Visalia City Council
October 2, 2023

The Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the area of the Project, would increase urbanization and result in the loss of open space and agricultural lands. Increased urbanization also increases the potential for land use conflicts, if not properly managed. Potential land use impacts require evaluation on a case-by-case basis because of the interactive effects of a specific development and its immediate environment. Other development in the area may occur, however, those projects would be developed according to the City’s General Plan. As described in Table 3.11-2, the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Visalia General Plan. In addition, with approval of all discretionary actions, the Project would be a permitted use that would not conflict with the land use designation or zone classification for the sites. As such, 1188
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-33 implementation of the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to land use and planning. 1189
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.12-1

3.12 Mineral Resources
This section of the DEIR describes impacts on mineral resources associated with proposed Project development. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to this topic.

Environmental Setting
The most economically significant mineral resources in Tulare County are sand, gravel, and crushed stone, used as sources for aggregate (road materials and other construction). The two major sources of aggregate are alluvial deposits (river beds, and floodplains), and hard rock quarries. Consequently, most Tulare County mines are located along rivers at the base of the Sierra foothills.1 The proposed Project site is located on relatively flat land that has historically been used for agricultural purposes. The site is approximately 16 miles west of the Sierra foothills and there are no known mineral resources associated with the proposed Project site.

Regulatory Setting
State of California Regulations
Mineral Resource Zones
Sections 2761(a) and (b) and 2790 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) provide for a mineral lands inventory process termed classification-designation. The California Division of Mines and Geology, and the State Mining and Geology Board are the state agencies responsible for administering this process. The primary objective of the process is to provide local agencies, such as cities and counties, with information on the location, need, and importance of minerals within their respective jurisdictions. It is also the intent of this process, through the adoption of Draft General Plan mineral resource management policies, that this information be considered in future local land-use planning decisions. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors, without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The areas are categorized into four MRZs. Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance because they identify significant mineral deposits of a particular commodity. MRZ-3 areas are also of interest because they identify areas that may contain additional resources of economic importance. Areas designated by the Mining and Geology Board as "regionally significant" are incorporated by regulation into Title 14, Division 2 of the California Code of Regulations. Such 1 Visalia General Plan Update (October 2014). Page 6-17. 1190
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.12-2 designations require that a lead agency’s land use decisions involving designated areas are made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies, and that they consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the state as a whole and not just the lead agency’s jurisdiction.

Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Appendix G Checklist:
o Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
o Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.12-1: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As described in the Environmental Setting, there are no known mineral resources within the proposed Project area and as such, no loss of availability to known mineral resources would occur as a result of proposed Project development. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
No Cumulative Impact. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to mineral resources is generally site-specific rather than cumulative in nature because each project site has different mineral-related considerations that would be subject to review. As discussed above, there are no known mineral resources within the proposed Project area and as such, Project development would not cumulatively impact any known mineral resources. There is no cumulatively considerable impact.
1191
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-1

3.13 Noise
This section evaluates the potential for noise and groundborne vibration impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. This includes the potential for the proposed Project to result in impacts associated with a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site; exposure of people in the vicinity of the Project site to excessive noise levels, groundborne vibration, or groundborne noise levels; and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. The data utilized for analysis of this section is based, in part, on the Acoustical Analysis – Carleton Acres Specific Plan prepared for this Project by WJV Acoustics (Appendix I).

Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequencydependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources.

These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Table 3.13-1, Representative Environmental Noise Levels, illustrates representative noise levels in the environment. 1192
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-2 Table 3.13-1
Representative Environmental Noise Levels
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq – An Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.
• Lmax – The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • Lmin – The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • Ldn – The Day-Night Average Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity 1193
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-3 in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.
• CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60–70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Noise levels greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55–60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60–75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65–80 dBA).

Under controlled conditions, in an acoustics laboratory, the trained (enhanced listening abilities) healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dBA, when exposed to steady, single frequency “pure tone” signals in the mid-frequency range. Outside of such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dBA in normal environmental noise. It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound.

Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or barriers, also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, 1194
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-4 including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels are also generally reduced by 1 dBA for each 1,000 feet of distance due to air absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures – generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The normal noise attenuation within residential structures with open windows is about 17 dBA, while the noise attenuation with closed windows is about 25 dBA.1
Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., train operations, motor vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) causing the adjacent ground to move, thereby, creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, while RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.

The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.

The general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels is described in Table 3.13-2, Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration. 1 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, 1971. 1195
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-5 Table 3.13-2
Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration Environmental Setting
Study Area
The proposed Project is located on approximately 507-acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077- 100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses.

The property was observed to be in varying stages of agriculture as recently as summer 2022 with portions of the site under agricultural production and others vacant/disked. The proposed Project site is located in a developing area 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. Existing residential exists to the south and east, industrial development is proposed directly west and agricultural lands exist to the north of the Project site.

There are no public or private airstrips within two miles of the Project site and no railways are located near the Project site. Major roads in the Project area include Akers Street, Shirk Street/Road 92, Riggin Avenue, and Kibler Avenue/Avenue 320. 1196
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-6 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Noise Standards
There are no federal noise standards that directly regulate environmental noise related to the construction or operation of the proposed Project. With regard to noise exposure and workers, the Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations safeguard the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise.

Vibration Standards
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities. The vibration damage criteria adopted by the FTA are shown in Table 3.13-3, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria.

Table 3.13-3
Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
In addition, the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories: (1) Vibration Category 1 – High Sensitivity, (2) Vibration Category 2 – Residential, and (3) Vibration Category 3 – Institutional. The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations.

Vibration-sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, highresolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.

Category 3 refers to institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference.
1197
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-7 Under conditions where there are an infrequent number of events per day 2, the FTA has established thresholds of 65 VdB for Category 1 buildings, 80 VdB for Category 2 buildings, and 83 VdB for Category 3 buildings.

Under conditions where there are an occasional number of events per day 3, the FTA has established thresholds of 65 VdB for Category 1 buildings, 75 VdB for Category 2 buildings, and 78 VdB for Category 3 buildings. No thresholds have been adopted or recommended for commercial, office, and industrial uses.

State of California Regulations
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services as shown in Table 3.13-4, California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines.

The guidelines rank noise/land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types.

Single-family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.
2 The Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006) defines “Infrequent Events” as “fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day.” Page 8-3. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Accessed December 2022. 3 The Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006) defines “Occasional Events” as “between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.” Page 8-3. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Accessed December 2022. 1198
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-8 Table 3.13-4
California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (dBA CNEL)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Low Density,
Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile
Homes
50 - 60 55 - 70 70 – 75 75 – 85
Residential – Multiple Family 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 – 75 70 – 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks
50 - 70 NA 67.5 – 75 72.5 – 85
California State Building Code
The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses and dwellings other than single-family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ldn or CNEL in any habitable room.

Title 24 also mandates that for structures containing noise-sensitive uses to be located where the Ldn or CNEL exceeds 60 dB, an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior levels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.

Local Regulations
The following lists goals and policies from the City General Plan pertaining to noise that are applicable to the proposed Project.

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.
1199
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-9 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.

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.

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
1200
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-10 • 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. N-P-5 Continue to enforce applicable State Noise Insulation Standards (California Administrative Code, Title 24) and Uniform Building Code (UBC) noise requirements.

City of Visalia General Plan Noise Element
The City of Visalia Genera1 Plan Noise Element provides noise level criteria for land use compatibility for both transportation and non‐transportation noise sources. The General Plan sets noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sources in terms of the Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn). The Ldn represents the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The Ldn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions. Table 3.13-5 below provides the General Plan noise level standards for transportation noise sources.

Table 3.13-5
Visalia General Plan Noise Level Standards
1201
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-11 The exterior noise level standard of the noise element is 65 dB Ldn for outdoor activity areas of residential uses. Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single‐family residences and individual patios or decks and common outdoor activity areas of multi‐family developments.

The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation.

The noise element also requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dB Ldn. The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep.

Additionally, the noise element establishes hourly acoustical performance standards for nontransportation (stationary) noise sources. The standards are set in terms of the Leq (hourly equivalent) and Lmax (maximum) noise levels at the property line of any affected sensitive land use. The standards, provided in Table 3.13-6, are made more restrictive during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table 3.13-6
Visalia Noise Element Non-Transportation Noise Level Standard City of Visalia Municipal Code
Section 8.36 of the City’s Municipal Code (noise ordinance) applies to noise sources that are not pre‐empted from local control by existing state or federal regulations. Commercial activities are not pre‐empted noise sources and are therefore subject to the provisions of the noise ordinance.

The noise ordinance addresses the statistical distribution of noise over time and allows for progressively shorter periods of exposure to levels of increasing loudness. Table 3.13-7 summarizes the exterior noise level standards of the ordinance. Note that the ordinance is to be applied at the property line of any affected noise sensitive land use during any one‐hour time period of the day, and that the standards are 5 dB more restrictive between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
1202
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-12 Table 3.13-7
Visalia Municipal Code Exterior Noise Level Standards
The City’s noise ordinance also establishes interior residential noise level standards that would apply to the Project. The interior noise level standards are established in allowable exceedance limits over differing amounts of time, within residential land uses. Similar to the applicable exterior standards, the interior standards become 5 dB more restrictive during nighttime hours.

The applicable interior noise level standards are provided in Table 3.13-8 below.

Table 3.13-8
Visalia Municipal Code Interior Noise Level Standards
The City’s noise ordinance also states “In the event the measured ambient noise level without the alleged offensive source in operation exceeds an applicable noise level standard in any category above, the applicable standard or standards shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level”.
1203
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-13 Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on noise if it would cause any of the following conditions to occur:
o Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? o Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? o For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
CEQA does not define what constitutes a substantial increase in noise levels. Some guidance is provided by the 1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which assessed changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The FICON recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft and traffic noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. The rationale for the FICON recommendations is that it is possible to consistently describe the annoyance of people exposed to transportation noise in terms of the DNL (or CNEL). Annoyance is a summary measure of the general adverse reaction of people to noise that results in speech interference, sleep disturbance, or interference with other daily activities.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.13-1: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The data utilized for analysis of this section is based, in part, on the Acoustical Analysis – Carleton Acres Specific Plan prepared for this Project by WJV Acoustics (Appendix I). The results of the study is summarized herein. 1204
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-14 Background Noise Level Measurements
Existing noise levels in the Project vicinity are dominated by traffic noise along local roadways and noise associated with various agricultural land uses near the Project site. Measurements of existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity were conducted on January 5-6, 2022. Long‐ term (24‐ hour) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at three (3) locations (sites LT‐ 1, LT‐2 and LT‐3). Ambient noise levels were measured for a period of 24 continuous hours at each of the three locations. Site LT‐1 was located within the northern portion of the Project site, along Avenue 320. Site LT‐2 was located within the western portion of the Project site, along Road 92 (Shirk Road). Site LT‐3 was located within the southern portion Project site, along W. Riggin Avenue. Due to heavy construction activities in the area, ambient noise measurements were not conducted along the eastern portion of the Project site (N. Akers Street). All three sites were exposed to noise associated with vehicle traffic on roadways as well as agricultural activities. The locations of the ambient noise monitoring sites are provided as Figure 3.13-1.

Figure 3.13-1
Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites
Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐1 ranged from a low of 53.6 dB between midnight and 1:00 a.m. to a high of 68.4 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐1 ranged from 78.2 to 90.3 dBA. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 37.7 to 49.8 dBA. The L90 is a statistical descriptor that defines the noise level exceeded 90% of the time during each hour of the sample period. The L90 is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sources.

The measured Ldn value at site LT‐1 was 68.2 dB Ldn.

Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐2 ranged from a low of 43.1 dB between 11:00 p.m. and midnight to a high of 60.0 dBA between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐2 ranged from 65.3 to 83.4 dBA. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 (L90 means the sound level was exceeded 90% of the 1205
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-15 time during each hour of the sample period), ranged from 33.5 to 46.2 dBA. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐2 was 59.7 dB Ldn.

Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐3 ranged from a low of 57.3 dB between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. to a high of 68.2 dBA between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐3 ranged from 75.5 to 90.3 dBA. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 33.3 to 55.8 dBA. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐was 70.1 dB Ldn.

Additionally, short‐term (15‐minute) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at seven (7) locations (Sites ST‐1 through ST‐7). Two (2) individual measurements were taken at each of the seven short‐term sites to quantify ambient noise levels in the morning and afternoon hours.

The locations of the long‐term and short‐term noise monitoring sites are shown in Figure 3.13-1.

Table 3.13-9 summarizes short‐term noise measurement results. The noise measurement data included energy average (Leq) maximum (Lmax) as well as five individual statistical parameters.

Observations were made of the dominant noise sources affecting the measurements. The statistical parameters describe the percent of time a noise level was exceeded during the measurement period. For instance, the L90 describes the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time during the measurement period, and is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sources.

Short‐term noise measurements were conducted for 15‐minute periods at each of the seven sites.

Site ST‐1 was located along Akers Street; site ST‐2 was located at the corner of Akers Street and Avenue 320; site ST‐3 was located at the corner of Avenue 320 and Shirk Road (Road 92); site ST‐ 4 was located at the corner of Shirk Road and Riggin Avenue; site ST‐5 was located near existing residential land uses along Shirk Road (south of Riggin Avenue); site ST‐6 was located near existing residential land uses south of Riggin Avenue; and site ST‐7 was located near the corner of Riggin Avenue and Akers Street, at a church land use. The overall noise measurement data indicate that noise in the Project vicinity is highly influenced by vehicular traffic along adjacent roadways.4
4 Acoustical Analysis – Carleton Acres Specific Plan (March 2023) – WJV Acoustics, pages 9-10. 1206
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-16 Table 3.13-9
Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites
Noise Impacts to Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
Project Traffic Noise Impacts on Existing Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Outside Project Site The City’s exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 65 dB Ldn. Traffic noise was modeled at seventeen (17) receptor locations. The seventeen modeled receptors are located at roadway setback distances representative of the sensitive receptors (measured from property lines) along each analyzed roadway segment (See Figure 3.13-2). 1207
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-17 Figure 3.13-2
Modeled Traffic Noise Receptor Locations
Table 3.13-10 provides future (2042) traffic noise exposure levels at the seventeen analyzed representative receptor locations, and also provides what the Project contribution would be to Cumulative conditions.
1208
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-18 Table 3.13-10
Project Contribution to Cumulative Traffic Noise – Cumulative 2042 Conditions As shown in Table 3.13-10, the Project’s contribution to 2042 traffic noise exposure levels at the modeled representative receptor locations would not result in noise levels to exceed the City’s noise level standard, nor result in an increase of 3 dB in any sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s noise level standard without the implementation of the Project. Consequently, the Project contribution to future noise levels (at full buildout) would be less than considerable and the Project would have a less than significant impact. 5 Off-Site Noise Impacts From Operational On-Site Sources 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 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 5 Acoustical Analysis – Carleton Acres Specific Plan (March 2023) – WJV Acoustics, page 14. 1209
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-19 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.

Mixed Use Commercial (Impacts to Off-Site Receptors)
The Project would include up to 28.7 acres of Mixed‐Use Commercial near the southwest corner of the Project site. Anticipated developments within the Mixed‐Use Commercial Zone include a Costco retail center, gas station, car wash, drug store, retail and restaurants (including quick serve/drive‐through uses).

The noise level standards applicable to these proposed land uses are provided above in Table

3.13-5 (General Plan) and Table 3.13-7 (Municipal Code). The noise standards in both become 5 dB more restrictive during nighttime hours. It should be noted, the City of Visalia General Plan considers nighttime hours to occur between 10:00 pm and 7:00 a.m. while the Municipal Code considers nighttime hours to occur between 7:00 pm and 6:00 am.

The closest existing sensitive receptors (residential land uses) to the proposed Mixed‐Use Commercial Zone are single‐family residential uses located to the south, along W. Riggin Avenue.

The single‐family uses along W. Riggin have an existing 6‐foot sound wall along the roadway frontage. The sound wall would provide a minimum of 5 dB of noise level reduction from groundlevel noise sources occurring within the Project site.

While the large retail use within the Mixed‐Use Commercial Zone is anticipated to be a Costco retail center, the remaining tenants were not known (or anticipated) at the time this analysis was prepared. A wide variety of noise sources can be associated with such commercial retail land uses. The noise levels produced by such sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact existing off‐site and proposed on‐site sensitive receptors. Typical examples of stationary noise sources associated with such land uses include:
• HVAC/Mechanical equipment
• Truck deliveries
• Parking lot activities (closing of car doors and trunks, stereos, alarms etc.) • Drive‐Through operations
• Loading Dock Activities
• Car Wash Operations
• Refuse/Cardboard Compactor
1210
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-20 As identified in the Acoustical Analysis (refer to pages 15 through 18 of the Acoustical Analysis, Appendix I), an analysis was conducted for each of the components listed above and each were determined to have a less than significant impact.

Neighborhood Commercial Zone (Impacts to Off-Site Receptors) The Project would include 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. A wide variety of noise sources can be associated with commercial land use designations. The noise levels produced by such sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact existing off‐site sensitive receptors. From the perspective of the City’s noise standards, noise sources not associated with transportation sources are considered stationary noise sources. Typical examples of stationary noise sources that may be associated with such uses include:
• Fans and blowers
• HVAC/Mechanical equipment
• Truck deliveries
• Compactors
For the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, noise levels from new stationary noise sources cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time since specific uses have not yet been proposed and the locations of stationary noise sources relative to the locations of noise sensitive uses are not known. The closest existing residential land use to the Neighborhood Commercial Zone is located approximately 1,500 to the east.

Noise levels from new stationary noise sources may be effectively reduced by incorporating noise mitigation measures into the Project design that consider the geographical relationship between the noise sources of concern and potential receptors, the noise‐producing characteristics of the sources and the path of transmission between noise sources and sensitive receptors. Options for noise mitigation include the use of building setbacks, the construction of sound walls and the use of noise source equipment enclosures.

When specific uses within the study area are proposed that could result in a noise‐related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source and existing or proposed noise‐sensitive receptor, an acoustical analysis may be required that quantifies project‐related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. This will be implemented as Mitigation Measure NOI – 1. Refer to the mitigation measures at the end of this section.
1211
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-21 Off-Site Noise Impacts From Construction
Construction noise would occur at various locations within and near the Project site through the buildout period. Existing sensitive receptors could be located as close as 100 feet from construction activities. Table 3.13-11 provides typical construction‐related noise levels at distances of 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet.

Construction noise is not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to the allowed hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. Extraordinary noise‐producing activities (e.g., pile driving) are not anticipated. The City of Visalia limits hours of construction to occur only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends. Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents if nighttime operations were to occur or if equipment were not properly muffled or maintained.

Table 3.13-11
Typical Construction Equipment6
Type of Equipment 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 300 Ft.

Concrete Saw 84 78 74
Crane 75 69 65
Excavator 75 69 65
Front End Loader 73 67 63
Jackhammer 83 77 73
Paver 71 65 61
Pneumatic Tools 79 73 69
Dozer 76 70 66
Rollers 74 68 64
Scrapers 81 75 71
Portable Generators 74 68 64
Backhoe 80 74 70
Grader 80 74 70
A noise impact could occur if construction activities do not incorporate appropriate best management practices (BMP) in regards to construction‐related noise. The Project will be 6 Acoustical Analysis – Carleton Acres Specific Plan (March 2023) – WJV Acoustics, page 20. 1212
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-22 required to comply with the City of Visalia’s Municipal Code regarding construction noise.

Therefore, impacts from construction noise are considered less than significant.

Noise Impacts to On-Site Sensitive Receptors
Project Traffic Noise Impacts to On-Site Receptors
The City of Visalia General Plan Noise Element establishes an exterior noise level standard of 65 dB Ldn for outdoor activity areas of residential uses. Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single‐family residences and individual patios or decks and common outdoor activity areas of multi‐family developments. The noise element also requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dB Ldn.

The proposed Project includes sensitive receptors (residential land uses) that could be impacted by traffic noise exposure adjacent to arterial roadways. Such arterial roadways include Avenue 320, Shirk Road, Riggin Avenue and Akers Street. WJVA used the FHWA traffic noise model and traffic noise modeling assumptions to determine the distances from the center of the roadways to the 65 dB Ldn noise exposure contours. Table 3.13-12 provides the distances from the center of the arterial roadways adjacent to the Project site to the 65 dB Ldn noise exposure contours and provides the contour distances for 2042 Cumulative conditions as they represent a worst‐case assessment of noise exposure at proposed sensitive receptor locations.

Table 3.13-12
Distances to Traffic Noise Contours
A noise impact could occur if the outdoor activity areas of proposed sensitive receptors are located within the cumulative conditions 65 dB Ldn traffic noise contours. If the outdoor activity areas of these residential land uses are located along these roadways within the 65 dB Ldn contour 1213
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-23 (as described in Table 3.13-12), an impact would be expected to occur. However, as described below, construction of sound walls will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Noise levels from transportation noise sources may be effectively mitigated by incorporating noise mitigation measures into the Project design that consider the geographical relationship between the noise sources of concern and potential receptors, the noise‐producing characteristics of the sources and the path of transmission between noise sources and sensitive receptors.

Options for noise mitigation include the use of building setbacks and the construction of sound walls.

Typically, the incorporation of sound walls (or a combination of earthen berms and sound walls) are the most effective method of mitigating transportation noise exposure. The effectiveness of a sound wall is determined by the geometric relationship between the noise source, barrier and receiver. Sound walls are most effective when they are located either close to the noise source or the receiver.

The City of Visalia Design and Improvement Standards provide guidelines and standards for the construction of block walls, within the City of Visalia. Standard wall heights permitted by the City of Visalia range between 6‐foot to 7‐foot in height. Depending on the height and geometric relationship between the roadway and the receiver location, wall of this height range would be typically expected to provide between approximately 5‐6 dB of noise attenuation. While specific wall height requirements would generally be determined once final lot layout designs and elevations are known, wall heights of up to 7 feet will be sufficient to mitigate traffic noise within all proposed residential land uses, to below the City’s acceptable maximum allowed noise exposure levels. This will be implemented as Mitigation Measure NOI – 2. Refer to the mitigation measures at the end of this section.7
Noise Impacts From Operational On-Site Sources
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 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, 7 Acoustical Analysis – Carleton Acres Specific Plan (March 2023) – WJV Acoustics, page 23. 1214
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-24 retail, restaurants (including drive‐throughs), and similar uses. The second consists of up to 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood at the north east corner of the development. Anticipated uses at this location may include development such as retail, services and restaurants.

The noise levels associated with the two commercial developments are discussed in detail herein, in relation to existing sensitive receptors (existing residential land uses). This section discusses the noise levels associated with the commercial developments, as they may impact sensitive receptors (residential land uses) proposed with this Project. The Project proposes medium‐ density residential land uses to be adjacent to the Mixed‐Use Commercial Zone within the southwest portion of the Project site and high‐density residential land uses to be adjacent to the Neighborhood Commercial Zone within the northeast portion of the Project site.

Mixed Use Commercial (Impacts to On-Site Receptors)
The Project would include medium‐density residential land uses proposed adjacent to the Mixed‐ Use Commercial Zone. Anticipated developments within the Mixed‐Use Commercial Zone include a Costco retail center, gas station, car wash, drug store, retail and restaurants (including quick serve/drive through uses). WJVA calculated the noise levels associated with various noise‐ producing Project components at the property line of proposed medium‐density residential land uses. The noise levels provided below represent the noise levels for each component, taking into account the distance between each noise source and the proposed medium-density residential land uses. The noise levels are as follows:
• HVAC/Mechanical equipment: 42‐47 dB
• Truck deliveries: 56‐62 dB
• Parking lot activities: 57‐62 dB
• Drive‐Through operations: 34‐36 dB
• Loading Dock Activities: 47‐65 dB
• Refuse/Cardboard Compactor: 44 dB
Car Wash
In addition to the above‐described noise producing components, the proposed Costco retail center would include a car wash facility. Noise levels associated with the proposed car wash were addressed in a separate car wash‐specific analysis. Noise levels associated with car wash operations are provided in a memo prepared by MD Acoustics, dated November 14, 2022. As described in the memo, the modeling assumed a 125’ long car wash tunnel with 12’ wide by 10’ height openings (entrance and exit) for the proposed drive‐through car wash facility in the Mixed‐ Use Commercial Zone. Based on the evaluation, the car wash can achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards by implementing an IDC 100 horsepower Predator Blower System running 1215
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-25 at 55Hz with a 10’ wall with AcoustiBlok lining. This system would achieve an output of 41dBA, which is below the City’s threshold and would thus result in a less than significant impact. This is itemized in Mitigation Measure NOI – 3 and will be a condition of Project approval. Refer to the memo for more information. The Car Wash noise study memo is provided as Appendix D to Appendix I.

Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI – 3, impacts to on-site receptors from the Mixed-Use Commercial would be less than significant.

Neighborhood Commercial Zone (Impacts to On-Site Receptors) The Project would include high‐density residential land uses proposed adjacent to the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. A wide variety of noise sources can be associated with commercial land use designations. The noise levels produced by such sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact proposed on‐site sensitive receptors. From the perspective of the City’s noise standards, noise sources not associated with transportation sources are considered stationary noise sources. Typical examples of stationary noise sources include:
• Fans and blowers
• HVAC units
• Truck deliveries
• Compactors
• Amplified Drive‐through Menu Board Speakers
Noise levels from new stationary noise sources within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time since specific uses have not yet been proposed and the locations of stationary noise sources relative to the locations of new noise sensitive uses are not known. However, under some circumstances, there is a potential for such uses to exceed the City’s noise standards for stationary noise sources at the locations of sensitive receptors.

Noise levels from new stationary noise sources may be effectively mitigated by incorporating noise mitigation measures into the Project design that consider the geographical relationship between the noise sources of concern and potential receptors, the noise‐producing characteristics of the sources and the path of transmission between noise sources and sensitive receptors.

Options for noise mitigation include the use of building setbacks, the construction of sound walls and the use of noise source equipment enclosures.
1216
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-26 When specific uses within the study area are proposed (and their locations are defined) that could result in a noise‐related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source and Project proposed sensitive receptors, an acoustical analysis may be required that quantifies Project‐ related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. This will be implemented as Mitigation Measure NOI – 1. Refer to the mitigation measures at the end of this section.

Noise Impacts From Proposed School Land Uses
Sources of operational noise associated with school land uses could include mechanical equipment (trash compactors, HVAC, etc.), vehicle and bus movements and noise associated with general school activities (children at play). Refer to the full description of school-related noise on pages 25 through 27 of the Acoustical Analysis (Appendix I). There is one existing school site (Ridgeview Middle School) as well as two proposed school sites within the overall Project site footprint.

Per City of Visalia Municipal Code section 8.36.070 (Noise Exemptions), noise levels associated with school activities are exempt from City of Visalia noise standards. The municipal code states “Activities conducted in public parks, public playgrounds and public or private school grounds, including but not limited to school athletic and school entertainment events during normal hours of instruction” are exempt from City of Visalia noise standards. However, there are potentially significant noise impacts associated with buses and school-related vehicle areas (such as parking lots and loading areas), as described below.

School Bus and Vehicle Movements
Noise due to traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and is not usually considered to be significant. Human activity in parking lots that can produce noise includes voices, stereo systems and the opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. Such activities can occur at any time. The noise levels associated with these activities cannot be precisely defined due to variables such as the number of parking movements, type of vehicles, and other factors. It is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a maximum noise level of 60 to 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which is comparable to the level of a raised voice. For slowly moving heavy trucks and buses, it is typical to generate a maximum noise level (Lmax) of approximately 70‐75 dB at 50 feet.

The locations of school parking lots and bus access and loading areas in relation to proposed residential land uses were not known at the time of this publication. If bus movements (occurring off public roadways, but on school campus) were to occur within ninety (90) feet of outdoor activity areas of residential land uses (outdoor common use areas and individual patios and 1217
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-27 balconies for multi‐family homes and backyards of single‐family homes), associated noise levels could exceed the City’s stationary noise level standards at residential land uses. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI – 4 will be implemented to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Impact Determination
As described herein, the Project could, without mitigation, result in the generation of a substantial temporary (during construction) or permanent (operational) increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project, or exceed standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. However, with implementation of mitigation measures NOI – 1 through NOI – 4, impacts are reduced to a less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
NOI - 1: Prior to issuance of building permits for development within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, the City of Visalia will determine if a detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a certified professional to document potential impacts to onsite and offsite noise-sensitive land uses (as determined by the City of Visalia’s General Plan and Municipal Code thresholds). When specific uses within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone are proposed that could result in a noise‐related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source and existing or proposed noise‐sensitive receptor, an acoustical analysis shall be required by the City of Visalia that quantifies Project‐related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. Potential impacts in exceedance of the City of Visalia’s standards shall require incorporation of mitigation such as increased setbacks, sound walls, equipment enclosures, site design, and enhanced building materials to reduce impacts to levels below the City of Visalia standards. Development that cannot incorporate mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable City of Visalia standards shall not be approved. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

NOI - 2: For Project components involving new sensitive receptors (residential land uses) within the cumulative 65 dB Ldn noise contours of adjacent roadway segments (Avenue 320, Shirk Road, Riggin Avenue, and Akers Street as identified in Table

3.13-12), the City of Visalia will require construction of block walls to achieve noise 1218
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-28 attenuation to below the City’s noise thresholds. The City of Visalia Design and Improvement Standards provide guidelines and standards for the construction of block walls, within the City of Visalia. Standard wall heights permitted by the City of Visalia range between 6‐foot to 7‐ foot in height. Depending on the height and geometric relationship between the roadway and the receiver location, walls of this height range would be typically expected to provide between approximately 5‐6 dB of noise attenuation. While specific wall height requirements would generally be determined once final lot layout designs and elevations are known, wall heights of up to 7 feet will be sufficient to mitigate traffic noise within all proposed residential land uses, to below the City’s acceptable maximum allowed noise exposure levels. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

NOI - 3: For the proposed drive-through car wash facility in the Mixed Use Commercial Zone, the Project shall implement an IDC 100 horsepower Predator Blower System running at 55Hz with a 10’ wall with AcoustiBlok lining. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

NOI - 4: Bus movements occurring off public roadways (but on school campus) shall not occur within ninety feet of any residential outdoor activity area. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

Impact 3.13-2: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant. The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, heavy demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling. None of these activities are anticipated to occur with construction or operation of the proposed Project. Vibration from construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses, especially during movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if they were to occur). Typical vibration levels at distances of 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table

3.13-13. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage, as provided in Appendix I.
1219
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-29 Table 3.13-13
Typical Vibration Levels During Construction8
PPV (in/sec)
Equipment @ 100´ @ 300´
Bulldozer (Large) 0.011 0.006
Bulldozer (Small) 0.0004 0.00019
Loaded Truck 0.01 0.005
Jackhammer 0.005 0.002
Vibratory Roller 0.03 0.013
Caisson Drilling 0.01 0.006
After full Project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities will result in any significant vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Activities involved in trash bin collection could result in minor on‐site vibrations as the bin is placed back onto the ground. Such vibrations would not be expected to be felt at the closest off‐site sensitive uses. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Impact 3.13-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant. The Project is not located within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Visalia Municipal Airport located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the Project site. The Project site is not within any airport land use plans and the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airportrelated noise levels. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
8 Acoustical Analysis – Carleton Acres Specific Plan (March 2023) – WJV Acoustics, page 23. 1220
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.13-30 Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the City of Visalia’s and County of Tulare’s General Plans may result in the generation of site-‐‐specific noise increases from stationary noise sources, and may contribute incrementally to noise from mobile sources. Due to the localized nature of noise impacts, cumulative impacts would be largely limited to areas within the general vicinity of the Project, which is generally considered 1,000 feet. As shown in Section 3.13-1, the Project will result in less than significant impacts pertaining to increases in ambient noise levels (with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI – 1 through NOI – 4) at both the project and cumulative level.

