does not provide water at wholesale. The sole source of water supply for the customers of the Visalia District is groundwater. The Visalia District of Cal Water pumps from the Kaweah basin, which has been designated by DWR as critically over drafted (COD).2 Local Groundwater Basin
The Kaweah Basin provides the main source of water supply for the City of Visalia and surrounding communities. The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD) manages the Basin. KDWCD and other irrigation districts and companies have historically managed groundwater through the conjunctive use of surface water. KDWCD regularly provides programs that benefit local agricultural customers by making available additional surface water supplies for irrigation. These programs effectively reduce the withdrawals of groundwater resulting in in-lieu recharge of the aquifer. Groundwater is normally used by agriculture as an alternate source when surface supplies are not available and is the sole source in areas within KDWCD jurisdiction that do not have access to surface water. 2 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 2. 1132
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-3 KDWCD also operates about 40 dedicated water management basins with a total area of approximately 2,100 acres for the multiple purposes of flood control and groundwater replenishment. The basins have the capacity to recharge approximately 983 acre-feet per day under optimal conditions. Visalia District operates the Public Water Systems (PWS) listed in Table

3.10-1. Public Water Systems are the systems that provide drinking water for human consumption and these systems are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (Board), Division of Drinking Water3.

Table 3.10-1: Public Water Systems
Public Water
System Number
Public Water
System Name
Number of Municipal
Connections 2020
Volume of Water
Supplied 2020 (AF)
5410016 Visalia 45,325 30,034
5400935 Mullen 42 21
5410041 Tulco 183 97
Total 45,550 30,152
Regulatory Setting
Federal Agencies and Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA) and Associated Programs
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33 CFR 1251). The regulations implementing the CWA protect waters of the U.S. including streams and wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality by regulating point source and some non-point source discharges. Under Section 402 of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process was established to regulate these discharges.
3 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 3. 1133
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-4 Construction activities that are subject to this general permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation that result in soil disturbances to at least one acre of the total land area. Construction activities that disturb less than one acre are still subject to this general permit if the activities are part of a large common plan of development or if significant water quality impairment would result. In California, the Construction General Permit, revised in September 2009, is implemented by the SWRCB.

Section 401
CWA Section 401 requires an evaluation of water quality when a proposed activity requiring a federal license or permit could result in a discharge to waters of the United States. In California, USEPA has delegated to SWRCB and the RWQCBs the authority to issue water quality certifications. Each RWQCB is responsible for implementing Section 401 in compliance with the CWA and that region's water quality control plan (also known as a Basin Plan). Applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct activities that might result in the discharge to waters of the United States must also obtain a Section 401 water quality certification to ensure that any such discharge would comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA.

Section 404
CWA Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the U.S., which include all navigable waters, their tributaries, and some isolated waters, as well as some wetlands adjacent to the afore-mentioned waters (33 CFR Section 328.3). Areas typically not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial waterbodies such as swimming pools, and water-filled depressions (33 CFR Part 328). Areas meeting the regulatory definition of waters of the U.S. are subject to the jurisdiction of USACE under the provisions of CWA Section 404. Construction activities involving placement of fill into jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are regulated by USACE through permit requirements. No USACE permit is effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) makes available federally subsidized flood insurance to owners of flood-prone properties. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes.
1134
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-5 State of California Regulations
Department of Water Resources (DWR)
DWR’s major responsibilities include preparing and updating the California Water Plan to guide development and management of the State’s water resources; planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Water Resources Development System; regulating dams; providing flood protection; assisting in emergency management to safeguard life and property; educating the public; and serving local water needs by providing technical assistance. In addition, DWR cooperates with local agencies on water resources investigations; supports watershed and river restoration programs; encourages water conservation; explores conjunctive use of ground and surface water facilities voluntary water transfers; and, when needed, operates a State drought water bank.

State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), located in Sacramento, is the agency with jurisdiction over water quality issues in the State of California. The SWRCB is governed by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code), which establishes the legal framework for water quality control activities by the SWRCB. The intent of the PorterCologne Act is to regulate activities which may adversely affect the quality of waters of the State to attain the highest water quality which is reasonable, considering a full range of demands and values. The act authorizes the SWRCB to establish water quality principles and guidelines for long-range resource planning including groundwater and surface water management programs and control and use of recycled water. Much of the implementation of the SWRCB's responsibilities is delegated to nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The proposed Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB.

California Water Code
The Federal CWA establishes certain guidelines for the states to follow in developing programs for the control of surface water pollution and for planning the development and use of water resources. Under certain circumstances, the CWA allows the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw the primary responsibility for these programs from states with inadequate implementation mechanisms.

California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code) (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants 1135
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-6 the SWRCB and each of the RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Federal CWA. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.

Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for its region.

The regional plans must conform with the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the State water policy adopted by the SWRCB. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.

Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the state to prepare and provide a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260a-c is as follows:
(a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the information that may be required by the regional board:
(1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system.
(2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the state in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state within any region.
(3) A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well. (b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to Section 13269.
(c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge. 1136
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-7 Water Code section 10910 (SB 610)
Water Code section 10910 (SB 610) requires that a lead agency obtain a water supply assessment from an applicable public water system for certain projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, which are defined as (a) a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; (b) a shopping center or business employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; (c) a commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet; (d) a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms; (e) an industrial or manufacturing establishment housing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 650,000 square feet or 40 acres; (f) a mixed use project containing any of the foregoing; or (g) any other project that would have a water demand at least equal to a 500 dwelling unit project. Refer to Impact Section 3.10-2 herein for the discussion pertaining to the Water Supply Assessment that was prepared for the Project.

Regional Water Quality Board
The Central Valley RWQCB administers the NPDES storm water-permitting program in the Central Valley region, including Visalia. Construction activities on one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The plan must include specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during proposed construction to control degradation of surface water by preventing the potential erosion of sediments or discharge of pollutants from the construction area. The General Construction Permit program was established by the SWRCB and the Central Valley RWQCB for the specific purpose of reducing impacts to surface waters that may occur due to construction activities. BMPs have been established in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook (2003), and are recognized as effectively reducing degradation of surface waters to an acceptable level. Additionally, the SWPPP describes measures to prevent or control runoff degradation after construction is complete, and identifies a plan to inspect and maintain these facilities or project elements.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, waters of the state fall under the jurisdiction of the appropriate Regional Water Quality and Control Board (RWQCB). Under the act, the RWQCB must prepare and periodically update water quality control basin plans. Each basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater, as well as 1137
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-8 actions to control nonpoint and point sources of pollution to achieve and maintain these standards. Projects that affect wetlands or waters must meet waste discharge requirements of the RWQCB, which may be issued in addition to a water quality certification or waiver under CWA Section 401.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In 2014, California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (Water Code §10720 et seq.). SGMA requires that groundwater basins designated by the state Department of Water Resources (DWR) as high priority and/or critically overdrafted must be managed under a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) that avoids “undesirable results” as defined in the Act within 20 years from January 31, 2020. The GSP must be developed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) approved by the DWR. The City of Visalia (California Water Service Company) is part of the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia General Plan
The following lists policies and implementing actions from the City of Visalia General Plan pertaining to hydrology and water quality that are applicable to the proposed Project.

