Attachment 15 Draft EIR public review 5-4-23 — Visalia City Council, October 2, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

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

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

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A of Appendix C).

32 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 121.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-43 Operation
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. Sources of emissions may include motor vehicles and trucks, energy usage, water usage, waste generation, and area sources, such as landscaping activities and residential wood burning.

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

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

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

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

RPS is not accounted for in CalEEMod 2020.4.0. Reductions from RPS for operational years 2030 and beyond are addressed by revising the electricity emission intensity factor in CalEEMod to account for the utility RPS rate forecast for 2030. The utilities will be required by SB 100 to increase the use of renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030. The latest power content label for SCE was used to estimate a revised CO 2 intensity factor for use in the modeling; calculations and related sources are provided in Appendix C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, the Project operations for the full project would achieve a reduction from BAU of 32.7 percent, which exceeds the 21.7 percent reduction required by the State to achieve the 2020 target by 11.0 percent and the SJVAPCD 29.0 percent target by 3.7 percent. No new threshold has been adopted by the SJVAPCD for the 2030 target, so in the interim the project must make continued progress toward the 2030 goal. In addition, the City of Visalia

33 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 124.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-46 identifies a reduction target of 30 percent below 2005 baseline year lev el by 2030. The 2030 reduction target identified by the City of Visalia CAP was selected to show consistency with Executive Order S-3-05.

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

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

An additional analysis for the 2030 operational scenario is summarized in Table 3.8-4. The 2030 analysis was prepared to show continued progress toward meeting the SB 32 2030 target.

34 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 126.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-47 Table 3.8-4
Full Buildout Project Operational Greenhouse Gases
(2030 Operational Year Scenario)

Source
Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
Business as Usual
2030 (with
Regulation and
Design Features) Percent Reduction
Area 1,462.67 1,461.66 0.07%
Energy 8,271.80 4,793.25 42.1%
Mobile 54,624.74 30,381.39 44.4%
Waste 1,577.78 1,104.45 30.0%
Water 630.47 456.61 27.6%
Amortized Construction
Emissions
1,304.04 1,304.04 0.0%
Total 67,871.51 39,501.40 41.8%
Reduction from BAU 28,370.11 —
Percent Reduction 41.8% —
Significance Threshold (AB 32 Consistency) 21.7% —
Significance Threshold (SJVAPCD) 29% —
Significance Threshold (City of Visalia CAP) 30% —
Are emissions significant? No
Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

The 2030 emission limit is 260 MMTCO 2e. The ARB estimates that the 2030 BAU (reference) Inventory will be 392 MMTCO 2e—a reduction of 132 MMCO 2e, including existing policies and programs but not including known commitments that are already underway. The 2017 Sc oping Plan Update includes the estimated GHG emissions by sector compared with 1990 levels that is presented in Table 3.8-5. The 2017 Scoping Plan would achieve the bulk of the reductions from electric power, industrial fuel combustion, and transportation. Cap-and-Trade would provide between 10 and 20 percent of the required reductions depending on the amounts achieved by the other reduction measures.

Table 3.8-5
2017 Scoping Plan Update Estimated Change in GHG Emissions by Sector 35 Scoping Plan Sector Emissions (MMTCO2e per year)
1990 2030 Proposed
Plan Ranges
Percent Change
form 1990
Agriculture 26 24–25 -4 to -8
Residential and Commercial 44 38–40 -9 to -14
Electric Power 108 42–62 -43 to -61
High GWP 3 8–11 167 to 267
Industrial 98 77–87 -11 to -21
Recycling and Waste 7 8–9 14 to 29
Transportation (including
TCU)
152 103–111 -27 to -32
Net Sink -7 TBD TBD
Subtotal 431 300–345 -20 to -30
Cap-and-Trade Program N/A 40–85 N/A
Total 431 260 -40

35 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 126.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-49 Although 2017 Scoping Plan Update focuses on state agency actions necessary to achieve the 2030 GHG limit, the ARB considers local governments essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions. The 2030 target will require an incre ase in the rate of emission reductions compared to what was needed to achieve the 2020 limit, and this will require action and collaboration at all levels, including local government action to complement and support State-level actions. For individual proj ects, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update suggests that all new land use development implement all feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan does not define all feasible measures or attribute an amount of reductions required from new development beyond compliance with regulations. When requiring mitigation of a project’s fair share of a cumulative impact, the Lead Agency must show the nexus between the project contribution and its fair share of mitigation to reduce the impact to less than cumulat ively considerable. A threshold based on local support and collaboration with State actions as described in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update does not lend itself to a quantitative determination of fair share. Requiring developers and future residents of the de velopment to fully mitigate emissions without accounting for compliance with regulations would result in double mitigation, first by the developer and then by the residents purchasing electricity, fuel, and vehicles compliant with regulations in effect at the time of purchase and beyond that would violate constitutional nexus requirements.

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

None Required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Project promotes the goals of the Scoping Plan through implementation of design measures that reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and reduction in VMT. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with any the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

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

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

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

Regulations to Achieve
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Consistent. This measure applies to
transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in
California. The Project would not conflict with

36 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 130.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-53 Scoping Plan Sector Scoping Plan Measure Implementing Regulations Project Consistency Reductions Subarticle 7. Low
Carbon Fuel Standard CCR
95480
implementation of this measure. Motor vehicles
associated with construction and operation of
the Project would utilize low carbon
transportation fuels as required under this
measure.

Regional Transportation-
Related Greenhouse Gas
Targets.

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

Goods Movement Goods Movement Action Plan
January 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agriculture Agriculture Cap-and-Trade Offset Projects
for Livestock and Rice Cultivation
Not applicable. The Project site is proposed for
urban development. No grazing, feedlot, or
other agricultural activities that generate
manure occur currently exist on-site or are
proposed to be implemented by the Project.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-56 Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32. Table 3.8- 7 provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures.

Table 3.8-7
Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update 37
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 50% Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to
increase their renewable energy mix from
33% in 2020 to 50% in 2030.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2016 CALGreen Code requires electrical
service in new single-family housing to be EV
charger-ready. Furthermore, home and
business deliveries will be made by
increasing numbers of ZEV delivery trucks.

37 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 137.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-57 Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Sustainable Freight Action Plan The plan’s
target is to improve freight system efficiency
25 percent by increasing the value of
goods and services produced from the
freight sector, relative to the amount of
carbon that it produces by 2030. This would
be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of
zero emission operation and maximize near-
zero emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable energy
by 2030.

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

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

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

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

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

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

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

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

Consistent. The post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program indirectly affects people who use
the products and services produced by the
regulated industrial sources when increased
cost of products or services (such as
electricity and fuel) are transferred to the
consumers. The Cap-and-Trade Program
covers the GHG emissions associated with
electricity consumed in California, whether
generated in-state or imported. The Cap-
and-Trade Program also covers fuel
suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel
providers and transportation fuel providers)
to address emissions from such fuels and
from combustion of other fossil fuels not
directly covered at large sources in the
program’s first compliance period.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-58 Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The
ARB is working in coordination with several
other agencies at the federal, state, and
local levels, stakeholders, and with the
public, to develop measures as outlined in
the Scoping Plan Update and the
governor’s Executive Order B-30-15 to
reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net
carbon sequestration potential for
California’s natural and working land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons described above, the Project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets. The trajectory required to achieve the post-2020 targets is shown in Figure 3.8-5.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-60 Figure 3.8-5
California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target 38

In his January 2015 inaugural address, Governor Brown expressed a commitmen t to achieve “three ambitious goals” that he would like to see accomplished by 2030 to reduce the State’s GHG emissions:
• Increasing the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard from 33 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030;
• Cutting the petroleum use in cars and trucks in half; and • Doubling the efficiency of existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner.

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

Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Even though these studies did not provide an exact

38 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 135.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-61 regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could allow the State to meet the 2050 target.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

None Required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The State of California, through AB 32, has acknowledged that GHG emissions are a statewide impact. Emissions generated by the proposed Project combined with past, present, and reasonably probable future projects could contribute to this impact. The CEQA Guide lines emphasize that effects of GHG emissions are cumulative in nature and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s existing cumulative impacts analysis.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-63 The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research acknowledges that although climate change is cumulative in nature, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment.

As discussed above, the proposed Project would not generate significant GHG emissions and would be consistent with GHG reduction plans. Therefore, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-1

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

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

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

Environmental Setting
Project Site
The Project site is located in northern Visalia, to the northeast of the West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Road intersection. The immediate area is primarily agriculture with residential to the south, and the Ridgeview Middle School to the southeast. Industrial land uses are proposed to the west of the site. The site is generally flat and averages approximately 309 feet above mean sea level. Based on archival research, it appears the Project site has been developed in various forms of agriculture since at least 1946. 1
Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause or

1 Carleton Acres Phase I ESA (June 2021), page 17.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-2 significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increas e in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of.

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

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

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

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

GeoTracker is the SWRCB’s data management system for managing sites that impact groundwater, especially those that require groundwater cleanup (Underground Storage Tanks,

2 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=visalia+ca. Accessed June 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-3 Department of Defense, Site Cleanup Program) as well as permitted facilities such as operating USTs and land disposal sites. The Subject Property was not identified within the GeoTracker Database. The Database did not identify any PUST facilities, or open LUST / SLIC cases in the search radius of this report (GeoTracker, 2021) . There are three locations within seven miles of the proposed Project site that are listed in the GeoTracker database for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST).3 All three locations have undergone LUST cleanup and the State has closed each case.