The proposed Project’s temporary construction activities, in combination with the construction of other reasonably foreseeable projects in the area, could result in increased short-term construction noise levels in the Project area (depending upon the specific timing of the construction of those other projects and proximity to the Project site). Construction activities associated with other projects in proximity to the Project site could occur at the same time as the proposed Project. However, other projects would also be required to adhere to all City noise-related construction regulations, which would reduce and minimize cumulative construction noise level, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant level.

Cumulative construction may also result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. The same receptors as identified for construction noise would be the closest to be impacted by the Project with respect to construction related vibration as well. Due to these distances, and the rapid attenuation of groundborne vibration, the Project and any nearby other project would not be in close enough proximity to the sensitive receptors such that any sensitive receptor would be exposed to substantial groundborne vibration levels, since there are no significant vibration-producing construction activities (such as pile driving).

Therefore, cumulative impact in terms of groundborne vibration would be less than significant.

As indicated herein, the Project will not result in significant permanent (operational) increases in noise or vibration levels. In addition, while temporary construction noise does not constitute a significant impact either at the project-level or cumulative level, construction noise mitigation is included to ensure impacts are less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of NOI-1 through NOI-4, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
1221
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-1

3.14 Population and Housing
This section of the DEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects related to population and housing associated with implementation of the proposed Project. No comments pertaining to population and housing were received during the NOP public review period.

Environmental Setting
Proposed Project
The proposed Project lies adjacent to the northern area of the City of Visalia within the eastern portion of Tulare County. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia, with the zoning as R-M-3 (MultiFamily Residential). APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. 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 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.

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.

The proposed Project site is located in a developing area 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 1222
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-2 proposed Project to the north, west and south. Land uses of adjacent parcels surrounding the Project site are dairy farm/agriculture to the north and west, agriculture land use to the east, and residential/church/water storage tank to the south.

Population
The population of City of Visalia, which is also the most populous city in Tulare County, was 142,978 in 2021.
1 Housing Units
According to the City’s Housing Element, the City of Visalia had a total of 47,986 housing units (as of 2019) of which 37,996 are single-family units, 8,386 are multi-family units, and 1,604 are mobile homes.2 More recent housing information is provided by the California Department of Finance, which identified approximately 49,513 housing units in the City as of 2022. 3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes: utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination; and transform the way HUD does business.4 1 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/visaliacitycalifornia. Accessed March 2022. 2 Housing Element, City of Visalia, page 22. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34534. Accessed August 2022.
3 Dept. of Finance 2022 Population and Housing Estimates https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-populationand-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed Jan. 2023. 4 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mission, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/mission.

Accessed October 2021.
1223
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-3 State of California Regulations
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) HCD’s mission is to “[p]rovide leadership, policies and programs to preserve and expand safe and affordable housing opportunities and promote strong communities for all Californians.”5 “In 1977, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) adopted regulations under the California Administrative Code, known as the Housing Element Guidelines, which are to be followed by local governments in the preparation of local housing elements. AB 2853, enacted in 1980, further codified housing element requirements. Since that time, new amendments to State Housing Law have been enacted.

State Housing Law also mandates that local governments identify existing and future housing needs in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

California Relocation Assistance Act
The State of California adopted the California Relocation Assistance Act (California Government Code §7260 et seq.) in 1970. This State law, which follows the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, requires public agencies to provide procedural protections and benefits when they displace businesses, homeowners, and tenants in the process of implementing public programs and projects. This State law calls for fair, uniform, and equitable treatment of all affected persons through the provision of relocation benefits and assistance to minimize the hardship of displacement on the affected persons.

Local Regulations
Tulare County
Tulare County General Plan
The Tulare County General Plan, in its section entitled Component B - Prosperity, addresses the agricultural, land use, economic, and housing resources of the County. The General Plan uses communities and hamlets to accommodate new County growth while encouraging a majority of growth to occur within incorporated cities. Component B - Prosperity is a long-range framework for public and private investment that will result in an agriculturally-rich and economicallyviable County. 5 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Mission, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/mission.html. Accessed October 2021.
1224
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-4 City of Visalia
General Plan
Urban Boundaries and Growth Management Policies:

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-22 Allow for City Council approval of master plans, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, for sites under a single ownership or unified control, which may include developable land within both multiple development tiers.

Allow for pre-zoning of this master-planned land, subject to execution of a development agreement between the City and the land owner conforming to the requirements of Government Code Section 65864 et seq., with the project allowed to annex and develop while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier I or Tier II designation.

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-52 Wherein the City will facilitate high-quality building and site design for multifamily 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.

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. 1225
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-5 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.

Housing Element
The purpose of City of Visalia’s Housing Element is to identify the community’s housing needs, to state the community’s goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs, and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives. Per the Housing Element, TCAG allocated a total need of 10,021 units to Visalia for the 2014-2023 planning period. The allocation is equivalent to a yearly need of approximately 1,028 housing units for the 9.75-year time period.6
As mentioned in Policy LU-P-22, 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 Specific Plan have a consistent vision with Visalia’s General Plan and the City’s interest in growth through phasing.
6 Housing Element, City of Visalia. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34534. Accessed April 2022. 1226
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-6 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. • Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? • Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.14-1: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation will have a direct, growth inducing impact on the area’s population and housing stock by facilitating the development of up to 3,262 new households within the City of Visalia. According to the Census Bureau, the average household size in the City of Visalia between 2016-2020 was 3.04 persons per household7. Therefore, the Project’s population estimate (at full buildout) is estimated to be 9,917 persons (3,262 housing units X 3.04 persons per household = 9,917 persons).

The Project is proposed to be built out in two phases as identified in Table 2-1 (in Chapter Two – Project Description). Although the exact timing of construction and buildout will be determined by market conditions, the Project Applicant and the City, it is anticipated that the Project would be built out over an approximately 15-year period with approximately 100 low-density residential units per year on average with the remaining buildout to be determined by demand. The Project is proposed to be generally built out in two phases as follows:

Phase 1
Phase 1 includes all of APN 077-100-105 (29.3 acres) and a portion of APN 077-100-088 (150 acres).

For APN 077-100-105, the site is within the Tier 1 boundary and is currently designated by the 7 U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/visaliacitycalifornia,fresnocitycalifornia/MAN450212 (accessed June 2022).
1227
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-7 City’s General Plan for High Density Residential. The Project intends to retain this land use designation and to develop the site as follows:
• 29.3 acres of High Density Residential (440 units)
For APN 077-100-088, Phase 1 development only includes the southern portion of the parcel (approximately 150 acres) and is included in the Tier 2 boundary. This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 9.7 acres of High Density Residential (146 units)
• 9.1 acres of Medium Density Residential ( 91 units)
• 100.9 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 505 units) • 28.7 acres of Commercial Mix Use
For APN: 077-100-088, the Low Density Residential portion will be built first.

Phase 2
Phase 2 includes the northern 329 acres of APN 077-100-088 that is within the Tier 3 boundary.

This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 21.7 acres of High Density Residential (326 units)
• 66.7 acres of Medium Density Residential ( 667 units) • 204.5 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 1,022 units) • 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood
• 17.3 acres of Basin
• 13.0 acres of Public/Institutional
The timing of development and installation of infrastructure for Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be identified in a Development Agreement. It is anticipated that the Project would begin development in 2023.

Population
For purposes of evaluating the environmental impact of population growth in Visalia under CEQA, the question becomes whether or not the Project will induce population beyond what the City has or will plan for and/or can accommodate at full buildout of the Project. The assessment 1228
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-8 takes into account Project-related impacts to topics like traffic, water supply, public services (police, fire, etc.), sewer / storm drain capacity, and other related topics, as the City has prepared infrastructure Master Plans based on buildout of the City’s General Plan.

The United States Census Bureau estimates the January 2021 population of the City to be 142,978. 8 According to the City’s General Plan EIR: “As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), develops population and employment projections for Tulare County and each jurisdiction in the county for use in the development of the countywide Regional Transportation Plan and housing projections, per State law. The demographic projections developed by TCAG in 2009 indicated that Visalia would grow by about

2.6 percent annually between 2010 and 2030 to reach a population of 210,000 in 2030. During the same span of time, TCAG projected that the number of households will grow at about the same pace as population. The number of jobs was projected to increase by about 1.7 percent annually between 2010 and 2030, reaching a total of approximately 91,424 in 2030. While these projections served as a guideline for developing the proposed General Plan land use map and buildout scenario, the actual buildout numbers in the proposed Plan vary somewhat from these original projections, based on City policy decisions and other factors.” 9 Based on the above information provided by TCAG, Visalia has an average growth rate of 2.6 percent with a projected population of about 210,000 persons by the Year 2030. As discussed previously, the City averages 3.04 persons per household, which could result in an increase of approximately 9,917 people at full Project buildout. The City’s current (2021) population of 142,978 residents would be increased by approximately 6.9% to 152,895 from the Project. Table

3.14-1 shows the City’s existing population, the increase in population from the proposed Project, and the City’s General Plan projected population in Year 2030, assuming full buildout of the General Plan. The last column shows the additional population that could be accommodated under the City’s General Plan even with full buildout of the proposed Project. 8 U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/visaliacitycalifornia. Accessed August 2022. 9 Visalia General Plan EIR, 3.1 – Land Use, page 3.1-5. 1229
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-9 Table 3.14-1: Population Estimates
As identified in Table 3.14-1, the Project would not induce population growth beyond what could be accommodated under the City’s General Plan.

Housing Units
According to the City’s most recently adopted Housing Element (2020 – 2023), the City of Visalia had a total of 47,986 housing units (as of 2019) of which 37,996 are single-family units, 8,386 are multi-family units, and 1,604 are mobile homes.10 More recent housing information is provided by the California Department of Finance, which identified approximately 49,513 housing units in the City as of Year 2022. Housing needs in Visalia are determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) who developed a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City. According to the City’s Housing Element, Visalia had an allocated need of 10,021 units for the 2014-2023 planning period.11 The allocation is equivalent to a yearly need of approximately 1,028 housing units over the 9.5-year period. From years 2014 through 2018, there were 2,835 units that were developed, leaving 7,186 units within the total remaining RHNA allocation for the City.
12 The proposed Project would develop up to 3,262 residential units at full buildout. Table 3.14-2 shows the number of units in the City (per CA Department of Finance - Year 2022), the number of units proposed by the Project, and the potential number of future units based on buildout of 10 Housing Element, City of Visalia, page 22. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34534. Accessed August 2022.
11 Ibid, page 56.
12 Ibid, page 28.

Existing
Population
(2021)
Proposed
Project
Population
Existing Plus
Project Population
General Plan 2030
Projected Population
Additional Population
That Could Be
Accommodated Under
the 2030 General Plan
142,978 9,917 152,895 210,000 57,105
1230
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-10 the City’s General Plan. The last column shows the additional number of housing units that could be accommodated under the City’s General Plan even with full buildout of the proposed Project.

Table 3.14-2: Residential Units
* This figure is based on the City’s projected 2030 population of 210,000 divided by 3.04 (the City’s average household size per unit), which equals approximately 69,079 units.

Based on the City’s General Plan projections, the City could accommodate the proposed Project while still leaving capacity for approximately 16,304 units that could be developed in other areas of the City. In addition, the Project would aid the City in meeting its RHNA allocation, which as of 2019 showed that the City needs approximately 7,186 units to meet the allocation for various low income housing categories. The Project contains a mixture of detached single-family homes and multi-family units which will assist the City in meeting some of its Housing Element goals and requirements.

Determination
As shown in the tables above, the anticipated population and housing unit increase associated with the proposed Project is within the growth projections of the City’s 2030 General Plan and the City’s Housing Element.

While other future residential developments are also likely to occur in the City, it is anticipated that the City can accommodate the Project and other residential developments in the City. The General Plan anticipated a population of up to 210,000 people with up to 69,079 residential units by 2030. Given the City’s current population (142,978 persons) and housing stock (49,513 units), the City could accommodate the proposed Project plus an additional 57,105 persons and 16,304 housing units according to the City’s General Plan.

Based on the City’s General Plan, infrastructure master planning documents, and the City’s Housing Element, it is determined that the proposed Project will not induce unplanned population growth beyond that which can be accommodated by the City. It has been determined Existing
Units
(2022)
Proposed
Project
Number of
Units
Existing Plus Project
Number of Units
Potential Number of
Units in the City at Full
Buildout of the General
Plan*
Additional Housing
Units That Could Be
Accommodated Under
the 2030 General Plan
49,513 3,262 52,775 69,079* 16,304
1231
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-11 that the City has adequate capacity to serve the Project and therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact occurring from inducement of unplanned population.

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.

Impact 3.14-2: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site is currently undeveloped and contains no housing or structures. Thus, the proposed Project would not displace existing housing or people. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The proposed project would result in population growth in an area currently designated for agricultural uses. Growth will also occur in other areas of the City and unincorporated communities in Tulare County in areas surrounding the City.

However, as noted above, it is anticipated that the City can accommodate the Project and other residential developments in the City. The General Plan anticipated a population of up to 210,000 people with up to 69,079 residential units by 2030. Given the City’s current population (142,978 persons) and housing stock (47,986 units), the City could accommodate the proposed Project plus an additional 57,105 persons and 16,304 housing units according to the City’s General Plan.

The Project in conjunction with the current and reasonably foreseeable projects would lead to what is anticipated population growth. It should also be noted that while the proposed Project and other projects would result in an increase in new housing, related population growth, and associated environmental impacts discussed throughout this EIR, they would also help meet a documented need for housing supply in the region, thus beneficially affecting the region’s continued demand for housing The City of Visalia, Tulare County, and other incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions are required by State law to use the General Plan process, the CEQA process, as well as other planning processes, such as utility master plans, to plan for and control 1232
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.14-12 future growth. Since the proposed Project will not result in an increase in population and housing units above what was planned for in the City’s General Plan, there would not be a cumulative impact associated with unplanned growth adversely affecting population and housing. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
1233
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-1

3.15 Public Services
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts associated with the City’s police and fire protection services, school facilities, and other public facilities. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to this topic.

Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
Fire protection services in the vicinity of the Project site are provided by the Visalia Fire Department (VFD). According to the VFD’s 2021 Annual Report, VFD staffing includes a Fire Chief, three Shift Battalion Chiefs, 21 Fire Captains, 21 Fire Engineers, 27 Firefighter Paramedics, an Administrative Battalion Chief, a Fire Marshal, three Fire Inspectors and various supportive staff. 1 All apparatus are staffed with a paramedic at all times. Personnel are trained in fire suppression and certified as Emergency Medical Responders, and there is a team trained in handling hazardous materials incidents. The Department operates six stations to serve all parts of the City, and has four fire engines and a 105-foot aerial truck, each staffed with at least three personnel. Stations are located in each section of the City, as well as Downtown adjacent to the police headquarters. An additional station at the airport is not staffed. Fire Department Administration is located in Visalia Emergency Communications Center at 420 N Burke Street.

The nearest fire station to the Project site is Station No. 55, located approximately 0.5 miles to the south, at 6921 W Ferguson Avenue.

Police Services
Law enforcement services in Visalia are provided by the Visalia Police Department (VPD).

According to the VPD’s 2020 Annual Report2, there are more than 250 members of the VPD.

Classifications of these employees range from sworn police personnel, community service officers, parking enforcement officers, communications operators, records specialists, administrative support personnel, crime lab technicians, property and evidence technicians, and civilian investigators. Police headquarters is at 303 South Johnson Street in downtown Visalia. 1 Visalia Fire Department 2021 Annual Report
https://www.visalia.city/documents/Fire/Annual/VFD%202021%20Annual%20Report.pdf , page 12. 2 Visalia Police Department 2020 Annual Report
https://www.visalia.city/documents/Police/Annual%20Reports/2020%20Annual%20-%20FINAL%20(reducted%20size).pdf, page 5. 1234
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-2 The District I substation, serving northern Visalia (and the proposed Project area), is located at 204 Northwest 3rd Avenue, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Project site.

Schools
Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) provides public education from Kindergarten through 12th Grade in the City of Visalia and nearby rural areas. The District includes 26 elementary schools, five middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, a continuation high school, an adult school, a charter independent study school, a K-8 charter home school, and a charter technical early college high school. 3
Currently, VUSD owns eight undeveloped parcels where five new elementary schools, two new middle schools and a new high school are planned. Ridgeview Middle School is located adjacent to and west of Akers Street and would abut the proposed Project site. In addition, VUSD 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.

Other proposed uses include approximately 13.0 acres for a potential site for a future elementary school. However, the land for the future elementary school could potentially be converted to low density residential as described in Chapter Two – Project Description.

Parks
There are no public parks on or adjacent to the Project site. The nearest park to the Project site is the Soroptimist Neighborhood park, located approximately one mile southeast. The proposed Project includes approximately 17.3 acres of parks/trails/recreational facilities (3.5 acres in Phase 1 and 13.8 acres in Phase 2). Refer to Figure 2-7 (in Chapter Two – Project Description) for the general location of the proposed recreational facilities, including parks. Parks within residential neighborhoods will range from 0.5 to 1 acre in size. Parks may be within a neighborhood or be located along the Modoc Greenway. Each park may include an open grass space, play area, picnic area, barbeque grills, seating, and drinking fountain. Shade trees will be provided and, where possible, drought-tolerant/native species will be encouraged. Parks will be located and designed to provide social activities within the development. In addition, the network of trails proposed by the Project will provide convenient walking and biking options for residents to connect throughout Carleton Acres.
3 Visalia Unified School District – About VUSD, https://www.vusd.org/domain/9. Accessed Dec. 2022. 1235
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-3 Libraries
There are no public libraries in the vicinity of the Project site. The nearest public library is the Tulare County Library, located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Project site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertaining to public services that apply to the proposed Project.

State of California Regulations
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Sections 1270 “Fire Prevention” and 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire Equipment,” the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal- OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services (EMS). The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.

City Emergency Response/Evacuation Plans
The State of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing 1236
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-4 buildings and the surrounding premises. The CFC also contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety.

California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which includes regulations for building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, high-rise buildings, childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.

Government and Education Codes (Funding for Schools)
Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities.

Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” Local Regulations
City of Visalia General Plan
Fire Hazard Policies:

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
• Industrial, irrigation and commercial uses
• Water-oriented or water-enhanced recreation
• Air conditioning
Safety Services and Emergency Response Policies:

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.
1237
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-5 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.

S-P-39 Continue to upgrade preparedness strategies and techniques in all departments so as to be prepared when disaster, either natural or man-made, occurs.

Schools and Community Facilities Policies:

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

PSCU-P-35 Work with Visalia Unified School District and the Tulare County Office of Education to establish School District boundaries that are coterminous with the City’s Urban Growth Boundary.

PSCU-P-38 Continue to encourage school multi-purpose facilities and open space for community uses to maximize their utilization.

Parks and Recreation Policies:

PSCU-P-2 Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.

PSCU-P-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.

PSCU-P-5 Create new community parks in the Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast quadrants, consistent with the Parks and Open Space diagram and the following planning guidelines:
• Size: 5-12 acres or more; and
• Facilities to be provided: large children’s play area, reserved picnic facilities, open play fields, community building, bicycle parking, and offstreet parking. They also may include tennis courts, outdoor concert areas or other special facilities based on neighborhood needs and community input.
1238
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-6 PSCU-P-6 Create a high-quality, accessible neighborhood park system based on the needs of the surrounding community, the Parks and Open Space diagram and the following planning guidelines:
• Size: 2 to 5 acres; and
• Facilities to be provided: open lawn area, small picnic area, paths, bicycle parking, play equipment for children, backstop, multi-use courts, drinking fountain, landscaping.

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.

PSCU-P-8 Establish design review criteria for allowing pocket parks (parks less than 2 acres) and linear parks to be counted toward meeting the neighborhood and community park-land standard of this General Plan.

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
1239
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-7 • 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.

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.

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 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.

PSCU-P-15 Provide lighted facilities for tennis, basketball or other recreational facilities and along pathways in order to extend usable hours.

PSCU-P-18 Establish a wayfinding system for parks, bikeways and trails, with consistent, recognizable and pedestrian-scale signage.

PSCU-P-20 Promote private-sector and joint public-private development of commercial recreation facilities for league softball, indoor swimming, and golf, and other recreation uses that are available to the public for a fee or on a limited basis.

PSCU-P-22 Require private open space and recreational facilities in large-scale multi-family residential developments to meet a portion of resident recreation, except in Downtown and East Downtown.

PSCU-P-24 Promote innovative park design that responds to neighborhood needs and user groups.

PSCU-P-25 Provide shade in parks by using arbors and other landscaping techniques.

PSCU-P-28 Investigate opportunities to locate emergency services substations (police, fire, etc.) adjacent to park sites.
1240
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-8 PSCU-P-30 Incorporate barrier-free design in all new recreation and sports facilities, and renovate existing facilities to remove barriers to handicapped users.

PSCU-P-31 Continue to work with the Visalia Parks and Recreation Foundation and other foundations and grant sources to provide funding for conservation, open space, parks and recreation.

Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item as follows.
o Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
1241
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-9 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.15-1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would include up to 3,262 residential units, 35.1 acres of commercial and 17.3 acres of park/trail facilities on the site. If approved and annexed into the City, the City would provide public services to the Project.

Impacts to public services are largely determined by the potential new population from the Project that would require access to these services. According to the Census Bureau, the average household size in the City of Visalia between 2016-2020 was 3.04 persons per household4.

Therefore, the Project’s population estimate (at full buildout) is estimated to be 9,917 persons (3,262 housing units X 3.04 persons per household = 9,917 persons). The City’s Year 2021 population of 142,978 residents would be increased by approximately 6.9% to 152,895 from the Project. Table 3.15-1 shows the City’s existing population, the increase in population from the proposed Project, and the City’s General Plan projected population in Year 2030, assuming full buildout of the General Plan.
4 U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/visaliacitycalifornia,fresnocitycalifornia/MAN450212 (accessed June 2022).
1242
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-10 Table 3.15-1: Population Estimates
Potential impacts to public services are discussed individually by topic below.

Fire Protection
Fire protection services would be required to serve the proposed Project. As previously described, the City of Visalia provides firefighting response services through the VFD. The nearest fire station to the Project site is Station No. 55, located approximately 0.5 miles to the south, at 6921 W Ferguson Avenue.

The City’s General Plan identified a service ratio for the VFD as 0.48 responders per 1,000 residents served by the City’s Planning Area boundary. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard is one responder per 1,000 residents served5. According to the VFD’s 2021 Annual Report, the Department maintains an overall average response time of 6 minutes and 22 seconds.6 In order to maintain existing levels of fire protection, the VFD will need to increase its resources to serve the Project. Based on the City’s ratio of 0.48 responders per 1,000 residents, the proposed Project would require an additional 4.7 firefighters at full buildout (9,917 residents / 1,000 = 9.917 X 0.48 = 4.76). According to the VFD’s 2021 Annual Report, VFD staffing includes a Fire Chief, three Shift Battalion Chiefs, 21 Fire Captains, 21 Fire Engineers, 27 Firefighter Paramedics, an Administrative Battalion Chief, a Fire Marshal, three Fire Inspectors and various supportive staff.7 This represents approximately 77 fire fighting personnel (along with additional support 5 Visalia General Plan EIR, 3.9 – Public Services, Facilities and Utilities, https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 , page 3.9-41. 6 Visalia Fire Department 2021 Annual Report
https://www.visalia.city/documents/Fire/Annual/VFD%202021%20Annual%20Report.pdf , page 39. 7 Visalia Fire Department 2021 Annual Report
https://www.visalia.city/documents/Fire/Annual/VFD%202021%20Annual%20Report.pdf , page 12.

Existing
Population
(2021)
Proposed
Project
Population
Existing Plus
Project Population
General Plan 2030
Projected Population
142,978 9,917 152,895 210,000
1243
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-11 staff). Based on the City’s 2021 population (142,978), the City is below the target of one firefighter per 1,000 residents. Thus the Project will require additional staffing to accommodate the Project.

The Project Site Plan will be reviewed by the VFD and the City of Visalia to ensure that the Project meets or exceeds local and state standards for fire-related components such as adequate emergency access, location of fire hydrants, adequate defensible space around the site, use of fireretardant materials, etc. In addition, the proposed Project will be required to pay fire service impact fees from new development based on projected impacts from the development. This fee will be determined by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with fire protection services. The impact fee amount will be the amount established in the City’s adopted impact fee program in place at the time of submittal of building permit applications. Thus, with payment of impact fees, the impact to fire services is less than significant.

The proposed Project does not trigger the need for a new fire station or expansion of existing facilities at this time. It is anticipated that the existing Fire Station No. 55, located approximately

0.5 miles to the south, can maintain the VFD’s current response times and can adequately serve the Project. Any future development of a fire station will require environmental review when it is proposed, and the environmental review will determine if there will be an adverse physical impact associated with its construction pursuant to CEQA. A new fire station is not proposed at this time, and the proposed Project would not directly result in the need for the construction of new fire facilities; thus, the Project will have a less than significant impact relative to construction of new fire protection facilities.

Police Protection
Police protection services would be required to serve the proposed Project. As previously described, the VPD provides police services for the City. The District I substation, serving northern Visalia (and the proposed Project area), is located at 204 Northwest 3rd Avenue, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Project site.

The City’s General Plan identified a service ratio for the VPD as 1.7 officers (sworn, reserve, and civilian) per 1,000 residents served by the City’s Planning Area boundary. 8 In order to maintain
8 Visalia General Plan EIR, 3.9 – Public Services, Facilities and Utilities, https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 , page 3.9-41. 1244
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-12 adequate levels of service, the VPD will need to consider the typical nature and type of calls for service; crime prevention and safety; appropriate measures for determining adequate levels of service; and the requirements for additional facilities and staffing. Based on the City’s ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents, the proposed Project would require an additional 16.6 officers at full buildout (9,917 residents / 1,000 = 9.786 X 1.7 = 16.8).

The Project Site Plan will be reviewed by the VPD and the City of Visalia to ensure that the Project meets or exceeds local and state standards for police-related services. In addition, the proposed Project will be required to pay police service impact fees from new development based on projected impacts from the development. This fee will be determined by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with police protection services. The impact fee amount will be the amount established in the City’s adopted impact fee program in place at the time of submittal of building permit applications. Thus, with payment of impact fees, the impact to police services is less than significant.

The proposed Project does not trigger the need for a new police station or expansion of existing facilities at this time. It is anticipated that the existing District I Substation at 204 Northwest 3rd Avenue, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Project site, can maintain the VPD’s current response times and can adequately serve the Project. Any future development of a police station will require environmental review when it is proposed, and the environmental review will determine if there will be an adverse physical impact associated with its construction pursuant to CEQA. A new police station is not proposed at this time, and the proposed Project would not directly result in the need for the construction of new police facilities; thus, the Project will have a less than significant impact relative to construction of new police protection facilities.

Schools
The proposed Project will include up to 3,262 dwelling units at full buildout for a population increase of approximately 9,917 people. VUSD provided the number of students generated by type of residential (single or multi family) and by grade level (e.g. TK-6, 7-8, and 9-12) as shown in Table 3.15-2.
1245
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-13 Table 3.15-2: Student Generation Rates
Grade
Student Yield Rates
Single Family Student Yield Rate Multi Family Student Yield Rate Combined
Student Yield
Rate
TK-6 0.303 0.275 0.298
7-8 0.091 0.082 0.089
9-12 0.187 0.169 0184
The proposed Project features several different types of housing for a total of up to 3,262 residential units at buildout which is broken down as follows:
• Single Family Residential: Up to 2,350 units
• Multi Family Residential: 912 units
Based on the ratios identified in Table 3.15-2, the Project would generate approximately 1,847 students. See Table 3.15-3 for the breakdown of the number of students.

Table 3.15-3: Proposed Project’s Anticipated Number of New Students Grade
Household Type
Single Family
(2,350 units)*
Number
of Students
Multi Family
(912 units)*
Number
of Students
TK-6 0.303 713 0.275 251
7-8 0.091 214 0.082 75
9-12 0.187 440 0.169 154
SF Student Subtotal: 1,367 MF Student Subtotal: 480
Total Projected New Students: 1,847
1246
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-14 Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities.

Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” The proposed Project will be required to pay impact fees from new development based on the Developer Fee rates that are in place at the time payment is due. The payment amount is determined by the School District and the State Allocation Board who sets the maximum persquare-foot Level 1 school impact fees every two (even) years at its January meeting. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant would fund capital and labor costs associated with providing school services to the Project. The Project will be required to pay its the school impact fee as a condition of approval. The impact fee amount will be the amount established by the School District and the State Allocation Board in place at the time of submittal of building permit applications. Thus, with payment of impact fees, the impact to schools and school facilities is less than significant.

Parks
Policy PSCU-P-2 of the City’s General Plan states that the City of Visalia will strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents. According to the Census Bureau, the average household size in the City of Visalia between 2016-2020 was 3.04 persons per household9. Therefore, using the more recent information, the Project’s population estimate (at full buildout) is estimated to be 9,917 persons (3,262 housing units X 3.04 persons per household = 9,917 persons).

The proposed Project could have a total population of 9,917 persons at build-out which would equate to a need for a minimum of 49.6 acres of parkland based on the City’s standard of five acres per 1,000 residents (9,917 divided by 1,000 and multiplied by 5.0).

The creation of new parks / recreational facilities within the City is done both at the individual project level (where park facilities are constructed as part of a project) and at the City-wide level (where impact fees fund the development of larger community parks). According to the City’s General Plan, the City would require approximately 430 acres of new parkland City-wide to accommodate buildout of the City’s General Plan (estimated total population of about 210,000 at buildout). The City’s General Plan provides approximately 625 acres of new/future park land. Of 9 U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/visaliacitycalifornia,fresnocitycalifornia/MAN450212 (accessed June 2022).
1247
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-15 this future park land, 430 acres would be new usable City parks, or 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.10 The City currently is in the planning stages of a new east side “large city park” allocating 148 acres for recreational use as well as other park projects. In the Project area, the City of Visalia currently owns approximately 20 acres of land at the northwest corner of Akers Street and Riggin Avenue (adjacent to the Project). The 20 acres is planned for future parks/recreational use.

As previously indicated in Section 3.14 – Population and Housing, the proposed Project is within the population growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan. Thus, the Project will not result in growth that would require additional park land beyond what was identified in the City’s General Plan.

The Project will install approximately 17.3 acres of parks/recreational facilities within the Project site. The Project will also be subject to payment of impact fees to support buildout of park land as identified in the City’s General Plan. The impact fee amount will be the amount established in the City’s adopted impact fee program in place at the time of submittal of building permit applications. Thus, with payment of impact fees, the impact to parks is less than significant. Refer to Section 3.16 – Recreation for more information.

Other Public Facilities
Development of the Project will increase the demand for other public services such as libraries, governmental services, emergency services and health services. However, the increase in demand will not in and of itself require construction of additional facilities. As described in Section 3.14 – Population and Housing, the anticipated population and housing unit increase associated with the proposed Project is within the growth projections of the City’s General Plan. Based on the City’s General Plan and infrastructure master planning documents, it is determined that the proposed Project will not induce unplanned population growth beyond that which can be accommodated by these other public services.