GUIDING POLICIES
PSCU-P-26 Encourage cooperative agreements with the City and the Kaweah Water Conservation District, levee districts, irrigation companies, school district, College of the Sequoias, Southern California Edison Company and other public agencies and utilities to explore innovative recreation open space facilities throughout the Visalia planning area.

PSCU-P-44 Continue to improve and expand the City’s Water Conservation Program, consistent with the Urban Water Management Plan as appropriate, including an active public outreach component and an online presence. The program should provide information and links to additional resources on water-efficient plumbing fixtures and planting and irrigation methods, and the development of safe and effective gray water systems. It should also maintain an up-to-date list of incentive programs.
1138
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-9 PSCU-P-45 Continue to improve and expand the City’s Water Conservation Program, consistent with the Urban Water Management Plan as appropriate, including an active public outreach component and an online presence. The program should provide information and links to additional resources on water-efficient plumbing fixtures and planting and irrigation methods, and the development of safe and effective gray water systems. It should also maintain an up-to-date list of incentive programs.

PSCU-P-46 Continue the City’s active role in regional and local water management planning, building on partnerships with Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and participation in the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning (IRWM) in implementing the Urban Water Management Plan and the Groundwater Management Plan. Continue to develop and implement projects that address groundwater overdraft mitigation and support additional groundwater recharge, using funds generated from the Water Resources Management and Groundwater Overdraft Mitigation Fee Ordinance and other sources. Projects may include but are not limited to:
• Acquisition of surface water rights and surface water supplies; • Development of groundwater recharge programs and facilities; • Reconfiguration of stormwater facilities designed to retain as much stormwater as possible within and near the City;
• Enhancement of cooperative programs with local water management agencies and companies; and
• Development of more extensive recycled water delivery systems in support of the Urban Water Management Plan.

PSCU-P-59 Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan.
1139
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-10 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
• In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.10-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The Project has the potential to impact water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements during construction (temporary impacts) and operation (polluted stormwater runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces and urban runoff). 1140
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-11 Construction
Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.

Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

Three general sources of potential short-term construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project are: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and transportation, via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials may effectively mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of common sense, “good housekeeping” procedures can be extended to non-hazardous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes.

Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil, antifreeze, or other fluids on the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and soil contamination. In addition, grading activities can greatly increase erosion processes. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Secondly, the area should be secured to control offsite migration of pollutants.

The Project site is located within the Central Valley RWQCB and is subject to the applicable requirements of the Basin Plan administered by the RWQCB in accordance with the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act.

In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, and as described in Section 3.6 - Geology and Soils, Mitigation Measure GEO – 2 ensures the Project will comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO - 2 would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

As noted in Section 3.3 – Biological Resources, the Project site contains portions of three canals that are owned by the Modoc Ditch Company. The canals are not listed on the National Wetlands 1141
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-12 Inventory and no significant impacts are anticipated. However, the Project developer will be required to obtain agreements with the Modoc Ditch Company prior to any construction activity associated with any proposed abandonment and/or replacement of the Company’s facilities on the Project site.

Operation
The long-term operations of the proposed Project could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with site improvements, including new asphalt, concrete and the proposed structures on site. Urban runoff typically contains oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, byproducts of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals) and other household pollutants. Precipitation early in the rain season displaces these pollutants into storm water resulting in high pollutant concentrations in initial wet weather runoff. This initial runoff with peak pollutant levels can be referred to as the "first flush" of storm events.

The proposed Project would install storm water drainage facilities (e.g. storm drainage mechanisms and storm water pipes) that would be in compliance with the City of Visalia Development Standards. See Section 3.10-3 herein regarding Project specific design and stormwater capacity. A drainage and storage plan has been developed that will ensure Project impacts are less than significant.

In accordance with the City’s storm water management regulations and NPDES Stormwater Program (General Stormwater Permit), BMPs would be implemented to reduce the amount of pollution in stormwater discharged from the Project site. The management of water quality through the requirement to obtain a General Stormwater Permit and implement appropriate BMPs would ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality standards. These are existing regulatory requirements.

In addition, the Project will generate typical wastewater (sewer) associated with the proposed residential and commercial developments and will connect to the City’s sewer system. The Project site would be located within the service area of the City of Visalia Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Since the WWTP is considered a publicly owned treatment facility, operational discharge flows treated at the WWTP would be required to comply with applicable water discharge requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City as well as water discharge requirements outlined by the RWQCB would ensure that wastewater discharges 1142
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-13 coming from the proposed Project site and treated by the WWTP system would not exceed applicable Central RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. See also Section 3.19 – Utilities and Service Systems for further discussion regarding the Project’s wastewater (sewer) impacts.

The Project will not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, with mitigation, impacts result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

Implement MM GEO-2.

Impact 3.10-2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant. The proposed Project would add demand for potable water to the Visalia District of the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) water system, which is reliant on groundwater to serve its customers. The information herein is based, in part, on the SB 610 Water Supply Assessment that was prepared for the Project (Appendix H). The results are summarized herein.

Assumptions
Project water demand is estimated using information from the City’s adopted 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a study from the Pacific Institute, a study prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as well as from the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) prepared by the Kaweah River Basin Regional Water Management Group. Project water demand is calculated on the following assumptions4:
• Residential: The Project is proposing 3,262 residential units (see Table 2-2 for the breakdown of housing types).
• Per Capita Water Use: The average residential water uses in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) for 2020 in the City of Visalia was 128 GPCD per person, as stated in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The 2020 UWMP identified the average residential water 4 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 9. 1143
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-14 use as decreasing over time. Projected GPCD per person obtained from the 2020 UWMP will be used to calculate projected water demand from the Project. This is inclusive of water used for outdoor landscaping.
• Household Size: According to the City of Visalia Housing Element, the average household size is 3 persons per household. Although some of the housing products/floor plans proposed by the Project would likely result in fewer than 3 persons per residence, the figure is being used to conservatively estimate Project water demand. • Public Parks: The Project includes approximately 13.8 acres of parks/trails/recreational facilities. To be conservative, it is assumed that the entire park space acreage will be irrigated lawn and will require approximately 5 acre-feet of water per acre per year. This figure is based on information about water requirements for large, irrigated lawns such as golf courses in the region. It should be noted that the WSA analyzed up to 17.3 acres of park space when calculating Project water demands, and therefore the WSA likely overstates the Project’s water demand, ensuring that its analysis is conservative. • Public Areas / Landscaping: In addition to park space, the outdoor public spaces (excluding backyards) will be maintained by a Landscape and Lighting District. • Commercial: The Project contains two commercial portions. The first is 28.7 acres of commercial mixed-use in the southwest corner of the Project site. This area is planning to have a Costco store with gas pumps as the anchor tenant. The maximum square footage is 170,000 sq ft, and this will be the assumed size. In addition, a car wash and six smaller buildings totaling approximately 40,000 square feet are included. Anticipated uses at this location may include developments such as a gas station, drug store, retail, restaurants (including drive-throughs), and similar uses. The second commercial portion is 6.4 acres of neighborhood commercial in the northeast corner of the Project site. This includes three buildings totaling approximately 25,000 sq ft. Anticipated uses are convenience stores, gas stations, drug stores, restaurants, and retail stores.
• Commercial Demand: The water demand from commercial uses will be found using gallons per employee per day (GED). According to the Pacific Institutes’ study, fullservice restaurants demand 265 GED, grocery stores demand 170 GED, and other retail stores demand 152 GED. Because the uses for the six buildings in the Mixed-Use Commercial and the three buildings in the Neighborhood Commercial are not finalized, the average GED of these three uses will be utilized. This number is 196 GED. For the car wash, a report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was utilized. This report states that car washes use an average of 2,302 gallons of water per day. • Commercial Employees: To estimate the number of employees, information from the U.S.