Wildfire Hazards
In California, responsibility for wildfire prevention and supp ression 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 fi re hazards based on zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones. CAL FIRE maps three SRA zones : 1) Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones; 2) High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; and 3) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Only the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are mapped for the LRA. Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. Under state regulations, areas within very high fire hazard risk zones must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life within these areas. According to LRA mapping, no land within or adjacent to the City of Visalia or the Project site is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.4

3 California Water Resource Control Board. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed June 2022. 4 California State Geoportal. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414. Accessed June 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-4 Airports
The nearest public airport is the Visalia Municipal Airport, approximately 2.75 miles southwest of the Project site.

Schools
Ridgeview Middle School is part of the Visalia Unified School District and has an enrollment of 735 students.5 It is located west of Akers Street and adjacent to the Project site . In addition, the City is currently planning a new high school that will be constructed adjacent to and west of Ridgeview Middle School and would be surrounded by the proposed Project to the north, west and south. There are no other schools located within 1/4 mile of the Project site, however, Denton Elementary School is located approximately 1/3 mile south of the Project boundary.

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

The objective of the HMTA according to the policy stated by Congress is "... to improve the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation to protect the Nation adequately against risks to life and property which are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce." The HM TA empower s the Secretary of Transportation to designate as hazardous material any "particular quantity or form" of a material that "may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property." Regulations apply to "… any person who transports, or caus es to be transported or shipped, a hazardous material; or who manufactures, fabricates, marks, maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests a package or container which is represented, marked, certified, or sold by such person for use in the transportation in commerce of certain hazardous materials."6

5 California Department of Education. School Profile: Ridgeview Middle. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=54722560133819. Accessed June 2022. 6 United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Transporting Hazardous Materials. https://www.osha.gov/trucking-industry/transporting-hazardous-materials. Accessed June 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-5 Superfund
The C omprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as “Superfund”, was enacted on December 11, 1980. The purpose of CERCLA was to provide authoriti es with the ability to respond to uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances from inactive hazardous waste sites that endanger public health and the environment. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at such sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. Additionally, CERCLA provided for the revision and republishing of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) that provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also provides for the National Priorities L ist, a list of national priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State fire regulations are set forth in §13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which is divided into “Fires and Fire Protection” and “Buildings Used by the Public.” The regulations provide for the enforcement of the UBC and mandate the abatement of fire hazards. The code establishes broadly applicable regulations, such as standards for buildings and fire protection devices, in addition to regulations for specific land uses, such as childcare facilities and high‐rise structures.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-9 California Vehicle Code §31600 (Transportation of Explosives) Establishes requirements related to the transportation of explosives in quantities greater than 1,000 pounds, including licensing and route identification.

Cal/EPA Cortese List
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The list, or a site's presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Cortese List identifies the following:
• Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites
• Cease and desist order Sites
• Waste Constituents above Hazardous Waste Levels outside the Waste Management Unit Sites
• Leaking Underground Tank (LUST) Cleanup Sites
• Other Cleanup Sites
• Land Disposal Sites
• Military Sites
• WDR Sites
• Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities Sites • Monitoring Wells Sites
• DTSC Cleanup Sites

Local Regulations

City of Visalia General Plan
The purpose of the Safety and Noise Element of City of Visalia’s General Plan is to identify the natural and man-made public health and safety hazards that exist within the City, and to establish preventative and responsive policies and programs to mitigate their potential impacts. This Element addresses geologic hazards, flood hazards, hazardous materials, wildfire hazards, and safety services. The following list of goals and policies from the Safety and Noise Element are applicable to the proposed project.

S-P-15 Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Visalia Fire Department provides some oversight of hazardous materials. The Fire Department is responsible for conducting inspections for code compliance and fire-safe practices and for investigation of fire and hazardous materials incidents. The Fire Department regulates explosive and hazardous materials under the Uniform Fire Code, and permits the handling, storage and use of any explosive or other hazardous material.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-12 Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural or man-made hazards. Visalia participates in the preparation of the Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP) which covers Tulare County and eleven participating cities. The MJLHMP was prepared to assess the natural, technological, and human-caused risks to County communities, to reduce the potential impact of the hazards by creatin g mitigation strategies. The 2017 MJLHMP represents the County’s commitment to create a safer, more resilient community by taking actions to reduce risk and by committing resources to lessen the effects of hazards on the people and property of the County.

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

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

The development, approval, and implementation of the MJLHMP can dramatically reduce future risk and loss by evaluating risk and identifying mitigation actions. The MJLHMP will also assist the County in qualifying for several types of funding offered by FEMA including Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM) funds (funding for projects that are implemented before a disaster occurs), and HMGP (post-disaster funds funding for hazard reduction projects). In addition, the MJLHMP improves the County’s access to other types of Federal disaster assistance, including funds for permanent repairs. This increased e ligibility for grant programs affords the County an opportunity to prepare for the future and work with neighbors to protect the local community.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-13 As the costs of damage from natural disasters continue to increase, governmental and local agencies, as well as the general public, have come to realize the importance of identifying effective ways to reduce vulnerability and losses. The MJLHMP assists entities and jurisdictions in reducing impacts from hazards by recognizing vulnerability in relation to ris k, identifying resources, creating an orderly data collection process and developing strategies for risk reduction, while helping to guide and coordinate mitigation activities. The resources and information within the MJLHMP:
• Establish a basis for coordination and collaboration among agencies and the public • Assist in the integration of mitigation goals and objectives with other County and community plans
• Identify existing mitigation projects and prioritize future projects • Assist in meeting the requirements of Federal mitigation programs • Lay the foundation for future MJLHMP updates and MJLHMP maintenance In addition, the MJLHMP is designed to ensure the long -term values of the community are not compromised in the course of preparing for, responding to or recovering from, natural and manmade hazards.

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

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air District (SJVAPCD) is a public health agency whose mission is to improve the health and quality of life for all Valley residents through efficient, effective and entrepreneurial air quality-management strategies. SJVAPCD’s ten core values include:

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

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

Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)

The California Environmental Protection Agency designates specific local agencies as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA), typically at the county level . The Tulare County Environmental Health Department (EHD) is the agency that has been designated the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County. Each designated CUPA is responsible for the implementation of six statewide programs within its jurisdiction. These programs include:
• Underground storage of hazardous substances (USTs)
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMP) requirements
• Hazardous Waste Generator requirements
• California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal‐ARP) program • Uniform Fire Code hazardous materials management plan • Above Ground Storage Tanks (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan only) Implementation of these programs involves:
• Permitting and inspection of regulated facilities
• Providing educational guidance and notice of changing requirements stipulated in State or Federal laws and regulations
• Investigations of complaints regarding spills or unauthorized releases

7 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. About the District. https://www.valleyair.org/General_info/aboutdist.htm#Mission. Accessed June 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-15 • Administrative enforcement actions levied against facilities that have violated applicable laws and regulations

Thresholds of Significance

The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item:
o Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
o Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
o Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. o Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
o For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
o Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
o Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 3.9-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. This impact is associated with hazards caused by the ro utine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-16 Construction
The proposed Project consists of construction and oper ation of a mixed -use development that will feature single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, educational and park / trail facilities on approximately 507 acres. Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. These materials may include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance would ensure that human health and the environment are not exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (refer to Section 3.7 Geology and Soils), which ensures the Project adhere to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program through the submission and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction activitie s to prevent contaminated runoff from leaving the Project site. Therefore, after mitigation, no significant impacts would occur during construction activities.

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

Implement Mitigation Measure GEO – 1.

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

Recognized Environmental Conditions
A recognized environmental condition (REC) refers to the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: due to release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-18 The Phase I report revealed evidence of RECs on or associated with the proposed Project site. The long-term use of the Project site for agricultural purposes indicates the potential for agricultural chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, etc.) to have been applied. Higher concentrations are generally associated with storage and mixing operations and l ocalized to long-term farm staging areas.

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

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
A controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) refers to a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. No CRECs were identified on the Project site.9
Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
A historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) refers to a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, witho ut subjecting the property to any required controls. No HRECs were identified on the Project site.10 Business Environmental Risks (BER)
A Business Environmental Risk (BER) refers to a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of

8 Phase I ESA (June 2021), Sierra Delta Consultants LLC, page 32 9 Ibid, page ii.
10 Ibid, page iii.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-19 a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues identified by the Phase I ESA. No BERs were identified on the Project site.

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

Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent shall conduct a subsurface investigation of the Project site to evaluate the potential for elevated residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals on the site. If remedial action is required, the Project will be responsible for cleanup and any remedial actions. For portions of the project site w here 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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-20 For sites with potential residual contamination that are planned for development with an occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passiv e venting, and/or active venting
Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Visalia department of Community Development Department.

HAZ – 2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent or contractor shall provide a site plan that clearly delineates the locations of all known oil wells . A copy of the map shall be submitted to the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) for review and evaluation. The Project proponent will work with CalGEM to implement any remedial actions that may result from CalGEM’s review of the 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.