Therefore, with payment of impact fees, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on public services.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.
10 Visalia General Plan – Chapter 5 Parks, Schools, Community Facilities and Utilities, page 5-2. 1248
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.15-16 Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to public services is generally area-specific rather than cumulative in nature because each project site has different considerations that would be subject to review. The service area for the City of Visalia services is considered the cumulative analysis area. Cumulative growth that would occur over the life of the Visalia General Plan / EIR will result in increased demand for public services. As the demand for public services increases, there will likely be a need to increase staffing and equipment in order to maintain acceptable performance standards. Cumulative impacts to public services are primarily related to other development projects that could occur during the same time frame as those considered for this Project and within the same vicinity as this Project. Because the Project will be required to construct and/or pay fair share fees for public services and does not result in significant long-term impacts to public services, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to public services would be less than cumulatively considerable.
1249
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-1

3.16 Recreation
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts associated with the proposed Project on the City’s recreational facilities and services. NOP comment letters were received pertaining to this topic.

Environmental Setting
The Parks, Schools, Community Facilities and Utilities Element of the City’s General Plan serves as a guide for park planning and development documents prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Currently, Visalia has 23 neighborhood parks, ranging in size from 1.9-acre Crestwood Park to 17-acre Sunset Park, as well as numerous pocket parks under two acres. Visalia’s current inventory of parks and recreation facilities is listed in Table 5-1 of the General Plan.
1 Four community parks provide a fuller range
of community amenities or are co-located with community centers and range from approximately 9 to 14 acres. Three larger facilities, Plaza Park, Mooney Grove Park, and Riverway Sports Park, are located at the periphery. The St. Johns Riverway forms much of the northern edge of the City.

Altogether, there are approximately 640 acres of park land within the City. The buildout of the General Plan Land Use Diagram would result in approximately 85,000 new residents in Visalia, with a total population of about 210,000. To meet the General Plan parks standard, this additional population would require an additional 430 acres of parkland. The General Plan provides approximately 625 acres of new park land.

The nearest park to the Project site is the Soroptimist Neighborhood park, located approximately one mile southeast. The proposed Project’s components also include approximately 17.3 acres of parks/trails/recreational facilities (3.5 acres in Phase 1 and 13.8 acres in Phase 2). Refer to Figure 2-7 (in Chapter Two – Project Description) for the general location of the proposed recreational facilities, including parks. Parks within residential neighborhoods will range from 0.5 to 1 acre in size. Parks may be within a neighborhood or be located along the Modoc Greenway. Each park may include an open grass space, play area, picnic area, barbeque grills, seating, and drinking fountain. Shade trees will be provided and, where possible, drought-tolerant/native species will be encouraged. Parks will be located and designed to provide social activities within the development.
1 Ch. 5 Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. City of Visalia Adopted General Plan. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30477. Page 5-3. Accessed April 2022. 1250
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-2 Project Site
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.

Regulatory Setting
State of California Regulations
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Requirements of the Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical development of new park facilities or associated operations and maintenance costs. The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreation facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with new residential development.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia General Plan
Parks and Recreation Policies:

PSCU-P-2 The City will strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents. 1251
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-3 PSCU-P-3 The City will 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.

PSCU-P-5 The City will create new community parks in the Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast quadrants, consistent with the Parks and Open Space diagram and the following planning guidelines:
• Size: 5-12 acres or more; and
• Facilities to be provided: large children’s play area, reserved picnic facilities, open play fields, community building, bicycle parking, and offstreet parking. They also may include tennis courts, outdoor concert areas or other special facilities based on neighborhood needs and community input.

PSCU-P-6 The City will create a high-quality, accessible neighborhood park system based on the needs of the surrounding community, the Parks and Open Space diagram and the following planning guidelines:
• Size: 2 to 5 acres; and
• Facilities to be provided: open lawn area, small picnic area, paths, bicycle parking, play equipment for children, backstop, multi-use courts, drinking fountain, landscaping.

PSCU-P-7 The City will 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.

PSCU-P-8 The City will establish design review criteria for allowing pocket parks (parks less than 2 acres) and linear parks to be counted toward meeting the neighborhood and community park-land standard of this General Plan.
1252
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-4 PSCU-P-9 The City will 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.

PSCU-P-10 The City will 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.

PSCU-P-14 The City will 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 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.

PSCU-P-15 The City will provide lighted facilities for tennis, basketball or other recreational facilities and along pathways in order to extend usable hours.

PSCU-P-18 The City will establish a wayfinding system for parks, bikeways and trails, with consistent, recognizable and pedestrian-scale signage.
1253
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-5 PSCU-P-20 The City will promote private-sector and joint public-private development of commercial recreation facilities for league softball, indoor swimming, and golf, and other recreation uses that are available to the public for a fee or on a limited basis.

PSCU-P-22 The City will require private open space and recreational facilities in large-scale multi-family residential developments to meet a portion of resident recreation, except in Downtown and East Downtown.

PSCU-P-24 The City will promote innovative park design that responds to neighborhood needs and user groups.

PSCU-P-25 The City will provide shade in parks by using arbors and other landscaping techniques.

PSCU-P-28 The City will investigate opportunities to locate emergency services substations (police, fire, etc.) adjacent to park sites.

PSCU-P-30 The City will incorporate barrier-free design in all new recreation and sports facilities, and renovate existing facilities to remove barriers to handicapped users.

PSCU-P-31 The City will continue to work with the Visalia Parks and Recreation Foundation and other foundations and grant sources to provide funding for conservation, open space, parks and recreation.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
Chapter 12.36 - Park and Recreation Development Fees
All housing units constructed in the city must pay a park acquisition and development fee to the City for the construction of park and recreation facilities in accordance with the conservation, open space and recreation element of the City’s General Plan.

Chapter 17.16 – Multi-Family Residential Zones
A minimum of 5% site area shall be dedicated to open, common, usable space and/or recreational facilities for use by tenants. Calculated space shall not include enclosed meeting or community rooms.
1254
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-6 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. o Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
o Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.16-1: Would the project increase the use of exiting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated OR does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Policy PSCU-P-2 of the City’s General Plan states that the City of Visalia will strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents. According to the Census Bureau, the average household size in the City of Visalia between 2016-2020 was 3.04 persons per household2.

Therefore, using the more recent information, the Project’s population estimate (at full buildout) is estimated to be 9,917 persons (3,262 housing units X 3.04 persons per household = 9,917 persons).

The proposed Project could have a total population of 9,917 persons at build-out which would equate to a need for a minimum of 49.6 acres of parkland based on the City’s standard of five acres per 1,000 residents (9,917 divided by 1,000 and multiplied by 5.0).

The creation of new parks / recreational facilities within the City is done both at the individual project level (where park facilities are constructed as part of a project) and at the City-wide level (where impact fees fund the development of larger community parks). According to the City’s 2 U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/visaliacitycalifornia,fresnocitycalifornia/MAN450212 (accessed June 2022).
1255
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-7 General Plan, the City would require approximately 430 acres of new parkland City-wide to accommodate buildout of the City’s General Plan (estimated total population of about 210,000 at buildout). The City’s General Plan provides approximately 625 acres of new/future park land. Of this future park land, 430 acres would be new usuable City parks, or 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.3 The City currently is in the planning stages of a new east side “large city park” allocating 148 acres for recreational use as well as other park projects. In the Project area, the City of Visalia currently owns approximately 20 acres of land at the northwest corner of Akers Street and Riggin Avenue (adjacent to the Project). The 20 acres is planned for future parks/recreational use.

As previously indicated in Section 3.14 – Population and Housing, the proposed Project is within the population growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan. Thus, the Project will not result in growth that would require additional park land beyond what was identified in the City’s General Plan.

The Project will provide approximately 17.3 acres for a variety of public recreational facilities, including trails and parks within the development that will be accessible by the public.

Approximately 3.5 acres will be constructed as part of Phase 1 and 13.8 acres will be constructed in Phase 2. A Landscaping and Lighting Act Assessment District (LLAD) shall be formed, prior to recordation of one or more final maps. The purpose is for the maintenance of the landscaping, fences and/or walls along the public street frontages and open space areas of the subdivision. The LLAD shall include the operational and maintenance cost for the street lights within the subdivision and along streets abutting the subdivision. The LLAD shall include the provisions for the City to collect payment from the subdivider to cover the estimated cost to operate and maintain the improvements of the LLAD prior to assessments occurring on the property tax roll.

Refer to Figure 2-7 (in Chapter Two – Project Description) for the general location of the proposed recreational facilities, which are described as follows:

Modoc Greenway: Modoc Ditch is an existing site feature along the northern portion of Akers and runs east/west through the center of the site. A trail will be installed along the existing Modoc Ditch. The trail will be located north of Shannon Parkway and the existing Modoc Ditch. Modoc Greenway will be installed along Akers Street (north of Ridgeview School), immediately west of the roadway and the existing Modoc Ditch. The Greenway will include a Class 1 bike trail with landscaping on either side and tree clusters will provide shade for the users. The Modoc 3 Visalia General Plan – Chapter 5 Parks, Schools, Community Facilities and Utilities, page 5-2. 1256
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-8 Greenway will connect to the nearby basin trail. The trail will provide a route for residents to access school sites, the commercial areas, and neighborhoods throughout Carleton Acres.

Trails: The network of trails proposed by the Project will provide convenient walking and biking options for residents to connect throughout Carleton Acres. Modoc Greenway is the main east/west and north/south trail facility within the development and will serve as a connection point for other smaller trails. As described above, Modoc Greenway will be a Class 1 bike trail with landscaping on either side. Other trails throughout Carleton Acres will be 22’ wide (6’ walking & 6’ bike lane with 5’ landscaping on each side). These trails are as follows:
• Trail to connect the proposed high school to the future elementary school site (north & south) within the development.
• Trail to connect the future elementary school to Modoc Greenway to the east. • Trail along Roeben to connect the proposed high school to the medium and high density residential along Riggin and to the commercial center at the northeast corner of Riggin and Shirk.
• Around the basin, a trail will connect Modoc Greenway to the high-density development in the northwest corner of the site.

Parks: Parks within residential neighborhoods will range from 0.5 to 1 acre in size. Parks may be within a neighborhood or be located along the Modoc Greenway. Each park may include an open grass space, play area, picnic area, barbeque grills, seating, and drinking fountain. Shade trees will be provided and, where possible, drought-tolerant/native species will be encouraged. Parks will be located and designed to provide social activities within the development.

Determination
The environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed future parks and recreational facilities included in the Project are included within the environmental evaluation within this EIR. For instance, Section 3.17 – Transportation provides the traffic analysis associated with parks/recreation, Section 3.3 – Air Quality included air calculations associated with parks/recreation, etc. The impact determinations that were made within each environmental topic of this EIR also apply to construction/operation of the proposed parks and recreational facilities, since these components are part of the overall proposed Project.

As discussed herein, the total park and recreational space requirements at full build out of the Project would total at least 49.6 acres for approximately 9,917 residents. This ratio satisfies the 1257
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-9 City’s requirement of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. 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 that are consistent with the City’s planned recreational projects and therefore would not result in environmental impacts from construction. These future planned projects will assist the City in meeting its requirement of 5.0 acres of park/recreational space per 1,000 residents. The impact fee amount will be the amount established in the City’s adopted impact fee program in place at the time of submittal of building permit applications. Therefore, with payment of impact fees and construction of 17.3 acres park/recreational facilities on site, the Project will provide sufficient park and recreational facilities per the City’s requirements and will not significantly increase the demand on existing parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the impacts to recreation are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to recreational facilities is generally area-specific rather than cumulative in nature because each project site has different recreational considerations that would be subject to review. As described above, proposed Project implementation would not result in an increased demand for recreational facilities, the deterioration of existing facilities, or the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative recreation impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
1258
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-1

3.17 Transportation/Traffic
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project pertaining to transportation and traffic in and around the Project vicinity. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided a comment letter on the Project NOP (see Appendix A). The letter provided relevant information about Caltrans activities in the area and provided various recommendations for preparation of the traffic analysis for the Project. The analysis presented in this EIR section is based, in part, on the Traffic Study prepared for the Project by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, Inc. which is included as Appendix J.

Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located in the northern area of the City of Visalia in the northwestern portion of Tulare County. 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. The site is in a developing area of the City, and has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses, such as the proposed Project. The Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan to develop approximately 507-acres of land into a mixed-use development. The Project will feature a variety of uses including single-family residential, multi-family housing, commercial, educational, and parks/trails facilities. The proposed Project components are described in detail in Chapter 2.

Project Description. The Project site 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.

Area Roadways
Arterials
W. Riggin Avenue, N. Shirk Road (Road 92), N. Akers Street (Road 100), and Avenue 320 are classified as arterial roads in the City’s Circulation Element with a right-of-way of 110 feet.

Collectors
Shannon Parkway and N. Roeben Street are designated as collectors and serve to connect arterial and local roadways within the Project Area.
1259
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-2 Local Streets
The remaining streets within the Project Area, including Sedona Avenue, are classified as local.

Airports
The nearest public airport is the Visalia Municipal Airport, approximately three miles southwest of the Project site.

Public Transportation Services
The City of Visalia has a variety of public transportation options including fixed route service and demand-responsive systems as well as local and regional systems. Visalia’s Transit Division operates numerous mass transportation services, allowing residents to travel conveniently from neighborhoods to major shopping centers, local schools, medical offices, and work sites.

Local Systems
Visalia Transit (VT) provides a local fixed route system for Visalia residents and visitors alike. VT operates several fixed routes that serve city residents with some routes serving the outlying cities and communities. VT operates fixed route service 7 days a week with operational hours Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m., 9:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Sundays.

Visalia Transit provides Dial-A-Ride curb-to-curb paratransit service on a shared-ride, demandresponse basis to locations within the city limits of Visalia, Goshen, Farmersville and to/from Exeter. The Loop Route provides a fun, easy, and safe way for all school-aged kids to access community and recreation centers in Visalia.

Tulare County Area Transit
Tulare County Area Transit (TCaT) provides reliable and convenient public transit service between cities as well as intra-city transit service for many small communities throughout Tulare County. Fixed route services are offered Monday through Saturday, demand-response Dial-ARide services are offered Monday through Friday. 1260
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-3 Non-Motorized Transportation
Bikeways and Trails
The City of Visalia Bikeway Plan was adopted in February 2011 and is intended to guide bikeway policies, programs, and facility improvements to improve safety, comfort and convenience for all bicyclists in the City of Visalia. The City later adopted the City of Visalia Active Transportation Plan in March 2017, which included an update to the previously adopted 2011 Visalia Bikeway Plan together with adding plans and policies for pedestrians and new bikeways. Figure 3-8 of the Active Transportation Plan shows the bikeway system. The Bikeway Plan encourages the use of walking and bicycling and recognizes three classes of bikeways:
• Bike Path (Class I Bikeway, including paseos and public greenways). Provides a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows by motorists minimized.
• Bike Lane (Class II Bikeway). Provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through-travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
• Bike Route (Class III Bikeway). Provides right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.

While the City has yet to fully implement the network presented in the Bikeway Plan, several Class I, II and III facilities exist and are included in the standard cross-section specifications for the various street classifications.

Pedestrian Circulation
The pedestrian circulation system in Visalia is mainly comprised of sidewalks. Currently, the street environment is mostly auto-oriented with wide roadways and discontinuous sidewalks.

Besides standard sidewalks that have been developed in residential and non-residential areas, several multi-use (bike/pedestrian) trails are found throughout the city, including the St. John’s Parkway, Mill Creek, Goshen Avenue, and others. Visalia Unified School District and the City of Visalia are also actively involved in pursuing federal and state Safe Routes to School (SR2S) grant programs that promote adequate pedestrian facilities in neighborhoods near schools. In addition, the City of Visalia is committed to complying with Americas with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards with new development and bringing non-standard ADA facilities into compliance. 1261
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-4 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Several federal regulations govern transportation issues. They include:
• Title 49, CFR, Sections 171-177 (49 CFR 171-177), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles.
• 49 CFR 350-399, and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways.
• 49 CFR 397.9, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, directs the U.S.

Department of Transportation to establish criteria and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials.

State of California Regulations
California Department of Transportation
The California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over state highways and sets maximum load limits for trucks and safety requirements for oversized vehicles that operate on California highways. The City of Visalia and Tulare County are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans District 6. The following Caltrans regulations apply to the potential transportation impacts of the Project:
• California Vehicle Code, Division 15, Chapters 1 through 5 (Size, Weight, and Load).

Includes regulations pertaining to licensing, size, weight, and load of vehicles operated on highways.
• California Street and Highway Code, Sections 660-711, 670-695. Requires permits from Caltrans for any roadway encroachment during truck transportation and delivery, includes regulations for the care and protection of state and county highways and provisions for the issuance of written permits, and requires permits for any load that exceeds Caltrans weight, length, or width standards for public roadways. 1262
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-5 Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was approved by then Governor Brown on September 27, 2013. SB 743 created a path to revise the definition of transportation impacts according to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The revised CEQA Guidelines requiring a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis became effective December 28, 2018; however, agencies had until July 1, 2020 to finalize their local guidelines on VMT analysis. The intent of SB 743 is to align CEQA transportation study methodology with and promote the statewide goals and policies of reducing VMT and greenhouse gases (GHG). Three objectives of SB 743 related to development are to reduce GHG, diversify land uses, and focus on creating a multimodal environment.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia General Plan
The Circulation Element of the 2030 General Plan is intended to provide guidance and specific actions to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of Visalia’s circulation system.

Level of Service Standards:

T-P-10 Manage local residential streets to limit average daily vehicle volumes to 1,500 or less and maintain average vehicle speeds between 15 and 25 miles per hour.

T-P-12 Require or provide adequate traffic safety measures on all new and existing roadways.

Traffic Studies and Mitigation Measures:

T-P-18 Ensure that citywide traffic service levels are maintained, require a traffic study, as a condition of development, of 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. 1263
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-6 Planned Improvement Policies:

T-P-22 Require all residential subdivisions to be designed to discourage use of local streets as a bypass to congested arterials, and when feasible, require access to residential development to be from collector streets.

T-P-23 Require that all new developments provide right-of-way, which may be dedicated or purchased, and improvements (including necessary grading, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway/landscape strips, bike and parking lanes) other city street design standards. Design standards will be updated following General Plan adoption.

T-P-24 Require that proposed developments make necessary off-site improvements if the location and traffic generation of a proposed development will result in congestion on major streets or failure to meet LOS D during peak periods or if it creates safety hazards.

T-P-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.

T-P-26 Require that future commercial developments or modifications to existing developments be designed with limited points of automobile ingress and egress, including shared access, onto major streets.

T-P-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.

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.

Bicycle Transportation and Trails System Policies:

T-P-39 Develop bikeways consistent with the Visalia Bikeway Plan and the General Plan’s Circulation Element.

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. 1264
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-7 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-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.

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.

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.

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.

Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
o Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities o Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) o Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) o Result in inadequate emergency access
1265
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-8 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers, Inc. (R&S) prepared a Traffic Study (see Appendix J) analyzing potential impacts the proposed Project would have on the existing roadway and transportation system. The study methodology is consistent with the Procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), City of Visalia, updated March 2021 (TIA Procedures), and the City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, adopted March 15, 2021 (VMT Guidelines).

The Traffic Study provides an analysis of the surrounding roadway system and the effects of the proposed Project on the existing and planned roadway infrastructure, including potential mitigation measures to reduce Project transportation impacts. Study results are summarized in the text below. For the full text, graphics, and traffic counts, please refer to Appendix J.

Intersection Analysis
Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative index of the performance of an element of the transportation system. LOS is a rating scale running from “A” to “F”, with “A” indicating no congestion of any kind and “F” indicating unacceptable congestion and delays. It describes the operating conditions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. It should be noted that LOS is no longer a requirement to be studied under CEQA. Instead, a project’s transportation impacts are evaluated through an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) pursuant to Senate Bill 743. Data pertaining to LOS is being provided for evaluation and informational purposes by the City of Visalia.

However, the Project’s VMT analysis is provided in Impact 3.17-2.

While LOS is no longer the criteria of significance for traffic impacts in the state of California, the City of Visalia is continuing to review traffic LOS as the means in which it plans for roadway improvements in support of its General Plan. LOS analysis is still appropriate and necessary to determine consistency with General Plan policies as they relate to LOS. More specifically, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines asks whether a project would “conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.” As the City’s currently adopted General Plan Circulation Element includes a LOS standard, to ensure that a project is consistent with the General Plan policy, an LOS analysis may be required at the request of the City Traffic Engineer to determine necessary roadway infrastructure improvements and capacity.
1266
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-9 The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is the standard reference published by the Transportation Research Board and contains the specific criteria and methods to be used in assessing LOS.

Synchro software was used to determine LOS in this evaluation. Details regarding these calculations are included in Appendix J.

Criteria of Significance. The City of Visalia and County of Tulare have an operational level of service goal of LOS D or better.

Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and D on State highway facilities consistent with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies dated December 2002. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.

Analysis Locations
The project is expected to generate more than 1,500 peak hour trips. Therefore, in accordance with TIA Procedures, a Category V traffic impact analysis is required. The minimum study area for a Category V analysis includes all signalized intersections and major unsignalized intersections within three miles of the project. The scope of the study was developed in association with staff at the City of Visalia, County of Tulare and Caltrans, and includes the 82 intersections (48 existing and 34 future) listed below. Study intersection location, number and jurisdiction are shown in Figures 5a and 5b of Appendix J.

Study Intersections:

1. Plaza Dr (Rd 80) & Ave 328

2. Shirk St (Rd 92) & Ave 328

3. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Ave 328

4. Rd 112 & Ave 328

5. Plaza Dr (Rd 80) & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

6. Kelsey St & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

7. Rd 88 & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

8. Rd 92-Shirk St & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

9. Denton St & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

10. Roeben St & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

11. N/S roadway & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

12. Akers St (Rd 100) & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

13. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

14. Shirk St (Rd 92) & Pratt Rd
1267
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-10

15. Denton St & Pratt Rd

16. Roeben St & Pratt Rd

17. N/S roadway & Pratt Rd

18. Akers St (Rd 100) & Pratt Rd

19. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Pratt Rd

20. Shirk St (Rd 92) & Shannon Pkwy

21. Denton St & Shannon Pkwy

22. Roeben St & Shannon Pkwy

23. N/S roadway & Shannon Pkwy

24. Akers St (Rd 100) & Shannon Pkwy

25. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Shannon Pkwy

26. Shirk St (Rd 92) & Sedona Ave

27. Denton St & Sedona Ave

28. Roeben St & Sedona Ave

29. N/S roadway & Sedona Ave

30. Akers St (Rd 100) & Sedona Ave

31. Road 67 & Betty Dr

32. Robinson Rd & Betty Dr

33. Road 72 & Riggin Ave

34. American St (Rd 76) & Riggin Ave

35. Plaza Dr (Rd 80) & Riggin Ave

36. Kelsey St & Riggin Ave

37. Clancy St & Riggin Ave

38. Shirk St (Rd 92) & Riggin Ave

39. Denton St & Riggin Ave

40. Roeben St & Riggin Ave

41. N/S roadway & Riggin Ave

42. Akers St (Rd 100) & Riggin Ave

43. Linwood St & Riggin Ave

44. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Riggin Ave

45. Dinuba Blvd (Rd 124) & Riggin Ave

46. Shirk St (Rd 92) & Ferguson Ave

47. Roeben St & Ferguson Ave

48. Akers St (Rd 100) & Ferguson Ave

49. Linwood St & Ferguson Ave

50. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Ferguson Ave
1268
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-11

51. Plaza Dr (Rd 80) & Goshen Ave

52. Shirk St (Rd 92) & Goshen Ave

53. Akers St (Rd 100) & Goshen Ave

54. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Goshen Ave

55. Plaza Dr (Rd 80) & Hurley Ave

56. Shirk St (Rd 92) & Hurley Ave

57. Akers St (Rd 100) & Hurley Ave

58. Shirk St (Rd 92) & SR 198 Westbound Ramps

59. Akers St (Rd 100) & Mineral King Ave/SR 198 Westbound On-Ramp

60. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Mineral King Ave

61. Shirk St (Rd 92) & SR 198 Eastbound Ramps

62. Akers St (Rd 100) & Noble Ave/SR 198 Eastbound Off-Ramp

63. Demaree St (Rd 108) & Noble Ave

64. Roeben St & South Elementary School Driveway

65. Commercial Driveway & Kibler Ave (Ave 320)

66. Shirk St & South Commercial Driveway

67. East Commercial Driveway & Riggin Ave

68. Roeben St & North High School Staff/Visitor Driveway

69. Roeben St & High School Parent Drop-Off Driveway

70. Roeben St & South High School Staff/Visitor Driveway

71. West High School Student Parking Driveway & Sedona Ave

72. Central High School Student Parking Driveway & Sedona Ave

73. East High School Student Parking Driveway & Sedona Ave

74. High School Staff Parking Driveway & Shannon Pkwy

75. State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp & Betty Dr

76. State Route 99 Northbound Ramps & Betty Dr

77. Country Center St & Houston Ave

78. West Commercial Driveway & Riggin Ave

79. Shirk St & North Commercial Driveway

80. Akers St (Rd 100) & Commercial Driveway

81. Roeben St & North Elementary School Driveway

82. Elementary School Driveway & Pratt Rd
Analysis Time Periods
Traffic impact analyses conducted for the Traffic Study include intersection level of service, traffic signal warrant, queue length and vehicle miles traveled. Corresponding analysis time periods are 1269
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-12 presented in Table 3.17-1. Peak hours were determined based on a review of count data obtained for the Traffic Study.

Table 3.17-1
Analysis Time Periods
Traffic Phasing
As shown in Figure A1.1 of Appendix J, traffic phasing is based on an approximate 5, 10, 15, and 20 year build out of the development as follows:
• Phase I: 5 Year (approx.) with 20% residential max buildout and 28.7 acres of commercial
• Phase II: 10 Year (approx.) with 40% residential max buildout and 6.4 acres of commercial
• Phase III (50%): 15 Year (approx.) with 70% of residential max buildout • Phase III: 20 Year (approx.) with 100% of residential built Analysis Scenarios
In accordance with Category V requirements, analyses involving intersection level of service, traffic signal warrant and queue length were performed for each of the scenarios listed below. • 2022 Traffic (Existing)
• 2023 Traffic
1270
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-13 • 2023 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phase I)
• 2023 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phase I) + Mitigation • 2028 Traffic
• 2028 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phases I and II)
• 2028 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phases I and II) + Mitigation • 2033 Traffic
• 2033 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phases I, II and 50 percent buildout of III) • 2033 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phases I, II and 50 percent buildout of III) + Mitigation • 2038 Traffic
• 2038 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phases I, II and III) • 2038 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phases I, II and III) + Mitigation • 2043 Traffic
• 2043 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phases I, II and III) • 2043 Traffic + Project Traffic (Phases I, II and III) + Mitigation • 2046 Traffic (TCAG model horizon year)
• 2046 Traffic (TCAG model horizon year) + Project Traffic (Phases I, II and III) • 2046 Traffic (TCAG model horizon year) + Project Traffic (Phases I, II and III) + Mitigation
These traffic impact analysis scenarios were developed based on the following assumptions:
• Opening year (full build) for Phase I would occur in 2023. Timing of roadway improvements will depend on market conditions and may extend into the 5-year planning horizon for Phase I.
• The 5-year planning horizon for Phase I and opening year (full build) for Phase II would occur in 2028.
• The 10-year planning horizon for Phase I, 5-year planning horizon for Phase II, and 50 percent buildout of Phase III would occur in 2033.
• The 10-year planning horizon for Phase II and opening year (full build) for Phase III would occur in 2038.
• The 20-year planning horizon for Phase I and 5-year planning horizon for Phase III would occur in 2043.
1271
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-14 Project Site Circulation and Access
The overall layout of the proposed Project is block form, with shortened roadway lengths and cul-de-sacs in order to provide limited thru-traffic and to create a walkable urban environment.

The site has been designed with 13 points of ingress and egress (See Figure 3.17-1). Additional access points will be provided for the commercial uses that are proposed to occur at the southwest corner of the site and for the high-density residential development at the northwest corner of the site. The following is a summary of roadway improvements that will be required:

Arterials
W. Riggin Avenue, N. Shirk Road (Road 92), N. Akers Street (Road 100), and Avenue 320 are classified as arterial roads in the City’s Circulation Element with a right-of-way of 110 feet. The arterials in the Project Area will include two through-lanes of traffic in each direction, as well as a left-turn channelization when needed. The City also requires designated right-turn lanes for arterial to arterial intersections. When applicable, road right-of-way may be required for improvements at intersections to allow for right turn movements. Four arterials border the proposed Project with two existing lanes. When the Project is fully developed, Riggin will have four lanes and N. Shirk Road, N. Akers Street and Avenue 320 will remain two lanes each. As development progresses, N. Shirk Road would require four lanes (partial segment will remain two lanes) and W. Riggin Avenue and N. Akers Street may be widened to four lanes as ultimate right-of-way dedications continue to progress. Widening of W. Riggin Avenue, N. Shirk Road and N. Akers Street will be necessary with right-of-way dedications.

Collectors
Shannon Parkway and N. Roeben Street are designated as collectors and serve to connect arterial and local roadways within the Project Area. Shannon Parkway and N. Roeben Street will feature two lanes of traffic (single lane in each direction) within an 84-foot rightof-way.

Local Streets
The remaining streets within the Project Area, including Sedona Avenue, are classified as local and will be developed to residential street standards. Most local streets within the Project Area will have a right of way width of 60 feet. A combination of speed tables and roundabouts will be used as traffic calming devices.
1272
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-15 Figure 3.17-1
Site Access Map
1273
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-16 The Project will be responsible for construction of internal roadways as well as for potential improvements to surrounding roadways to accommodate the Project. The Project also includes improvements and landscaping along the frontage roads and within the site itself.

As part of the Project, proposed infrastructure improvements pertaining to Transportation/Traffic are identified below, by phase.

Phase 1

1. Installation of improvements along Shirk frontage to Phase 2. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 7’ wide side sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ buffer, and (2) 12’ travel lanes, 18’ wide median, and 12’ travel lane

2. Installation of improvements along Riggin from Shirk to where improvements already in place near Akers. Including, 7’ wide side sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’, (2) 12’ travel lanes and 18’ wide median

3. Installation of improvements along Sedona at existing roundabout to Shirk. Including: 5’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 8’ wide parking, (2) 12’ wide travel lanes, 8’ wide parking, curb/gutter, 5’ wide planter, 5’ wide sidewalk.

4. Installation of improvements along Shannon Parkway from Roeben to Shirk. Including:
6’ tall block wall, 9’ landscape, 6’ wide sidewalk, 10’ wide planter, curb/gutter, , 5’ bike lane, 5’ buffer, 12’ wide travel lane, 15’ wide median and 12’ wide travel lane.

5. Installation of improvements along Roeben from Prescott to Shannon Parkway. Including:
6’ tall block wall, 5’ wide planter, 6’ wide sidewalk, 6’ wide bike trail, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 8’ wide parking, 12’ wide travel lane, 11’ wide median, and 12’ wide travel lane.

Phase 2

1. Installation of improvements along Roeben from Shannon Parkway to Ave. 320. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 5’ wide planter, 6’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 8’ wide parking, 5’ wide bike lane, 12’ wide travel lane, 11’ wide median, 12’ wide travel lane, curb/gutter, 5’ wide planter, 6’ wide bike trail, 6’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter and 6’ tall block wall.

2. Installation of improvements along Shirk to Ave. 320. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 8’ landscape, 7’ wide side sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes (18’ wide median) and 12’ travel lane 1274
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-17

3. Installation of improvements along Shannon Parkway from Roeben to Akers. Including:
12’ wide travel lane, 15’ wide median, 12’ wide travel lane, 8’ wide parking, 5’ wide planter, 6’ wide sidewalk, 10’ wide ditch access & decomposed granite walking path, existing 19’ wide Modoc Ditch, 12' wide ditch & police access, 18' wide bioswale, 12' wide class 1 bike trail, and 6' wide planter.