Energy Information Administration was utilized. Square footage per worker is used. 1144
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-15 Foodservice average 567 sq ft per employee, Food sales average 1,033 sq ft per employee, and Mercantile average 1,200 sq ft per employee. The average of these three uses will be used for the buildings beside the anchor building and car wash. This number is 933 sq ft per employee.

Project Water Demand
Based on the previous assumptions, Project water demand is calculated as follows:

Residential: 3,262 dwelling units X 3.0 persons per dwelling unit = 9,786 persons X GPCD (Varies) X 365 = total number of gallons per year.

It is anticipated that when the Project is complete in 2038, residential water use from the Project will be 446,486,250 gallons per year or approximately 1,370 AF per year. A breakdown of water uses for low density residential, medium-density residential, and high-density residential is broken down in Table 3.10-2
5 .

Table 3.10-2
Project Residential Water Demands
Commercial: (Square footage / employees per square feet) = Estimate Employees Estimated Employees X GPE = Total gallons per day
It is anticipated that when the Project is complete in 2038, commercial water use from the Project will be 16,025,527 gallons per year or approximately 49.2 AF per year. A breakdown of water uses for commercial uses is shown in Table 3.10-3
6 .
5 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 10. 6 Ibid.
1145
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-16 Table 3.10-3
Project Commercial Water Demands
Parks: 17.3 acres X 5.0 acre/feet/year = ~87 acre/feet/year Based on the calculations for the proposed residential, commercial and parks water demand, it is anticipated that the Project would require approximately 1,506 acre/feet/year of water per year (at full build out)7.

City-Wide Future Estimated Water Use
Table 3.10-4 shows the projected supply volumes through 2045. Cal Water is assuming that current and planned basin recharge activities and land use conversions will result in sufficient groundwater supplies to meet demand through 2045. Therefore, the groundwater supply amounts shown in Table 3.10-4 equal the projected demand for each year. As the SGMA process unfolds and as Cal Water and its partners gain a better understanding of the basin and what is required to sustain it, this assumption will be continually reassessed. Future decisions on basin recharge activities and the potential development of other supply sources will be based on the accumulated knowledge gained about the groundwater basin8. 7 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 10. 8 Ibid, page 13.
1146
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-17 Table 3.10-4
Projected Retail Water Supplies
Comparison of Project Demand to Water Supply Sources
Table 3.10-6 provides an analysis of projected water demands needed to serve the City of Visalia for the next 20 years, comparing projected baseline community growth against the reasonably expected population growth resulting from the Carleton Acres Project. The table is labeled with lettering corresponding to each column of information.

Columns A through F represent the reasonably expected baseline condition for the Visalia District. Columns G through I represent the reasonably expected baseline condition for the Visalia District if the Project site was not developed at all. Columns J through L represents the population added by the Carleton Acres Project alone. Columns M through S represent the Visalia District water demand with Carleton Acres.

Column A represents the calendar year projection used in the analysis. Column B displays expected daily water use per person, which decreases over time due to measures taken by the District to increase water efficiency. Column C displays the forecast for the Visalia District population, which was excerpted from the Visalia District UWMP and is derived from the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) long-term socio-economic forecast model, which utilizes historic growth to forecast future population growth. The annual growth rate calculated from this forecast is shown in Column D.

Column E represents the expected residential water demand forecasted by the Visalia District UWMP. The values in Column E are derived from the forecasted average per capita daily water consumption (Column A). Column F represents the expected commercial water demand forecasted by the Visalia District UWMP.
1147
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-18 Column G depicts the baseline future service area population with no development of the Project site. Because the site was planned for residential and commercial development, it was important to calculate the service area population with no development of the site to identify an appropriate baseline to which Project-related water use should be added. Existing residential General Plan Land Use designations on the site were Low-Density Residential (4 DU/acre), Medium-Density Residential (10 DU/Acre), and High- Density Residential (16.5 DU/Acre). Using these values and the acreage of each planned land use on the site, it was determined that the site was planned for 3,158 dwelling units or 9,474 residents (See Table 3.10-5, below). The values in Column G were calculated by subtracting 9,744 residents from the population that was expected to be added between 2021 and 2037 (Column C). These dates were selected because they coincide with the proposed build-out of the Carleton Acres Project. The annual growth rate with no development of the site is shown in Column H. Column I is the baseline commercial water demand with no development of the Project site. The General Plan states that 11.4 acres were dedicated to Neighborhood Commercial. The General Plan assumes a FAR of .25. This assumption results in 124,146 sq ft of commercial space. Using the same assumptions as the commercial for the Project, this results in an expected demand of 29.15 AFY. From 2022 to 2038, this would be 1.71 AFY added each year. To calculate Column I, the expected Commercial demand was subtracted from the Commercial demand in the UWMP9.

Table 3.10-5
Comparison of Planned Land Uses to Proposed Project
9 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 17. 1148
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-19 The purpose of the remainder of the table (Columns J thru S) is to demonstrate the expected reasonable impact on water demand from the Carleton Acres Project and to quantify any necessary new water supply needed from Carleton Acres to mitigate the reasonably foreseeable impacts. Columns J and K show the expected additional population resulting from the Carleton Acres Project by year, in dwelling units and population. Column L identifies the total accrued population of Carleton Acres for each year during construction.

Column M represents the expected population growth for the Visalia District with the Carleton Acres Project included. The Values in Column M were calculated by adding the accrued population of Carleton Acres to the projected Service Aera Population with no development of the Project site. The resulting adjusted growth rate is depicted in Column N. Column O provides the resulting residential water demand for the service area with the Carleton Acres Project included. Column P provides the change in residential water demand attributable to the Carleton Acres Development. Column P is calculated by finding the difference between the service area residential water demand assumed by the Visalia UWMP and the residential water demand of the service area with the Carleton Acres Project. Columns Q and R show the change in commercial water demand. Column S is the total demand change.

The Visalia District UWMP estimated the residential water demand within the service area to be 30,732 AFY by 2045. The residential water demand in the service area with Carleton Acres was calculated to be 30,531 AFY by 2045. The UWMP estimated a commercial demand of 7,364 AFY in 2045. With the Project, the estimated commercial water demand is 7,384. Combined, the Project is expected to demand less water than the demand estimated by the Visalia UWMP. Because the service area water demand forecasted by the Visalia District UWMP is higher than the estimated water demand with the Carleton Acres Project, it can be assumed that available water supplies will be able to meet the projected demand resulting from the Carleton Acres Project10. Therefore, the Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The impact is determined to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
10 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 18. 1149
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-20 Table 3.10-6
Anticipated City Water Demands and Available Supply: Years 2021 - 204511 11 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 19. 1150
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-21 Impact 3.10-3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Construction and long-term operations of the proposed Project could result in potential impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff.

The proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with site improvements, including new asphalt, concrete and the proposed structures on site. Urban runoff typically contains oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, byproducts of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals) and other household pollutants. Precipitation early in the rain season displaces these pollutants into storm water resulting in high pollutant concentrations in initial wet weather runoff. This initial runoff with peak pollutant levels can be referred to as the "first flush" of storm events.

The proposed Project would install storm water drainage facilities (e.g. storm drainage mechanisms and storm water pipes) that would be in compliance with the City of Visalia Development Standards. 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 site 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 97.85 acre/feet. The 97.85 acre/feet of capacity is in excess of the 90.80 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 future High School, future elementary school, and the City Park at the intersection of Akers 1151
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-22 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. See Figure 3.10-1 for the conceptual location of the drainage basin and associated storm drain pipelines.

Since the basin’s 97.85 acre/feet of capacity is in excess of the 90.80 acre/feet of storage capacity that would be required by the Project, the Project will not result in exceedance of the City’s storm drain capacity.

As noted in Section 3.3 – Biological Resources, the Project site contains portions of three canals that are owned by the Modoc Ditch Company. The canals are not listed on the National Wetlands Inventory and no significant impacts are anticipated. However, the Project developer will be required to obtain agreements with the Modoc Ditch Company prior to any construction activity associated with any proposed abandonment and/or replacement of the Company’s facilities on the Project site.

Substantial erosion, siltation or flooding are not expected to occur as the site is developed. In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, and as described in the Section 3.6 - Geology and Soils, the Project will be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement. Construction of the storm drain basin and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO - 2 would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Mitigation Measures:

Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2.
1152
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-23 Figure 3.10-1
Storm Drain Master Plan
1153
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-24 Impact 3.10-4: In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant. The majority of the Project is designated Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone “X” (outside the 500-year flood zone) while small portions of the site along the northern and northwestern boundary are in Flood Zone “AE”. The AE Zone includes areas subject to risk from a 100-year flood. Urban development is allowed under both flood zones. The site has been designed with adequate storm drain capacity, and compliance with the requirements for SWPPP and BMPs (see Section 3.10-3) will ensure that risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation is less than significant. Figure 3.10-2 shows the Project site relative to the flood zones.

The site is also located more than 75 miles from the nearest ocean that could cause a tsunami and there are no bodies of water near the Project site that would represent any impacts related to seiche zones. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact related to flooding and related hazards.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Figure 3.10-2
FEMA Floodplain Map
Impact 3.10-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. See the response to Impacts 3.9-1 and 3.9-4 pertaining to water quality. The proposed Project would install storm water drainage facilities (e.g. storm 1154
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-25 drainage mechanisms and storm water pipes) that would be in compliance with the City of Visalia Development Standards. In addition, water quality protection measures are included as mitigation and the Project would be in compliance with the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan. This will ensure Project water quality impacts are less than significant.

The City of Visalia (through Cal Water) is part of the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKGSA). The proposed Project, if approved, would come under the jurisdiction and purview of Cal Water which is subject to MKGSA’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The GSP was submitted to the Department of Water Resources on January 31, 2020. Projects and management actions described in the Mid-Kaweah GSA GSP include: groundwater recharge projects and programs, surface reservoir projects, leveraged surface water exchange programs, a groundwater extraction measurement implementation program, a conceptual groundwater marketing program, and future urban and agricultural conservation. The Mid- Kaweah GSA GSP states that the GSA will work during the period from 2020 to 2025 to develop a pumping allocation program to achieve, along with neighboring GSAs, the Kaweah Subbasin’s sustainable yield by 2040. The Mid-Kaweah GSA plans to prioritize the projects/programs above to serve as the first means to achieve sustainability, but by 2026, it is anticipated that an allocation plan would be ready for implementation if necessary to achieve sustainability.

Upon approval, the Project will be subject to the rules and requirements of MKGSA’s GSP.

Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan.

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulatively Significant and Unavoidable. The geographic area for cumulative hydrology analysis is the land area included in the Kaweah Sub Basin. Buildout of the City’s General Plan and other pending projects in the Basin area will contribute to changes to stormwater collection systems and groundwater quality as well as an increase in groundwater demand.

Development of the Project in combination with future projects associated with buildout of the General Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the area. Stormwater runoff is typically directed into adjacent streets where it flows to the nearest drainage system. As with 1155
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-26 the Project, each new development would be required to design and develop a stormwater collection system that ensures appropriate water quality protection measures and sufficient capacity. All projects would be required to implement Best Management Practices and to conform to the existing NPDES water quality regulations. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-2 would require the Project to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with City requirements. Similarly, all projects that would not retain all runoff onsite would be required to prepare a SWPPP, which would include BMPs designed to prevent the mixture of sediment and other pollutants with stormwater and degrading water quality. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2, cumulative impacts of the Project to water quality would be less than significant. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with stormwater collection and water quality is less than cumulatively considerable.

With respect to erosion, drainage, and flooding, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would minimize direct impacts on erosion, drainage, and flooding. It is anticipated that other cumulative scenario projects would be required to implement similar measures, in order to minimize erosion, drainage, and flooding related impacts. Additionally, drainage related impacts from cumulative scenario projects would be primarily localized. Therefore, cumulative scenario impacts on erosion, drainage, and flooding are not anticipated to be cumulatively considerable, and the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact on flooding, erosion, or drainage.

With respect to water supplies, the City of Visalia (through Cal Water) is part of the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKGSA). The proposed Project, if approved, would become under the jurisdiction and purview of Cal Water which is subject to MKGSA’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The City of Visalia utilizes groundwater as its sole source of potable water. As identified herein and in the SB 610 Water Supply Assessment, the City anticipates being able to provide adequate potable water to the City through the year 2042.

However, development of the Project in combination with future projects within the Basin would increase the amount of overdraft in the Basin, which is already in a state of overdraft. Therefore, even with compliance with the GSP and implementation of water-reduction measures required by Cal Water, the Project would result in cumulatively considerable and unavoidable significant impacts to groundwater supplies in the Basin.
1156
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-1

3.11 Land Use and Planning
This section of the DEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects related to land use and planning associated with implementation of the proposed Project.

Environmental Setting
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 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.

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 Figures 2-1 to 2-4. Existing land uses surrounding the Project site consist of dairy farm/agricultural uses to the north and west, agricultural uses to the east, and residential/Church/water storage tank to the south.

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. 1157
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-2 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 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. Anticipated uses at this location may include development such as a Costco, gas station, car wash, drug store, retail, restaurants (including drive-throughs), 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.

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 further descriptions of these components in Chapter Two – Project Description.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertinent to local land use and planning. 1158
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-3 State of California Regulations
The Cortese‐Knox‐Herztberg Local Government Reorganization Act The Cortese‐Knox‐Herztberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56300 et seq.) governs the establishment and revision of local government boundaries.