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 reme dial plugging operations may be required. C opies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Community Development Department

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

As noted in Chapter 3. 3 Air Quality, Project construction would involve the use of diesel -fueled vehicles and equipment that emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from Project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.9-4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not lo cated on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Geotracker11 and DTSC EnviroStor 12 databases). In addition, the Phase I did not identify any Geotracker or DTSC occurrences within the Project site. However, the EnviroStor Database identif ied Ridgeview

11 California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=visalia%2C+ca. Accessed June 2022. 12 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Visalia+california. Accessed June 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-22 Middle School, adjacent site to the southeast, as a Certified Closed School Cleanup Site. The site was certified closed on 04/04/2018 with no further actions required for the school cleanup.

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

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

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

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

Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

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

The overall layout of the proposed Project is block form, with shortened roadway lengths and cul-de-sacs in order provide limited thru-traffic and to create a walkable urban environment. The site has been designed w ith 13 points of ingress and egress. Additional access points will be provided for the commercial uses that are proposed to occur at the southwest corner of the site and for the high-density residential development at the northwest corner of the site. The City of Visalia has reviewed the Project layout and street configuration and has determined that t he Project would not inhibit the ability of local roadways to continue to accommodate emergency response and evacuation activities and as such, the Project wo uld not interfere with the City’s adopted emergency response plan. Any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.9-7: Expose people or structures either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wildfire hazard data for the City of Visalia is provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The majority of the City is considered to have either little or no threat , with very small portions having a moderate threat of wildfire. 13 According to the City of Visalia 2030 General Plan Hazards and Safety Services Figure 8 -414, neither the proposed Project nor its vicinity have a high wildfire threat. In addition, and as described in the Environmental Setting section, only a very small p ortion of land within Tulare County is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the Local Responsibilities Area mapping program.15
There are no other factors of the proposed Project or the surrounding area that would exacerbate wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. For these reasons, the impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

13 Ibid. Page 8-12.
14 Ibid. Page 8-13.
15 California State Geoportal. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414. Accessed June 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.9-24 Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials is generally site-specific rather than cumulative in nature because each project site has different hazardous considerations that would be subject to review. Project construction may involve the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, which may involve the use of equipment that contains hazardous materials (e.g., solvents a nd fuels, diesel‐fueled equipment), or the transportation of excavated soil and/or groundwater containing contaminants from areas that are identified as being contaminated.

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

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

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

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-1

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

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

The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia, with the zoning as R-M-3 (Multi-Family Residential). APN 077- 100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, with the zoning as AE -40 (Exclusive Agriculture-40 acres minimum) . However, both parcels are within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia. The Project site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses.

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

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

The canals are not listed on the National Wetlands Inventory.

The majority of the Project is designated Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone “X” (ou tside the 500- year flood zone) while small portions of the site along the northern and northwestern boundary are in Flood Zone “AE”. The AE Zone includes areas subject to risk from a 100-year flood. Urban development is allowed under both flood zones.

1 Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-2 Water Agencies and Providers
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) Visalia provides water supplies for the City.

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

The Visalia District is an urban retail water supplier, as defined by CWC §10608.12. Visalia District does not provide water at wholesale. The sole source of wat er supply for the customers of the Visalia District is groundwater. The Visalia District of Cal Water pumps from the Kaweah basin, which has been designated by DWR as critically over drafted (COD).2 Local Groundwater Basin
The Kaweah Basin provides the ma in 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 conj unctive use of surface water. KDWCD regularly provides programs that benefit local agricultural customers by making available additional surface water supplies for irrigation. These programs effectively reduce the withdrawals of groundwater resulting in in-lieu recharge of the aquifer. Groundwater is normally used by agriculture as an alternate source when surface supplies are not available and is the sole source in areas within KDWCD jurisdiction that do not have access to surface water.

2 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 2.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-3 KDWCD also operate s about 40 dedicated water management basins with a total area of approximately 2,100 acres for the multiple purposes of flood control and groundwater replenishment. The basins have the capacity to recharge approximately 983 acre -feet per day under optimal conditions. Visalia District operates the Public Water Systems (PWS) listed in Table

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

Table 3.10-1: Public Water Systems
Public Water
System Number
Public Water
System Name
Number of Municipal
Connections 2020
Volume of Water
Supplied 2020 (AF)
5410016 Visalia 45,325 30,034
5400935 Mullen 42 21
5410041 Tulco 183 97
Total 45,550 30,152

Regulatory Setting
Federal Agencies and Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA) and Associated Programs
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33 CFR 1251). The regulations implementing the CWA protect waters of the U.S. including streams and wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quali ty by regulating point source and some non -point source discharges. Under Section 402 of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process was established to regulate these discharges.

3 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 3.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-4 Construction activities that are subj ect to this general permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation that result in soil disturbances to at least one acre of the total land area. Construction activities that disturb less than one acre are still subject to this general permit if the activities are part of a large common plan of development or if significant water quality impairment would result. In California, the Construction General Permit, revised in September 2009, is implemented by the SWRCB.

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

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

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) makes available federally subsidized flood insurance to owners of flood -prone properties. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-5 State of California Regulations
Department of Water Resources (DWR)
DWR’s major responsibilities include preparing and updating the California Water Plan to guide development and management of the State’s water resources; planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Water Resources Development System; regulating dams; providing flood protection; assisting in emergency management to safeguard life and propert y; educating the public; and serving local water needs by providing technical assistance. In addition, DWR cooperates with local agencies on water resources investigations; supports watershed and river restoration programs; encourages water conservation; explores conjunctive use of ground and surface water facilities voluntary water transfers; and, when needed, operates a State drought water bank.

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

California Water Code
The Federal CWA establishes certain guidelines for the states to follow in developing programs for the control of surface water pollution and for planning the development and use of water resources. Under certain circumstances, the CWA allows the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdr aw 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 Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-6 the SWRCB and each of the RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Federal CWA. The Porter -Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter -Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.

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

The regional plans must conform with the policies set forth in the Porter -Cologne Act and established by the State water policy adopted by the SWRCB . The Porter -Cologne Act also provides that a RWQC B 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 a nd 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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-7 Water Code section 10910 (SB 610)
Water Code section 10910 (SB 610) requires that a lead agency obtain a water supply assessment from an applicable public water system for certain projects subject to the Cal ifornia Environmental Quality Act, which are defined as (a) a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; (b) a shopping center or business employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; (c) a commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet; (d) a hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms; (e) an industrial or manufacturing establishment housing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 650,000 square feet or 40 acres; (f) a mixed use project containing any of the foregoing; or (g) any other project that would have a water demand at least equal to a 500 dwelling unit project. Refer to Impact Section 3.10 -2 herein for the discussion pertaining to the Water Supply Assessment that was prepared for the Project.

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

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

Local Regulations

City of Visalia General Plan

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

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

PSCU-P-44 Continue to improve and expand the City’s Water Conservation Program, consistent with the Urban Water Management Plan as appropriate, including an active public outreach component and an online presence. The program should provide information and links to additional resources on water-efficient plumbing fixtures and planting and irrigation methods, and the development of safe and effective gray water systems. It should also maintain an up-to-date list of incentive programs.

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

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

PSCU-P-59 Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-10 Thresholds of Significance

The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
• In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones , risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3. 10-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The Project has the potential to impact water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements durin g construction (temporary impacts) and operation (polluted stormwater runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces and urban run- off).

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-11 Construction
Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.

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

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

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

The Project site is located within the Central Valley RWQCB and is subject to the applicable requirements of the Basin Pl an administered by the RWQCB in accordance with the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, and as described in Section 3. 6 - Geology and Soils, Mitigation Measure GEO – 2 ensures the Project will comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activitie s. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO - 2 would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

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

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

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

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

In addition, the Project will generate typical wastewater (sewer) associated with the proposed residential and commercial developments and will connect to the City’s sewer system. The Project site would be located within the service area of the City of Visalia Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Since the WWT P is considered a publicly owned treatment facility, operational discharge flows treated at the WWT P would be requ ired 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 Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-13 coming from the proposed Project site and treated by the WWTP system would not exceed applicable Central RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. See also Section 3.19 – Utilities and Service Systems for further discussion regarding the Project’s wastewater (sewer) impacts.

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

Mitigation Measures:

Implement MM GEO-2.

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as well as from the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) prepared by the Kaweah River Basin Regional Water Management Group. Project water demand is calculated on the following assumptions4:
• Residential: The Project is proposing 3,262 residential units (see Table 2 -2 for the breakdown of housing types).
• Per Capita Water Use: The average residential water uses in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) for 2020 in the City of Visalia was 128 GPCD per person, as stated in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The 2020 UWMP identified the average residential water

4 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 9.

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

Energy Information Administration was utilized. Square footage per worker is used.

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

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

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

It is anticipated that when the Project is complete in 2038, residential water use from the Project will be 446,486,250 gallons per year or approximately 1,370 AF per year. A breakdown of water uses for low density residential, medium -density residential, and high -density residential is broken down in Table 3.10-25.

Table 3.10-2
Project Residential Water Demands

Commercial: (Square footage / employees per square feet) = Estimate Employees Estimated Employees X GPE = Total gallons per day
It is anticipated that when the Project is complete in 2038, commercial water use from the Project will be 16,025,527 gallons per year or approximately 49.2 AF per year. A breakdown of water uses for commercial uses is shown in Table 3.10-36.