4. Installation of improvements along Akers to Ave. 320. Including: 6’ wide planter, 12' wide class 1 bike trail, 18' wide bioswale, +/-12’ wide ditch & police access, existing 32’ wide Modoc Ditch, +/-10’ wide ditch access & walking path, 7' wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, (2) 12’ travel lanes (18’ wide median), and 12’ travel lane.

5. Installation of improvements on Ave. 320 from Akers to Shirk. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 8’ landscape, 7’ wide side sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes (18’ wide median), and 12’ travel lane.

6. Complete the installation of improvements along Shannon Parkway from Roeben to Shirk. Including: 8' wide parking, curb/gutter, 5' wide planter, 6’ sidewalk, 10' wide ditch access & decomposed granite walking path, existing 19' wide Modoc Ditch, 12' wide ditch & police access, 18' wide bioswale, 12' wide class 1 bike trail, and 6' wide landscaping.

The network of trails proposed by the Project will provide convenient walking and biking options for residents to connect throughout Carleton Acres. Modoc Greenway is the main east/west and north/south trail facility within the development and will serve as a connection point for other smaller trails. As described above, Modoc Greenway will be a Class 1 bike trail with landscaping on either side. Other trails throughout Carleton Acres will be 22’ wide (6’ walking & 6’ bike lane with 5’ landscaping on each side). These trails are as follows:
• Trail to connect the proposed high school to the future elementary school site (north & south) within the development.
• Trail to connect the future elementary school to Modoc Greenway to the east. • Trail along Roeben to connect the proposed high school to the medium and high density residential along Riggin and to the commercial center at the northeast corner of Riggin and Shirk.
• Around the basin, a trail will connect Modoc Greenway to the high-density development in the northwest corner of the site.
1275
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-18 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.17-1: Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The proposed Project includes the construction and operation of a 507-acre mixed-use Project, which could result in potentially significant increases in traffic in and around the Project area. Based on the previously described methodology, the following information describes the Project’s transportation impacts and mitigation measures.

While LOS is no longer the criteria of significance for traffic impacts in the state of California, the City of Visalia is continuing to review traffic LOS as the means in which it plans for roadway improvements in support of its General Plan. LOS analysis is still appropriate and necessary to determine consistency with General Plan policies as they relate to LOS. More specifically, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines asks whether a project would “conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.” As the City’s currently adopted General Plan Circulation Element includes a LOS standard, to ensure that a Project is consistent with the General Plan policy, an LOS analysis may be required at the request of the City Traffic Engineer to determine necessary roadway infrastructure improvements and capacity.

Traffic Volumes
Existing
Weekday peak hour turning movement counts were obtained for the existing study intersections in May 2021, June 2021 and July 2022 (see Appendix C of Appendix J for count data and lane geometrics). These counts were adjusted (+15 percent) to account for traffic volume reductions on public roadways in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The adjustment was developed based on a review of historical (pre-pandemic) count data obtained from multiple sources. The resultant existing (2022) weekday peak hour volumes are shown in Figures 32 and 33 of Appendix J.

Saturday peak hour turning movement counts were obtained in September 2022 (see Appendix C of Appendix J for count data and lane geometrics). It was determined that the application of a pre-pandemic adjustment factor is not needed since the count data collected is recent and traffic volumes on public roadways have steadily increased since the State of California lifted most 1276
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-19 COVID-19 restrictions in June 2021. Existing (2022) Saturday peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 34 of Appendix J.

Future
Average annual growth rates ranging between 0.5 and 10.7 percent were applied to the 2022 peak hour volumes to estimate future peak hour volumes for the years 2023, 2028, 2033, 2038 and 2043.

These growth rates were estimated based on a review of regional travel demand model data from Tulare County Association of Governments.

Peak hour volumes for pending developments were added to peak hour projections beginning in the year 2028 (see next section). These volumes were estimated based on information provided by the City of Visalia regarding land use, size and location of each pending development (see Appendix D of Appendix J for map and list of developments).

In addition, peak hour volumes for a planned industrial park (northwest corner of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue) were added to cumulative peak hour volumes (growth rate projections plus pending development traffic) beginning in the year 2028 (see next section). Similarly, peak hour volumes for a future high school (southeast corner of Roeben Street and Shannon Parkway) were added to cumulative peak hour volumes beginning in the year 2033 (see next section).

Peak hour volumes for the years 2023, 2028, 2033, 2038 and 2043, both with and without project traffic, are shown in Figures 35 through 79 of Appendix J. The same for the year 2046 (TCAG horizon year) is shown in Figures 80 through 88 of Appendix J. The 2046 volumes include peak hour traffic for pending and planned development (see next section).

Project Trip Generation
Project trip generation and design hour volumes for Phase I, Phases I and II, Phases I, II and III (50 percent buildout), and Phases I, II, and III, are shown in Tables 3.17-2, 3.17-3, 3.17-4 and 3.17- 5, respectively. It was determined that weekday peak hours occur between 7:30 and 8:30 AM, and between 4:00 and 5:00 PM. The peak hour for Saturday was found to occur between 10:30 AM and 11:30 AM.

With the exception of the Costco land use, daily and peak hour volumes were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). Trip rates, equations and peak hour directional splits for ITE Land Use Codes 210, 220, 520 and 821 were used to estimate project trips for adjacent street traffic based on information provided by the project applicant. A pass-by rate of 15 percent was applied to the ITE 821 (retail) land use to 1277
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-20 account for project trips that are made as intermediate stops between trip origin and primary destination. Pass-by trips are drawn from traffic passing the site, and therefore, do not add trips to the adjacent street system.

Trip rates, directional splits and pass-by reduction for the Costco land use were obtained from a Kittelson & Associates trip generation memorandum, dated June 23, 2022 (see Appendix B of Appendix Jfor the memorandum). The building size was provided by the Project Applicant.

Table 3.17-2
Project Trip Generation: Phase I
Table 3.17-3
Project Trip Generation: Phases I & II
1278
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-21 Table 3.17-4
Project Trip Generation: Phases I, II & (50%) III
Table 3.17-5
Project Trip Generation: Phases I, II & III
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution and assignment were developed based on site location, travel patterns anticipated for each of the proposed land uses, and a select zone analysis performed by the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG). Separate distributions and assignments were prepared for each project land use type and then combined for analysis purposes.

Internal Trips
Mixed-use projects typically generate trips that neither enter nor leave the project site, and therefore, have no impact on adjacent street traffic. Results of the select zone analysis were used to estimate an internal trip capture rate of 3.0 percent. 1279
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-22 The assignment of project peak hour trips to intersections within the project boundary is shown in Figures 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31 of Appendix J.

External Trips
The distribution of project peak hour trips outside of the project boundary is shown in Table 3.17- 6 and represents the movement of traffic accessing the project site by direction. Directional trip distribution percentages for roadway segments in the study area are presented in Figure 7 of Appendix J.

External project peak hour trips were assigned to the study intersections as shown in Figures 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30 of Appendix J.

Table 3.17-6
Project Trip Distribution
Direction Percent
North 5
East 45
South 40
West 10
Project Impacts
As previously described, the City of Visalia and County of Tulare have an operational level of service goal of LOS D or better.

A capacity analysis of the study intersections was conducted using Synchro software from Trafficware (see Appendix E of Appendix J for Synchro output). This software utilizes the capacity analysis methodology in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010). All roundabouts were analyzed as single-lane intersections and all “+Project” scenarios include two westbound lanes on Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Denton Street. In addition, project intersections located along an adjacent arterial were analyzed with a right-turn deceleration lane since all such intersections meet one or more of the City of Visalia’s deceleration lane criteria.

The following tables provide a list of intersections that are expected to fall to LOS E or F (E and F designations shown in bold). The tables exclude intersections and scenarios where LOS will remain within established City or County thresholds. Traffic phasing shown in the tables is based 1280
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-23 on an approximate 5, 10, 15, and 20 year build out of the development. The tables are broken down as follows:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results are shown in Tables 3.17-7 and 3.17- 7a.
• Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results are shown in Tables 3.17-8, 3.17-8a and

3.17-8b.
• Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results are shown in Tables 3.17-9 and 3.17-9a. 1281
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-24 Table 3.17-7
Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 1282
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-25 Table 3.17-7a
Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Contd.)
1283
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-26 Table 3.17-8
Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 1284
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-27 Table 3.17-8a
Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Contd.)
1285
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-28 Table 3.17-8b
Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Contd.)
1286
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-29 Table 3.17-9
Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 1287
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-30 Table 3.17-9a
Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Contd.)
1288
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-31 All study intersections are expected to operate with minimal delay (at or above LOS D) during peak hours through the year 2046, both with and without project traffic, or can be mitigated to operate at an acceptable LOS, except for the following intersections:
• Rd 67/Betty Dr (#31)
• Dinuba Blvd/Riggin Ave (#45)
• Akers St/Ferguson Ave (#48)
• Demaree St/Goshen Ave (#54)
• Demaree St/Mineral King Ave (#60)
Refer to the subsection titled: “Required Improvements and Mitigation Measures” herein for a description of the intersection improvements that are needed in order to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the Project.

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines contained in the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2014 CA MUTCD). As per the Traffic Study Procedures, eight-hour vehicular volume signal warrant conditions were applied to all existing unsignalized arterial/arterial, arterial/collector and collector/collector intersections within the study area. The signal warrant analysis also included the project intersection of Shirk Street/Sedona Avenue (#26) using traffic volume estimates based on movements at adjacent intersections.

Eight-hour signal warrant analysis results are presented in Table 3.17-10 (see Appendix F of Appendix J for Synchro output). The table is broken down by affected intersection and phase/year.
1289
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-32 Table 3.17-10
Traffic Signal Warrants: Weekday 8-Hour Vehicular Volume (Years are approximate) As shown in Table 3.17-10, eight-hour vehicular volume signal warrant conditions were met for the following intersections.
• Clancy St/Riggin Ave (#37)
• Shirk St/Riggin Ave (#38)
• Denton St/Riggin Ave (#39)
• Roeben St/Riggin Ave (#40)
• N/S Roadway/Riggin Ave (#41)
• Linwood St/Riggin Ave (43)
• Shirk St/Ferguson Ave (#46)
• Roeben St/Ferguson Ave (#47)
• Linwood St/Ferguson Ave (#49)
• Shirk St/State Route 198 WB Ramps (#58)
• Shirk St/State Route 198 EB Ramps (#61)
1290
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-33 In addition, a peak hour signal warrant analysis was conducted for the seven existing unsignalized County intersections within the study area. As shown in Tables 6b and 6c of Appendix J, no County intersections warrant signals under any phase of development or under cumulative conditions.

Refer to the subsection titled: “Required Improvements and Mitigation Measures” herein for a description of the traffic signal improvements that are needed in order to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the Project.

Queue Length Analysis
Existing and future peak hour volumes, both with and without project traffic, were used to analyze queue lengths for all turn lanes under stop or signal control within the study area. The queue length analysis was conducted in accordance with the City’s TIA procedures. A total of eight (8) intersections were determined to need additional turn lane storage. A summary of queue storage length improvements that would be required under various scenarios is provided in Table 3.17-11. If additional que lengths are not required for an intersection, they are not mentioned in this summary table. The analysis results are shown in full in Tables 7a, 7b and 7c of Appendix J.

Table 3.17-11
Summary of Queue Length Improvement Requirements
Intersection # Intersection
Turn
Movement
Storage Length
Improvements
Weekday PM
Peak Hour
38 Shirk Ave/Rd 92 & Riggin Ave NBR 250 ft.
42 Akers St & Riggin Ave EBR 600 ft.
42 Akers St & Riggin Ave WBR 400 ft.
42 Akers St & Riggin Ave NBL 600 ft.
50 Demaree St & Ferguson Rd SBL 150 ft.
52 Shirk Ave & Goshen Ave NBL 250 ft.
52 Shirk Ave & Goshen Ave SBL 400 ft.
53 Akers & Goshen Ave. EBL 250 ft.
53 Akers & Goshen Ave. EBR 200 ft.

Weekday AM
Peak Hour
42 Akers St & Riggin Ave EBR 500 ft.
42 Akers St & Riggin Ave SBL 350 ft.
44 Demaree St & Riggin Ave EBR 450 ft.
45 Dinuba Blvd & Riggin Ave EBR 450 ft.
50 Demaree St & Ferguson Rd SBL 150 ft.
53 Akers St & Goshen Ave WBR 250 ft.
56 Shirk Ave & Hurley Ave WBR 450 ft.
1291
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-34 Saturday Peak
Hour
38 Shirk Ave/Rd 92 & Riggin Ave NBR 250 ft.
42 Akers St & Riggin Ave EBR 600 ft.
42 Akers St & Riggin Ave WBR 400 ft.
42 Akers St & Riggin Ave NBL 600 ft.
50 Demaree St & Ferguson Rd SBL 150 ft.
52 Shirk Ave & Goshen Ave NBL 250 ft.
52 Shirk Ave & Goshen Ave SBL 400 ft.
53 Akers St & Goshen Ave EBL 250 ft.
53 Akers St. & Goshen Ave EBR 200 ft.

Refer to the subsection titled: “Required Improvements and Mitigation Measures” herein for a description of the que length improvements that are needed in order to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the Project.

Roadway Analysis
A capacity analysis was conducted to determine whether the addition of Phase I project traffic, the majority of which is generated by the commercial anchor at the northeast corner of Shirk Street/Riggin Avenue (#38), would necessitate improving Riggin Avenue between Shirk Street and Akers Street. Analysis results are provided in Tables 3.17-12 (Roadway LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour), 3.17-13 (Roadway LOS Weekday AM Peak Hour) and 3.17-14 (Roadway LOS Saturday Peak Hour).

Table 3.17-12
Roadway LOS Weekday AM Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) Table 3.17-13
Roadway LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) 1292
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-35 Table 3.17-14
Roadway LOS Saturday Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) The analysis indicates that the addition of Project traffic in year 2023 (full build of Phase I) would necessitate widening Riggin Avenue from two lanes (1 eastbound, 1 westbound) to four lanes (2 eastbound, 2 westbound) between Shirk Street and Akers Street.

Required Improvements and Mitigation Measures
Based on the results of the Traffic Study and the analysis herein, the following are descriptions of intersection improvements that are needed in order to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the vicinity of the Project. The years shown are approximate and are based on an approximate 5, 10, 15, and 20 year phased build out of the development.

Intersection #3: Demaree St (Rd 108) & Ave 328 (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2033 and consists of adding a northbound right-turn lane.
• Further mitigation is recommended in the year 2043 and consists of adding a westbound left-turn lane.
• Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic. • Signal warrant criteria were not met in any of the traffic analysis scenarios.

Intersection #4: Rd 112 & Ave 328 (unsignalized)
• Mitigation is recommended in the year 2038 and consists of adding a southbound rightturn lane. • Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic. • Signal warrant criteria were not met in any of the traffic analysis scenarios. 1293
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-36 Intersection #12: Akers St (Rd 100) & Kibler Ave (Ave 320) (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2038. • Improvements consist of providing all-way stop control. • Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.
• Signal warrant criteria were not met in any of the traffic analysis scenarios.

Intersection #13: Demaree St (Rd 108) & Kibler Ave (Ave 320) (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2038. • Improvements consist of providing all-way stop control. • Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.
• Signal warrant criteria were not met in any of the traffic analysis scenarios.

Intersection #25: Demaree St (Rd 108) & Shannon Pkwy (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2046. • Improvements consist of providing all-way stop control. • Signal warrant criteria were not met in any of the traffic analysis scenarios.

Intersection #31: Rd 67 & Betty Dr (signalized)
• Mitigation is recommended in the year 2038.
• Improvements consist of adding an eastbound right-turn lane. • Full mitigation would require the addition of an eastbound through lane which, in turn, would require widening the bridge structure to the east. Therefore, full mitigation is not feasible.

Intersection #32: Robinson Rd & Betty Dr (signalized)
• Mitigation is recommended in the year 2043.
• Improvements consist of adding an eastbound right-turn lane. • Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #33: Rd 72 & Riggin Ave (unsignalized)
• Mitigation is recommended in the year 2033.
1294
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-37 • Improvements include (1) changing the shared northbound left-turn and right-turn lane to a northbound left-turn lane and (2) adding a northbound right-turn lane. • Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #37: Rd 88 & Riggin Ave (unsignalized)
• Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2028. • Improvements consist of adding signals. Signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2033.
• Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #38: Shirk St (Rd 92) & Riggin Ave (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended in the year 2023 and consists of adding signals. Signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2023. • Further mitigation is recommended in the year 2043 and consists of adding an eastbound through lane.
• Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #39: Denton St & Riggin Ave (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2028. • Improvements consist of adding signals. Signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2023.
• Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #40: Roeben St & Riggin Ave (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2028 and consists of adding signals. With the exception of the year 2028, signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2033. • Further mitigation is recommended in the year 2043 and consists of (1) adding an eastbound through lane and (2) adding a westbound through lane. • Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic. 1295
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-38 Intersection #42: Akers St (Rd 100) & Riggin Ave (signalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2028 and consists of (1) adding an eastbound through lane and (2) adding a westbound through lane.
• Further mitigation is recommended in the year 2038 and consists of changing the eastbound right-turn lane to a shared eastbound through and right-turn lane. • Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #43: Linwood St & Riggin Ave (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2023 and consists of adding signals. With the exception of the year 2028, signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2023 (with project traffic). • Further mitigation is recommended in the year 2033 and consists of (1) adding an eastbound through lane and (2) adding a westbound through lane. • Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #44: Demaree St (Rd 108) & Riggin Ave (signalized) • Mitigation is recommended in the year 2033.
• Improvements include (1) adding an eastbound left-turn lane, (2) changing the eastbound rightturn to a shared eastbound through and right-turn lane, and (3) changing the westbound right-turn lane to a shared westbound through and right-turn lane. • Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #45: Dinuba Blvd (Rd 124) & Riggin Ave (signalized) • Intersection begins to operate below an acceptable level of service in the year 2043. • Intersection is fully expanded to the City standard. Mitigation is not feasible.

Intersection #46: Shirk St (92) & Ferguson Ave (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2023. • Improvements consist of adding signals. With the exception of the year 2028, signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2023 (with project traffic).
1296
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-39 • Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #47: Roeben St & Ferguson Ave (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2028. • Improvements consist of adding signals. With the exception of the year 2028, signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2023 (with project traffic).
• Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #48: Akers St (Rd 100) & Ferguson Ave (signalized) • Mitigation is recommended in the year 2023.
• Improvements include (1) changing the northbound right-turn to a shared northbound through and right-turn lane, (2) changing the southbound right-turn lane to a shared southbound through and right-turn lane, (3) adding a shared eastbound through and right-turn lane, and (4) adding a shared westbound through and right-turn lane. • Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2038. Intersection is fully expanded to the City standard. Further mitigation beyond 2038 is not feasible.

Intersection #49: Linwood St & Ferguson Ave (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2043. • Improvements consist of adding signals. Signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2038.
• Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #52: Shirk St (Rd 92) & Goshen Ave (signalized) • Mitigation is recommended in the year 2023.
• Improvements consist of adding a southbound through lane. • Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.
1297
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-40 Intersection #54: Demaree St (Rd 108) & Goshen Ave (signalized) • Mitigation is recommended in the year 2028.
• Improvements consist of changing the northbound right-turn lane to a shared northbound through and right-turn lane.
• Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2043. Intersection is fully expanded to the City standard. Further mitigation beyond 2043 is not feasible.

Intersection #56: Shirk St (Rd 92) & Hurley Ave (signalized) • Mitigation is recommended in the year 2033.
• Improvements consist of (1) adding a northbound through lane and (2) adding a southbound through lane.
• Mitigation will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #58: Shirk St (Rd 92) & SR 198 Westbound Ramps (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended in the year 2023 and consists of adding signals. Signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2022. • Further mitigation is recommended in the year 2043 and consists of (1) adding a northbound through lane and (2) adding a southbound through lane. • Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic.

Intersection #60: Demaree St (Rd 108) & Mineral King Ave (signalized) • Intersection begins to operate below an acceptable level of service in the year 2043. • Intersection is fully expanded to the City standard. Mitigation is infeasible.

Intersection #61: Shirk St (Rd 92) & SR 198 Eastbound Ramps (unsignalized) • Mitigation is recommended with the addition of project traffic in the year 2023 and consists of adding signals. Signal warrant criteria were met in all traffic analysis scenarios beginning in the year 2022.
• Further mitigation is recommended in the year 2043 and consists of adding a southbound left turn lane.
• Mitigation improvements will maintain an acceptable level of service through the year 2046, both with and without the addition of project traffic. 1298
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-41 The required intersection improvements are summarized in Table 3.17-15 and required roadway improvements are summarized in Table 3.17-16. The improvements shown in these tables must also integrate the required storage length improvements as shown in Table 3.17-11.

Table 3.17-15
Required Intersection Improvements (Years are approximate) Table 3.17-16
Required Roadway Improvements (Year is approximate)
1299
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-42 All study intersections are expected to operate with minimal delay (at or above LOS D) during peak hours through the year 2046, both with and without project traffic, or can be mitigated to operate at an acceptable LOS, expect for the following intersections:
• Rd 67/Betty Dr (#31)
• Dinuba Blvd/Riggin Ave (#45)
• Akers St/Ferguson Ave (#48)
• Demaree St/Goshen Ave (#54)
• Demaree St/Mineral King Ave (#60)
Therefore, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts.

Mitigation Measures
TRA-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project shall pay into the City of Visalia’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. The TIF amount will be calculated based on the City’s adopted fee schedule in place at the time of the application of building permits.

This will be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City.

TRA-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project will be responsible for paying its prorata fair share cost percentages and/or constructing the recommended on-site improvements and site-adjacent improvements identified in Tables 3.17-11, 3.17-15 and

3.17-16, subject to reimbursement for the costs that are in excess of the Project’s equitable responsibility as determined by the City. This will be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City.

Impact 3.17-2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. An analysis of project VMT (vehicle miles traveled) was conducted in accordance with the City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines, adopted March 15, 2021 (VMT Guidelines). The analysis involved comparing an estimate of VMT attributable to the Project to a baseline VMT and assessing whether project VMT would result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA.
1300
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-43 According to the VMT Guidelines, a mixed-use land development may be analyzed in its entirety or based on the project’s predominant land use type. The former approach was taken for the purposes of this study. The City has established a significance threshold of 84 percent of the existing (2022) regional (Tulare County) VMT per service population (population + employment) for mixed-use projects analyzed in their entirety. Projects exceeding the threshold would be expected to result in a significant transportation impact and mitigation would be required.

The detailed analysis was conducted using the TCAG Model in accordance with the VMT Guidelines. The model runs for the analysis were developed and generated by TCAG staff and account for internal trip capture, as described in the “Trip Distribution and Assignment” section of the Traffic Study (see Appendix H of Appendix J for model output). The VMT analysis results are presented in Table 3.17-17.

Table 3.17-17
VMT Analysis
Since the Project’s VMT per service population (18.5) is less than the significance threshold (23.7), the Project is not expected to result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA, and therefore, no mitigation is required.

Based on the City’s guidelines and thresholds, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.
1301
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-44 Impact 3.17-3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted, 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 (See Figure 3.17-1). 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. All proposed internal roadways will be constructed to meet local and State standards and requirements. No sharp roadway curves currently exist in the proposed Project area, nor would such curves be created by the proposed Project. No roadway design features associated with this proposed Project would result in an increase in hazards due to a design feature or be an incompatible use. The internal road system has been designed with traffic calming features such as curved roadways, mini-circles at some intersections and relatively short blocks of housing. There are no agricultural uses (such as farm equipment) associated with the Project. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Impact 3.17-4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Project construction activities could result in potential vehicular access issues due to potential temporary road detours and/or closures to accommodate Project construction. A construction-traffic management plan (Plan) will be required prior to construction of the proposed Project, as identified in Mitigation Measure TRA –

3. The Plan would delineate all road closure provisions to maintain access to adjacent properties at all times, prior notices, adequate sign-postings, detours, provisions for pedestrian and bicycle transportation and permitted hours of construction activity. Proper detours and warning signs would be established along the project perimeter to ensure public safety. The Plan shall be devised so that construction would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans.

With implementation of the Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impacts to vehicular and emergency access would occur during construction activities.

Once constructed, the proposed Project includes multiple access roads allowing adequate egress and ingress to the residential and commercial developments in the event of an emergency. 1302
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-45 Additionally, as part of the proposed Project, internal access roadways would be constructed to City standards. The City has reviewed the site layout and determined that the Project provides adequate emergency access. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
TRA-3 Prior to the issuance of construction or building permits, the Project developer shall:

1. Prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to City of Visaliafor approval.

Implement the approved Construction Traffic Control Plan during construction. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and shall include, but not be limited to, the following issues:
a. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials; b. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
c. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic; d. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the project site; e. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials delivery, transmission line stringing activities, or any other utility connections; f. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and,
g. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the AM and PM peak hour, distributing construction traffic flow across alternative routes to access the project sites, and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.

After implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA - 3 the Project’s impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
1303
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-46 Cumulative Impacts
The potential for cumulative transportation impacts exists where there are multiple projects proposed in an area that have overlapping operational phases that could affect similar resources.

Projects with overlapping schedules for operations could result in a substantial contribution to increased traffic levels throughout the surrounding roadway network. The Project, when considered with nearby, reasonably foreseeable planned projects, would result in a cumulatively considerable and unavoidable impact as described below.

Impact 3.17-1: Cumulatively Considerable and Unavoidable. The City of Visalia is continuing to review traffic LOS as the means in which it plans for roadway improvements in support of its General Plan. LOS analysis is appropriate and necessary to determine consistency with General Plan policies as they relate to LOS. As discussed previously, all study intersections are expected to operate with minimal delay (at or above LOS D) during peak hours through the year 2046, both with and without project traffic, or can be mitigated to operate at an acceptable LOS, expect for the following intersections:
• Rd 67/Betty Dr (#31)
• Dinuba Blvd/Riggin Ave (#45)
• Akers St/Ferguson Ave (#48)
• Demaree St/Goshen Ave (#54)
• Demaree St/Mineral King Ave (#60)
Therefore, the proposed Project will conflict with the City’s adopted General Plan and Circulation Element. After implementation of all feasible mitigation (TRA – 1 and TRA – 2), the impact remains cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.

Impact 3.17-2: Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. VMT is generally evaluated on a project by project basis (rather than in a cumulative manner) because each individual project is evaluated relative to its proximity to other land uses when calculating VMT. Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the City General Plan may result in the generation of traffic increases and may contribute incrementally to Citywide VMTs.

However, Project VMTs remain below the City’s threshold. Implementation of the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to vehicle miles traveled.

Impact 3.17-3: Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. As previously discussed, the Project does not include any hazardous geometric design features or incompatible uses. Other potential projects that could occur in the area would be subject to review by the City or County to determine potential geometric hazards on a project by project basis. As such, implementation of 1304
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-47 the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to hazardous layout/road design.

Impact 3.17-4: Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The City will require the developer/construction contractor to develop a construction traffic management plan that will ensure emergency vehicle access during construction. As discussed previously, once constructed, the proposed Project includes multiple access roads allowing adequate egress and ingress to the residential development in the event of an emergency. Additionally, as part of the proposed Project, internal access roadways would be constructed to City standards. The City has reviewed the site layout and determined that the Project provides adequate emergency access. In addition, a construction traffic management plan will be devised so that construction would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Other projects in the area may be constructed simultaneously. However, those projects would also be subject to a construction traffic management plan and site plan review to ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access is maintained. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to inadequate emergency access. 1305
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-1

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section of the DEIR evaluates the potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) associated with Project implementation. A Cultural Resources Survey was prepared for the Project (see Appendix E). In addition, the City of Visalia notified applicable Tribes to request consultation on the Project, pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.

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 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. Ethnographic information about the Yokuts was collected primarily by Powers (1971, 1976 [originally 1877]), Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1930, 1948), Driver (1937), Latta (1977), and Harrington (n.d.). For a variety of historical reasons, existing research 1 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), page 5 (Appendix E). 1306
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-2 information emphasizes the central Yokuts tribes who occupied both the valley and particularly the foothills of the Sierra. The northernmost tribes suffered from the influx of Euro-Americans during the Gold Rush and their populations were in substantial decline by the time ethnographic studies began in the early twentieth century. In contrast, the southernmost tribes were partially removed by the Spanish to missions and eventually absorbed into multi-tribal communities on the Sebastian Indian Reservation (on Tejon Ranch), and later the Tule River Reservation and Santa Rosa Rancheria to the north. The result is an unfortunate scarcity of ethnographic detail on southern Valley tribes, especially in relation to the rich information collected from the central foothills tribes where native speakers of the Yokuts dialects are still found. Regardless, the general details of indigenous life-ways were similar across the broad expanse of Yokuts territory, particularly in terms of environmentally influenced subsistence and adaptation and with regard to religion and belief, which were similar everywhere.

This scarcity of specific detail is particularly apparent in terms of southern valley tribal group distribution. Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1948) and Latta (1977) place the Project area in Telamni locations 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).

Each tribelet was headed by a chief who was assisted by a variety of assistants, the most important of whom was the winatum, a herald or messenger and assistant chief. A shaman also served as religious officer. While shamans did not have any direct political authority, as Gayton (1930) has illustrated, they maintained substantial influence within their tribelet. Shamanism is a religious system common to most Native American tribes. It involves a direct and personal relationship between the individual and the supernatural world enacted by entering a trance or hallucinatory state (usually based on the ingestion of psychotropic plants, such as jimsonweed or more typically native tobacco). Shamans were considered individuals with an unusual degree of supernatural power, serving as healers or curers, diviners, and controllers of natural phenomena (such as rain or thunder). Shamans also produced the rock art of this region, depicting the visions they 1307
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-3 experienced in vision quests believed to represent their spirit helpers and events in the supernatural realm (Whitley 1992, 2000).

The centrality of shamanism to the religious and spiritual life of the Yokuts was demonstrated by the role of shamans in the yearly ceremonial round. The ritual round, performed the same each year, started in the spring with the jimsonweed ceremony, followed by rattlesnake dance and (where appropriate) first salmon ceremony. After returning from seed camps, fall rituals began in the late summer with the mourning ceremony, followed by first seed and acorn rites and then bear dance (Gayton 1930:379). In each case, shamans served as ceremonial officials responsible for specific dances involving a display of their supernatural powers (Kroeber 1925).

Subsistence practices varied from tribelet to tribelet based on the environment of residence.

Throughout Native California, and Yokuts territory in general, the acorn was a primary dietary component, along with a variety of gathered seeds. Valley tribes augmented this resource with lacustrine and riverine foods, especially fish and wildfowl. As with many Native California tribes, the settlement and subsistence rounds included the winter aggregation into a few large villages, where stored resources (like acorns) served as staples, followed by dispersal into smaller camps, often occupied by extended families, where seasonally available resources would be gathered and consumed.

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
2 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), pages 5-7 (Appendix E). 1308
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-4 Regulatory Setting
State of California Regulations
Assembly Bill (AB) 52
AB 52, which was approved in September 2014 and became effective on July 1, 2015, requires that CEQA lead agencies consult with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if requested by the tribe. A provision of the bill, chaptered in CEQA Section 21086.21, also specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Defined in Section 21074(a) of the Public Resources Code, TCRs are:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

TCRs are further defined under Section 21074 as follows:
a. A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a TCR to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape; and
b. A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “non-unique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a TCR if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a). 1309
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-5 Mitigation measures for TCRs must be developed in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe pursuant to newly chaptered Section 21080.3.2, or according to Section 21084.3. Section 21084.3 identifies mitigation measures that include avoidance and preservation of TCRs and treating TRCs with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource.