The Act was a comprehensive revision of the Cortese‐Knox‐Herztberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. The Act is a policy of the state to encourage orderly growth and development that are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well‐being of the state. The intent of the Act is to promote orderly development while balancing competing state interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending government services. The Act had previously established the County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which gave it authority to consider and approve city and special district annexation, dissolution, and formation.

Specific Plans
A specific plan is a plan that provides detailed design and implementation tools for a specific portion of the area covered by a general plan. A specific plan may include all regulations, conditions, programs, and/or proposed legislation which may be necessary for convenient for the systematic implementation of any general plan element(s).

Local Regulations
Local Agency Formation Commission of Tulare County
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) review proposals for the formation of new local governmental agencies and for changes in the organization of existing agencies. The Tulare County LAFCO is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies which review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure and preparing Spheres of Influence for each city and special district within the county. The Commission's efforts are directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. 1159
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-4 City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia’s General Plan is the City’s long-range planning document, to the year 2030.1 It consists of nine chapters: Introduction; Land Use; Historic Preservation; Circulation; Parks, Schools, Community Facilities and Utilities; Open Space and Conservation; Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases; Safety and Noise; and Implementation. The Land Use Chapter presents the guiding principles of the land use framework, the General Plan Diagram, the land use classification system, and the buildout of this Plan to the year 2030.2 City of Visalia General Plan Policies
Note: The General Plan policies listed on the following page are only from the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. For the list of other applicable General Plan policies (e.g. Community Design, Circulation, Public Utilities, etc.), please refer to Table 3.11-2 for a list of all applicable General Plan policies and associated Project consistency determination.

Relevant General Plan Land Use Element policies are as follows:

Economic Development Policies:

LU-P-11 wherein the City will continue to coordinate planning, economic development, local workforce training, tourism, and other activities of regional significance with the Chamber of Commerce, Tulare County and other cities and organizations to foster the economic health of the area.

Urban Boundaries and Growth Management Policies:

LU-P-19 wherein the City will ensure growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased growth strategy.

LU-P-20 wherein the City will 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 wherein the City will allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary 1 City of Visalia 2030 General Plan. https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed January 2023.
2 Ch. 2 Land Use, City of Visalia 2030 General Plan. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474.

Accessed January 2023.
1160
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-5 (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; 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.

Regional Retail: New Regional Retail areas in the Tier II Growth Boundary shall be eligible for urban development upon satisfactory demonstration that the following criteria have been met:

1. Existing Regional Retail Commercial zoned land south of Caldwell Avenue. that was undeveloped as of the date of adoption of the General Plan has received at least 922,383 sq.ft. of commercial building permits [formula: 121 acres @43,560 sq.ft. per gross acre = 5,270,760sq.ft. x .25 (assumed FAR for Regional Retail development) x 0.7 (recommended flex factor)]

2. The uses and tenants proposed for the area will substantially further the community’s goal of providing high level regional retail goods and services.

3. That there is sufficient roadway capacity and adequate public facilities and infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development. The regional retail zone classification shall provide for permitted and conditional uses that are of a regional draw only. Uses that are not exclusively of a regional draw may be allowed where a finding is made that such uses are ancillary or associated with the regional uses. Uses of a neighborhood or convenience level draw only shall not be permitted. • “Tier III”: Tier III comprises full buildout of the General Plan. The expansion criteria for land in Tier III is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been issued in Tier I and Tier II at the following levels, starting from April 1, 2010:

Residential: after permits for 12,800 housing units have been issued. 1161
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-6 Commercial: after permits for 960,000 square feet of commercial space on designated Commercial Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use, Office, and Service Commercial land have been issued; and
Industrial: after permits for 2,800,000 square feet of commercial space on designated Industrial, Light Industrial, and Business Research Park land have been issued.

LU-P-22 wherein the City will 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 masterplanned 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.

Rural Buffer and Edge Conditions:

LU-P-28 wherein the City will 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.

Residential Neighborhoods:

LU-P-47 wherein the City will ensure that new neighborhoods meet land use mix standards established in Table 2-7 of the General Plan. The ranges indicated—the minimum and maximum levels of development for each type of land use—are intended to allow for flexibility in master planning in response to market conditions, infrastructure costs, and site planning policies.

LU-P-50 wherein the City will provide development standards to ensure that a mix of detached and attached single-family and multi-family housing types can be compatible in a single development.

LU-P-51 wherein the City will provide development standards to ensure residential development is not negatively affected by adjacent non-residential land uses.

LU-P-52 wherein the City will facilitate high-quality building and site design for multi-family developments by updating development standards in the zoning ordinance and providing clear rules for development review and approval and by creating and adopting design guidelines to be used in the development review and approval process. 1162
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-7 LU-P-53 wherein the City will integrate multi-family development with commercial, office, and public uses in neighborhood nodes, Downtown, and with Commercial Mixed-Use areas in East Downtown, along the Mooney corridor and elsewhere.

LU-P-55 wherein the City will 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.

LU-P-56 wherein the City will 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.

LU-P-57 wherein the City will 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.

Commercial Land Use and Mixed-Use Development:

LU-P-66 wherein the City will 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.

LU-P-67 wherein the City will 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.

LU-P-72 wherein the City will 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.

Institutional & Civic:

LU-P-108 wherein the City will designate land for Public/Institutional uses on the Land Use Diagram, including City Hall and other City buildings, County and other government 1163
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-8 buildings, schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, police and fire stations, the Municipal Airport, and waste management facilities.

City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance
The City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations governing the development and use of land in accordance with the City of Visalia General Plan in a manner that protects the public health, safety, comfort and convenience, and welfare of residents and businesses of Visalia. The zoning code provides information to facilitate the efficient review of development proposals, while providing opportunity for public review and comment for proposals that may have a significant impact on the community.

Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on land use if the project would:
o Physically divide an established community?
o Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.11-1: Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant. The proposed Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and there are no residences or businesses on the site. Areas to the west and east are planned for urban development and there are scattered rural residences and agricultural facilities to the north. There are no established communities that would be divided by the Project. The 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:
1164
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-9 North – dairy farm/agriculture; South – residential, church, water storage tank; West – dairy farm/agriculture; and East – agriculture.

Because the Project would not physically divide an established community, the impact is determined to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Impact 3.11-2: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant. The City of Visalia General Plan and Zoning Ordinance establish land use policies and regulations that are applicable to the proposed Project. Upon annexation, the Project would be subject to the land use plans, policies and regulations of these documents. The following discussion evaluates the conformity of the proposed Project to the plans, policies and regulations that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

The site comprises 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 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 commercial square footage. Tier 1 currently allows development to occur within the Tier 1 boundary. Tier 2 also currently allows development to occur within the Tier 2 boundary, being that the City of Visalia met the thresholds for expansion into Tier 2 as outlined in Policy LU-P-21 in July 2021 and the City Council of the City of Visalia endorsed the moving into Tier 2. Tier 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 Cortese1165 Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-10 Knox-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. The figure below identifies the City’s Tier boundaries relative to the Project site.