5 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 10. 6 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-16 Table 3.10-3
Project Commercial Water Demands

Parks: 17.3 acres X 5.0 acre/feet/year = ~87 acre/feet/year

Based on the calculations for the proposed residential, commercial and parks water demand, it is anticipated that the Project would require approximately 1,506 acre/feet/year of water per year (at full build out)7.

City-Wide Future Estimated Water Use
Table 3 .10-4 shows the projected supply volumes through 2045. Cal Water is assuming that current and planned basin recharge activities and land use conversions will result in s ufficient groundwater supplies to meet demand through 2045. Therefore, the groundwater supply amounts shown in Table 3.10-4 equal the projected demand for each year. As the SGMA process unfolds and as Cal Water and its partners gain a better understanding of the basin and what is required to sustain it, this assumption will be continually reassessed. Future decisions on basin recharge activities and the potential development of other supply sources will be based on the accumulated knowledge gained about the groundwater basin8.

7 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 10. 8 Ibid, page 13.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-17 Table 3.10-4
Projected Retail Water Supplies

Comparison of Project Demand to Water Supply Sources
Table 3.10-6 provides an analysis of projected water demands needed to serve the City of Visalia for the next 20 years, comparing projected baseline community growth against the reasonably expected population growth resulting from the Carleton Acres Project. The table is labeled with lettering corresponding to each column of information.

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

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

Column E represents the expected residential water demand forecasted by the Visalia District UWMP. The values in Column E are derived from the forecasted average per capita daily water consumption (Column A). Column F represents the expected commercial water demand forecasted by the Visalia District UWMP.

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

Table 3.10-5
Comparison of Planned Land Uses to Proposed Project

9 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 17.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-19 The purpose of the remainder of the table (Columns J thru S) is to demonstrate the expected reasonable impact on water demand from the Carleton Acres Project and to quantify any necessary new water supply needed from Carleton Acres to mitigate the reasonably foreseeable impacts. Columns J and K show the expected additional population resulting from the Carleton Acres Project by year, in dwelling units and population. Column L identifies the total accrued population of Carleton Acres for each year during construction.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

10 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 18.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-20 Table 3.10-6
Anticipated City Water Demands and Available Supply: Years 2021 - 204511

11 Carleton Acres Water Supply Assessment, 4Creeks Engineering (Oct. 2022), page 19.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-21 Impact 3.10-3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Construction and long-term operations of the proposed Project could result in potential impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff.

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

The proposed Project would install storm water drainage facilities (e.g. storm drainage mechanisms and storm water pipes) that would be in compliance with the City of Visalia Development Standards. The Project will discharge stormwater runoff through a proposed storm drain system that drains into a proposed drainage basin onsite.

A site survey was conducted to identify the appropriate location of the drainage basin based on site slopes and other factors. The basin is proposed to be integrated into the western edge of the Project site at the northeast corner of Shirk Road and Shannon Parkway. The proposed basin location is in the lowest elevation of the Project site and is in the natural drainage/low area of the development. This allows for natural stormwater runoff. The basin is approximately 17.3 gross acres, 11.4 net acres, with a capacity of 97.85 acre/feet. The 97.85 acre/feet of capacity is in excess of the 90.80 acre/feet of storage capacity that would be required by the Project. Half of the basin is proposed to be completed for Phase 1. In addition to serving the proposed development, the basin will be designed to accommodate storm drainage for the existing Ridgeview Middle School, the future High School, future elementary school, and the City Park at the intersection of Akers Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-22 Street and Riggin Avenue. A bioswale will be used to colle ct storm water from developments adjacent to the existing Modoc Ditch. The bioswale shall be connected to the proposed basin.

The location of the bioswale adjacent to the bike path trail will enhance the landscape space. See Figure 3.10 -1 for the concep tual location of the drainage basin and associated storm drain pipelines.

Since the basin’s 97.8 5 acre/feet of capacity is in excess of the 90.80 acre/feet of storage capacity that would be required by the Project, the Project will not result in exceedance of the City’s storm drain capacity.

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-23 Figure 3.10-1
Storm Drain Master Plan

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

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

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Figure 3.10-2
FEMA Floodplain Map

Impact 3. 10-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. See the response to Impacts 3.9-1 and 3.9-4 pertaining to water quality . The proposed Project would install storm water drainage facilities (e.g. storm

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.10-25 drainage mechanisms and storm water pipes) that would be in compliance with the City of Visalia Development Standards . In addition, water quality protection measures are included as mitigation and the Project would be in compliance with the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan. This will ensure Project water quality impacts are less than significant.

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

None are required.

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

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

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

With respect to water supplies, the City of Visalia (through Cal Water) is part of the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKGSA). The proposed Project, if approved, would become under the jurisd iction 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 20 42.

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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-1

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

Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located on approximately 507 -acres in the northe rn area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north.

The Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan t o develop approximately 507 -acres of land into a mixed-use development. The Project will feature a variety of uses including single -family residential, multi -family housing, commercial, educational, and parks/trails facilities. The proposed Project components are described below. Refer also to Table 2-1: Summary of Proposed Land Uses and Figure 2-5: Site Layout Plan.

The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077 -100-088 and APN 077 -100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077-100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses. Refer to Figures 2 -1 to 2-4. Existing land uses surrounding the Project site consist of dairy farm/agricultural uses to the north and west, agricultural uses to the ea st, and residential/Church/water storage tank to the south.

Residential
The proposal features several different types of housing for a total of up to 3,262 residential units at buildout which is broken down as follows:
• Low Density Residential: Up to 1,592 units
• Medium Density Residential: 758 units
• High Density Residential: 912 units
It should be noted that the number of proposed units for low density residential portion of the development is currently proposed to include a maximum of 1,592 units, which may be lower depending on final configuration of the lots. In addition, the 13.0 acres currently shown in Figure 2-5 for a new elementary school could potentially be converted to low density residential.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-2 Therefore, for purposes of providing the maximum number of potential residential units, a total of 65 units was added to the total for both phases (13.0 acres X 5.0 units per acre = 65 units), for a maximum development potential of 1,592 low density residential units.

Commercial
The proposed Project includes up to 35.1 acres of commercial development in two locations within the Project fo r a total of approximately 205,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial area. The commercial developments will occur in the proposed Mixed Use Commercial Zone and the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The maximum size for a single or anchor tenant shall be 170,000 square feet within the Mixed Use Commercial Zone as shown in Figure 2 -5. The first commercial area consists of up to 28.7 acres of Mixed -Use Commercial at the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Road. Anticipated uses at this location may include development such as a Costco, gas station, car wash, drug store, retail, restaurants (including drive -throughs), and similar uses. The second consists of up to 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood at the northeast corner of the development. Anticipat ed uses at this location may include development such as retail, services and restaurants. The commercial facilities are located to provide efficient accessibility to residents of the Project and the surrounding areas.

Other Project Components
Other proposed uses include approximately 13.0 acres for a potential site for a future elementary school, 17.3 gross acres for a drainage basin, and approximately 17.3 acres of parks/trails/recreational facilities. Various other infrastructure improvements (water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure, roadway improvements, and related improvements) will be required by the Project. Refer to further descriptions of these components in Chapter Two – Project Description.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertinent to local land use and planning.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-3 State of California Regulations
The Cortese‐Knox‐Herztberg Local Government Reorganization Act The Cortese‐Knox‐Herztberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56300 et seq.) governs the establishment and revision of local government boundaries.

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

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

Local Regulations
Local Agency Formation Commission of Tulare County
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) review proposals for the formation of new local governmental agencies and for changes in the organization of existing agencies. The Tulare County LAFCO is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies which review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure and preparing Spheres of Influence for each city and special district within the county. The Commission's efforts are directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-4 City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia’s General Plan is the City’s long-range planning document, to the year 2030.1 It consists of nine chapters: Introduction ; Land Use; Historic Preservation; Circulation; Parks, Schools, Community Facilities and Utilities; Open Space and Conservation; Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases; Safety and Noise; and Implementation. The Land Use Chapter presents the guiding principles of the land use framework, the General Plan Diagram, the land use classification system, and the buildout of this Plan to the year 2030.2 City of Visalia General Plan Policies
Note: The General Plan policies listed on the following page are only from the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. For the list of other applicable General Plan policies (e.g. Community Design, Circulation, Public Utilities, etc.), please refer to Table 3. 11-2 for a list of a ll applicable General Plan policies and associated Project consistency determination.

Relevant General Plan Land Use Element policies are as follows:

Economic Development Policies:

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

Urban Boundaries and Growth Management Policies:

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

LU-P-20 wherein the City will allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.

LU-P-21 wherein the City will allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land t o occur within the Urban Development Boundary

1 City of Visalia 2030 General Plan. https://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp. Accessed January 2023.
2 Ch. 2 Land Use, City of Visalia 2030 General Plan. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474.

Accessed January 2023.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-5 (Tier II) and the Urban Growth Boundary (Tier III) consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the following phasing thresholds:
• “Tier II”: Tier II supports a target buildout population of approxi mately 178,000. The expansion criteria for land in Tier II is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been issued in Tier I at the following levels, starting from April 1, 2010:

Residential: after permits for 5,850 housing units have been issued; and, Commercial: after permits for 480,000 square feet of commercial space on designated Commercial, Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use, Office, and Service Commercial land have been issued.