According to AB 52, it is the responsibility of the tribes to formally request of a lead agency that they be notified of projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction so that they may request consultation related to TCRs. The City of Visalia conducted their required tribal outreach related to the proposed Project in August 2021.

Native American Heritage Commission
PRC Section 5097.91 established the NAHC, the duties of which include inventorying places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and identifying known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Section 5097.98 of the PRC specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.

Senate Bill 18
SB 18 (Statutes of 2004, Chapter 905), which went into effect January 1, 2005, requires local governments (city and county) to consult with Native American tribes before making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process.

The intent is to “provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places” (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005).

The purpose of involving tribes at these early planning stages is to allow consideration of cultural places in the context of broad local land use policy, before individual site-specific, project-level, land use designations are made by a local government. The consultation requirements of SB 18 apply to general plan or specific plan processes proposed on or after March 1, 2005.

According to the Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005), the following are the contact and notification responsibilities of local governments:
• Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the NAHC) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or 1310
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-6 mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government’s jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe (Government Code Section 65352.3).
• Prior to the adoption or substantial amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local government must refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the NAHC contact list and have traditional lands located within the city or county’s jurisdiction.

The referral must allow a 45-day comment period (Government Code Section 65352).

Notice must be sent regardless of whether prior consultation has taken place. Such notice does not initiate a new consultation process.
• Local government must send a notice of a public hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, to tribes who have filed a written request for such notice (Government Code Section 65092).

Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. o Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1j(k) or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
1311
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-7 As previously described, to evaluate the project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was conducted by the NAHC, and SB 18 and AB 52 notification letters were sent to Native American groups and individuals indicated by the NAHC to solicit information regarding the presence of tribal cultural resources. Impacts to tribal cultural resources may include direct impacts resulting from ground-disturbing activities or indirect visual impacts associated with the construction of above ground structures within the view shed of an identified tribal cultural resource.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.18-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The City of Visalia requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which was received on August 5, 2021. The search was negative for sacred sites and tribal cultural resources3. The City sent outreach letters to the tribes provided by the NAHC on August 5, 2021. Outreach letters were sent to the following tribes:
• Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians
• Kern Valley Indian Community
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
3 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), page 14 (Appendix E). 1312
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-8 • Tule River Indian Tribe
• Wuksache Indian Tribe / Eshom Valley Band
According to SB 18, the tribes had 90 days from the receipt of the letter to request consultation with the City of Visalia. Of the tribes that were notified in August 2021, the City received one response from the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, who requested that a Tribal representative be present for all ground disturbance related to the Project. As such, mitigation measure TRI – 1 has been included to accommodate this request.

As previously discussed in Chapter 3.5 – Cultural Resources, the subject site is not known to contain any tribal cultural resources (TCRs). As further noted in that chapter, with respect to archaeological resources and human remains that may be present in areas where there would be some ground disturbance, mitigation measures set forth in the section would be implemented to ensure that should resources be encountered, they would be protected from damage. Therefore, while no TCRs are expected to be affected by the proposed Project, the mitigation measures set forth in Chapter 3.5 - Cultural Resources as well as within this section, would further ensure that any resources encountered would not be adversely affected.

Although construction and operation would occur on previously disturbed land, unknown historical resources may be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. In order to account for unanticipated discoveries and the potential to impact previously undocumented or unknown resources, the following mitigation measures are recommended. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRI-1 through TRI-4, impacts under this criterion would be less than significant with mitigation.

Based on the above, the proposed Project is not expected to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of TCRs, and this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
TRI-1: Prior to any ground disturbance, a surface inspection of the site shall be conducted by a Tribal Monitor. The Tribal Cultural Staff shall monitor the site during grading activities. The Tribal Staff shall provide pre-project-related information to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, which will include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if resources are found. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall offer the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria the 1313
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-9 opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing activities. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the tribe.

TRI-2: In the event that historical or archaeological cultural resources are discovered during project-related activities or decommissioning, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find, and a qualified archeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of he finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Measures may include avoidance, preservation 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 CA Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified archaeologist.

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.

TRI-3: Upon coordination with the Lead Agency, any archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate tribal custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.

TRI-4: If human remains are discovered during project-related activities or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987) shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American 1314
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-10 involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the County Coroner.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources are the geographic areas in Tulare County as well as the areas designated by the Native American Heritage Commission as having potential to impact TCRs as a result of the Project.

As discussed above, the proposed Project area is not known to contain any TRCs; however, mitigation is included to reduce any potential impacts to Tribal Resources. Implementation of the proposed Project, with mitigation, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to tribal cultural resources.
1315
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-1

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project pertaining to water supply and infrastructure, wastewater service, solid waste and other utility services. To assist in evaluation of this environmental impact, an SB 610 Water Supply Analysis (Appendix H) was prepared.

Environmental Setting
Project Site
As described in Section 2.1, the Project site is located in the northern part of the City of Visalia in Tulare County, in a developing part of the City. 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 entire Project 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 Visalia District of California Water Service Company (Cal Water) is an urban water supplier that provides the main source of water supply for the City of Visalia and surrounding communities. Upon annexation, the site will be added to the Cal Water Visalia District service area. The Project will also require connection to the City’s wastewater treatment (sewer) system and will require other utilities such as electrical and solid waste. Each utility is discussed individually herein.

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 1 Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 2022.
1316
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-2 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 indirect (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.

Existing Water Infrastructure
KDWCD 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

3.19-1. 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 Water.

Table 3.19-1
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
Existing Wastewater Infrastructure
The City of Visalia owns and operates a Water Conservation Facility (WCF), located west of Highway 99 and south of Highway 198. In 2010, the Facility operated at an average daily flow of 13 million gallons per day. The WCF was upgraded with membrane bioreactor technology which allows for treatment and disinfection for up to 22.0 million gallons per day2. 2 https://www.visalia.city/depts/public_works/wastewater/default.asp. Accessed Dec. 2022. 1317
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-3 The City recently upgraded its wastewater treatment facilities to treat all the effluent to a tertiary level. Most of the water is traded with the Tulare Irrigation District to which they provide water up stream that is recharged into the city’s aquifer. The remaining water is being used currently at the Valley Oaks golf course, and under design to be converted at Plaza Park. By 2040 the volume of water reused under these programs could reach over 27,000 AFY.

The Project will require connection to the City’s sewer/wastewater system and will be responsible for construction of connection points to the City’s existing sewer/wastewater infrastructure.

Solid Waste
The City of Visalia provides refuse collection for residential customers and many commercial customers, and contracts with Sunset Waste Systems to provide recyclable material processing.

Various private haulers provide refuse, recycling, and green waste to the remainder of the commercial accounts, construction sites and other cleanup jobs.3 Regionally, the Tulare County Resource Management Agency manages solid waste disposal in accordance with the Tulare County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Programs include household hazardous waste disposal, electronics recycling, tire recovery, yard waste recycling, metal recycling and appliance recovery programs. The county landfills approximately 300,000 tons of waste per year, which is equivalent to about 5 pounds per person per day or one ton per county resident per year. The County operates three disposal sites: the Visalia Disposal Site, northwest of Visalia; the Woodville Disposal Site, southeast of Tulare; and the Teapot Dome Disposal Site, southwest of Porterville.

Electrical and Natural Gas
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 3 Sec. 5.3 Public Utilities, Ch. 5: Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. City of Visalia General Plan. Pg 5-34. 1318
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-4 demands. Southern California Edison provides electric service to City of Visalia residents. The electrical facilities network includes both overhead and underground lines, with new development required to install underground service lines.

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 198 million BTU per capita. 4 Of
California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is approximately 34 percent transportation, 24 percent industrial, 20 percent commercial, and 22 percent residential. 5 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.

The total electricity consumption, including Residential and Non-Residential, attributable to Tulare County from 2011 to 2020 is shown in Table 3.19-2. As indicated, energy consumption in Tulare County varied approximately 19.3% over the 10 years. 4 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed July 2022. 5 Ibid.
1319
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-5 Table 3.19-2
Total Electricity Consumption in Tulare County 2011 – 20206 Year Electricity Consumption (in
millions of Kilowatt Hours)
2011 3,747
2012 4,164
2013 4,317
2014 4,493
2015 4,478
2016 4,364
2017 4,242
2018 4,438
2019 4,249
2020 4,643
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.

Natural gas service is primarily provided by the Southern California Gas Company. The total natural gas consumption, including Residential and Non-Residential, attributable to Tulare County from 2010 to 2020 is provided in Table 3.19-3. Natural gas consumption in Tulare County did not vary significantly over the 10-year span.
6 California Energy Commission. Energy Reports. Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed July 2022. 1320
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-6 Table 3.19-3
Natural Gas Consumption in Tulare County 2010 – 20207
Year Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of Therms)
2011 160
2012 158
2013 158
2014 151
2015 150
2016 152
2017 151
2018 158
2019 155
2020 160
Telecommunications
Three major communication companies provide communications services in Visalia: AT&T, Sprint & Verizon. Comcast is the primary provider of internet and cable television.8 Regulatory Setting
Federal Agencies and Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA)
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 7 California Energy Commission. Energy Reports. Gas Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx Accessed July 2022. 8 Sec. 5.3 Public Utilities, Ch. 5: Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. City of Visalia General Plan. Pg 5-34. Accessed April 2023.
1321
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-7 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.

Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States. This SDWA focuses on all waters either designed or potentially designed for drinking water use, whether from surface water or groundwater sources. The SDWA and subsequent amendments authorized the EPA to establish health-based standards, or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for drinking water to protect public health against both natural and anthropogenic contaminants. All owners or operators of public water systems are required to comply with these primary (health-related) standards. State governments, which can be approved to implement these primary standards for the EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary (nuisance-related) standards.

At the federal level, the EPA administers the SDWA and establishes MCLs for bacteriological, organic, inorganic, and radiological constituents (United States Code Title 42, and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40). At the State level, California has adopted its own SDWA, which incorporates the federal SDWA standards with some other requirements specific only to California (California Health and Safety Code, Section 116350 et seq.).

The 1996 Federal SDWA amendments established source water assessment programs pertaining to untreated water from rivers, lakes, streams, and groundwater aquifers used for drinking water supply. According to these amendments, the EPA must consider a detailed risk and cost assessment, as well as best available peer-reviewed science, when developing standards for drinking water. These programs are the foundation of protecting drinking water resources from contamination and avoiding costly treatment to remove pollutants. In California, the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) Program fulfills these federal mandates. The California State Water Resources Control Board: Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB-DDW) is the primary agency for developing and implementing the DWSAP Program and is responsible for performing the assessments of existing groundwater sources.

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.
1322
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-8 Central Valley Project Improvement Act
The Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) includes Title 34, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA amended the previous authorizations of the California CVP to include fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation as project purposes having equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses and fish and wildlife enhancement as a project purpose equal to power generation. The CVPIA identifies specific measures to meet the CVPIA’s multiple purposes.

State of California Regulations
California Green Building Standards Code
Construction- and demolition-generated (C&D) waste is heavy, inert material. This material creates significant problems when disposed of in landfills. Since C&D debris is heavier than paper and plastic, it is more difficult for counties and cities to reduce the tonnage of disposed waste. For this reason, C&D waste debris has been specifically targeted by the State of California for diversion from the waste stream.

The California Green Building Standards Code (Standards Code) will apply to the construction related activities of this Project. The purpose of the Standards Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings using building concepts that have a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. Provisions of the Standards Code shall apply to the design and construction of building structures subject to State regulation.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) CalRecycle is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track California’s 76 million tons of waste generated each year. It is one of the six agencies under the umbrella of the California Environmental Protection Agency. CalRecycle develops regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The Board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.

Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1016
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or Assembly Bill (AB) 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. Projects that would have an adverse effect on waste diversion goals are required to include waste diversion mitigation 1323
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-9 measures to assist in reducing these impacts to less-than-significant levels. With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 1016 (the Per Capita Disposal Measurement System) in 2006, only per capita disposal rates are measured to determine if a jurisdiction’s efforts are meeting the intent of AB 939.

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 (CWA)
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 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 1324
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-10 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.

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 1325
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-11 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 3.9-2 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.

Waste Discharge Requirements
The Central Valley RWQCB typically requires a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for any facility or person discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system. Those discharging pollutants (or proposing to discharge pollutants) into surface waters must obtain an NPDES permit from the Central Valley RWQCB.

The NPDES serves as the WDR. For other types of discharges, such as those affecting groundwater or in a diffused manner (e.g., erosion from soil disturbance or waste discharges to land), a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the Central Valley RWQCB in order to obtain a WDR. For specific situations, the Central Valley RWQCB may waive the requirement to obtain a WDR for discharges to land or may determine that a proposed discharge can be permitted more effectively through enrollment in a general NPDES permit or general WDR. 1326
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-12 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 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.

Assembly Bill 1881
AB 1881 expanded previous legislation related to landscape water use efficiency. AB 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006, enacted landscape efficiency recommendations of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) for improving the efficiency of water use in new and existing urban irrigated landscapes in California. AB 1881 required the DWR to update the existing Model Local Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and local agencies to adopt the updated model ordinance or an equivalent. The law also requires the California Energy Commission to adopt performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Assembly Bill 2882
AB was passed in 2008 and encourages public water agencies throughout California to adopt conservation rate structures that reward consumers who conserve water. AB 2882 clarifies the allocation-based rate structures and establishes standards that protect consumers by ensuring a lower base rate for those who conserve water.

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 WWD service area boundary largely overlaps with DWR-designated San Joaquin Valley groundwater subbasin 5.22-9, which is commonly called the “Westside Subbasin.” The DWR has designated the Westside Subbasin as 1327
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-13 high priority and critically overdrafted, and SGMA requires that a GSP be adopted by an approved GSA for the subbasin by January 31, 2020.

Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and 221 (Chapter 642, Statues of 2001) SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures that seek to promote more collaborative planning among local water suppliers and cities and counties. They require that water supply assessments occur early in the land use planning process for all large-scale development projects. If groundwater is the supply source, the required assessments must include detailed analyses of historic, current, and projected groundwater pumping and an evaluation of the sufficiency of the groundwater basin to sustain a new project’s demands. They also require an identification of existing water entitlements, rights, and contracts and a quantification of the prior year’s water deliveries. In addition, the supply and demand analysis must address water supplies during single and multiple dry years presented in five-year increments for a 20-year projection. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county’s legislative body of a subdivision of more than 500 homes requires an affirmative written verification of a sufficient water supply.

California Drought Regulations
Beginning in January 2014, Governor Jerry Brown issued three Executive Orders (EOs), B-26-14, B-28- 14, and B-29-15, regarding water supply, water demand, and water use within the State during severe drought conditions. EO B-29-15, issued April 1, 2015, sets limitations not only for existing land uses and water supply systems, but also for new construction. Some of these restrictions include:
• The Water Board shall prohibit irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf on public street medians.
• The Water Board shall prohibit irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes and buildings that is not delivered by drip or microspray systems. • The California Energy Commission shall adopt emergency regulations establishing standards that improve the efficiency of water appliances, including toilets, urinals, and faucets available for sale and installation in new and existing buildings.

In addition, EO B-29-15 requires that DWR update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance through expedited regulation by the end of 2015. This ordinance will increase water efficiency standards for new and existing landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, onsite storm water capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf (EO B-29-15, Increase Enforcement Against Water Waste, Action #11, 2015).

On November 13, 2015, Governor Brown issued EO B-36-15, which upheld the previous EOs, and directs the SWRCB to extend of urban water use restrictions through October 31, 2016 based on 1328
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-14 drought conditions known through January 2016. The SWRCB issued emergency regulations on February 2, 2016, in compliance with EO B-36-15. These emergency regulations maintain the current tiers of required water reductions; however, additional adjustments in response to stakeholders; equity concerns were included in the emergency regulations.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976 to address the huge volumes of municipal and industrial solid waste generated nationwide. After several amendments, the Act as it stands today governs the management of solid and hazardous waste and underground storage tanks (USTs). RCRA is an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. RCRA has been amended several times, most significantly by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA is a combination of the first solid waste statutes and all subsequent amendments. RCRA authorizes the EPA to regulate waste management activities.

RCRA authorizes states to develop and enforce their own waste management programs, in lieu of the federal program, if a state’s waste management program is substantially equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program.

California Integrated Waste Management Act
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000, and beyond. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s AB 939 plan will be integrated with the respective county plan. They must promote (in order of priority) source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia General Plan
The following lists policies and implementing actions from the City of Visalia General Plan pertaining to utilities that are applicable to the proposed Project. 1329
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-15

POLICIES
PSCU-O-14 Provide for long-range community water needs by adopting best management practices for water use, conservation, groundwater recharge and wastewater and stormwater management.

PSCU-O-15 Preserve groundwater resources.

PSCU-O-16 Ensure that adequate wastewater collection, treatment, recycling and disposal facilities are provided in a timely fashion to serve existing and future needs.

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.

PSCU-P-45 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
1330
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-16 • Development of more extensive recycled water delivery systems in support of the Urban Water Management Plan.

PSCU-P-46 Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance’s requirements.

The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
• Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
• Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool-season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks); • Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; • Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology;
• Promoting the use of recycled water; and
• Minimizing overspray and runoff.

PSCU-P-53 Continue to develop and expand the City’s water recycling capacity to produce water suitable for landscape and crop irrigation and trade with agricultural water users in exchange for water for groundwater recharge. Promote the development of a purple-pipe recycled water distribution system.

PSCU-P-56 Update the Water Conservation Plant Master Plan, Sewer System Master Plan, and any other specific Master Plans related to infrastructure development to ensure that existing levels of service can be maintained for proposed land uses and development densities.

PSCU-P-57 Coordinate urban growth management planning with public and private utilities.

Develop and carry out an infrastructure and public services assessment during annexation reviews to determine infrastructure needs, feasibility, timing, and financing.
1331
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-17 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. o Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
o Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? o Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
o Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? o Comply with federal, state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.19-1: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would include up to 3,262 residential units, 35.1 acres of commercial and 13.8 acres of park/trail facilities on the site. The Project will require that utilities be extended to serve the proposed development, including water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas and telecommunications facilities.

Wastewater / Sewer
As discussed herein, once annexed into the City, the Project site would be located within the service area of the City of Visalia WCF. Since the WCF is considered a publicly owned treatment facility, operational discharge flows treated at the WCF 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 1332
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-18 coming from the proposed Project site and treated by the WCF system would not exceed applicable Central RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. The Project is within the population growth projections (and associated wastewater capacity availability) identified in the City’s existing infrastructure planning documents and is subject to payment of impact fees. No new off-site sewer infrastructure construction is required, as the Project will tie into existing sewer infrastructure and no expansion of the existing WWTP is necessary to accommodate the Project.

The impact is determined to be less than significant. See also Response 3.19-3, below, which describes the Project’s wastewater demands/characteristics and the City’s capacity to handle those demands/characteristics.

Stormwater
As discussed in Section 3.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with site improvements and would therefore require new storm water drainage facilities. The proposed Project would install storm water drainage facilities (e.g. storm drainage mechanisms, storm water pipes, and a detention basin) that would be in compliance with the City of Visalia Development Standards. No new off-site stormwater infrastructure construction is required. See Section 3.10-3 for further discussion regarding storm water facilities.

Water Supply
As discussed in Section 3.10 - Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project will add demand for water to the City of Visalia (Cal Water) water system. The Project is expected to demand less water than the demand estimated by the Visalia UWMP. Based on the Project’s SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (Appendix H), the City has sufficient water to serve the Project. However, the Project is subject to water use reduction methods and will be subject to water service impact fees. No new off-site water supply infrastructure construction is required, as the Project will tie into existing water supply infrastructure. See Section 3.19-2 for further discussion regarding water supply.

Electricity and Natural Gas
The Project will be required to access public utilities for electric power andnatural gas. Electrical utility poles currently located along some road frontages of the Project site will require relocation.

The Project Applicant is working with Southern California Edison (SCE) on pole relocations. The Project will require connection to these existing electrical utilities and to Southern California Gas Company natural gas facilities. No new or additional off-site electrical or natural gas infrastructure construction is anticipated to be required. 1333
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-19 Solid Waste
The Project will require solid waste disposal services. As identified in the City of Visalia’s Municipal Service Review (MSR), the Tulare County Solid Waste Division indicated that the Visalia Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste disposal demands through year 20409. Since the proposed Project would be within the growth projections assumed by the City’s MSR, General Plan and other infrastructure planning documents, and because the Tulare County Solid Waste Division has indicated it has existing and future capacity, the Project would not result in a significant impact.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations, including regulations pertaining to disposal of recyclable materials. With adequate landfill capacity at existing landfills and compliance with regulations, a less than significant impact would occur. No new off-site solid waste infrastructure construction is required. Refer to Response 3.19-4 for more information pertaining to solid waste.

Telecommunications
The Project will require connection to communications networks (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint), television and internet (e.g. Comcast/Xfinity). The proposed Project is within the service area of these providers and it is expected that they can serve the proposed Project. No new off-site telecommunications infrastructure construction is required.

Impact Determination
Thus, as described above, the proposed Project’s impacts associated with acquisition of, and/or expansion of utilities would be less than significant.

Impact 3.19-2: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 9 Visalia Municipal Services Review, page 64. https://lafco.co.tulare.ca.us/msr/city-of-visalia-msr-update/. Accessed Dec. 2022. 1334
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-20 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).

As discussed in Section 3.10-2 - Hydrology and Water Quality (and summarized in this section), the Visalia District UWMP estimated the residential water demand within the Project 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. This included an evaluation of normal, dry and multiple dry year scenarios. The impact is determined to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.

Impact 3.19-3: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant. The City of Visalia owns and operates a Water Conservation Facility (WCF), located west of Highway 99 and south of Highway 198. In 2010, the Facility operated at an average daily flow of 13 million gallons per day. In 2017, the WCF was upgraded with a membrane bioreactor system and ultra-violet (UV) disinfection technology which allows for treatment and disinfection for up to 22.0 million gallons per day11. The City’s sewer system consists of gravity sewers, pumping stations, and force mains to collect wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial customers. The collected wastewater is discharged to 10 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 18. 11 https://www.visalia.city/depts/public_works/wastewater/default.asp. Accessed Dec. 2022. 1335
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-21 trunk sewers and interceptors and conveyed to the WCP, which is not within the Visalia District boundaries.

Existing City of Visalia Wastewater (Sewer) Demands
The City’s UWMP provided estimates of the volume of wastewater collected by the WCF from the Visalia District customers in Year 2020. According to the UWMP, the WCF received approximately 14,635 AF of wastewater that was collected from the City of Visalia service area in Year 2020.12 This estimate was calculated by annualizing 90 percent of January water use from the Visalia Water District service area for that year. This equates to approximately 13.1 million gallons per day of wastewater generation. Based on the City’s existing capacity to process up to

22.0 million gallons per day, there is additional capacity to handle approximately 8.9 million gallons per day of additional wastewater.

Project Wastewater (Sewer) Demands
As identified herein and in the SB 610 Water Supply Assessment, the Project would require approximately 1,506 AFY of water. To determine the Project’s wastewater generation, it is assumed that 90 percent of the water used by the Project would be treated at the WCF (utilizing the same calculation as shown in the UWMP to determine Year 2020 wastewater flows in the City). This would equate to approximately 1,355 AFY or 1.2 million gallons per day of wastewater.

Wastewater Characteristics
The City’s WCF treats municipal wastewater generated throughout the City to meet treatment standards and discharge requirements established by the RWQCB. These requirements are outlined in the City’s Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) order No. R5-2006-0091. The wastewater routed to the WCF includes all residential, commercial and industrial wastewater generated within the City service area.

The Project would generate wastewater with similar characteristics to discharge produced by other uses in the City, including similar in content to the residential and commercial land uses in the immediate area (typical residential wastewater from toilets, sinks, showers, etc.). Wastewater generated by the Project would be collected and treated at the City’s WWTF. Because of the nature of the Project’s wastewater, and the fact that the WCF is currently in compliance with their Waste 12 Visalia Urban Water Management Plan (June 2021), pages 61-62. 1336
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-22 Discharge Requirements, the Project will not cause the City to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements from the RWQCB.

Project Comparison to City-wide Future Estimated Wastewater Production The City’s existing WCP has capacity to process up to 22.0 MGD of wastewater. According to the City’s UWMP, the WCP processed approximately 13.1 MGD in Year 2020, leaving approximately

8.9 MGD of additional capacity. The proposed Project would conservatively add approximately

1.2 MGD of wastewater, or approximately 13.5% of the existing available capacity. Refer to Table

3.19-4 for the breakdown of WCP capacity compared to estimated Project wastewater generation.

Table 3.19-4: WCP Wastewater Capacity and Project Wastewater Generation Based on the WCP’s existing capacity of 22.0 MGD, the WCP can adequately serve the proposed Project in addition to other growth/development in the City.

In addition, and as identified in Section 3.14 – Population and Housing, the proposed Project’s anticipated number of additional residents (9,786) is within the expected range of growth that was planned for and can be accommodated by the City. The City’s infrastructure planning documents (such as the Sewer Master Plan) rely, in part, on the growth projections contained in the City’s General Plan.

The City’s current (2021) population of 142,978 residents would be increased by approximately

6.8% to 152,764 from the Project. Table 3.19-5 shows the City’s existing population, the increase in population from the proposed Project, and the City’s General Plan projected population in Year 2030, assuming full buildout of the General Plan. The last column shows the additional population that could be accommodated under the City’s General Plan even with full buildout of the proposed Project.

WCP Capacity
(MGD)
Year 2020
Wastewater
Generation per
day (MGD)
Additional WCP
Wastewater
Capacity Without
Carleton Acres
(MGD)
Project Wastewater
Generation (MGD)
Additional WCP
Wastewater Capacity
With Carleton Acres
(MGD)

22.0 13.1 8.9 1.2 7.7
1337
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-23 Table 3.19-5: Population Estimates
As identified in Table 3.19-5, the Project would not induce population growth beyond what could be accommodated under the City’s General Plan. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that the Project is within the population growth projections (and associated wastewater capacity availability) identified in the City’s infrastructure planning documents.

Although the City’s WCF has adequate capacity to serve the Project, the Project would be required to pay wastewater (sewer) impact fees prior to the issuance of a building permit, thereby offsetting the costs associated with acceptance of the Project wastewater. The impact fee amount will be the amount established in the City’s adopted impact fee program in place at the time of submittal of building permit applications. Thus, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.

Impact 3.19-4: Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant. The City of Visalia provides refuse collection for residential customers and many commercial customers, and contracts with Sunset Waste Systems to provide recyclable material processing. Various private haulers provide refuse, recycling, and green waste to the remainder of the commercial accounts, construction sites and other cleanup jobs.13 Regionally, the Tulare County Resource Management Agency manages solid waste disposal in accordance with the Tulare County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The County operates 13 Sec. 5.3 Public Utilities, Ch. 5: Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. City of Visalia General Plan. Pg 5-34.

Existing
Population
(2021)
Proposed
Project
Population
Existing Plus
Project Population
General Plan 2030
Projected Population
Additional Population
That Could Be
Accommodated Under
the 2030 General Plan
142,978 9,786 152,764 210,000 57,236
1338
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-24 three disposal sites: the Visalia Disposal Site, northwest of Visalia; the Woodville Disposal Site, southeast of Tulare; and the Teapot Dome Disposal Site, southwest of Porterville.

Project Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would generate solid waste in the form of construction debris that would need to be disposed of at local landfills. Construction debris includes concrete, asphalt, wood, drywall, metals, and other miscellaneous and composite materials. Much of this material would be recycled and salvaged to the maximum extent feasible. Materials not recycled would be disposed of at local landfills. The Project site is currently undeveloped and would not require any demolition.

Site preparation (vegetation removal and grading activities) and construction activities would generate construction debris, including wood, paper, glass, plastic, metals, cardboard, and green wastes. Most of the solid waste generated by the construction phase of the proposed Project would be recycled in accordance with AB 939. Construction activities could also generate hazardous waste products. The wastes generated would result in an incremental and intermittent increase in solid waste disposal at local landfills. However, with compliance with federal, State, and local statutes or regulations, a less than significant impact would occur.

Project Operation
Solid waste collection service is provided by the City, while disposal services are provided through Tulare County via area landfills. The City provides split containers for residential trash and recycling, and green waste containers for residential green waste and compostable materials.

The City also actively encourages commercial recycling and provides refuse, green waste and recycling bins or boxes to the commercial accounts it services.

According to the City’s MSR, California’s per resident disposal rate (using SB 1016’s measurement system) was 4.5 pounds per person per day (PPD) in 201014. The City of Visalia’s estimate for Year 2009 was 3.1 PPD which is below the SB 1016 requirement. Using the estimate of 3.1 PPD of solid waste,
15 the Project would produce approximately 30,336 pounds of solid waste per day (3.1 pounds X 9,786 persons = 30,336 pounds). Utilizing Tulare County’s overall estimate of 5 PPD (inclusive of all industrial, commercial and residential waste from all areas of 14 Visalia Municipal Services Review, page 63. https://lafco.co.tulare.ca.us/msr/city-of-visalia-msr-update/. Accessed Dec. 2022. 15 Visalia General Plan EIR, 3.9 – Public Services_Utilities, page 3.9-65. 1339
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-25 the County), the Project would produce approximately 48,930 pounds of solid waste per day (5 pounds X 9,786 persons = 48,930 pounds). Because the Project would result in similar urban development to other areas of the City (single-family and multi-family housing, commercial, and recreational facilities), it is likely that the Project would produce waste at a similar rate to the City of Visalia’s lower rate of 3.1 PPD.

Pursuant to the City’s MSR, the Visalia Landfill is planned to expand based upon increased demand. Phase 1 expansion has already been implemented. With the nine phased expansions, the total capacity of the Visalia Landfill is estimated at 16,521,501 cubic yards. The Tulare County Solid Waste Division indicated that the Visalia Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste disposal demands through year 204016. Since the proposed Project would be within the growth projections assumed by the City’s MSR, General Plan and other infrastructure planning documents, and because the Tulare County Solid Waste Division has indicated it has existing and future capacity, the Project would not result in a significant impact. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations, including regulations pertaining to disposal of recyclable materials. With adequate landfill capacity at existing landfills and compliance with regulations, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.16-5: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant. See Response to Impact 3.19-4. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to the handling and disposal of solid waste and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Electrical and Natural Gas
16 Visalia Municipal Services Review, page 64. https://lafco.co.tulare.ca.us/msr/city-of-visalia-msr-update/. Accessed Dec. 2022. 1340
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-26 Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The Project will be required to access public utilities for electric power and natural gas. Electrical utility poles currently located along some road frontages of the Project site will require relocation. The Project Applicant is working with Southern California Edison (SCE) on pole relocations. The Project will require connection to these existing electrical utilities and to Southern California Gas Company natural gas facilities. No new off-site electrical or natural gas infrastructure construction is anticipated to be required and there are less than significant impacts at the Project level. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to electrical and natural gas facilities would be less than significant.

Water Supply
Cumulatively Significant and Unavoidable. As noted in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, 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.

Wastewater
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The geographical area for considering cumulative impacts associated with wastewater (sewer) is the geographic area covered by the City’s WCF. As with the proposed Project, for future projects, the City collects development impact fees to help cover the cost of wastewater (sewer), water, and solid waste infrastructure and facilities. In addition, revenue from sales tax from future projects assists in maintaining these services. The City evaluates impact fees from new development on a project-by-project basis. The Project would be required to pay sewer impact fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. Other projects in the vicinity would be required to offset substantial increases in wastewater per City impact fees.