City of Visalia Tier Boundaries
Consistency with Zoning Ordinance
Once annexed into the City, the Project site will be zoned for a variety of development consisting of residential, commercial, public facilities, and parks/recreational designations. These zone districts are appropriate for uses such as those proposed by the Project. Therefore, upon annexation, the Project site will be consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 1166
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-11 Consistency with the General Plan
The site comprises 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. Table 3.11-1 summarizes the proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. As demonstrated in the table, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable objectives and policies of the General Plan.

Table 3.11-1
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
Aesthetics 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.

Yes: The project includes
trails adjacent to Modoc
ditch and includes
enhancements to the
facilities.

Aesthetics 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.

Yes: The project includes
trails adjacent to Modoc
ditch and has been
designed to take
advantage of the visual
benefits of the waterway.

Aesthetics 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.

Yes: The project includes
trails adjacent to Modoc
ditch and has been
designed to take
advantage of the visual
benefits of the waterway.

Aesthetics OSC-P-35* Use native trees in street and public landscaping designs, where appropriate, to preserve Visalia’s character.

Yes: The City of Visalia will
review all public
landscaping associated
with the project prior to
1167
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-12 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
installation.

Aesthetics 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.

Yes: The project is
surrounded by major
roadways and is within
the development tiers
established by the City.

Once annexed, the site
would be entirely within
City limits.

Aesthetics LU-P-29 Use regional and community parks and open space to enhance gateways to the City and as a buffer between
adjacent communities.

Not applicable. The site is
not considered a gateway
to the City and there are
no adjacent communities
to the project site.

Aesthetics 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.

Yes: The site is located
within the development
tiers established by the
City.

Aesthetics 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.

Yes: The project includes
landscaping at the
proposed commercial
sites. The City of Visalia
will review all public
landscaping associated
with the project prior to
installation.

Aesthetics 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.

Yes: The project includes
trails adjacent to Modoc
ditch and has been
designed to take
advantage of the visual
benefits of the waterway.

There are no existing oak
tress on the site.

Aesthetics LU-P-72* Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses Yes: As identified within
this EIR, the project
contains design features
1168
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-13 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
to reduce potential
conflicts and numerous
mitigation measures are
imposed on the project
that will ensure impacts
are less than significant.

Agriculture LU-O-12 Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses.

Yes: The project is within
the development tiers
established by the City.

Agriculture LU-O-13 Minimize urban sprawl and leap-frog development by encouraging compact, concentric and contiguous growth.

Yes: The project is within
the development tiers
established by the City.

The project would result
in contiguous growth (to
existing developments) in
this area of the City and
would serve as an orderly
and efficient transition
from rural to urban land
uses. Agricultural uses
will remain to the north of
the project site (north of
Avenue 320), but there is
planned development to
1169
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-14 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
the west
(industrial/commercial)
and east (residential).

Agriculture LU-P-19* Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased
growth strategy.

Yes: The project is within
the development tiers
established by the City.

Agriculture 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.

Yes: The project will
include development in
Tier I, which is already
inside City limits.

Agriculture 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:
o Residential: after permits for 5,850 housing
units have been issued; and,
o Commercial: after permits for 480,000 square
feet of commercial space on designated
Yes: Under the City of
Visalia’s General Plan
Policy LU-P-22, an
approved specificplanned 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
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Governments
1170
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-15 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
Commercial, Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use,
Office, and Service Commercial land have been
issued.

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-P22 allows the City Council
to approve masterplanned 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.

Agriculture 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 Yes: In order to meet the
requirements of this
policy, the City is
preparing an Agricultural
1171
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-16 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
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 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.

Preservation Ordinance
applicable to properties
within Tier 2 and Tier 3
that requires a 1:1 ratio
(or fee equivalent) of
agricultural land
preserved to agricultural
land converted towards
urban development. The
Ordinance is anticipated
to be adopted in mid2023 and the Project will
comply with the
Ordinance. 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
1172
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-17 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
of Visalia’s program shall
allow for compliance with
the preservation
ordinance to be
completed by purchase of
easements, and that such
easements be held by a
qualifying entity, such as
a local land trust, and
require the submission of
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,
1173
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-18 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
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. The
project includes MM AG –
1 which requires
mitigating at a 1:1 ratio as
described in LU-P-34.

Agriculture 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.

Yes: The project includes
MM AG – 2 which
includes a Right-to-Farm
covenant.

Air Quality 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.

Yes: The project is
required to comply with
SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII
– Fugitive PM10
Prohibitions and other
regulations pertaining to
particulate emissions
Air Quality 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.

Yes: The project is in
compliance with
regulations pertaining to
wood-burning fireplaces.

Air Quality 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.

Not applicable: This is a
new development, thus
the “change-out”
program does not apply.
1174
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-19 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
Air Quality 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.

Yes: The project included
a full analysis of air quality
impacts, greenhouse gas
impacts, and energy use
impacts. Mitigation
measures will be imposed
and other SJVAPCD
regulations and BMPs will
be followed.

Air Quality 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.

Yes: The project is below
the City’s vehicle miles
traveled threshold.

Biological
Resources
OSC-P-30 Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development projects
involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies.

Yes: The project included
a biological resources
survey and technical
report. There are no
significant biological
impacts associated with
the project.

Biological
Resources
OSC-P-31 Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require
protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: (1)
avoidance; (2) onsite mitigation, and (3) offsite
mitigation.

Yes: The project included
a biological resources
survey and technical
report. There are no
significant biological
impacts associated with
the project. Mitigation
measures will be
included for
preconstruction surveys
and avoidance.

Biological
Resources
OSC-P-37 Design selected storm water ponds and retention basins to serve a dual role as wildlife habitat by planting species appropriate for food and cover needs. Work with a
trained professional in design, selection, and
management of each site.

Yes: The project storm
drain system will be
reviewed by the City of
Visalia.

Cultural
Resources
H-P-10 Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

Yes: A cultural resources
survey and technical
report was prepared for
1175
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-20 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
this project. There are no
known cultural or
historical resources
associated with the site.

Cultural
Resources
OSC-P-42 Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
• Requiring a records review for development
proposed in areas that are considered
archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
• Determining the potential effects of
development and construction on archaeological
or paleontological resources (as required by
CEQA);
• Requiring pre-construction surveys and
monitoring during any ground disturbance for all
development in areas of historical and
archaeological sensitivity (defined as areas
identified according to the National Historic
Preservation Act as part of the Section 106
process); and
• Implementing appropriate measures to avoid
the identified impacts, as conditions of project
approval. In the event that previously
unidentified historical, archaeological, or
paleontological resources are discovered during
construction, grading activity in the immediate
area shall cease and materials and their
surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A
qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must
make an immediate evaluation and avoidance
measures or appropriate mitigation should be
completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. The
State Office of Historic Preservation has issued
recommendations for the preparation of
Archaeological Resource Management Reports
that will be used as guidelines.

Yes: A cultural resources
survey and technical
report was prepared for
this project. There are no
known cultural or
historical resources
associated with the site.

Mitigation Measures CUL
– 1 (protection of
undiscovered historical or
archaeological resources)
and CUL – 2 (protection of
buried human remains)
will be imposed on the
Project.