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

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

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

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

Residential: after permits for 12,800 housing units have been issued.

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

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

Rural Buffer and Edge Conditions:

LU-P-28 wherein the Ci ty will continue to use natural and man -made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.

Residential Neighborhoods:

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

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

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

LU-P-52 wherein the City will facilitate high -quality building and site design for multi -family developments by updating development standards in the zoning ordinance and providing clear rules for development review and approval and by creating and adopting design guidelines to be used in the development review and approval process.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-7 LU-P-53 wherein the City will integrate multi-family development with commercial, office, and public uses in neighborhood nodes, Downtown, and with Commercial Mixed -Use areas in East Downtown, along the Mooney corridor and elsewhere.

LU-P-55 wherein the City will updat e the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Low -Density Residential designation on the Land Use Diagram for development at 2 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre, facilitating new planned neighborhoods and infill development in established areas.

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

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

Commercial Land Use and Mixed-Use Development:

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

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

LU-P-72 wherein the City will ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.

Institutional & Civic:

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

City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance

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

Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on land use if the project would:
o Physically divide an established community?
o Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.11-1: Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant. The proposed Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and there are no residences or businesses on the site. Areas to the west and east are planned for urban development and there are scattered rural residences and agricultural facilities to the north. There are no established communities that would be divided by the Project. The site is located in a developing area planned as part of the City of Visalia. Currently, Ridgeview Middle School is located adjacent to and west of Akers St reet and would abut the proposed Project site.

In addition, the City is currently planning a new high school that will be constructed adjacent to and west of Ridgeview Middle School and would be surrounded by the proposed Project to the north, west and south. Land uses of adjacent parcels surrounding the Project site are as follows:

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-9 North – dairy farm/agriculture; South – residential, church, water storage tank; West – dairy farm/agriculture; and East – agriculture.

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

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

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

The site comprise s two parcels: APN 077 -100-088 and APN 077 -100-105. APN 077 -100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077-100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses. Refer to Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map, Figure 2-2: City Boundary Map, Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use Designations, and Figure 2-4: Aerial Site Vicinity Map.

The City of Visalia’s General Plan includes a three-tier system to account for future growth (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3). Thresholds were set on residential permits, commercial square footage, industrial squar e footage and regional commercial square footage. Tier 1 currently allows development to occur within the Tier 1 boundary . Tier 2 also currently allows development to occur within the Tier 2 boundary, being that the City of Visalia met the thresholds for expansion into Tier 2 as outlined in Policy LU-P-21 in July 2021 and the City Council of the City of Visalia endorsed the moving into Tier 2. Tier 3 can be developed after certain thresholds are met during/after buildout of Tier 1. Under the City of Visal ia’s General Plan Policy LU -P-22, an approved specific-planned site can be annexed before development is permitted in Tier 2 or Tier

3. Annexations are reviewed within the context of the regulations and polices in the Cortese - Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-10 Knox-Hertzberg Local Governme nts Reorganization Act of 2000 and the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Policy and Procedure Manual regarding development and inventory of existing vacant land designed for urban uses in the City limits. The City of Visalia’s General Plan Policy LU-P-22 allows the City Council to approve master -planned developments for sites under single ownership or unified control, which may include developable land within multiple Tiers. A Development Agreement will be prepared, which is a separate document that details the overall development, density, phasing, infrastructure needs and financing, as well as outlines the responsibilities of each party. The Development Agreement and the Master Plan have a consistent vision with Visalia’s General Plan and t he City’s interest in growth through phasing. The figure below identifies the City’s Tier boundaries relative to the Project site.

City of Visalia Tier Boundaries

Consistency with Zoning Ordinance
Once annexed into the City, the Project site will be zoned for a variety of development consisting of residential, commercial, public facilities, and parks/recreational designations. These zone districts are appropriate for uses such as those proposed by the Project. Therefore, upon annexation, the Project site will be consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-11 Consistency with the General Plan
The site comprises two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077- 100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historicall y been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses. Table 3.1 1-1 summarizes the proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. As demonstrated in the table, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable objectives and policies of the General Plan.

Table 3.11-1
General Plan Consistency Analysis
Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
Aesthetics OSC-P-13 In new neighborhoods that include waterways, improvement of the waterway corridor, including
preservation and/or enhancement of natural features and development of a continuous waterway trail on at least
one side, shall be required.

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

Aesthetics OSC-P-17 Require that new development along waterways maintain a visual orientation and active interface with waterways.

Develop design guidelines to be used for review and
approval of subdivision and development proposals to
illustrate how this can be accomplished for different land uses in various geographic settings.

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

Aesthetics OSC-P-34 Enhance views and public access to Planning Area waterways and other significant features such as Valley Oak groves consistent with flood protection, irrigation water conveyance, habitat preservation and recreation
planning policies.

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

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

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

Aesthetics LU-P-28* Continue to use natural and man -made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’s Urban
Area Boundary, as urban development limit and growth
phasing lines.

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

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

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

Not applicable. The site is
not considered a gateway
to the City and there are
no adjacent communities
to the project site.

Aesthetics LU-P-34* Work with Tulare County to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth
boundaries and to promote the of use agricultural
preserves, where they will promote orderly development.

Yes: The site is located
within the development
tiers established by the
City.

Aesthetics LU-P-39* Improve tree planting, landscaping and site design standards to minimize the visual impact of large parking lots and buildings, to enhance and promote natural
characteristics compatible with urban form, to minimize heat gain and promote energy conservation, and to
improve stormwater infiltration.

Yes: The project includes
landscaping at the
proposed commercial
sites. The City of Visalia
will review all p ublic
landscaping associated
with the project prior to
installation.

Aesthetics LU-P-59 Ensure that natural and open space features, such as Valley Oak trees and community waterways, are treated
as special site amenities as part of any residential
development.

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

There are no existing oak
tress on the site.

Aesthetics LU-P-72* Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses Yes: As identified within
this EIR, the project
contains design features
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-13 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.
to reduce potential
conflicts and numerous
mitigation measures are
imposed on the project
that will ensure impacts
are less than significant.

Agriculture LU-O-12 Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses.

Yes: The project is within
the development tiers
established by the City.

Agriculture LU-O-13 Minimize urban sprawl and leap -frog development by encouraging compact, concentric and contiguous growth.

Yes: The project is within
the development tiers
established by the City.

The project would result
in contiguous growth (to
existing developments) in
this area of the City and
would serve as an orderly
and efficient transition
from rural to urban land
uses. Agr icultural uses
will remain to the north of
the project site (north of
Avenue 320), but there is
planned development to
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-14 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
the west
(industrial/commercial)
and east (residential).

Agriculture LU-P-19* Ensure that growth occurs in a compact and concentric fashion by implementing the General Plan’s phased
growth strategy.

Yes: The project is within
the development tiers
established by the City.

Agriculture LU-P-20* Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary (UDB) at any time,
consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.

Yes: The project will
include deve lopment in
Tier I , which is already
inside City limits.

Agriculture LU-P-21* Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, regional retail, and industrial land to occur within the Urban Development Boundary (Tier II) and the Urban Growth Boundary (Tier III) consistent with the
City’s Land Use Diagram, according to the following
phasing thresholds:
• “Tier II”: Tier II supports a target buildout population of approximately 178,000. The expansion criteria for
land in Tier II is that land would only become available for development when building permits have been
issued in Tier I at the following levels, starting from April 1, 2010:
o Residential: after permits for 5,850 housing
units have been issued; and,
o Commercial: after permits for 480,000 square
feet of commercial space on designated
Yes: Under the City of
Visalia’s General Plan
Policy LU -P-22, an
approved specific -
planned site can be
annexed before
development is permitted
in Tier 2 or Tier 3.

Annexations are
reviewed within the
context of the regulations
and polices in the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Governments
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-15 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
Commercial, Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use,
Office, and Service Commercial land have been
issued.

Reorganization Act of
2000 and the Tulare
County Local Agency
Formation C ommission
Policy and Procedure
Manual regarding
development and
inventory of existing
vacant land designed for
urban uses in the City
limits. The City of Visalia’s
General Plan Policy LU -P-
22 allows the City Council
to approve master -
planned developments
for sites under single
ownership or unified
control, which may
include developable land
within multiple Tiers. A
Development Agreement
will be prepared, which is
a separate document that
details the overall
development, density,
phasing, infrastructure
needs and financing, as
well as outlines the
responsibilities of each
party. The Development
Agreement and the
Master Plan have a
consistent vision with
Visalia’s General Plan and
the City’s interest in
growth through phasing.

Agriculture LU-P-34* Work with Tulare County and other state and regional agencies, neighboring cities, and private land trust
entities to prevent urban development of agricultural
land outside of the current growth boundaries and to
promote the use of agricultural preserves, where they will Yes: In order to meet the
requirements of this
policy, the City is
preparing an Agricultural
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-16 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
promote orderly development and preservation of
farming operations within Tulare County. Conduct
additional investigation of the efficacy of agricultural conservation easements by engaging local, regional, and state agencies and stakeholder s in order to further
analyze their ongoing efforts and programs that attempt to mitigate impacts from the conversion of agricultural lands through the use of agricultural conservation
easements. Support regional efforts to prevent urban
development of agr icultural lands, specifically at the county level. Tulare County’s General Plan 2030 Update
Policy contains two policies (AG -1.6 Conservation
Easements and AG -1.18 Farmland Trust and Funding
Sources) that discuss establishing and implementing an
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).