Therefore, cumulative impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant. 1341
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-27 Solid Waste
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The geographical area for considering cumulative impacts associated with solid waste is the geographic area covered by the Tulare County Solid Waste Division. The proposed Project would generate a minimal amount of waste during construction and is not expected to significantly impact Tulare County landfills. However, generation of waste from cumulative projects, including other residential, commercial and industrial developments could result in a cumulative impact. As described herein, there is adequate existing and future (planned) capacity at existing Tulare County landfills. As such, the cumulative impacts are less than significant for solid waste.
1342
Carleton Acres Specific Plan | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.20-1

3.20 Wildfire
This section of the DEIR addresses the potential for the proposed Project to exacerbate wildfire risks. Additionally, the potential impacts related to exposure to wildfire, including smoke and subsequent flooding and runoff, are assessed in this section. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to this topic.

Environmental Setting
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire in an area of combustible vegetation that is generally extensive in size. Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in areas of grassland, woodlands, brush land, scrubland, peatland, and other wooded areas that act as a source of fuel, or combustible material. Buildings may become involved if a wildfire spreads to adjacent communities. The primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to wildfire include topography, fuel (vegetation type), and weather.
1 These factors, as they exist and occur relative
to the Project area are described below.
• Topography. According to the U.S Forest Service, fires burn faster uphill than downhill because the fuels above the fire are brought into closer contact with upward moving flames. The steeper the slope, the faster the fire burns. Additionally, steep slopes may hinder firefighting efforts. Following severe wildfires, sloping land is also more susceptible to landslide or flooding from increased runoff during substantial precipitation events. The proposed Project is located on the Valley floor in and adjacent to the City of Visalia and topography in the area is nearly flat.
• Fuel. Fuel is any combustible material. Wildland fuels are live and/or dead plant material.

These vary from one area of the country to another within the ecosystem; however, they are grouped into four major types based on the primary fuel that carries the fire. These are grasses, shrubs, timber litter and logging slash. Timber litter and logging slash are exclusively associated with forested areas, while grasses and shrubs are found in most ecosystems. The proposed Project site has historically been used for irrigated agricultural uses and currently has small areas of crops on the site. The remainder of the site has been cleared/disked.
1 U.S. Forest Service. Fire Management Study Unit. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_028958.pdf.

Accessed Sept. 2021.
1343
Carleton Acres Specific Plan | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.20-2 • Weather. Wind, temperature, and relative humidity are the most influential weather elements in fire behavior and susceptibility. Fire moves more quickly under hot, dry, and windy conditions. Wind may also blow burning embers ahead of a fire, causing its spread.

Drought conditions also lead to extended periods of excessively dry vegetation, increasing the fuel load and ignition potential. According to the Western Regional Climate Center, average annual precipitation in the City of Visalia is 10.26 inches.2 Generally, in an average or typical year, most precipitation is received from October through April. May through September are the driest parts of the year and coincide with what has traditionally been considered the fire season in California. However, increasingly persistent drought and climatic changes in California have resulted in drier winters and fires during the autumn, winter, and spring months are becoming more common. Prevailing winds in the Project area are generally westerly to southwesterly.
3 Westerly to southwesterly prevailing wind
means that winds generally move across the City from the west to the east.

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 zones on SRA: 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 on for 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 2 Western Regional Climate Center. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?cavisa+sca (accessed Sept. 2021). 3 California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Division. California Surface Wild Climatology. 1984. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/reports/l013.pdf. Accessed Sept. 2021. 1344
Carleton Acres Specific Plan | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.20-3 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 the City of Visalia is designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Additionally, the nearest SRA mapped land is on the foothills east of the City of Exeter (designated as a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone), approximately 14 miles to the southeast of the site at its nearest point. 4 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance. There are two different levels of State disaster plans: “Standard” and “Enhanced.” States that develop an approved Enhanced State Plan can increase the amount of funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Act has also established new requirements for local mitigation plans.

National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was developed under Executive Order 11246 in August 2000, following a historic wildland fire season. Its intent is to establish plans for active response to severe wildland fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity. The plan addresses firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability.

State of California Regulations
The California Fire Plan
The Strategic Fire Plan for California is the State’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire. The most recent version of the Plan was finalized in August 2018 and directs each CAL FIRE Unit to prepare a locally specific Fire Management Plan. In compliance with the California Fire Plan, individual CAL FIRE units are required to develop Fire Management Plans for their areas of responsibility. These documents assess the fire situation within each of the 21 CAL FIRE units and six contract counties. The plans include stakeholder contributions and priorities and identify 4 California State Geoportal. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ Accessed Sept. 2021. 1345
Carleton Acres Specific Plan | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.20-4 strategic areas for pre-fire planning and fuel treatment as defined by the people who live and work with the local fire problem. The plans are required to be updated annually.5 California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (OES) prepares the State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP). The SHMP identifies hazard risks and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard mitigation strategy. The SHMP is federally required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 in order for the State to receive Federal funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance.

California Fire Code (2016)
The 2016 Fire Code establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare for the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of this code apply to some construction, alteration, movement enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of buildings or structures or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout California. The 2016 Fire Code has been updated to the 2019 Fire Code and went into effect January 1, 2020. The code update is fully integrated and based on the 2018 International Fire Code.

Local Regulations
Visalia and Tulare County Fire Departments
The Visalia Fire Department (VFD) provides fire and life safety services for residents located within the city limits while the Tulare County Fire Department provides additional services for unincorporated areas within the City’s Planning Area. VFD provides paramedic engine companies, a truck company and a Battalion Chief daily, from five fire station locations. All apparatus are staffed with a paramedic at all times. The City of Visalia requires all new development and subdivisions to meet or exceed Uniform Fire Code provisions, and the City’s Fire Department reviews development applications during the plan check process. 5 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan-approved-08_22_18.pdf. Accessed Sept. 2021. 1346
Carleton Acres Specific Plan | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.20-5 Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on land use as follows:
o If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
o Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
o Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
o Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
o Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.20-1: Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary of ongoing impacts to the environment, or expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, if the project were located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones? Less Than Significant. The proposed Project site is approximately 14 miles northwest of the nearest State Responsibility Area (foothill area east of the City of Exeter) and over 23 miles west of the nearest LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (foothill area east of the community of Three Rivers). The relatively flat Project site lies on the Valley floor and is surrounded by active 1347
Carleton Acres Specific Plan | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.20-6 agriculture/dairy to the north, east and west, in various stages of production. Areas immediately south of the Project consist of urban/residential developments. Ridgeview Middle School is located just to the east of the proposed Project. There are no forested areas, extensive grasslands, or heavily wooded areas on or near the Project site.

No roadway design features associated with this proposed Project would result in an impairment of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The City has reviewed the site layout and determined that the Project provides adequate emergency access.

Impacts associated with Project development would be less than significant related to wildfires given the distance the proposed Project from the State Responsibility Area and the State’s Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zone and the intervening land uses between them.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. As discussed above, the topography in the Project area is nearly flat with the nearest State Responsibility Area approximately 14 miles southeast. The proposed Project lies on the Valley floor and is surrounded by active agriculture, in various stages of production, and urban development, which precludes likelihood of wildfires within the vicinity. Implementation of the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to wildfires.
1348
Chapter 4

ALTERNATIVES
1349
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-1

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Introduction
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed project.

The Guidelines further require that the discussion focus on alternatives capable of eliminating significant adverse impacts of the project or reducing them to a less-than significant level, even if the alternative would not fully attain the project objectives or would be more costly. According to CEQA Guidelines, the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires an EIR to evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR need not consider alternatives that have effects that cannot be reasonably ascertained and/or are remote and speculative.

The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.

CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e) identifies the requirements for the “No Project” alternative. The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project's environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline (see Section 15125).

Alternative locations can also be evaluated if there are feasible locations available. Each alternative is evaluated against the Project objectives and criteria established by the Lead Agency.

The proposed Project has the potential to have significant adverse effects on:
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Loss of Farmland (project and cumulative level) • Air Quality (project and cumulative level)
1350
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-2
• Hydrology & Water Quality – Water Supply (cumulative level only) • Transportation – Conflict with General Plan/Circulation Element (project and cumulative level)
• Utilities & Service Systems – Water Supply (cumulative level only) Even with the mitigation measures described in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR, impacts in these issue areas would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, per the State CEQA Guidelines, this section discusses alternatives that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening effects on these resources. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are discussed below.

4.2 Project Objectives
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following are the City of Visalia’s Project objectives:
• To provide a mixed-use development at pricing appropriate for the market, in a growing area of the City of Visalia that satisfies the City of Visalia’s policies, regulations and expectations as defined in the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other applicable plans, documents, and programs adopted by the City. • To provide a variety of housing opportunities with a range of densities, styles, sizes and values that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area.
• To provide a residential development that assists the City in meeting its General Plan and Housing Element requirements and objectives.
• To provide conveniently-located commercial development to serve north Visalia residents and the Carleton Acres development in a growing area of the City of Visalia. • To provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, parks/open space areas, landscaping and other project amenities.

4.3 Alternatives Considered in this EIR
• No Project
• Alternate Locations
• Reduced (50%) Project
1351
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-3

4.4 Analysis Format
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), each alternative is evaluated in sufficient detail to determine whether the overall environmental impacts would be less, similar, or greater than the corresponding impacts of the project. Furthermore, each alternative is evaluated to determine whether the project objectives identified in Chapter 2 - Project Description, of this Draft EIR would be mostly attained by the alternative. The Project’s impacts that form the basis of comparison in the alternatives analysis are those impacts which represent a conservative assessment of project impacts. The evaluation of each of the alternatives follows the process described below:
a) The net environmental impacts of the alternative after implementation of reasonable mitigation measures are determined for each environmental issue area analyzed in this EIR.
b) Post-mitigation significant and less than significant environmental impacts of the alternative and the project are compared for each environmental issue area as follows:
• Less: Where the impact of the alternative after feasible mitigation would be clearly less adverse than the impact of the project, the comparative impact is said to be “less.”
• Greater: Where the impact of the alternative after feasible mitigation would be clearly more adverse than the impact of the project, the comparative impact is said to be “greater.”
• Similar: Where the impacts of the alternative after feasible mitigation and the project would be roughly equivalent, the comparative impact is said to be “similar.”
c) The comparative analysis of the impacts is followed by a general discussion of whether the underlying purpose for the project, as well as the project’s basic objectives would be substantially attained by the alternative.
1352
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-4

4.5 Project Alternatives Impact Analysis
No Project Alternative
CEQA Section 15126.6(e) requires the discussion of the No Project Alternative “to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.” The No Project scenario in this case consists of retaining the property in its original configuration, with no construction or operation of the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project. Under this alternative, the site remains in agricultural production and no new urban development would occur on the site.

Description
This alternative would avoid both the adverse and beneficial effects of the Project. This alternative would avoid ground disturbance and construction-related impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project. No new development would occur on the site. The No Project Alternative would avoid the generation of any environmental impacts beyond existing conditions.

Environmental Considerations
Continuation of the site in agricultural production would result in all environmental impacts being less than the proposed Project. There would be no changes to any of the existing conditions and there would be no impact to each of the 20 CEQA Checklist evaluation topics. Impacts from the No Project Alternative, as compared to the Project, are summarized as follows:
• Aesthetics – With no development, the site would remain primarily as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Agriculture and Forestry Resources - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would also eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (project and cumulative) associated with this topic from the proposed Project. • Air Quality - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would also eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (project and cumulative) associated with this topic from the proposed Project. • Biological Resources - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. 1353
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-5
• Cultural Resources - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Energy - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Geology/Soils - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Hazards & Hazardous Materials - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project.
• Hydrology & Water Quality - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project.

This Alternative would also eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (cumulative only) associated with this topic from the proposed Project. • Land Use / Planning - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Mineral Resources - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Noise - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Population & Housing - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Public Services - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Recreation - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Transportation - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would also eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (project level and cumulative level) associated with this topic from the proposed Project. • Tribal Cultural Resources - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. • Utilities & Service Systems - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project. 1354
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-6
This Alternative would also eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (cumulative only) associated with water supply from the proposed Project. • Wildfire - With no development, the site would remain as farmland and no new impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts are less than the proposed Project.

Refer to Table 4-1 for a comparison of each environmental topic for the No Project Alternative versus the proposed Project.

Project Objectives
The No-Project Alternative by definition would not meet any of the objectives of the proposed Project that were outlined in Section 4.2, herein.

Alternate Locations Alternative
The environmental considerations associated with an alternative site would be highly dependent on several variables, including physical site conditions, surrounding land use, site access, and suitability of the local roadway network. Physical site conditions include land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, or objectives of historic or aesthetic significance, and would affect the nature and degree of direct impacts, needed environmental control systems, mitigation, and permitting requirements. Surrounding land use and the presence of sensitive receptors would influence neighborhood compatibility issues such as air pollutant emissions and health risk, odor, noise, and traffic. Site access and ability of the local roadway network to accommodate increased traffic without excessive and costly off-site mitigation would be an important project feasibility issue.

The constraint on alternative site selection is the lessening or elimination of significant project impacts. The viability of the proposed project is dependent on ability to effectively develop a mixed use project in the Visalia area. To maintain most of the project objectives, any potentially feasible alternative site needs to be of adequate size and in a location that is accessible and serviceable (utilities) by the City of Visalia.

Description
There are relatively few sites within the City of Visalia that provide adequately sized lands suitable for the proposed Project. The criteria for selection included whether or not the alternate site would substantially reduce environmental impacts, availability of land, adequately sized parcels, efficiency of access, and acceptable land use designations/zoning. There are areas of 1355
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-7
agricultural land of similar size located both south and west of the proposed Project. These areas could conceivably support the proposed Project and are depicted in the Figure A-1 (Location of Alternative Sites in Relation to Proposed Project Site), A-2 (Alternative Site #1: Approximately 495 Acres) and A-3 (Alternative Site #2: Approximately 502 Acres). The areas are partially outside the City limits but have similar zoning and land use designations as the proposed Project site. In addition, these areas would allow for contiguous growth adjacent to existing urban development in the City. Alternative Site #1 (Approximately 495 acres) is located immediately east of the proposed Project and would be generally bound by Avenue 320 to the north, (¼ mile east of) Demaree Street to the east, Modoc Ditch to the south, and Akers Street to the west. Alternative Site #2 would be generally bound by State Highway 198 to the north, Valley Oak Golf Course to the west, Walnut Avenue to the south, and Shirk Road to the east.

Figure A-1
Location of Alternative Sites in Relation to Proposed Project Site 1356
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-8
Figure A-2
Alternative Location #1: Approximately 495 Acres
Figure A-3
Alternative Location #2: Approximately 502 Acres
1357
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-9
Perhaps the greatest obstacle in selecting an alternative site for the proposed Project is that the Project Applicant does not already own land at these locations and/or does not have control of land at these locations. However, for purposes of environmental evaluation, a description of potential environmental impacts is provided below.

Environmental Considerations
Development of an alternate site could theoretically meet most of the Project objectives presented earlier in this chapter. However, construction and operation at an alternate site would result in environmental impacts that are likely equal to orin some cases could be greater than the proposed project. The majority, if not all, of project impacts are likely to occur at an alternate site.

Either of the alternative sites would require environmental review once the Applicant has prepared sufficient project description information. The time requirements for these activities would reduce the ability of the Applicant to accommodate projected residential demand in a timely manner compared to the proposed Project. This alternative would be the most complex, costly, and time-consuming alternative to implement. Various engineering and technical studies would then be completed to define the project and its components. Environmental review and obtaining entitlements would follow prior to construction activities. The sites identified herein appear to have conditions that are not as favorable as the proposed Project site, such as less acreage and lack of control over the land.

Impacts from the Alternate Locations Alternative, as compared to the Project, are summarized as follows:
• Aesthetics – With development of a similar project on an alternate site, aesthetic impacts would occur through the conversion of farmland to urban uses, introduction of light/glare, and construction of residential units and commercial establishments on vacant land. Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, agricultural impacts would occur through the conversion of farmland to urban uses. Therefore, impacts are similar to the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (project and cumulative) associated with this topic from the proposed Project.
• Air Quality - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, air quality impacts would occur from construction activities (construction vehicles and equipment, dust and other emissions) and from operational activities (vehicle trip emissions and other 1358
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-10
emissions from the development). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project (significant and unavoidable).
• Biological Resources - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, biological impacts could occur from development of a previously agricultural site to urban uses. Therefore, impacts are similar to the proposed Project. • Cultural Resources - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, cultural resource impacts could occur from development of a previously agricultural site to urban uses. Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.
• Energy - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, energy impacts would occur from construction activities (electricity, fuel) and operational activities (electricity, natural gas, fuel). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. • Geology/Soils - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, impacts to geology and soils would occur from construction activities (grading and land disturbing activities) and operational activities (the Alternative project would be subject to geotechnical evaluation). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, greenhouse gas emission impacts would occur from construction activities (construction equipment emissions and vehicle emissions) and operational activities (vehicle emissions). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, and is approximately the same distance as the Project to urbanized areas of Visalia, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, hazardous impacts would occur from construction activities (use and storage of hazardous substances) and operational activities (use and storage of hazardous substances). A database search of the DTSC Envirostor1 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker2 was conducted for the Alternate sites. The searches indicated that no known hazardous waste sites existing on the Alternative sites. Since this 1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=visalia+ca. Accessed March 2023. 2 California Water Resource Control Board. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed March 2023.
1359
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-11
Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.
• Hydrology & Water Quality - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, hydrology and water quality impacts would occur from construction activities (water for dust control, requirement for preparation of a SWPPP, drainage control) and operational activities (water demand associated with the development, drainage control). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (project and cumulative level) associated with this topic from the proposed Project.
• Land Use / Planning - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, land use and planning impacts would occur from development of existing agricultural lands to urban uses. The Alternative would not divide an established community. Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project (and contains similar prezoning and land use designations), impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.
• Mineral Resources - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, mineral resource impacts could occur from construction activities (grading and ground-disturbing activities) and operational activities (conversion of land to urban uses). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.
• Noise - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, noise impacts would occur from construction activities (construction equipment and vehicles) and operational activities (vehicles, air conditioners, televisions, radios, lawn mowers, etc.). The Alternative locations are similarly proximate to existing urban uses (as compared to the proposed Project). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. • Population & Housing - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, population and housing impacts would occur from development of these sites. Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.
• Public Services - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, public service impacts would occur from development of these sites (need for police, fire, schools and other public facilities). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. 1360
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-12
• Recreation - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, recreation impacts would occur from development of these sites (the City requires 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. • Transportation - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, transportation impacts would occur from construction (vehicles and equipment, which would require a Traffic Control Plan) and operation (vehicles associated with the residential and commercial development). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (level of service impacts at the project and cumulative level) associated with this topic from the proposed Project. • Tribal Cultural Resources - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, tribal cultural resource impacts could occur from development of these sites (conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. • Utilities & Service Systems - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, utility and service system impacts would occur from construction activities (water for dust control, solid waste disposal) and operational activities (water demand associated with the development, wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (cumulative only for water supply) associated with this topic from the proposed Project.
• Wildfire - With development of a similar project on an alternate site, wildfire impacts could occur from development of these sites (conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.

Refer to Table 4-1 for a comparison of each environmental topic for the Alternate Locations Alternative versus the proposed Project.

Project Objectives
The Alternative Sites Alternative would meet most of the Project Objectives outlines in Section

4.2 herein. However, this Alternative would not be as feasible as compared to the proposed Project. The Alternative sites have different land owners who have not expressed a desire to develop a master planned community on their properties, thus those sites would likely not be 1361
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-13
developed in a unified manner or at a rate of development that would produce housing and commercial development as quickly as the proposed Project. Thus, this Alternative would result in slower development of housing units (than the proposed Project) that would assist the City in meeting its General Plan and Housing Element requirements and objectives, and would not be fully consistent with this objective.

Reduced (50%) Project Alternative
A reduction of 50% in the Project’s size and scope is a reasonable amount to illustrate what impact such an alternative would have on the significant effects of the proposed Project.

Description
This alternative would reduce the Project components by 50% as follows:
• Reduction in acreage from 507 to 253.5
• Reduction in residential units from 3,262 to 1,631
• Reduction in commercial acreage from 35.1 to 17.5
• Reduction in parks/recreational acreage from 17.3 to 8.7 • Corresponding reductions in infrastructure, etc.

The Project would remain a mixed-use development with a variety of housing types, with the 50% reduction.

Environmental Considerations
Most of the environmental issues associated with this alternative would be less or similar to those of the proposed Project. Impacts from the Reduced (50%) Alternative, as compared to the Project, are summarized as follows:
• Aesthetics – With development of the 50% of the site, aesthetic impacts would occur through the conversion of farmland to urban uses, introduction of light/glare, and construction of residential units on non-urbanized land. Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources - With development of 50% of the site, agricultural impacts would occur through the conversion of farmland to urban uses. Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project. However, this Alternative would not 1362
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-14
eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (project and cumulative) associated with this topic from the proposed Project.
• Air Quality - With development of 50% of the site, air quality impacts would occur from construction activities (construction vehicles and equipment, dust and other emissions) and from operational activities (vehicle trip emissions and other emissions from the development). According to the Project’s Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas / Energy Study prepared for the Project, the proposed Project will have annual air pollutant emission rates that are greater than the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District thresholds of significance. Due to the reduction in residential units and commercial facilities (and corresponding reduction in vehicle trips), this alternative would have lower annual emission rates than the proposed project for the following criteria pollutants: CO, NOx, VOC, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Air pollutant emission rates associated with this alternative are thus lower than the proposed project due to the reduced number of residential units and commercial acreage (and associated reduction in vehicle trips). • Biological Resources - With development of the Project site with 50% of the site, biological impacts could occur from development of a previously agricultural site to urban uses.

Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Cultural Resources - With development of 50% of the site, cultural resource impacts could occur from development of a previously agricultural site to urban uses. Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Energy - With development of 50% of the site, energy impacts would occur from construction activities (electricity, fuel) and operational activities (electricity, natural gas, fuel). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as compared to the proposed Project, energy impacts would be less than the proposed Project.
• Geology/Soils - With development of 50% of the site, impacts to geology and soils would occur from construction activities (grading and land disturbing activities) and operational activities (the Alternative project would be subject to geotechnical evaluation). Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions - With development of 50% of the site,greenhouse gas emission impacts would occur from construction activities (construction equipment emissions and vehicle emissions) and operational activities (vehicle emissions). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as 1363
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-15
compared to the proposed Project, greenhouse gas emissions would be less than the proposed Project.
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials - With development of 50% of the site, hazardous impacts would occur from construction activities (use and storage of hazardous substances) and operational activities (use and storage of hazardous substances). Since this Alternative would have less residential and commercial facilities as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project. • Hydrology & Water Quality - With development of 50% of the site, hydrology and water quality impacts would occur from construction activities (water for dust control, requirement for preparation of a SWPPP, drainage control) and operational activities (water demand associated with the development, drainage control). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential units and commercial acreage as compared to the proposed Project, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (cumulative only) associated with water supply from the proposed Project. • Land Use / Planning - With development of 50% of the site, land use and planning impacts would occur from development of existing agricultural lands to urban uses. The Alternative would not divide an established community. Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Mineral Resources - With development of 50% of the site, mineral resource impacts could occur from construction activities (grading and ground-disturbing activities) and operational activities (conversion of land to urban uses). Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Noise - With development of 50% of the site, noise impacts would occur from construction activities (construction equipment and vehicles) and operational activities (commercial activities, vehicles, air conditioners, televisions, radios, lawn mowers, etc.).

However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as compared to the proposed Project, noise impacts would be less than the proposed Project.
• Population & Housing - With development of 50% of the site, population and housing impacts would occur from development of these sites. However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential units as compared to the proposed Project, population and housing impacts would be less than the proposed Project. 1364
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-16
• Public Services - With development of 50% of the site, public service impacts would occur from development of these sites (need for police, fire, schools and other public facilities). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential units as compared to the proposed Project, public service impacts would be less than the proposed Project.
• Recreation - With development of 50% of the site, recreation impacts would occur from development of the site (the City requires 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents).

However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential units as compared to the proposed Project, recreation impacts would be less than the proposed Project. • Transportation - With development of 50% of the site, transportation impacts would occur from construction (vehicles and equipment, which would require a Traffic Control Plan) and operation (vehicles associated with the residential and commercial developments). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as compared to the proposed Project, transportation impacts would be less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with Level of Service impacts from the proposed Project (at the project and cumulative level). Some Level of Service impacts would be significant and unavoidable with or without the proposed Project). • Tribal Cultural Resources - With development of 50% of the site, tribal cultural resource impacts could occur from development of these sites (conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses). Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project. • Utilities & Service Systems - With development of 50% of the site, utility and service system impacts would occur from construction activities (water for dust control, solid waste disposal) and operational activities (water demand associated with the development, wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as compared to the proposed Project, utility and service system impacts would be less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (cumulative only for water supply) associated with this topic from the proposed Project. • Wildfire - With development of 50% of the site, wildfire impacts could occur from development of these sites (conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses). Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
1365
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-17
Refer to Table 4-1 for a comparison of each environmental topic for the Reduced (50%) Project Alternative versus the proposed Project.

Project Objectives
The Reduced (50%) Alternative would meet some of the Project Objectives outlines in Section 4.2 herein. However, this Alternative would not be fully consistent with the objective to provide residential development that assists the City in meetings its Housing Element requirements (the City currently has a deficit in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals). A 50% reduction in units would result in a larger Regional Housing Needs Allocation deficit than the proposed Project.

4.6 Summary of Potential Impacts of Alternatives
Table 4-1 provides a summary and side-by-side comparison of the proposed project with the impacts of each of the alternatives analyzed. Please note that under “No Project”, “Alternate Sites” and “Reduced (50%) Project” columns in Table 4-1, the references to “less, similar, or greater,” refer to the impact of the alternative compared to the proposed project, and the impacts “no impact, less than significant, or significant and unavoidable,” in the parentheses refer to the significant impact of the specific alternative.

Table 4-1
Alternatives Potential Impact Analysis
Environmental Issues Proposed
Project
No
Project Alternate
Locations
Reduced
(50%) Project
Aesthetics Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Agriculture / Forest
Resources
Significant
and
unavoidable
(project and
cumulative)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Air Quality Significant
and
unavoidable
(project and
cumulative)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Biological Resources Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
1366
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-18
Environmental Issues Proposed
Project
No
Project Alternate
Locations
Reduced
(50%) Project
Cultural Resources Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Geology and Soils Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Significant
and
unavoidable
– water
supply
(project and
cumulative
level)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Land Use / Planning Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Noise Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Population / Housing Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Public Services Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Recreation Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Transportation and
Traffic
Significant
and
unavoidable
– level of
service
(project and
cumulative)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Utilities and Service
Systems
Significant
and
unavoidable
– water
supply
(project and
cumulative
level)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
1367
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-19
Environmental Issues Proposed
Project
No
Project Alternate
Locations
Reduced
(50%) Project
Cumulative Impacts Significant
and
unavoidable
for
Agriculture,
Air Quality,
Hydrology,
Transportation
, and Utilities
Less Similar Less / Still
Cumulatively
Considerable
Impact Reduction Yes No Yes
Environmentally Superior Alternative
As presented in the comparative analysis above, and as shown in Table 4-1, there are a number of factors in selecting the environmentally superior alternative. An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative to the project. The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Project on the basis of its minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states:

The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Because the No Project Alternative cannot be the Environmentally Superior Alternative under CEQA, the Reduced (50%) Project Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior alternative because it would result in less adverse physical impacts to the environment with regard to air, water, noise, public services, population/housing, utilities and traffic. However, the Reduced (50%) Project Alternative does not eliminate the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts associated with Agriculture - Loss of Farmland (project and cumulative); Air Quality (project and cumulative); Hydrology – Water Supply (cumulative only); Transportation - Conflict with Plan/Program (project and cumulative); and Utilities & Service Systems – Water Supply (cumulative only). Furthermore, the Reduced (50%) Project Altenative does not meet all of the Project objectives, particularly with regard to quantity and diversity of housing. 1368
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-20
Summary and Determination
Only the No Project and Reduced (50%) Project Alternatives could potentially result in fewer impacts than the proposed Project’s impacts. These Alternatives however, would not fully meet the objectives of the proposed Project. After this full, substantial, and deliberate analysis, the proposed Project remains the preferred alternative.
1369
Chapter 5

OTHER CEQA

CONSIDERATIONS
1370
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 5
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5-1

CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts
CEQA Sections 15126 (d) and 15126.2(e) require that any growth-inducing aspect of a project be addressed in an EIR. This discussion includes consideration of ways in which the proposed Project could directly (e.g. construction of residential or commercial facilities) or indirectly (e.g. construction of oversized public utilities)result in physical impacts on the environment if the Project’s construction or operation induces economic or population growth in the surrounding area, including an analysis of the infrastructure and planning changes necessary to accommodate any induced growth.

The proposed Project involves the establishment of a mixed-use development that is being proposed in response to the demand for housing and commercial facilities in the area. The Project is consistent with the City of Visalia’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and will connect to all existing City utility services. The anticipated population and housing unit increase associated with the proposed Project are within the growth projections of the City’s General Plan. The proposed Project would create a relatively minor amount of new employment opportunities during construction and for the proposed commercial facilities associated with the Project. As of February 2023, Tulare County (Visalia-Porterville Metropolitan Statistical Area) had an unemployment rate of 10.6 percent1 and it is anticipated that those new employment opportunities associated with the Project could likely be filled by the existing employment base. There are no other indirect aspects of the Project (such as creation of oversized public utility lines, etc.) that would induce further growth in the area. The proposed Project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts.

Conclusion: The project would have less-than-significant growth-inducing impacts.

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from project implementation. CEQA Section 15126.2(d) identifies irreversible environmental changes as those involving a large commitment of nonrenewable resources or irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents.

Irreversible changes associated with the project include the use of nonrenewable resources during construction, including concrete, plastic, and petroleum products and renewable resources such 1 https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/visa$pds.pdf . Accessed April 2023. 1371
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 5
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5-2
as timber. To the extent nonrenewable uses are used during construction, the Project is being created to meet existing demand for housing and services in the City, which would lead to the consumption of these resources elsewhere if the Project were not built. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new impact to nonrenewable resources. During the operational phase of the proposed Project, energy would be used for lighting, heating, cooling, and other requirements and petroleum products would be used by vehicles associated with the residents of the proposed development and the commercial facilities. The use of these resources would not be substantial, would not be inefficiently used, and would not constitute a significant effect. Refer to Section 3.6 – Energy for more information pertaining to the proposed Project’s energy use.

In the future, the site could be rezoned or redeveloped for a different use also allowed in the existing General Plan or Zoning Ordinance designations, in which case, at the end of the useful life of the Project, the use could change. Therefore, the Project would not commit future generations to a significant change in land use. This is in contrast to a large industrial use, where reuse for non-industrial uses likely would require extensive remediation, making such reuse difficult, or large infrastructure projects that are rarely moved or dismantled once constructed.

The proposed Project would not result in irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents. The Project consists of a mixed-use residential and commercial development. 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. 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 Section 3.9-1 – Hazards & Hazardous Materials herein. As such, irreversible environmental accidents are unlikely.

Conclusion: The project would have less-than-significant irreversible environmental changes. 1372

APPENDICES
1373

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
#2021050418)
Carleton Acres Specific Plan
September 2023
PREPARED BY:

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

City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
1374
Project Reference No. 048-2101
Final Environmental Impact Report
Carleton Acres Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse #2021050418
Prepared for:

City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Ave.