Energy LU-P-63 In higher-intensity and mixed-use areas, require pedestrian-oriented amenities such as small plazas,
Yes: The project includes
landscaped trails/paths
1176
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-21 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
outdoor seating, public art, and active street frontages, with ground floor retail, where appropriate and justified. for access between
residential, commercial
and park areas. Small
public parks are also
included within the
development.

Greenhouse
Gases
T-P-41 Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development
shall provide short term bicycle parking and long term
bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers. Development also shall provide
safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping,
employment, and entertainment centers.

Yes: The project includes
bicycle paths and bicycle
parking. These paths
connect various areas of
the mixed-use
development.

Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
S-P-15 Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.

Yes: A Phase I
environmental
assessment was
conducted for the site.

The site has no significant
impact to or from
hazardous materials.

Hydrology and
Water Quality
PSCU-P-59 Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent
with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater
Recharge Plan.

Yes: The project includes
a stormwater basin that
has been designed to
accommodate the
project. Final design will
be reviewed by the City.

Land Use and
Planning
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
masterplanned land, subject to execution of a
development agreement between the City and the
landowner 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.

Yes: Under the City of
Visalia’s General Plan
Policy LU-P-22, an
approved specificplanned 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
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
1177
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-22 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
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-P22 allows the City Council
to approve masterplanned 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.

Land Use and
Planning
LU-P-47* Ensure that new neighborhoods meet land use mix standards established in Table 2-7 of the General Plan.

The ranges indicated—the minimum and maximum levels
of development for each type of land use—are intended
Yes: The project has been
designed with a wide
range of uses with
1178
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-23 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
to allow for flexibility in master planning in response to market conditions, infrastructure costs, and site planning policies.
development intensities
that have been reviewed
by the City.

Land Use and
Planning
LU-P-108 Designate land for Public/Institutional uses on the Land Use Diagram, including City Hall and other City buildings, County and other government buildings, schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, police and fire stations, the Municipal Airport, and waste management facilities.

Yes: The project includes

13.0 acres of land
designated for a new
elementary school that
could potentially be
developed.

Noise N-P-2 Promote the use of noise attenuation measures to improve the acoustic environment inside residences
where existing residential development is located in a
noise-impacted environment such as along an arterial
street or adjacent to a noise-producing use.

Yes: An Acoustical
Analysis was conducted
for the project which
included mitigation
measures to address
noise impacts to
residential and other
noise-sensitive land uses.

Based on the analysis and
mitigation measures, the
project will not exceed
the City’s noise
thresholds.

Noise N-P-3 Establish performance standards for noise reduction for new housing that may be exposed to community noise
levels above 65 dB DNL/CNEL, as shown on the Noise
Contour Maps, based on the target acceptable noise
levels for outdoor activity levels and interior spaces in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. Noise mitigation measures that may
be considered to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct façades with substantial weight and
insulation;
• Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping
and activity areas;
• Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at
primary sleeping and activity areas;
• Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
• Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attics
and gable ends;
• Install a mechanical ventilation system that
provides fresh air under closed window
conditions.

Yes: An Acoustical
Analysis was conducted
for the project which
included mitigation
measures to address
noise impacts to
residential and other
noise-sensitive land uses.

Based on the analysis and
mitigation measures, the
project will not exceed
the City’s noise
thresholds.
1179
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-24 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level standards may be approved, provided that a
qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information
demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity
areas and interior spaces.

Noise N-P-4 Where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including roadways,
railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 8-2 and 8-3, require a noise study to determine
impacts, and require developers to mitigate these
impacts in conformance with Tables 8-2 and 8-3 as a
condition of permit approval through appropriate means.

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

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved, provided a
qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information
demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity
areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along state highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and
neighborhood character. This would be a developer
responsibility, with no City funding.

Yes: An Acoustical
Analysis was conducted
for the project which
included mitigation
measures to address
noise impacts to
residential and other
noise-sensitive land uses.

Based on the analysis and
mitigation measures, the
project will not exceed
the City’s noise
thresholds.

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

Yes: The project will
comply with all applicable
regulations and
requirements pertaining
to noise.
1180
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-25 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
Public Services PSCU-P-2* Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.

Yes: The required parks /
recreational acreage
would be met through a
combination of
construction of 17.3 acres
of parks / recreational
facilities (including trails)
and payment of park
impact fees to the City of
Visalia. The impact fees
would support future
recreational facilities
throughout the City.

Public Services PSCU-P-3* Reserve land and develop parks and public open spaces and recreation facilities consistent with designated Parks and Open Space land on the Land Use Diagram.

Yes: The project includes

17.3 acres of public
parks/trails throughout
the project site.

Public Services PSCU-P-7* Promote development of small pocket parks or play lots dispersed throughout new neighborhoods and in existing
neighborhoods, where needed, on a voluntary basis in
coordination with new infill development, consistent with the following planning guidelines:
• Size: 0.5 to 2 acres; and
• Facilities: the specific features of pocket parks should address the anticipated needs of nearby residents
and/or workers. In a residential environment, the
needs of small children and seniors should be
emphasized. In mixed-use or commercial areas,
lunchtime use by office workers and shoppers should
be facilitated.

Yes: The Project includes
approximately 17.3 acres
of parks/trails throughout
the development. Parks
within residential
neighborhoods will range
from 0.5 to 1 acre in size.

The parks and trail
facilities are designed to
meet the needs of nearby
residents and workers by
providing a variety of
recreational facilities.

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, droughttolerant/native species
1181
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-26 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
will be encouraged. Parks
will be located and
designed to provide social
activities within the
development.

Public Services PSCU-P-9* Continue to implement a Park Acquisition and Development Fee Program updated to be consistent with
this General Plan, including the following:
• Land and fees received shall support a standard of
five acres of neighborhood and community parks per
1,000 residents and provide park and recreation
facilities serving the neighborhood quadrant in which
the contributing development occurs;
• A portion of the fees collected are to be used for
community-wide recreation facilities;
• Dedicated park land meeting specified criteria for
community parks, neighborhood parks and pocket
parks may be provided at the City’s discretion, in lieu of fees, or earn fee credits (the City will not accept
undevelopable, unusable land); and
• Fee credits may also be given for storm drainage
basins designed and built for dual recreational use,
but these credits may be on a less than 1:1 basis
depending on the amenities and facilities provided
and their availability throughout the year.

Public Services PSCU-P-10* Adopt and implement parkland dedication requirements for all subdivisions, consistent with the Quimby Act and Policy PSCU-P-2. This requirement will be integrated with the City’s Park Acquisition Development Fee Program.

Public Services PSCU-P-14* Design parks to enhance neighborhood character and minimize negative impacts.
• Locate neighborhood parks with local or collector
street frontages on at least three sides, and sidewalks Yes: The Project includes
approximately 17.3 acres
of parks/trails throughout
the development. Parks
within residential
1182
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-27 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
and crossings designed for safe and easy pedestrian
access.
• Where a neighborhood park is part of a
neighborhood node, it should be designed to
promote visual connections and pedestrian
movement between the park and adjacent uses such
as schools and commercial uses.
neighborhoods will range
from 0.5 to 1 acre in size.

The parks and trail
facilities are designed to
meet the needs of nearby
residents and workers by
providing a variety of
recreational facilities.