The City supports the implementation of these measures
by the County, in which the City may then participate.

Such a regional program could include a fee to assist and support agricultural uses, and would be most feasibly and strategically developed on a countywide or other regional basis.

In addition to supporting regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, the City shall create and adopt a mitigation program to address conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in
Tiers II and III. This mitigation program shall require a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved to agricultural land converted and require agricultural land preserved to be equivalent to agricultural land converted. The mitigation program shall also require that the agricultural land
preserved demonstrate adequate water supply and
agricultural zoning, and shall be located outside the City UDB, and within the southern San Joaquin Valley. The
mitigation progr am shall, to the extent feasible and
practicable, be integrated with the agricultural easement programs adopted by the County and nearby cities. The
City’s mitigation program shall allow mitigation to be
provided by purchase of conservation easement or
payment of fee, but shall indicate a preference for
purchase of easements. The mitigation program shall
require easements to be held by a qualifying entity, such as a local land trust, and require the submission of annual monitoring reports to the City. The m itigation program shall specifically allow exemptions for conversion of
agricultural lands in Tier I, or conversion of agricultural lands for agricultural processing uses, agricultural buffers, public facilities, and roadways.

Preservation Ordinance
applicable to properties
within Tier 2 and Tier 3
that requires a 1:1 ratio
(or fee equivalent) of
agricultural land
preserved to agricultural
land converted towards
urban development. The
Ordinance is anticipated
to be adopted in mid -
2023 and the Project will
comply with the
Ordinance. The
Ordinance will require
that an equivalent
amount of agricultural
land converted be
preserved outside the
urban development
boundary a nd within the
southern San Joaquin
Valley, or that a project
comply with regulations
within the Ordinance that
will cause an equivalent
amount of agriculture
land to be preserved.

Additionally, the
preserved agricultural
land must demonstrate
adequate wate r supply
and agricultural zoning.

Policy LU-P-34 notes that
such a program shall, to
the extent feasible and
practicable, be integrated
with the agricultural
easement programs
adopted by Tulare County
and nearby cities. The City
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-17 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
of Visalia’s program shall
allow for compliance with
the preservation
ordinance to be
completed by purchase of
easements, and that such
easements be held by a
qualifying entity, such as
a local land trust, and
require the submission of
annual monitoring
reports to the City. Prior
to the adoption of the
Ordinance the Project
proponent could mitigate
for the loss of agricultural
land and begin
conversion of agricultural
lands by providing
verification to the City
that it has preserved
agricultural land at a 1:1
ratio using easements
that meet the
requirements identified
in Policy LU -P-34 or
participation in an
agricultural preservation
program adopted by
another agency within
the southern San Joaquin
Valley that meet the
these requirements for
preserving agricultural
land.

As this is a requirement
for consistency with the
General Plan, the
Project’s compliance is
mandatory. Therefore,
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-18 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
compliance with General
Plan Policy LU -P-34 will
allow the Project to
convert Prime Farmland
and Farmland of
Statewide Importance
and preserve offsite
farmland outside of the
urban development
boundaries at an
equivalent ratio. The
project includes MM AG –
1 which requires
mitigating at a 1:1 ratio as
described in LU-P-34.

Agriculture LU-P-35 Adopt the County’s Right -to-Farm ordinance to support continued agricultural operations at appropriate
locations within the City limits, with no new provisions.

Yes: The project includes
MM AG – 2 which
includes a Right -to-Farm
covenant.

Air Quality AQ-P-2 Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule.

Yes: The project is
required to com ply with
SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII
– Fugitive PM10
Prohibitions and other
regulations pertaining to
particulate emissions
Air Quality AQ-P-3 Support implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regulations on the use of
wood-burning fireplaces, as well as their regulations for the installation of EPA -certified wood heaters or
approved wood -burning appliances in new residential
development and a “No Burn” policy on days when the air quality is poor.

Yes: The project is in
compliance with
regulations pertaining to
wood-burning fireplaces.

Air Quality AQ-P-4 Support the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s “change -out” program, which provides
incentives to help homeowners replace old word-burning
fireplaces with EPA -certified non woodburning
appliances.

Not applicable : This is a
new development , thus
the “change -out”
program does not apply.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-19 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
Air Quality AQ-P-9 Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality
impacts through environmental review. Require
developers to implement Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.

Yes: The project included
a full analysis of air quality
impacts, greenhouse gas
impacts, and energy use
impacts. Mitigation
measures will be imposed
and other SJVAPCD
regulations and BMPs will
be followed.

Air Quality AQ-P-11 Continue to work in conjunction with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and others to put in place additional Transportation Control Measures that
will reduce vehicle travel and improve air quality and to implement Air Quality Plans.

Yes: The project is below
the City’s vehicle miles
traveled threshold.

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

Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies.

Yes: The project included
a biological resources
survey and technical
report. There are no
significant biological
impacts associated with
the project.

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

Yes: The project included
a biological resources
survey and technical
report. There are no
significant biological
impacts associated with
the project. Mitigation
measures will be
included for
preconstruction surveys
and avoidance.

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

Yes: The project storm
drain system will be
reviewed by the City of
Visalia.

Cultural
Resources
H-P-10 Regularly review the Local Register of Historic Structures to ensure that properties are appropriately listed.

Yes: A cultural resources
survey and technical
report was prepared for
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-20 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
this project. There are no
known cultural or
historical resources
associated with the site.

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

Yes: A cultural resources
survey and technical
report was prepared for
this project. There are no
known cultural or
historical resources
associated with the site.

Mitigation Measures CUL
– 1 (protection of
undiscovered historical or
archaeological resources)
and CUL – 2 (protection of
buried human rema ins)
will be imposed on the
Project.

Energy LU-P-63 In higher -intensity and mixed -use areas, require pedestrian-oriented amenities such as small plazas,
Yes: The project includes
landscaped trails/paths
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-21 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
outdoor seating, public art, and active street frontages, with ground floor retail, where appropriate and justified. for access between
residential, commercial
and park areas. Small
public parks are also
included within the
development.

Greenhouse
Gases
T-P-41 Integrate the bicycle transportation system into new development and infill redevelopment. Development
shall provide short term bicycle parking and long term
bicycle storage facilities, such as bicycle racks, stocks, and rental bicycle lockers. Development also shall provide
safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping,
employment, and entertainment centers.

Yes: The project includes
bicycle paths and bicycle
parking. These paths
connect various areas of
the mixed -use
development.

Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
S-P-15 Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.

Yes: A Phase I
environmental
assessment was
conducted for the site.

The site has no significant
impact to or from
hazardous materials.

Hydrology and
Water Quality
PSCU-P-59 Require new developments to incorporate floodwater detention basins into project designs where consistent
with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater
Recharge Plan.

Yes: The project includes
a stormwater basin that
has been designed to
accommodate the
project. Final design will
be reviewed by the City.

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

Yes: Under the City of
Visalia’s General Plan
Policy LU -P-22, an
approved specific -
planned site can be
annexed before
development is permitted
in Tier 2 or Tier 3.

Annexations are
reviewed within the
context of the regulations
and polices in the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-22 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
Local Governments
Reorganization Act of
2000 and the Tulare
County Local Agency
Formation Commission
Policy and Procedure
Manual regarding
development and
inventory of existing
vacant land designed for
urban uses in the City
limits. The City of Visalia’s
General Plan Policy LU -P-
22 allows the City Council
to approve master -
planned developments
for sites under single
ownership or unified
control, which may
include d evelopable land
within multiple Tiers. A
Development Agreement
will be prepared, which is
a separate document that
details the overall
development, density,
phasing, infrastructure
needs and financing, as
well as outlines the
responsibilities of each
party. The Development
Agreement and the
Master Plan have a
consistent vision with
Visalia’s General Plan and
the City’s interest in
growth through phasing.

Land Use and
Planning
LU-P-47* Ensure that new neighborhoods meet land use mix standards established in Table 2 -7 of the General Plan.

The ranges indicated—the minimum and maximum levels
of development for each type of land use —are intended
Yes: The project has been
designed with a wide
range of uses with
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-23 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
to allow for flexibility in master planning in response to market conditions, infrastructure costs, and site planni ng policies.
development intensities
that have been reviewed
by the City.

Land Use and
Planning
LU-P-108 Designate land for Public/Institutional uses on the Land Use Diagram, including City Hall and other City buildings, County and other government buildings, schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, police and fire stations, the Municipal Airport, and waste management facilities.

Yes: The project includes

13.0 acres of land
designated for a new
elementary school that
could potentially be
developed.

Noise N-P-2 Promote the use of noise attenuation measures to improve the acoustic environment inside residences
where existing residential development is located in a
noise-impacted environment such as along an arterial
street or adjacent to a noise-producing use.

Yes: An Acoustical
Analysis was conducted
for the project which
included mitigation
measures to address
noise impacts to
residential and other
noise-sensitive land uses.