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

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact: Travis Crawford, AICP
(559) 840-4414
September 2023
1375

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE - Introduction........................................................................................................................1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................1 Summary of Project Description..................................................................................................................1 CEQA Evaluation Background....................................................................................................................3 CEQA Requirements .....................................................................................................................................5 Use of the Final EIR.......................................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER TWO – Comments and Responses ..............................................................................................7 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................7 Comment Letters ...........................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER THREE – Errata / Text Changes to the DEIR ...........................................................................51 CHAPTER FOUR – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.......................................................52 Attachments: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter
1376
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page |1 CHAPTER ONE - Introduction
Introduction
As defined by Section 15050 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Visalia (City) is the Lead Agency for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project (Project or proposed Project, SCH No 2021050418). The Final EIR presents the environmental information and analyses that have been prepared for the proposed Project, including comments received addressing the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments. In addition to the responses to comments, clarifications, corrections, or minor revisions have been made to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR, which includes the responses to comments, the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, will be used by the Visalia Planning Commission and the City Council in the decision-making process for the proposed Project.

This Final EIR is an informational document intended to disclose to the decision makers of the City, and the public, the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Project or one of the alternatives to the proposed Project, which are described in the Draft EIR. All written comments received during the public review period (May 4, 2023 through June 19, 2023) of the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR.

The responses in the Final EIR clarify, correct, and/or amplify text in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no significant revisions have been made which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification). The Final EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21177).

Summary of Project Description
The Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan to develop approximately 507-acres of land into a mixed-use development. The Project will feature a variety of uses including single-family residential, multi-family housing, commercial, educational, and parks/trails facilities. The 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 – maximum of 1,592 units; Medium Density Residential – maximum of 758 units; and High Density Residential – maximum of 912 units. The number of units is based on the maximum proposed density available, but the actual number of units may be less than 3,262.
1377
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 2 The proposed Project also 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 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 commercial area consists of up to 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood at the northeast corner of the development. Anticipated uses at this location may include development such as retail, services and restaurants. The commercial facilities are located to provide efficient accessibility to residents of the Project and the surrounding areas.

Other proposed uses include a site for a potential future elementary school, land 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. The Project is proposed to be built out in phases with approximately 1,182 residential units and 28.7 acres of Mixed Use Commercial in Phase 1 and approximately 2,080 residential units and 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood in Phase 2.

Project Location
The proposed Project is located on approximately 507-acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077- 100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia 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.

Project Objectives
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following are the City of Visalia’s Project objectives:
• To provide a mixed-use development at pricing appropriate for the market, in a growing area of the City of Visalia that satisfies the City of Visalia’s policies, 1378
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 3 regulations and expectations as defined in the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other applicable plans, documents, and programs adopted by the City. • To provide a variety of housing opportunities with a range of densities, styles, sizes and values that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area.
• To provide a residential development that assists the City in meeting its General Plan and Housing Element requirements and objectives.
• To provide conveniently-located commercial development to serve north Visalia residents and the Carleton Acres development in a growing area of the City of Visalia. • To provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, parks/open space areas, landscaping and other project amenities.

CEQA Evaluation Background
Notice of Preparation
The City of Visalia circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project from May 20, 2021 through June 21, 2021 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2021050418), and the public. Following publication of the original NOP, changes were made to the proposed Project that consisted of an increase in commercial acreage (from 14.7 acres to 35.1 acres) and a reduction in residential units (from 3,368 units to 3,262 units).

Therefore, the Project’s NOP was re-circulated from June 2, 2022 through July 5, 2022.

Six agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were presented or submitted during the public review period (June 2 – July 5, 2022). The NOP and written comments provided to the City during the 30-day public review period for the NOP are presented in Appendix A. NOP comment letters are summarized as follows:
• CA Department of Conservation – Geologic Energy Management Division (June 6, 2022): Identified a previous properly abandoned oil or gas well on the site. The Department provided additional guidance on the proper handling of the well. • CA Department of Fish & Wildlife (July 11, 2022): Identified potential species in the project area and provided recommendations on handling of such species. 1379
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 4 • CA Department of Conservation – Division of Land Resource Protection (June 14, 2022): Identified potential farmland impacts due to loss of agricultural lands on the site. Provided suggestions for mitigation for the loss of agricultural lands. • Native American Heritage Commission (June 8, 2022): Identified the applicable tribal consultation guidelines and requirements associated with the Project. • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (June 22, 2022): Identified the District’s applicable guidelines and requirements associated with air emissions from construction and operation of the Project.
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (June 2, 2022): Identified requirements and expectations of the Project traffic impact study. Provided additional information to support the study analysis.

These comment letters were identified and incorporated into the Draft EIR. In addition, pursuant to Section 15206 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency is required to conduct at least one scoping meeting for all projects of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. The scoping meeting is for jurisdictional agencies and interested persons or groups to provide comments regarding (but not limited to) the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and environmental effects to be analyzed to be analyzed in the Draft EIR. The City of Visalia hosted a scoping meeting on June 14, 2022, which was during the 30-day public review period of the NOP.

Draft EIR
The Draft EIR was properly noticed and circulated for public review and comment for 45 days, from May 4, 2023 through June 19, 2023. The Notice of Availability was published in the Visalia Times Delta newspaper. The Draft EIR and Appendices were sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution and notices were mailed to adjacent landowners, local agencies and other interested individuals. The City received three comment letters on the Draft EIR. These letters and emails are reproduced in their entirety in Chapter Two of this Final EIR and responses are shown after each letter.

These comments and responses that make up the Final EIR, in combination with the Draft EIR and Appendices, constitute the EIR that will be considered for certification by the decision makers of the City of Visalia.
1380
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 5 CEQA Requirements
Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must prepare and certify a Final EIR prior to a proposed project being approved. The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a Final EIR must consist of the following:

1. The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR.

2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.

3. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.

4. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.

5. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The Lead Agency must provide each public agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agency’s response to such comments a minimum of 10 days before certifying the Final EIR.

Use of the Final EIR
The Final EIR allows the public and the City an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR and the responses to comments received during the Draft EIR’s public review period. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to inform the City of the environmental consequences of the proposed Project, either in whole or in part, or one of the alternatives to the Project discussed in the Draft EIR.

As required by Section 15090(a)(1)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations:

1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project.

3. The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgement and analysis.

As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency cannot approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the 1381
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 6 rationale to reach findings supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are as follows:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons supporting the approval. The Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the Lead Agency’s administrative record. The Findings of Fact (Section 15091) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 15093(b)) have been provided to the City for consideration.

If the City approves the proposed Project, and as part of that action adopts mitigation measures, the City will also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
1382
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 7 CHAPTER TWO – Comments and Responses
Introduction
This chapter of the Final EIR contains a copy of each of the written comments received from the public and other agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed Project, followed by responses to each comment. Each letter is numbered (e.g. Letter 1, Letter 2, etc.).

A total of three comment letters were received from the following agencies:

Comment Letter 1
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
California Department of Fish & Wildlife
1234 E. Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
June 14, 2023
Comment Letter 2
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District
1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726
June 19, 2023
Comment Letter 3
Junaid Halani
Lozano Smith, Attorneys at Law
One Capitol Mall, Suite 640
Sacramento, CA 95814
June 19, 2023
1383
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 8 Comment Letters
Comment Letter 1
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
California Department of Fish & Wildlife
1234 E. Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93710
June 14, 2023
Letter 1, page 1
1384
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 9 Response to Comment Letter 1:

Comment 1 Summary: The Department concurs with the biological assessment of the Project.

Response to Comment 1: The content of this letter has been noted for the record and it is acknowledged that the California Department of Fish & Wildlife has concurred with the biological assessment of the proposed Project.
1385
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 10 Comment Letter 2
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726
June 19, 2023
Letter 2, page 1
1386
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 11 Letter 2, page 2
1387
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 12 Letter 2, page 3
1388
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 13 Letter 2, page 4
1389
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 14 Letter 2, page 5
1390
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 15 Letter 2, page 6
1391
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 16 Letter 2, page 7
1392
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 17 Letter 2, page 8
1393
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 18 Letter 2, page 9
1394
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 19 Responses to Comment Letter 2:

Comment 1: Recommended Mitigation to Reduce Operational Air Quality Impacts. The comment includes a recommendation that the DEIR be revised to include a discussion on the feasibility of a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) as a mitigation measure for this project and provides details on what a VERA is and how it is implemented.

Response to Comment 1: A VERA is a contractual agreement that project proponents can voluntarily enter into and is not required by the City of Visalia or the SJVAPCD. As described in section 5.2.2 – Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report prepared for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan, 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 General Plan EIR found regional air quality impacts to be significant and unavoidable. Although the project would exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds for several pollutants, the Visalia General Plan EIR had already considered air quality to be a significant and unavoidable impact. The project site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional, and park/recreation uses. The EIR identified General Plan policies that would reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent feasible. 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 in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report prepared for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. General Plan Reduction Measure AQ-P-12 supports the implementation of VERAs with the SJVAPCD for individual development projects that may exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds, but it does not require it. The Specific Plan incorporates all General Plan Reduction Measures, including AQ-P-12.

The Specific Plan is ideally designed to minimize vehicle related emissions, which are the predominant source of emissions. The SJVAPCD’s applicable regional criteria pollutant thresholds are mass emission thresholds that do not account for the rate of emissions per capita for a project. Therefore, large projects and projects that would serve a large number of people are more likely to exceed the thresholds compared to small projects. The project includes the development of approximately 507-acres of land into a mixed-use development featuring singlefamily residential, multi-family housing, commercial, educational, and park/trail land uses.

Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would create a considerable amount of internal capture between its components to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to the same level of development built with land uses geographically separated from each other. In addition, the Costco development in the Specific Plan includes numerous project design features that will reduce emissions to the extent feasible. These are referenced in the letter from Costco retail to the City (RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter). The gasoline dispensing facility will also be 1395
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 20 subject to the SJVAPCD stationary source permitting requirements, which includes requirements for emission reduction credits.

The Specific Plan and all subsequent developments will need to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review which requires mitigation similar to how a VERA would be applied to a project. Because the project would result in the development of greater than 9,000 square feet of development, the project would be subject to District Rule 9510. Specifically, the project would be required to pay emission reduction fees associated with its Indirect Source Review application, consistent with the requirements contained in District Rule 9510. The Indirect Source Review application and fees to the Valley Air District would reduce project emissions since the Air District would direct the fees to fund other air quality improvement measures throughout the District.

Comment 2: Industrial/Warehouse Emission Reduction Strategies. The comment notes that the project includes commercial development space (for example, a Costco retail), that have Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) truck trips. The SJVAPCD goes on to recommend that the City consider the feasibility of incorporating emission reduction strategies that can reduce potential harmful health impacts.

Response to Comment 2: The commercial development for Costco will include numerous project design features that address the emission reduction strategies listed by SJVAPCD. These are referenced in the letter from Costco retail to the City (RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter).

In addition, the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report and the DEIR included MM AIR-3a, which requires the City of Visalia to 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. A health risk assessment was prepared for the proposed Costco contemplated as part of the proposed Specific Plan and included as part of Appendix C of the DEIR. The health risk assessment demonstrates that the proposed Costco would not result in health impacts that would exceed the SJVAPCD’s health risk thresholds. Nonetheless, the proposed Costco incorporates a number of emission reduction strategies that would help minimize Costco’s potential to cause adverse health impacts. These emissions reduction strategies are outlined in the attached letter response from Costco (RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter). For future commercial developments, measures to reduce potential harmful health impacts would be considered and implemented, as applicable, under MM AIR-3a. 1396
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 21 Comment 3: Truck Routing. The comment states that truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors. The SJVAPCD notes that because the project includes commercial development space (for example, a Costco retail), there is potential for increased HHD truck trips.

Response to Comment 3: Emissions from anticipated HHD truck trips were evaluated in the air quality analysis contained in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan dated September 1, 2022 (Last Revised March 14, 2023). The air quality analysis assumed that the project would generate trips consistent with those provided in the traffic report prepared for the Project. As such, the assumptions used in the air quality analysis were consistent with those presented elsewhere in the DEIR. Emissions from HHD trucks were appropriately represented in the regional and localized emissions modeling, as well as the Health Risk Assessment prepared for the Costco retail. Therefore, concerns raised in this comment have been addressed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report and the DEIR.

The attached letter response from Costco (RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter) provides further details on truck routing for the proposed Costco proposed as part of the Specific Plan implementation. It should be noted that operational (non-construction) HHD trips are only a small percentage of total project trips. In addition, state regulations governing truck trips have reduced HHD truck emissions to a fraction of their emissions as of 1995.

Comment 4: Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks. This comment states that the EIR should include new mitigation due to the potential for the project to generate increased HHD truck trips.

The SJVAPCD recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce project-related operational emissions:
• Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx) technologies.
• Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Response to Comment 4: The project will comply with the State’s requirements regarding electrification of HHD fleets. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates emissions from HHD vehicles at the state level to meet the State’s emission goals. Likewise, all on-site service equipment will meet applicable statewide regulations. Costco’s equipment used within the warehouse facility to move merchandise (such as pallet jacks and forklifts and floor cleaners like scrubbers) will be electrically powered. These are referenced in the letter from Costco retail 1397
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 22 to the City (RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter).

Comment 5: Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks. The SJVAPCD comment recommends that the DEIR be revised to include measures to ensure compliance with the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the SJVAPCD recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Response to Comment 5: HHD trucks visiting the project site would be subject to the state antiidling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480). Limiting idling to no greater than 3 minutes would not clearly lessen any significant environmental impacts to below the significance thresholds because the suggested mitigation is not considerably different compared to compliance with state anti-idling regulation 13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480.

Regarding the proposed Costco, Costco designs and operates its facilities to most efficiently have trucks enter the site, unload, and exit the site. This includes smart design for truck flow into and out of the site, loading dock orientation design, circulation signage, and dock operating protocols.

These emissions reduction strategies are outlined in the attached letter response from Costco (RE:

Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter)
Comment 6: Under-fired Charbroilers. The comment notes that the project may have restaurants with under-fired charbroilers. Such charbroilers may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors. Therefore, the SJVAPCD recommends that the DEIR include a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating under-fired charbroilers.

Response to Comment 6: The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report and the DEIR included MM AIR-3a, which requires the City of Visalia to 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. Therefore, individual developments that would include charbroilers would be required to assess toxic air contaminants associated with charbroilers as applicable. In addition, development projects within the Specific Plan will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Project tenants and developers will be responsible for complying with all applicable rules and regulations. Costco does not anticipate 1398
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 23 using under-fired charbroilers within the Costco development, This is referenced in the letter from Costco retail to the City (RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter).

Comment 7: Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening. The comment suggests that the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units). The commenter also notes the purpose of these measures.

Response to Comment 7: All development projects within the Specific Plan would be required to meet the City’s landscaping requirements, which will be enforced through Conditions of Approvals. The City requires urban greening to be incorporated into projects and requires appropriate vegetative barriers where areas transition from commercial to residential. Therefore, the City’s design guidelines that will be enforced through Conditions of Approvals and the analysis contained in the DEIR already address the concerns raised in the comment. In addition, consistent with the comment, the Air Quality section of the DEIR evaluates the potential impact of project operations on sensitive receptors. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report and the DEIR included MM AIR-3a, which requires the City of Visalia to 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. This measure will be considered, as applicable, to reduce health risk impacts from individual development projects within the Specific Plan.

Comment 8: On-Site Solar Deployment. The comment highlights the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health.

The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the project.

Response to Comment 8: As noted in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report, the project includes installation of solar panels as required by 2022 Title 24 standards.

Costco's commitment to renewable energy and rooftop solar is described in the letter from Costco retail to the City (RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter). 1399
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 24 Comment 9: Electric Vehicle Chargers. The comment recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites and at strategic locations.

Response to Comment 9: This comment provides information about the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zeroemission vehicles. This comment is noted and does not require any action by the City or project proponents at this time. The proposed project would be built to meet all statewide and local development codes. as highlighted by Standard Condition (SC) AIR-1, which was included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report. SC AIR-1 is provided below.

SC AIR-1 New development under the proposed Specific Plan would include installation of on-site charging units for electric vehicles. Plans for on-site electric vehicle charging shall demonstrate that proposed development projects would meet or exceed electric vehicle parking provisions required by California Green Building Standards.

Comment 10: District’s Bikeway Incentive Program. The comment notes that because the project includes installation of bikeways, the project may be eligible for funding through the District’s Bikeway Incentive Program. The Bikeway Incentive Program provides funding for eligible Class 1 (Bicycle Path Construction), Class II (Bicycle Lane Striping), or Class III (Bicycle Route) projects.

Response to Comment 10: This comment provides information on incentives that may be available to the project and does not request any revisions to the DEIR. The comment is noted.

Comment 11: District Rules and Regulations. The comment is a list of rules and regulations that may be relevant to the project.

Response to Comment 11: Project tenants and developers will be responsible for complying with all applicable rules and regulations.

Comment 11a) District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources.

The comment notes that the project may be subject to District Rules 2010 and 2201. Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. The comment letter notes that the project proponent should submit to the District an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC) prior to construction.
1400
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 25 Response to Comment 11a: Development projects within the Specific Plan will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. District rules 2010 and 2201 are only applicable if the project includes stationary sources (such as backup generators) that would be subject to permitting. Project tenants and developers will be responsible for complying with all applicable rules and regulations.

Comment 11b: District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR) The comment notes that the project is subject to District Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review because it will receive a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 9,000 square feet of development.

Response to Comment 11b: As noted in the comment, the SJVAPCD received an AIA application (ISR project #20230207) for this project.

Comment 11c) District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction). This comment is noting that future development projects within the Specific Plan may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction). District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes.

Response to Comment 11c: SC AIR-2 was included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report. SC AIR-2 is provided below.

SC AIR-2 Individual commercial projects subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9401 – Employee Trip Reduction, shall comply with this rule. Compliance with SJVAPCD 9401 will promote trip reductions through the use of strategies that may include, but are not limited to:
• Employee carpool/ride sharing program.
• Flex scheduling/compressed scheduling.
• Posting information about public transit, bicycling, and pedestrian facilities and programs in public areas and in employee breakrooms. • Promote available websites providing transportation options for residents and businesses.
• Create and distribute a “new resident” or “new tenant” information packet addressing alternative modes of transportation for residential residents and commercial employees.
1401
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 26 • Providing incentives for carpooling/ride sharing, transit ridership, bicycling, walking, and other forms of non-single occupant vehicle travel. • Providing employee lockers.
• Providing preferential parking for carpool/ride share vehicles. • Providing bicycle storage facilities in convenient and secure locations.

Comment 11d: District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). This comment is noting that the project may subject to District Rule 4002. In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, future development projects within the Specific Plan may be subject to District Rule 4002.

Response to Comment 11d: Development projects within the Specific Plan will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Project tenants and developers will be responsible for complying with all applicable rules and regulations.

Comment 11e: District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings). This comment is noting that the project will be subject to District Rule 4601 since it is expected to utilize architectural coatings.

Response to Comment 11e: The project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings). Project tenants and developers will be responsible for complying with all applicable rules and regulations.

Comment 11f: District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions). This comment is noting that the project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Response to Comment 11f: Because the project is mixed-use and would include more than five acres of disturbed surface area, a Dust Control Plan would be applicable rather than a Construction Notification Form. The project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Project tenants and developers will be responsible for complying with all applicable rules and regulations.
1402
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 27 Comment 11g: District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters. This comment is noting the limitations regarding wood burning fireplaces and heaters. The project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters.

Response to Comment 11g: Project tenants and developers will be responsible for complying with all applicable rules and regulations. Furthermore, this measure will be checked through site plan review by the City.

Comment 11h: Other District Rules and Regulations. This comment is noting the project may be subject to other District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

Response to Comment 11h: These are standard regulations, and no action is needed by the project proponent in response to this comment at this time. The project will adhere to all applicable rules and regulations. Project tenants and developers will be responsible for complying with all applicable rules and regulations.

Comment 12: District Comment Letter. This comment is noting that the SJVAPCD recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the project proponent.

Response to Comment 12: The comment letter has been received by the City of the Visalia and the project proponent. Furthermore, the issues raised in the comment letter have been addressed in this response letter. The attached letter response from Costco (RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter) provides additional details regarding the proposed Costco contemplated as part of the proposed Specific Plan.
1403
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 28 Comment Letter 3
Junaid Halani
Lozano Smith, Attorneys at Law
One Capitol Mall, Suite 640
Sacramento, CA 95814
June 19, 2023
Letter 3, page 1
1404
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 29 Letter 3, page 2
1405
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 30 Letter 3, page 3
Letter 4, page 2
1406
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 31 Letter 3, page 4
1407
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 32 Letter 3, page 5
1408
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 33 Letter 3, page 6
1409
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 34 Letter 3, page 7
1410
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 35 Letter 3, page 8
1411
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 36 Letter 3, page 9
1412
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 37 Letter 3, page 10
1413
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 38 Letter 3, page 11
1414
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 39 Letter 3, page 12
1415
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 40 Responses to Comment Letter 3:

Introductory Comment: The introductory comment provides a statement about the project description and notes that the District didn’t receive the EIR’s Notice of Availability.

Response to Introductory Comment: According to the City’s Declaration of Mailing, the Notice of Availability (NOA) was mailed to the District at 5000 W. Cypress Ave., Visalia, CA 93277 on May 3, 2023. It is unclear why the copy of the NOA was never received by the District, but the City appreciates that the District otherwise received notice of the Draft EIR.

Population
Comment 1: Describe historical, current, and future population projections for the District.

Response to Comment 1: The City’s population projections are contained in the City’s General Plan. According to the General Plan, full buildout of the General Plan would result in a projected population of approximately 210,000 residents. According to the most recent Census Bureau statistics, the City had a population of 142,978 in 2021. According to the Tulare County Association of Governments, the City has an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. However, the City’s actual growth rate over the last ten years has been 1.1%. The City will continue to experience population growth resulting from urban growth managed through the General Plan and its urban growth boundaries. The Project EIR considered cumulative impacts of the Specific Plan along with other developments and projected growth in the City and surrounding areas.

Housing
General Response: Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. The City cannot speculate as to how the school facilities fees generated by the Project will be utilized by the District. See also Responses 2-5. 1416
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 41 Comment 2: Describe average square footage for anticipated dwelling units, broken down by type of unit.

Response to Comment 2: This information will be determined at the building permit phase.

However approximate square footage is provided below based on the zoning densities:

Single Family: 1,200 to 3,800 square feet
Medium Density: 850 to 2,400 square feet
High Density: 800 to 1,500 square feet
Comment 3: Estimate the amount of development fees to be generated by development in accordance with implementation of the Project.

Response to Comment 3: This will be determined at the building permit phase. Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities.

Comment 4: Describe the phasing of residential and development over time from inception to build-out of the Project.

Response to Comment 4: There is no additional phasing information except for what is included in the Specific Plan and EIR. However, the Project Traffic Impact Study identified that the Project would be built out in approximate 5, 10, 15, and 20 year phases as follows:
• Phase I: 5 Year (approx.) with 20% residential max buildout and 28.7 acres of commercial
• Phase II: 10 Year (approx.) with 40% residential max buildout and 6.4 acres of commercial
• Phase III (50%): 15 Year (approx.) with 70% of residential max buildout • Phase III: 20 Year (approx.) with 100% of residential built 1417
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 42 Comment 5: Identify the Project’s target residential market segments including senior housing, first-time home buyers, move-up buyers and anticipated number of units available for lowincome housing and the different impacts on the District from this mix.

Response to Comment 5: The Project developers have not targeted any specific residential markets at this point in the planning process. However, the Project will contain a diverse mix of housing types to enable residents from a wide range of economic levels, age groups and household types to live within its boundaries. Housing types include the following: large lot single-family homes, small lot single-family homes, cluster single-family homes, duplexes, fourplexes, townhouses and apartment buildings.

Transportation/Circulation/Traffic Analysis
General Response: The Draft EIR and Traffic Impact Study analyzed impacts to both Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Specific Plan area as a whole and included analysis of 82 intersections. Numerous mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The analysis identified a planned high school in the area as well as a potential future elementary school. The Specific Plan identified the location of a potential new elementary school, however, the Draft EIR was not required to undertake site-specific analysis for school sites or to conduct analysis of hypothetical future scenarios involving land use decisions outside of the City’s control. The District has ultimate say over the location and layout of school sites and when the District develops new schools in the Project area, they will be required to conduct a site-specific analysis of the new school. That analysis will include sitespecific information regarding vehicular traffic and student pedestrian movement patterns. See also Responses 6-9.

Comment 6: Describe the existing and the anticipated vehicular traffic and student pedestrian movement patterns to and from school sites, including consideration of bus routes.

Response to Comment 6: The Draft EIR evaluated circulation patterns and traffic impacts of the Specific Plan area as a whole, which included existing and planned schools within the Specific Plan. It is assumed that a safe routes to school plan will be developed by the District when the District develops new schools in the area. The Project itself has been designed to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly for safe and convenient mobility. The network of trails proposed by the Project will provide convenient walking and biking options for residents to connect throughout 1418
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 43 Carleton Acres. Modoc Greenway is the main east/west and north/south trail facility within the development and will serve as a connection point for other smaller trails. Modoc Greenway will be a Class 1 bike trail with landscaping on either side. Other trails throughout Carleton Acres will be 22’ wide (6’ walking & 6’ bike lane with 5’ landscaping on each side). These trails are as follows:
• Trail to connect the planned high school to the future elementary school site (north & south) within the development.
• Trail to connect the future elementary school to Modoc Greenway to the east. • Trail along Roeben to connect the planned high school, to the medium and high density residential along Riggin and to the commercial center at the northeast corner of Riggin and Shirk.
• Around the basin, a trail will connect Modoc Greenway to the high-density development in the northwest corner of the site.

Most local streets within the Project Area will have a right of way width of 60 feet. A combination of speed tables and roundabouts will be used as traffic calming devices. In addition, the City of Visalia is committed to complying with Americas with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards with new development.

Comment 7: Assess the impact of increased vehicular movement and volumes, including potential conflicts with school pedestrian movement, school transportation, and busing activities.

Response to Comment 7: The Draft EIR evaluated circulation patterns and traffic impacts of the Specific Plan area as a whole, which included existing and planned schools within the Specific Plan. The Draft EIR was not required to undertake site-specific analysis for school sites. The District has ultimate say over the location and layout of school sites and when the District develops new schools in the Project area, they will be required to conduct a site-specific analysis of the new school. That analysis will include site-specific information regarding vehicular traffic and student pedestrian movement patterns. See also Response #6.

Comment 8: Estimate travel demand and trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment by including consideration of school sites and home-to-school travel.

Response to Comment 8: The Draft EIR evaluated circulation patterns and traffic impacts of the Specific Plan area as a whole, which included existing and planned schools within the Specific 1419
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 44 Plan. The Draft EIR was not required to undertake site-specific analysis for school sites. The District has ultimate say over the location and layout of school sites and when the District develops new schools in the Project area, they will be required to conduct a site-specific analysis of the new school. That analysis will include site-specific information regarding vehicular traffic and student pedestrian movement patterns. However, as shown in Table 3.17-5 of the Draft EIR, the Elementary school was included in the Project’s trip generation table for Phase III of the Project. In addition, volumes for the planned future high school were added to cumulative peak hour volumes beginning in year 2033.

Comment 9: Assess cumulative impacts on schools and the community in general resulting from increased vehicular movement and volumes expected from additional development already approved or pending.

Response to Comment 9: The Project Traffic Study and Draft EIR included a year 2046 cumulative analysis of increased vehicular traffic. This included already-approved or pending projects including potential schools in the Specific Plan area. Please refer to Section 3.17 – Transportation of the Draft EIR for more information.

Public Services – Schools
General Response: Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. In Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. Vs. City of Madera (2011), the court said that though Senate Bill 50 from 1998 relieves lead agencies of considering school overcrowding, lead agencies must still look at the physical environmental effects of school construction, such as effects on traffic, air quality, noise, etc. The City did that with the Draft EIR, as the City considered potential school development as part of full buildout of the Project area. The physical impacts of school construction are not different than the impacts of any kind of physical development. The City addressed the physical effects of development of the entire site (e.g. impacts to biological resources, air quality, traffic, etc.) at both the project level and cumulative level. Mitigation measures were included to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. These mitigation measures are applicable to the entire site. However, once the District determines it will construct and operate a school in the area, the District will be required to conduct site-specific CEQA analysis to determine site-specific environmental impacts.
1420
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 45 According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impacts caused by new development. Section 65996 also prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities.

The Project site is being proposed for development in general conformity to the land uses that were planned within the Project area in the City’s most recent General Plan. As such, the impacts to the District would be substantially the same to what was already planned for in the City’s General Plan (adopted in 2014).

Comment 10: Describe existing and future conditions within the District, on a school-by-school basis, including size, location and capacity of facilities.

Response to Comment 10: The City isn’t in a position to answer this question. Further, this request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and would consist of evaluating hypothetical situations with several unknowns.

Comment 11: Describe the adequacy of both existing infrastructure serving schools and anticipated infrastructure needed to serve future schools.

Response to Comment 11: The Specific Plan identified that there is adequate infrastructure to serve the Project area, including existing and future schools within the Specific Plan. This includes sewer, water, and stormwater infrastructure.

Comment 12: Describe the District’s past and present enrollment trends.

Response to Comment 12: The City isn’t in a position to answer this question as it does not have information pertaining to the District’s past and future enrollment trends. Further, this request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis.
1421
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 46 Comment 13: Describe the District’s current uses of its facilities.

Response to Comment 13: This is a vague request in that “current uses” could mean many different things. In addition, the City isn’t in a position to describe how the District currently uses its facilities, as the District itself has better access to this type of information. Finally, this request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis..

Comment 14: Describe projected teacher/staffing requirements based on anticipated population growth and existing State and District policies.

Response to Comment 14: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis. In addition, the City does not possess the type of information being requested.

Comment 15: Describe any impacts on curriculum as a result of anticipated population growth.

Response to Comment 15: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis. In addition, the City does not possess the type of information being requested.

Comment 16: Identify the cost of providing capital facilities to accommodate students on a perstudent basis, by the District.

Response to Comment 16: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis. In addition, the City does not possess the type of information being requested.

Comment 17: Identify the expected shortfall or excess between the estimated development fees to be generated by the Project and the cost for provision of capital facilities.

Response to Comment 17: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis. In addition, the City does not possess the type of information being requested.
1422
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 47 Comment 18: Assess the District’s present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel costs.

Response to Comment 18: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA. In addition, the City does not possess the type of information being requested.

Comment 19: Assess financing and funding sources available to the District, including but not limited to those mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code.

Response to Comment 19: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis. In addition, the City does not possess the type of information being requested.

Comment 20: Identify any expected fiscal impacts on the District, including an assessment of projected cost of land acquisition, school construction, and other facilities needs.

Response to Comment 20: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis. In addition, the City does not possess the type of information being requested.

Comment 21: Assess cumulative impacts on schools resulting from additional development already approved or pending.

Response to Comment 21: Cumulative impacts were addressed at the end of each impact section of the Draft EIR. Since the Draft EIR covered the entire Specific Plan site, including the potential school sites, the cumulative impact analysis is applicable to potential schools (e.g., impacts to biological resources, traffic, air quality, etc.).

Other Comment: In support of the community’s students, the City has a host of options it could implement to help ensure sufficient school facilities and lessen the impacts of development.

1. Encourage the Developer to participate in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District under Government Code section 65996, subdivision (g)(2). 1423
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 48 Response to Other Comment 1: The City of Visalia primarily creates Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts (LLDs) in association with subdivisions. Therefore the Project will participate in an LLD.