Public Services PSCU-P-15* Provide lighted facilities for tennis, basketball or other recreational facilities and along pathways in order to
extend usable hours.

Yes: The park/trail
facilities will provide
security lighting.

Public Services PSCU-P-18* Establish a wayfinding system for parks, bikeways and trails, with consistent, recognizable and pedestrian-scale signage.

Yes: The project’s
recreational facilities will
include signage for the
parks and trail facilities.

Public Services PSCU-P-24* Promote innovative park design that responds to neighborhood needs and user groups.

Yes: The Project includes
approximately 17.3 acres
of parks/trails throughout
the development. Parks
within residential
neighborhoods will range
from 0.5 to 1 acre in size.

The parks and trail
facilities are designed to
meet the needs of nearby
1183
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-28 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
residents and workers by
providing a variety of
recreational facilities.

Public Services PSCU-P-25* Provide shade in parks by using arbors and other landscaping techniques.

Yes: Park and trail
facilities will include
landscaping techniques
for shading such as trees.

Public Services PSCU-P-30* Incorporate barrier-free design in all new recreation and sports facilities, and renovate existing facilities to remove barriers to handicapped users.

Yes: All facilities will be
designed for access to the
public and will include
ADA compliant facilities
where required.

Transportation T-P-12 Require or provide adequate traffic safety measures on all new and existing roadways.

Yes. The project roadway
system has been
designed with traffic
calming devices such as
speed tables, short
roadways, roundabouts
and a dedicated
pedestrian/bike trail to
separate pedestrians
from some roadways.

Transportation T-P-18 Ensure that citywide traffic service levels are maintained, require a traffic study, as a condition of development, of Yes. A traffic impact study
was prepared for the
1184
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-29 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
surrounding arterials, collectors, access roads, and
regionally significant roadways for any major project that would require a General Plan amendment, and for
projects where the proposed use could create traffic
congestion because needed improvements identified by
this General Plan would not be completed before project occupancy or are not funded under the CIP.
project to determine level
of service impacts for
General Plan consistency.

Mitigation measures have
been imposed to the
extent feasible to reduce
level of service impacts.

This is a condition of
Project approval.

Transportation T-P-22 Require all residential subdivisions to be designed to discourage use of local streets as a bypass to congested arterials, and when feasible, require access to residential development to be from collector streets.

Yes. The project has been
designed so that a bypass
through the site is
unlikely due to reduced
speeds within the site
compared to other
adjacent surrounding
roads, use of
roundabouts, and other
speed calming devices
within the project site.

Transportation T-P-23 Require that all new developments provide right-of-way, which may be dedicated or purchased, and improvements
(including necessary grading, installation of curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, parkway/landscape strips, bike and
parking lanes) other city street design standards. Design standards will be updated following General Plan
adoption.

Yes. The project will
provide all necessary
right-of-way for street
design and
implementation.

Transportation T-P-24 Require that proposed developments make necessary offsite improvements if the location and traffic generation of a proposed development will result in congestion on
major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods or if it creates safety hazards.

Yes. A traffic impact study
was prepared for the
project to determine level
of service impacts for
General Plan consistency.

As a condition of Project
approval, the project has
been imposed with
mitigation consisting of
both construction of onsite and adjacent
improvements and/or
payment of fees into the
City’s traffic impact fee
1185
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-30 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
program for off-site
improvements.

Transportation T-P-25 Require that where arterial streets are necessary through residential areas, residential development shall be
oriented away (side-on or rear-on) from such streets and be properly buffered so that traffic carrying capacity of the street will be preserved and the residential
environment will be protected from the adverse
characteristics of the arterial street.

Yes. The project has been
designed so that
residential
neighborhoods are
properly buffered from
arterial streets.

Transportation T-P-26 Require that future commercial developments or modifications to existing developments be designed with limited points of automobile ingress and egress, including shared access, onto major streets.

Yes. The project contains
two main commercial
areas. Each commercial
area has been designed
with multiple
ingress/egress points to
accommodate the sizes of
each development. The
City will review all final
design to ensure the most
efficient method of
ingress/egress is
achieved.

Transportation T-P-28 Promote traffic safety by requiring that ingress and egress to shopping centers be carefully designed, with minimal use of left-turn movements into and out of these centers.

Transportation T-P-29 Require, where possible, that arterials and collectors form four-leg, right-angle intersections. Jogged, offset, and skewed intersections at major streets in near proximity shall be avoided, where possible.

Yes. The project does not
conflict with this policy.
1186
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-31 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
Transportation T-P-39 Develop bikeways consistent with the Visalia Bikeway Plan and the General Plan’s Circulation Element.

Yes. The project includes
dedicated
pedestrian/bicycle paths
that will connect to much
of the development,
including Ridgeview
school.

Transportation T-P-40 Develop a community-wide trail system along selected planning area waterways, consistent with the Waterways
and Trails Master Plan and General Plan diagrams
Yes. The project includes
a trail adjacent to Modoc
ditch. The trail will be
landscaped.

Transportation T-P-41 Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development
shall provide short term bicycle parking and long-term
bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers. Development also shall provide
safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping,
employment, and entertainment centers.

Yes. The project includes
bicycle paths and bicycle
parking. These paths
connect various areas of
the mixed-use
development.

Transportation T-P-48 Require construction of minimum sidewalk widths and pedestrian “clear zones” consistent with the Complete
Streets cross-sections in this General Plan and with the City’s Engineering and Street Design Standards for each designated street type.

Yes. The project’s
sidewalks have been
designed to comply with
this policy.

Transportation T-P-50 Provide pedestrian facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement
projects address accessibility and use universal design concepts.

Yes. All public sidewalks
will be designed for ADA
compliance.

Transportation T-P-51 Locate sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and appropriate crosswalks to facilitate access to all schools and other areas with significant pedestrian traffic. Whenever
feasible, pedestrian paths shall be developed to allow for unobstructed pedestrian flow from within a
neighborhood.

Yes. The project includes
pedestrian/bicycle paths
that connect various
areas of the mixed-use
development, including
Ridgeview school. The
project also includes
sidewalks throughout the
residential portion of the
development for access
throughout the
development.
1187
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-32 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text
Consistency
Determination
Transportation T-P-52 Require, where security walls or fences are proposed for residential developments along arterial or collector
streets, that pedestrian access be provided between the arterial or collector and the subdivision to allow access to transit vehicles operating on an arterial or collector
street.

Yes. Security/sound walls
will provide access
between an arterial or
collector.
* denotes policy that is referenced in multiple Chapters/topics.

The proposed Project is an appropriate use for the site, and as demonstrated in Table 3.11-2, once annexed into the City, the Project will be consistent with the applicable objectives, goals and policies outlined in the City of Visalia General Plan. Implementation of these policies and measures will ensure that impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is the area covered by the City of Visalia General Plan. As discussed above, the Project does not divide an existing community. The site and surrounding areas to the east and west are located in a developing area planned as part of the City of Visalia. It is unlikely that other projects that develop in the vicinity of the Project will cause a community to be divided because those projects would be developed according to the City’s General Plan and would be subject to site-specific environmental review.

Visalia City CouncilOctober 2, 2023

Visalia City Council
October 2, 2023