Based on the analysis and
mitigation measures, the
project will not exceed
the City’s noise
thresholds.

Noise N-P-3 Establish performance standards for noise reduction for new housing that may be exposed to community noise
levels above 65 dB DNL/CNEL, as shown on the Noise
Contour Maps, based on the target acceptable noise
levels for outdoor activity levels and interior spaces in Tables 8-2 and 8 -3. Noise mitigation measures that may be considered to achieve these noise level targets include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct façades with substantial weight and
insulation;
• Use sound -rated windows for primary sleeping
and activity areas;
• Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at
primary sleeping and activity areas;
• Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
• Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attics
and gable ends;
• Install a mechanical ventilation system that
provides fresh air under closed window
conditions.

Yes: An Acoustical
Analysis was conducted
for the project which
included mitigation
measures to address
noise impacts to
residential and other
noise-sensitive land uses.

Based on the analysis and
mitigation measures, the
project will not exceed
the City’s noise
thresholds.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-24 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level standards may be approved, provided that a
qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information
demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity
areas and interior spaces.

Noise N-P-4 Where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including roadways,
railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 8 -2 and 8 -3, require a noise study to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these
impacts in conformance with Tables 8 -2 and 8 -3 as a
condition of permit approval through appropriate means.

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

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved, provided a
qualified Acou stical Consultant submits information
demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity
areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along state highways and arterials when compatible with aesthetic concerns and
neighborhood character. This would be a developer
responsibility, with no City funding.

Yes: An Acoustical
Analysis was conducted
for the project which
included mitigation
measures to address
noise impacts to
residential and other
noise-sensitive land uses.

Based on the analysis and
mitigation measures, the
project will not exceed
the City’s noise
thresholds.

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

Yes: The project will
comply with all applicable
regulations and
requirements pertaining
to noise.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-25 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
Public Services PSCU-P-2* Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.

Yes: The required parks /
recreational acreage
would be met through a
combination of
construction of 17.3 acres
of parks / recreational
facilities (including trails)
and payment of park
impact fees to the City of
Visalia. The impact fees
would support future
recreational facilities
throughout the City.

Public Services PSCU-P-3* Reserve land and develop parks and public open spaces and recreation facilities consistent with designated Parks and Open Space land on the Land Use Diagram.

Yes: The project includes

17.3 acres of public
parks/trails throughout
the project site.

Public Services PSCU-P-7* Promote development of small pocket park s or play lots dispersed throughout new neighborhoods and in existing
neighborhoods, where needed, on a voluntary basis in
coordination with new infill development, consistent with the following planning guidelines:
• Size: 0.5 to 2 acres; and
• Facilities: the specific features of pocket parks should address the anticipated needs of nearby residents
and/or workers. In a residential environment, the
needs of small children and seniors should be
emphasized. In mixed -use or commercial areas,
lunchtime use by office workers and shoppers should
be facilitated.

Yes: The Project includes
approximately 17.3 acres
of parks/trails throughout
the development. Parks
within residential
neighborhoods will range
from 0.5 to 1 acre in size.

The parks and trail
facilities are designed to
meet the needs of nearby
residents and workers by
providing a variety of
recreational facilities.

Each park may include an
open grass space,
playground, picnic area,
barbeque grills, seating,
and drinking
fountain. Shade trees will
be provided and, where
possible, drought -
tolerant/native species
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-26 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
will be encouraged. Parks
will be located and
designed to provide social
activities within the
development.

Public Services PSCU-P-9* Continue to implement a Park Acquisition and Development Fee Program updated to be consistent with
this General Plan, including the following:
• Land and fees received shall support a standard of
five acres of neighborhood and community parks per
1,000 residents and provide park and recreation
facilities serving the neighborhood quadrant in which
the contributing development occurs;
• A portion of th e 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.

Yes: The required parks /
recreational acreage
would be met through a
combination of
construction of 17.3 acres
of parks / recreational
facilities (including trails)
and payment of park
impact fees to th e City of
Visalia. The impact fees
would support future
recreational facilities
throughout the City.

Public Services PSCU-P-10* Adopt and implement parkland dedication requirements for all subdivisions, consistent with the Quimby Act and Policy PSCU-P-2. This requirement will be integrated with the City’s Park Acquisition Development Fee Program.

Public Services PSCU-P-14* Design parks to enhance neighborhood character and minimize negative impacts.
• Locate neighborhood parks with local or collector
street frontages on at least three sides, and sidewalks Yes: The Project includes
approximately 17.3 acres
of parks/trails throughout
the development. Parks
within residential
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-27 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
and crossings designed for safe and easy pedestrian
access.
• Where a neighborhood park is part of a
neighborhood node, it should be designed to
promote visual connections and pedestrian
movement between the park and adjacent uses such
as schools and commercial uses.
neighborhoods will range
from 0.5 to 1 acre in size.

The parks and trail
facilities are designed to
meet the needs of nearby
residents and workers by
providing a variety of
recreational facilities.

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

Yes: The park/trail
facilities will provide
security lighting.

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

Yes: The project’s
recreational facilities will
include signage for the
parks and trail facilities.

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

Yes: The Project includes
approximately 17.3 acres
of parks/trails throughout
the development. Parks
within residential
neighborhoods will range
from 0.5 to 1 acre in size.

The parks and trail
facilities are designed to
meet the needs of nearby
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-28 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
residents and workers by
providing a variety of
recreational facilities.

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

Yes: Park and trail
facilities will include
landscaping techniques
for shading such as trees.

Public Services PSCU-P-30* Incorporate barrier-free design in all new recreation and sports facilities, and renovate existing facilities to remove barriers to handicapped users.

Yes: All facilities will be
designed for access to the
public and will include
ADA compliant facilities
where required.

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

Yes. The project roadway
system has been
designed with traffic
calming devices such as
speed tables, short
roadways, roundabouts
and a dedicated
pedestrian/bike trail to
separate pedestrians
from some roadways.

Transportation T-P-18 Ensure that citywide traffic service levels are maintained, require a traffic study, as a condition of development, of Yes. A traffic impact study
was prepared for the
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-29 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
surrounding arterials, collectors, acc ess roads, and
regionally significant roadways for any major project that would require a General Plan amendment, and for
projects where the proposed use could create traffic
congestion because needed improvements identified by
this General Plan would not be completed before project occupancy or are not funded under the CIP.
project to determine level
of service impacts for
General Plan consistency .

Mitigation measures have
been imposed to the
extent feasible to reduce
level of service impacts .

This is a condition of
Project approval.

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

Yes. The project has been
designed so that a bypass
through the site is
unlikely due to reduced
speeds within the site
compared to other
adjacent surrounding
roads, use of
roundabouts, and other
speed calming devices
within the project site.

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

Yes. The project will
provide all necessary
right-of-way for street
design and
implementation.

Transportation T-P-24 Require that proposed developments make necessary 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.

Yes. A traffic impact study
was prepared for the
project to determine level
of service impacts for
General Plan consistency .

As a condition of Project
approval, the project has
been imposed with
mitigation consisting of
both construction of on -
site and adjacent
improvements and/or
payment of fees into the
City’s traffic impact fee
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-30 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
program for off -site
improvements.

Transportation T-P-25 Require that where arterial streets are necessary through residential areas, residential development shall be
oriented away (side-on or rear-on) from such streets and be properly buffered so that traffic carrying capacity of the street will be preserved and the residential
environment will be protected from the a dverse
characteristics of the arterial street.

Yes. The project has been
designed so that
residential
neighborhoods are
properly buffered from
arterial streets.

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

Yes. The project contains
two main commercial
areas. Each commercial
area has been designed
with multiple
ingress/egress points to
accommodate the sizes of
each development. The
City will review all final
design to ensure the most
efficient method of
ingress/egress is
achieved.

Transportation T-P-28 Promote traffic safety by requiring that ingress and egress to shopping centers be carefully designed, with minimal use of left-turn movements into and out of these centers.

Transportation T-P-29 Require, where possible, that arterials and collectors form four-leg, right -angle int ersections. Jogged, offset, and skewed intersections at major streets in near proximity shall be avoided, where possible.

Yes. The project does not
conflict with this policy.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-31 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
Transportation T-P-39 Develop bikeways consistent with the Visalia Bikeway Plan and the General Plan’s Circulation Element.

Yes. The project includes
dedicated
pedestrian/bicycle paths
that will connect to much
of the development,
including Ridgeview
school.

Transportation T-P-40 Develop a community -wide trail system along selected planning area waterways, consistent with the Waterways
and Trails Master Plan and General Plan diagrams
Yes. The project includes
a trail adjacent to Modoc
ditch. The trail will be
landscaped.

Transportation T-P-41 Integrate the bicy cle 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 provid e safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to high activity land uses such as schools, parks, shopping,
employment, and entertainment centers.

Yes. The project includes
bicycle paths and bicycle
parking. These paths
connect various areas of
the mi xed-use
development.

Transportation T-P-48 Require construction of minimum sidewalk widths and pedestrian “clear zones” consistent with the Complete
Streets cross -sections in this General Plan and with the City’s Engineering and Street Design Standards for each designated street type.

Yes. The project’s
sidewalks have been
designed to comply with
this policy.

Transportation T-P-50 Provide pedestrian facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement
projects address accessibility and use universal design concepts.