2. Provide a mitigation measure to phase permit approvals to avoid uncontrolled growth without school infrastructure being in place.

Response to Other Comment 2: The City does not anticipate implementing a restrictive growth mitigation measure, as growth will not occur uncontrolled. However, a Development Agreement will be entered into between the City and property owner (under General Plan Policy LU-P-22) to further set limits on growth between the current Growth Tier II and future Growth Tier III.

However, school facilities would not likely be considered in the criteria of the development agreement.

3. The Subdivision Map Act states that “a city or county may adopt an ordinance requiring any [developer who develops in a school district] to dedicate to the school district . . . such land as the local legislative body shall deem to be necessary for the purpose of constructing thereon such elementary schools as are necessary to assure the residents of the subdivision adequate public school service.” (Gov. Code, § 66478.) Thus, the Subdivision Map Act allows a city or county to require land dedication for an elementary school in order to help a school district address the educational needs of the children from a new development. Nothing in SB 50 expressly prohibits reliance on the Subdivision Map Act. Through this, the City could require the Project Applicant dedicate the identified elementary school site to the District for use instead of simply classifying it as a “potential” use.

Response to Other Comment 3: The City is not requiring the Project Applicant to dedicate the identified elementary school site to the District at this time. 1424
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 49 Noise
Comment 22: Identify any noise sources and volumes which may affect school facilities, classrooms and outdoor school areas.

Response to Comment 22: The Noise Study in the Draft EIR evaluated Project noise impacts to all sensitive receptors including schools and playgrounds. No significant impacts were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Where potential impacts could occur, mitigation has been added to maintain noise levels in compliance with the City of Visalia General Plan Noise Element.

Social
Comment 23: Identify how school facilities are currently utilized as civic centers, and are projected to serve in that capacity in the future, and assess the impacts of the Project on that use.

Response to Comment 23: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis. In addition, the City does not possess the type of information being requested.

Comment 24: Identify how the District’s grounds are currently utilized for recreation (parks) and open space, and are projected to serve in that capacity in the future, and assess the impacts of the Project on that use.

Response to Comment 24: This request goes beyond the scope of CEQA and is not information that was necessary to conduct the CEQA analysis. However, as identified in the Draft EIR, the Project will provide approximately 17.3 acres for a variety of public recreational facilities, including trails and parks within the development that will be accessible by the public.

Approximately 3.5 acres will be constructed as part of Phase 1 and 13.8 acres will be constructed in Phase 2. In addition, the City is not anticipating any changes to existing circumstances related to utilization of District grounds.

Closing Comments: Provides closing remarks and offers a commitment to working with the City.

Requests all notices and copies of documentation be sent to various individuals. 1425
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 50 Response to Closing Comments: The City is committed to working with the District to ensure both the District and City’s needs are met. Copies of all future notices and documentation regarding this Project will be mailed to the addresses provided in the letter. 1426
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 51 CHAPTER THREE – Errata / Text Changes to the
DEIR
The City received three (3) comment letters and provided responses to those letters as presented in Chapter Two of this Final EIR. There are no textual or other changes to the public review Draft EIR that resulted from review of the comment letters.
1427
Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project | Final EIR
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.Page | 52 CHAPTER FOUR – Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
State law requires that a public agency adopt a monitoring program for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the approved project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with environmental mitigation during project implementation and operation. Since there are potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation associated with the project, a Mitigation Monitoring Program is included herein on the following pages. 1428
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-1 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Agricultural & Forestry Resources
AG – 1:

Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 478 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio. The amount of land requiring mitigation shall correspond to the amount of land associated with the issuance of the grading or building permit, or for residential land associated with a subdivision map, the amount of land associated with the subdivision map. The Project proponent shall implement one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss: Payment of in-lieu fees, mitigation banks, fee title acquisition, and/or conservation easements, on land(s) within the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, specifically within Kern County, Tulare County, Kings County, Fresno County, or Madera County.

The City shall require, at a minimum: evidence that the preserved land has adequate water supply, agricultural zoning, evidence of land encumbrance documentation, documentation that the
easement/regulations are permanent and monitored, and
documentation that the mitigation strategy is appropriately endowed.

This mitigation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Should the City of Visalia develop an Agricultural Mitigation Program, the Project proponent, at its election, may mitigate for the loss of agricultural land through compliance with the Program that is adopted by the City in lieu of mitigating on a 1:1 ratio as described above.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
1429
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-2 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
AG – 2:

Reduce Conflicts Between Urban and Agricultural Uses
In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
• Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.
• A Right-to-Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area.
• Potential residents shall be informed of the Right-to-Farm Covenant at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
certificates
of occupancy
City of
Visalia
Air Quality
AIR-2A:

This measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Specific Plan to reduce emissions from construction. Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed Project, the Project applicant, Project sponsor, or construction contractor shall provide compliance with the following requirements to the City of Visalia Planning Department:
• Where portable diesel engines are used during construction, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final offroad emission standards except as otherwise specified herein. If engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
1430
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-3 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment that is commercially available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the equipment at issue is available taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the Project site of equipment. If the relevant equipment is determined by the Project applicant to not be commercially available, the contractor can confirm this conclusion by providing letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that is at issue.

AIR-2B:

The following measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Specific Plan during construction to facilitate the use of electric landscaping equipment during Project operations:
• Provide electrical outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of electrically powered landscape equipment.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of
Visalia
AIR-3A:

Prior to future discretionary approval for commercial or commercial mixed-use projects, the City of Visalia shall evaluate potential health risk impacts from new development proposals for any individual development projects within 1,000 feet of an existing or planned sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit the following to the City of Visalia’s Planning Division:

Project
Applicant
Prior to
future
discretionary
approval for
commercial
or
commercial
mixed-use
projects
City of
Visalia
1431
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-4 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
A Health Risk Prioritization Screening Analysis or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of TACs during project construction and operations prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant shall be required to identify and incorporate commercially feasible mitigation including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level.

Biological Resources
BIO-1: Protect Sanford’s arrowhead
If the Project will impact Modoc Ditch, Mosquito Creek – Cross Creek, or the unnamed canal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the feature(s) to be impacted on and within 50 feet of the Project site within the May–October blooming period of Sanford’s arrowhead. The survey shall be conducted during the blooming period concurrent with the start of construction or immediately preceding the start of
construction if construction will be initiated between November and April. If Sanford’s arrowhead is detected, the qualified biologist shall establish an exclusion zone of 50 feet between any population and the area of direct or indirect impacts. If a 50- foot exclusion zone cannot be established, a site-specific plan to minimize the potential for Project activities to affect individual plants shall be developed by the qualified biologist and implemented in consultation with the CDFW. Such a plan could involve salvaging and relocating affected plants.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
1432
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-5 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
BIO-2: Protect burrowing owl
Conduct focused burrowing owl surveys to assess the
presence/absence of burrowing owl in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation1 and Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.
2 These involve conducting
four pre-construction survey visits.

If a burrowing owl or sign of burrowing owl use (e.g., feathers, guano, pellets) is detected on or within 500 feet of the Project site, and the qualified biologist determines that Project activities would disrupt the owl(s), a construction-free buffer, limited operating period, or passive relocation shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFW.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
BIO-3: Protect nesting Swainson’s hawks
To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the Swainson’s hawk nesting season, which extends from March through August.

If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and February, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk in accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
1 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012. 34 pp. 2 California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC). 1997. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Pages 171–177, in Lincer, J. L. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1997. The Burrowing Owl, its Biology and Management. Raptor Research Report Number 9. 1433
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-6 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley.
3 These methods require six surveys,
three in each of the two survey periods, prior to project initiation. Surveys shall be conducted within a minimum 0.5- mile radius around the Project site.

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

BIO-4: Compensate for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat Compensate for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (i.e., the fallow fields on the Project site) in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to
Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California.
4 The CDFW requires that projects adversely affecting
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat provide Habitat Management (HM) lands to the department. Projects within 1 mile of an active nest shall provide one acre of HM lands for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio). Projects within 5 miles of Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
3 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWTAC). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. 5 pages. 4 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California.

California Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report #94.18. 1434
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-7 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
an active nest but greater than 1 mile from the nest shall provide

0.75 acres of HM lands for each acre of urban development authorized (0.75:1 ratio). And projects within 10 miles of an active nest but greater than 5 miles from an active nest shall provide 0.5 acres of HM lands for each acre of urban
development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). No compensation is required if an active nest is not found within 10 miles of the Project site.

BIO-5: Protect nesting birds
To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.

If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW
1435
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-8 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

Cultural Resources
CUL – 1: In the event that historical or archaeological cultural resources are discovered during project-related activities or
decommissioning, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find, and a qualified archeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Measures may include, but are not limited to, avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological resting, and data recovery, among other options. Any previously undiscovered resources found during project-related activities within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified archaeologist.

The Lead Agency, along with other relevant or tribal officials, shall be contacted upon the discovery of cultural resources to begin coordination on the disposition of the find(s). Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the Lead Agency.

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of
Visalia
1436
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-9 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
CUL – 2: In order to ensure that the proposed Project does not impact buried human remains during Project construction, the Project proponent shall be responsible for on-going monitoring of Project construction. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Project proponent shall provide the City with documentation identifying construction personnel that will be responsible for on-site monitoring. If buried human remains are encountered during construction, further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall be halted until the Tulare County coroner is contacted and the coroner has made the determinations and notifications required pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determines that Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) require that he give notice to the Native American Heritage Commission, then such notice shall be given within 24 hours, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). In that event, the NAHC will conduct the notifications required by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Until the consultations described below have been completed, the
landowner shall further ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices where Native American human remains are located, is not disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the Most Likely Descendants on all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences and treatments, as prescribed by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b). The NAHC will mediate any disputes regarding treatment of remains in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k). The landowner shall be entitled to exercise rights established by Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
any grading
permit and
ongoing
during
construction
City of
Visalia
1437
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-10 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) if any of the
circumstances established by that provision become applicable.

Geology & Soils
GEO – 1 In order to reduce on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for the site preparation, construction, and post-construction periods by a registered civil engineer or certified professional. The erosion control plan shall incorporate best management practices consistent with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The erosion component of the plan must at least meet the requirements of the SWPPP required by the Central Valley RWQCB.

If earth disturbing activities are proposed between October 15 and April 15, these activities shall be limited to the extent feasible to minimize potential erosion related impacts. Additional erosion control measures may be implemented in consultation with the City of Visalia. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the Project proponent shall submit detailed plans to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia.

The components of the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City of Visalia. Erosion control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and
construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right-of-way of designated access roads;
iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permits
City of
Visalia
1438
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-11 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of
environmental concerns, pertinent laws and
regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion
control measures.

GEO – 2 The project proponent shall retain a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical analysis prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permit. The designlevel analysis shall address site preparation measures and foundation design requirements of the project. The design-level analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. Final design-level project plans shall be designed in accordance with the approved geotechnical analysis. This shall include certification of engineered fills and subgrade
preparation through monitoring of earthwork and compaction testing by a geotechnical engineer during construction.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall conduct a subsurface investigation of the Project site to evaluate the potential for elevated residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals on the site. If remedial action is required, the Project will be responsible for cleanup and any remedial actions. For portions of the project site where Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
1439
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-12 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
there is known contamination, a project specific site
management plan should be prepared under the oversight of the Water Board and/or DTSC, as appropriate.

The plan shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to
contain hazardous materials.

The plan shall: (1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; (2) describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and (3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the plan.

For sites with potential residual contamination that are planned for development with an occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Visalia department of Community Development Department.
1440
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-13 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
HAZ – 2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent or contractor shall provide a site plan that clearly delineates the locations of all known oil wells. A copy of the map shall be submitted to the California Department of
Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) for review and evaluation. The Project proponent will work with CalGEM to implement any remedial actions that may result from CalGEM’s review of the on-site abandoned well. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Visalia department of Community Development Department. In addition, the
Project proponent shall include information about any
abandoned wells within the Project site in the Tulare County Recorder’s title information of the Project site.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
HAZ–3 In the event that abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading activities, all work shall cease in the vicinity of the well, and the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division
(CalGEM) shall be contacted for requirements and approval.

CalGEM may determine that remedial plugging operations may be required. Copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Community Development Department
Project
Applicant
During
grading and
construction
activities
City of
Visalia
Noise
NOI - 1: Prior to issuance of building permits for development within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, the City of Visalia will
determine if a detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a certified professional to document potential impacts to onsite Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
1441
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-14 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
and offsite noise-sensitive land uses (as determined by the City of Visalia’s General Plan and Municipal Code thresholds). When specific uses within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone are proposed that could result in a noise‐related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source and existing or proposed noise‐sensitive receptor, an acoustical analysis shall be required by the City of Visalia that quantifies Project‐related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. Potential impacts in exceedance of the City of Visalia’s standards shall require incorporation of mitigation such as increased setbacks, sound walls, equipment enclosures, site design, and enhanced building materials to reduce impacts to levels below the City of Visalia standards. Development that cannot incorporate
mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable City of Visalia standards shall not be approved. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

NOI - 2: For Project components involving new sensitive receptors (residential land uses) within the cumulative 65 dB Ldn noise contours of adjacent roadway segments (Avenue 320, Shirk Road, Riggin Avenue, and Akers Street as identified in Table

3.13-12), the City of Visalia will require construction of block walls to achieve noise attenuation to below the City’s noise thresholds. The City of Visalia Design and Improvement
Standards provide guidelines and standards for the construction of block walls, within the City of Visalia. Standard wall heights permitted by the City of Visalia range between 6‐foot to 7‐ foot Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia
1442
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-15 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
in height. Depending on the height and geometric relationship between the roadway and the receiver location, walls of this height range would be typically expected to provide between approximately 5‐6 dB of noise attenuation. While specific wall height requirements would generally be determined once final lot layout designs and elevations are known, wall heights of up to 7 feet will be sufficient to mitigate traffic noise within all proposed residential land uses, to below the City’s acceptable maximum allowed noise exposure levels. Evidence of
compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

NOI - 3: For the proposed drive-through car wash facility in the Mixed Use Commercial Zone, the Project shall implement an IDC 100 horsepower Predator Blower System running at 55Hz with a 10’ wall with AcoustiBlok lining. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
NOI - 4: Bus movements occurring off public roadways (but on school campus) shall not occur within ninety feet of any residential outdoor activity area. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
Transportation
1443
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-16 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
TRA-1:

Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project shall pay into the City of Visalia’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. The TIF amount will be calculated based on the City’s adopted fee schedule in place at the time of the application of building permits. This will be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
TRA-2:

Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project will be responsible for paying its pro-rata fair share cost percentages and/or constructing the recommended on-site improvements and site-adjacent
improvements identified in Tables 3.17-11, 3.17-15 and 3.17-16, subject to reimbursement for the costs that are in excess of the Project’s equitable responsibility as determined by the City. This will be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia
TRA-3:

Prior to the issuance of construction or building permits, the Project developer shall:

Prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to City of Visalia, as appropriate, for approval. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and shall include, but not be limited to, the following issues:
a. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials; Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
construction
or building
permits
City of
Visalia
1444
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-17 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
b. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
c. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic;
d. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the project site; e. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials delivery, transmission line stringing activities, or any other utility connections;
f. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and,
g. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the AM and PM peak hour, distributing construction traffic flow across alternative routes to access the project sites, and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TRI-1: Prior to any ground disturbance, a surface inspection of the site shall be conducted by a Tribal Monitor. The Tribal Cultural Staff shall monitor the site during grading activities. The Tribal Staff shall provide pre-project-related information to supervisory personnel and any excavation contractor, which will include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if resources are found. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall offer the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing Project
Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbance
City of
Visalia
1445
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-18 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
activities. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the tribe.

TRI-2: In the event that historical or archaeological cultural resources are discovered during project-related activities or
decommissioning, operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find, and a qualified archeologist shall determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall determine the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources including, but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of he finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with § 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Measures may include avoidance, preservation inplace, recordation, additional archaeological resting, and data recovery, among other options. Any previously undiscovered resources found during project-related activities within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate CA Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance. No further ground disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until approved by the qualified archaeologist.

The Lead Agency, along with other relevant or tribal officials, shall be contacted upon the discovery of cultural resources to begin coordination on the disposition of the find(s). Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the Lead Agency.

Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia
TRI-3: Upon coordination with the Lead Agency, any archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate tribal Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia
1446
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | MMRP
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-19 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.

TRI-4: If human remains are discovered during project-related activities or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987) shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of
discovery of human remains, at the direction of the County Coroner.

Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia
1447
Via email
Brandon Smith
City of Visalia
Planning Division
707 W. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291
([email protected])
RE: Costco Commitments in Response to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Carleton Acres Specific Plan Draft EIR Comment Letter
Dear Brandon,
As you know, Costco Wholesale has proposed that a new Costco warehouse, fuel facility and car wash (the “Costco Project”) be approved by the City of Visalia (“City”) as the first commercial development within the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan area. The Costco Project was contemplated in and evaluated within the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 2021050418 (“Draft EIR”). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“District”) submitted comments on the Draft EIR by letter dated June 19, 2023. As the City prepares responses to the Draft EIR comments and prepares for upcoming public hearings concerning the Specific Plan and the Costco Project, we thought it may be useful to note some of the elements recommended by the District that are embraced within the Costco Project. This letter documents such features.1 Site screening from sensitive receptors: Along the Costco Project’s northern property line, a 15 feet wide landscaped buffer is planned. Similarly, a 10 feet wide landscaped buffer is planned along the Costco Project’s eastern property line. Each of these areas of the Costco Project will be screened with a combination of dense, evergreen trees and tall shrubs. Moreover, Costco will install a 6 feet high masonry wall along the northern portion of the easterly property line of the Costco Project (along the warehouse building frontage) in order to further buffer its activities from potential future sensitive receptors.

Loading dock orientation: The closest future sensitive receptors (planned medium density residential uses) will be located east and north of the Costco Project site. The Costco Project loading dock is planned for the south side of the Costco warehouse structure, facing West Riggin Avenue. Notably, the loading dock is proposed to be recessed more than 4 feet below grade, with a screening wall located 3’ 1 Please substitute this letter for the one submitted July 24, 2023 as that letter contained a typographical error and this one includes additional data.
1448
8” above grade. Further, as noted above, Costco’s plans include a 6 feet high masonry wall along the full property line on the eastern edge of the Costco Project. These multiple features will minimize noise and emissions at sensitive receptor locations.

Circulation signage: The Costco Project will include signs and building features on the warehouse, fuel station, and car wash to clearly indicate where the facilities themselves and their entrances and exits are located on the site. The site is designed with drive aisles and parking aisles that enable intuitive travel throughout the site. These features will minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel.

Truck entry: Delivery trucks serving the Costco Project will approach and depart the site on the non-residential streets of W. Riggin Avenue and N. Shirk Street, as well as on N. Denton Street immediately adjacent to the commercial development.

Truck routing: Costco manages its own truck fleet and works with independent drivers to focus delivery truck travel on designated truck routes and to avoid traversing through residential communities or near sensitive receptors. The analysis assumptions for HHD trucks that would serve the proposed Costco warehouse and fuel station were prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Costco’s transportation engineering consultant. The delivery truck route assumptions are provided in Figure 1 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR.

Furthermore, additional details requested by the District are found in Table A-1 through Table A-3 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR, which details the health risk assessment prepared for the Costco Project.

The time of day and days of the week when the trucks would operate were accounted for when performing the air dispersion modeling as described in Appendix C of the Draft EIR in support of the health risk assessment. Deliveries to the proposed Costco fuel station were assumed to occur at any day and time, and deliveries to the proposed Costco warehouse were assumed to occur between 2 AM and 1 PM for every day of the week. The end destination for each delivery truck is provided as the proposed Costco Project site, and the health risk assessment focuses on the area of the Costco Project and the receptors surrounding the project site. Thus, the origins of the truck trips were not of consequence for the health risk assessment. This is consistent with SJVAPCD Draft Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling.

Rooftop solar and clean energy: Costco’s warehouse building will be covered with a light-colored roofing material exceeding the minimum solar reflective index of 78 suggested by the District. In addition, the Costco warehouse roof will be solar-ready. Costco is investing in a sustainable future and implements many measures and programs to that end (see
https://www.costco.com/sustainability-introduction.html). As but one part of Costco’s efforts, Costco owns and operates more than 100 on-site solar systems around the world, with an intention to expand on-site solar operations; having a solar-ready roof on the warehouse of the Costco Project will ensure that Costco can install solar panels here when doing so is logical and feasible. Additionally, Costco has committed to securing 80% clean purchased energy by 2030. To meet such goal, Costco will source an increasing percentage of contract purchases from low carbon energy sources through 2030 and beyond. 1449
Within California, Costco already uses 33-50% renewable energy and is seeking additional assets and fashioning agreements with power providers to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2024.

Refrigerated trucks: Costco loading dock operating protocols are designed to minimize truck idling and associated emissions. All regulations concerning idling are followed, each truck is unloaded efficiently, and trucks do not linger at the loading dock.

Bicycle parking: The Costco Project will include short-term and long-term bicycle parking (to serve both customers and employees) in full compliance with the California Building Code.

Construction period: Assuming that temporary power is available, Costco will designate an area to charge electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment. Costco will prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators during construction.

Measures limiting emissions from trucks and on-site service equipment: Costco will continue to comply with CARB requirements surrounding fleet electrification and other techniques to meet the State’s emission goals during operations. Costco’s equipment used within the warehouse facility to move merchandise (such as pallet jacks and forklifts) and clean floors (scrubbers) will be electrically powered.

Under-fired charbroilers: Costco does not anticipate using under-fired charbroilers within the Costco Project.

Electric vehicle charging: The Costco Project will include designated electric vehicle parking spaces and operable electric charging stations in full compliance with the California Building Code.

District rules: Costco will comply with all applicable District rules and regulations governing construction and operation of the Costco Project.

Costco appreciates the opportunity to supply this information and looks forward to proceeding with the Costco Project so as to better serve its members within the Visalia environs.

Sincerely,
Pari Holliday
Real Estate Development Director
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454

CITY OF VISALIA

CITY COUNCIL
October 2, 2023
1455
Entitlements
• Specific Plan – applies to entire community
• General Plan Amendment – land use designations
• Annexation – into Visalia City limits
• Tentative Subdivision Map – Divides R-1-5 zoning in
Tier II into 375 lots (approved by Commission)
• Commercial Parcel Map – Divides Shirk/Riggin
commercial site into 8 lots (approved by Commission)
1456
Carleton Acres Specific Plan
North
1457
Recommendation
 Certify Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
 Including Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations & Mitigation Monitoring Program
 Annexation No. 2021-05
 Initiate filling of Annexation application with Tulare County LAFCO  General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14
 Specific Plan No. 2021-13
 Adoption of 1st Reading of Ordinance
Based on
 Planning Commission recommendation & original staff
recommendation on September 11, 2023.
1458
Summary of Request
 Objective: 507-acre Master-planned new community
 Land Uses:

Up to 3,262 dwelling units, 205,000 sq. ft. leasable
commercial space, 17 acres Parks/Trails, 17-acre
Basin, elementary school
• Growth: Beginning in Tiers I/II, continuing to Tier III subject to Development Agreement
• Owner: Hayes Ranch LLC
• Applicant: West Star Construction
1459
Concept
Plan
Riggin Ave
North
Akers Street
Shannon Pkwy
Avenue 320
Shirk Street
Roeben Street
1460
Concept
Plan
Riggin Ave
North
A
k
e
r
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
Shannon Pkwy
Avenue 320
S
hir
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
R
o
e
b
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Tentative
Subdivision
Map
Commercial
Parcel
Map
1461
North
1462
General Plan Amendment
Existing General Plan
1463
Annexation
Tier 3
Tier 2
North
LU-P-22: Allow for City Council approval of master plans, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, for sites under a single ownership or unified control, which may include developable land within both multiple
development tiers. Allow for pre-zoning of this master planned land, subject to execution of a development agreement
between the City and the land owner conforming to the
requirements of Government Code Section 65864 et seq.,
with the project allowed to annex and develop while the City is still limiting development approvals to land within the Tier I or Tier II designation.

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

Tier 1
1464
Annexation Information
 Site = Growth Tiers II & III
 Site can be serviced with all requisite utility & infrastructure  Parcel will be added into Voting District No. 3
 100% property owner participation
 No existing residences on site
1465
Prior to Processing of a Tier 3 map:
 All phases and lots specified in Carleton Acres Ph. 1 Tentative Subdivision Map (Tier 2) shall have final
maps recorded.
 Permits for new dwelling units shall be issued for :
o 80% of the lots in the Carleton Acres Ph. 1
Tentative Subdivision Map
o 80% of units associated with 5.5-ac MDR
o 80% of units associated with 3.6-ac MDR or 9.7-
ac HDR
 Improvements of Circ Element streets, public areas
 Sedona or Shannon shall connect Roeben to east
Development Agreement
1466
Contents
 Concept plan for masterplanned new community
 Standards / Policies for
Architecture, Landscape,
Residential, and Commercial
 Street cross sections
 Infrastructure plans
Specific Plan
1467
 101 acres to be divided into 375 lots
and remainder lots for multi-family
 Std. lot sizes: 5,250 SF to 8,050 SF
 Landscape & Lighting District for
maintenance of park, open space, trail
Carleton Acres Phase 1 Subdivision Map
1468
Subdivision Map North
1469
 29 acres to be divided into 8 lots and
443-acre remainder lot
 Includes access & utility easements
 3 lots for future Costco Warehouse;
5 lots fronting Riggin Avenue
Commercial Parcel Map
1470
Parcel Map North
1471
Shirk St & Riggin Ave
 Full buildout: 4 travel lanes
 2/3 buildout initially
Shannon Pkwy & Roeben St
 Full buildout: 2 travel lanes
 2/3 buildout initially
Pedestrian Trails
Circulation – Phase 1
Riggin Avenue
Roeben Street at High School
1472
Circulation – Phase 2
Shannon Parkway with Modoc Greenway
1473
Riggin Avenue Widening
 Traffic Impact Study confirms widening to 4 lanes
 Majority of traffic on Riggin is due to Costco
 Development Agreement terms:
 Developer to widen from Shirk to Denton (1/4 mile)
 City CIP (Measure R, TIF) to widen from Denton to Akers  Developer to reimburse City upon reaching milestones
 Area of Benefit used for unimproved non-project frontages  Any construction prior to Costco must be analyzed
1474
Planning Commission
 September 11, 2023
 No persons/surrounding owners provided public comment  Planning Commission motioned to approve tentative
maps and recommend that City Council approve remaining
items
1475
Staff Recommended Motion
 Certify Final Environmental Impact Report
 Initiate Proceedings for Annexation No. 2021-05
 Includes Detachment from County Service Area No. 1 &
entering into Pre-Annexation Agreement
 Approve General Plan Amendment No. 2021-14
 Approve 1st reading of Ordinance for approval of
Specific Plan Amendment No. 2021-13
Basis for Findings
 Consistent with General Plan & Zoning Ordinance
1476
North
1477
Concept
Plan
Riggin Ave
North
Akers Street
Shannon Pkwy
Avenue 320
Shirk Street
Roeben Street
1478
Carleton Acres Specific Plan
Environmental Review
City of Visalia
October 2, 2023
1479
Presentation Overview
• Project Description Summary
• Environmental Review
• Environmental Processing
• Next Steps
• Public Hearing
1480
Project Description Summary
• Development of a mixed use residential and commercial project • Total of up to 3,262 residential units
• Specific housing types include:
 Low Density Residential – up to 1,592 units
 Medium Density Residential – 758 units
 High Density Residential – 912 units
• Development of 35.1 acres of commercial development at two locations • Total of 205,000 sq. ft. of commercial area
• Includes development such as a Costco, gas station, car wash, drug store, retail, restaurants and similar uses
• Construction of a 17.3 acres of parks/trails/recreational facilities • Construction of infrastructure (water, stormwater, wastewater, roadway improvements and related improvements) to support the project
1481
Environmental Review
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
• Notice of Preparation (June 2022)
• Environmental Impact Report (May 2023)
• Technical Studies:
• Land Evaluation Site Assessment (agricultural land)
• Air Quality / Energy / GHG Impact Analysis
• Biological Evaluation
• Cultural Resource Study
• SB 610 Water Supply Assessment
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
• Noise Study
• Traffic Impact Study
1482
Environmental Review
CEQA Review Topics:

Aesthetics Agriculture / Forest
Resources Air Quality Biological Resources
Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards / Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems Wildfire
1483
Environmental Review
Impact Areas Requiring Mitigation:
• Agriculture:
• Compensate for loss of 478 acres of prime farmland through the City’s Agricultural Mitigation Program
• Implement “Right to Farm” covenant
• Air Quality:
• Construction emission restrictions
• Provisions for HRA reviews for future development
• Standard adherence to SJVAPCD rules and regulations
• Biology:
• Construction timing restrictions / avoidance measures • Standard pre-construction surveys for potential nesting birds and migratory raptors
• Consultation with CDFW for potential loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat • Protection measures for plant and animal species prior to construction 1484
Environmental Review
Impact Areas Requiring Mitigation:
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources:
• Tribal monitoring
• Provisions for discovery of cultural/historical resources during construction • Geology:
• Requirement to prepare a geotechnical evaluation
• Requirement to prepare a SWPPP
• Hazards / Hazardous Materials
• Provisions for handling of previous wells on site and best management practices • Provisions for removing any potential subsurface contamination from past agricultural use
• Noise
• Provisions to limit construction noise
• Construction of block walls
• Requirement for acoustical studies for future uses near sensitive receptors • Car wash blower noise reduction measures
1485
Environmental Review
Impact Areas Requiring Mitigation (Contd.):
• Public Services
• Payment of impact fees for fire, police, schools and parks • Transportation
• Payment into Visalia’s Transportation Impact Fee Program • Pro-rata share payment and/or constructing various roadway improvements in the area. This includes improvements to approximately 24 intersections • Development of a construction traffic control plan
1486
Environmental Review
Other EIR Sections:
• Cumulative Analysis
• Alternatives Analysis
• No Project
• Alternate Site
• Reduced (50%) Project
1487
Environmental Review
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts:
 Aesthetics – Degrade existing visual character (project and cumulative level)  Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Loss of farmland (project and cumulative level)  Air Quality – Conflict with Air Quality Plan / Exceed criteria pollutant thresholds (project and cumulative level)
 Hydrology & Water Quality – Water supply (cumulative level only)  Transportation – Conflict with Plan/Program (project and cumulative level)  Utilities & Service Systems – Water supply (cumulative level only) 1488
Environmental Review
• Final EIR
• Received 3 comment letters
• CA Department of Fish & Wildlife – concurred with the biological evaluation and mitigation measures
• SJVAPCD– provided some recommendations for additional emission reduction strategies
• Visalia Unified School District– provided concerns about school overcrowding, transportation, and environmental impacts related to schools as a result of the project
• Responses to Comments
1489
Environmental Processing
EIR
• Circulated for Public Review for 45 days (May 4, 2023– June 19, 2023) • Sent to Local Agencies, State Clearinghouse, surrounding landowners and other interested parties
• Published in newspaper and on City’s website
• Prepared Final EIR

NEXT STEPS
• Conduct Public Hearing
• Questions/Comments?
1490
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 23-0343 Agenda Date: 10/2/2023 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Monday, October 16, 2023 @ 7:00 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia
Monday, November 06, 2023 @ 7:00 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia If you have a disability and require a reasonable accommodation to fully participate in the meeting, please contact Michelle Nicholson, on or before Monday, October 2, 2023 to discuss your accessibility needs: 559-713-4512 or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.

Visalia City Council Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/27/2023
powered by Legistar™1491