Yes. All public sidewalks
will be designed for ADA
compliance.

Transportation T-P-51 Locate sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and appropriate crosswalks to facilitate access to all schools and other areas with significant pedestrian traffic. Whenever
feasible, pedestrian paths shall be developed to allow for unobstructed pedestrian flow from within a
neighborhood.

Yes. The project includes
pedestrian/bicycle paths
that connect various
areas of t he mixed -use
development, including
Ridgeview school. The
project also includes
sidewalks throughout the
residential portion of the
development for access
throughout the
development.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.11-32 Chapter Policy No. Goal/Objective/Policy Text Consistency Determination
Transportation T-P-52 Require, where security walls or fences are proposed for residential developments along arterial or collector
streets, that pedestrian access be provided between the arterial or collector and the subdivision to allow access to transit vehicles operating on an arterial or collector
street.

Yes. Security/sound walls
will provide access
between an arterial or
collector.
* denotes policy that is referenced in multiple Chapters/topics.

The proposed Project is an appropriate use for the site, and as demonstrated in Table 3.11-2, once annexed into the City, the Project will be consistent with the applicable objectives, goals and policies outlined in the City of Visalia General Plan. Implementation of these policies and measures will ensure that impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable . The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is the area covered by the City of Visalia General Plan. As discussed above, the Project does not divide an existing community. The site and surrounding areas to the east and west are located in a developing area planned as part of the City of Visalia . It is unlikely that other projects that develop in the vicinity of the Project will cause a community to be divided because those projects would be developed according to the City’s General Plan and would be subject to site -specific environmental review.

The Project, in conjunction with cumulative d evelopment 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, 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.

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 pr ocess, 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.

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.

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 freque ncy of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency - dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) prov ides 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 nois e 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.

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 L eq, 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

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 L eq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.
• CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24 -hour average L eq 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 r esidential 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, 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 throug h 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 RM S 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 backgr ound 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.

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 airstrip s within two miles of the Project site and no railways are located near the Project site . M ajor roads in the Project area include Akers Street, Shirk Street/Road 92, Riggin Avenue, and Kibler Avenue/Avenue 320.

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, high - resolution 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.

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 establishe d 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 unaccept able” 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.

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, a partment 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.

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
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 act ivity 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

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 perf ormance standards for non - transportation (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 ordinanc e. 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.

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 lan d 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 st andards shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level”.

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 traffi c 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.

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 consider ed 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 lev els (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

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 sourc es 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.

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).

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.

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 alread y 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, restaur ants (including

5 Acoustical Analysis – Carleton Acres Specific Plan (March 2023) – WJV Acoustics, page 14.

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 propose d 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 example s 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
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‐s ite 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 bee n 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 c haracteristics 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 quantif ies 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.

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.

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 constr uction 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 develop ments. 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 adjace nt 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 out door 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

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 bet ween 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 acceptab le 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 o f 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 Commercia l 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.

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 comm ercial 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 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 sign ificant 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 no t 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 ne w 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 sensi tive 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 pa th 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.

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 relati on 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 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 C ity’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 appli cable 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 standard s. 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 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 la yout 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 me asure 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.

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 Construction 8

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 airport - related 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.

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 a nd 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 i n 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 receptor s 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 incre mental contribution to cumulative noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

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 (Multi- Family 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 wi ll be constructed adjacent to and west of Ridgeview Middle School and would be surrounded by the 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 Departm ent 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-population- and-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.

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, po licies 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 pro vision 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 economically- viable County.

5 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Mission, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/mission.html. Accessed October 2021.

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 a llow 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, su bject 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 e nsure 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 p rovide development standard s 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 f acilitate high-quality building and site design for multi - family developments by updating development standards in the zoning ordinance and providing clear rules for development review and approval and by creating and adopting design guidelines to be used in the development review and approval process.

LU-P-53 Wherein the City will i ntegrate 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.

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 Ordi nance 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.

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 household 7. 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).

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 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 hous ing 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 t he 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.

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 ov er 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
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 3.0 4 (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 ac commodate 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 assis t 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 2 030 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
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 po pulation (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 r easonably 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 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.

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 variou s 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 Rep ort2, 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.

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 b e 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 on e 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.

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 li brary 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 r equirements, 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 inclu de 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 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 regulatio ns 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-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.

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 off- street parking. They also may include tennis courts, outdoor concert areas or other special facilities based on neighborhood needs and community input.

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 smal l 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, o r earn fee credits (the City will not accept undevelopable, unusable land); and
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 ameni ties 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.

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?

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 1 7.3 acres of park/trail facilities on the site. If approved and annexed into the City, the City would provide public se rvices 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 household 4.

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 3.1 5-1 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, assumin g full buildout of the General Plan.

4 U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/visaliacitycalifornia,fresnocitycalifornia/MAN450212 (accessed June 2022).

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 Pa ramedics, 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
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 fire- retardant materials, etc. In addition, the proposed Project will be requir ed 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 adop ted 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 exp ansion 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 a t 204 Northwest 3 rd 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.

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 existin g District I Substation at 204 Northwest 3 rd Avenue, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Project site , can maintain th e 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 a ssociated 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.

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 p roposed Project features several different types of housing for a total of up to 3,2 62 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

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 per - square-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 household 9. 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).

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.

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 ne ed 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, t he Project’s incremental contri bution to cumulative impacts to public services would be less than cumulatively considerable.

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 Co mmission. 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 acti vities 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.

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 si te 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 ope n 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 s trive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-3 PSCU-P-3 The City will r eserve 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 c reate new comm unity 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 off- street 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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-4 PSCU-P-9 The City will c ontinue 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 g iven 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 a dopt 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 d esign 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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-5 PSCU-P-20 The City will p romote 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 p romote innovative park desig n that responds to neighborhood needs and user groups.

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

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

PSCU-P-30 The City will i ncorporate 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.

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 exi sting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical d eterioration 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 o f 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).

2 U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/visaliacitycalifornia,fresnocitycalifornia/MAN450212 (accessed June 2022).

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.16-7 General P lan, 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 ot her 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.

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.

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 C lass 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 e lementary 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 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 p arks / 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 fac ilities 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 wi ll 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 contr ibution to cumulative recreation impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable .

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 northwester n 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 Projec t 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.

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, demand- response 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-A- Ride services are offered Monday through Friday.

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 s eparated 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 wi th 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 d eveloped 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 Disa bilities Act (ADA) standards with new development and bringing non-standard ADA facilities into compliance.

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 an d 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 pe rmits for any load that exceeds Caltrans weight, length, or width standards for public roadways.

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 transporta tion 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 polic ies 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 Pl an 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.

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.

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, a nd 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

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 Vis alia, 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.

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 conta ins 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 T ulare 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, numbe r 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
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
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 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

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 horiz on 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.

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 enviro nment.

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. A kers 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 right- of-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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.17-15 Figure 3.17-1
Site Access Map

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 trave l 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 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/gut ter, 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.

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 wh ich 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 wheth er 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 standa rd, 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 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 show n 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 p ark (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 Lan d 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 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

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 assig nments 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.

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 a n 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 table s exclude intersections and scenarios where LOS will remain within established City or County thresholds. Traffic phasing shown in the tables is based 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.

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)

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.)

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)

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.)

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.)

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)

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.)

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.

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)

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 developmen t 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.

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 Tabl es 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)

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 i n 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 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. • Signal warrant criteria were not met in any of the traffic analysis scenarios.

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 acce ptable 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.

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 recommend ed 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 i n 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.

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).

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 thr ough 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. W ith 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 servic e 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.

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.

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)

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 t raffic, 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 enfor ced 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 pro- rata fair share cost percentages and/or constructing the recom mended 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 itemi zed 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 Impac t. 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.

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 i n 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.

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 featu res 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 eme rgency 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.

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 traffi c 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 tra vel 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.

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 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 3.1 7-4: Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The Ci ty 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 evacua tion plans. Other projects in the area may be constructed simultaneously. However, those project s 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.

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 Avenu e 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 util ized 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 m ost 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).

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 abs orbed 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, es pecially 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 t erritory, 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 gro up 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 grou ps 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 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, follo wed 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).

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 specif ies 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).

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 affe cted 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 appropria te 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 whic h 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 no tification 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 tri bes 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 Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.18-6 mitigating impacts to, cul tural 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 Califor nia 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 signif icant 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.

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 r egarding 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 resources 3. 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).

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 (TCR s). As further noted in that chapte r, 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, i mpacts 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 provi de 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 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 qualifie d 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 trib al 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 o f 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 (Chapt er 44, Statutes of 1987) shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American 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 Considerabl e. 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.

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, a n 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 soil 1. The Visalia area is basically flat, lying at an elevation of ap proximately 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 connecti on 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 mana ged 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.

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 withdrawal s 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.

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 t o 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 appli ance 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.

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 BT U per capita . 4 Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is approximately 34 percent transportation, 2 4 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 me asure 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.

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 thro ugh 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 Resid ential 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.

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.

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 p rocess 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 r emove 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.

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 unde r 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 wast e diversion goals are required to include waste diversion mitigation 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 capi ta 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 Porter- Cologne 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 w ater 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 Regio nal 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 progra ms 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 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 d ischarge 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 discha rging 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 mate rial 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 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 Cen tral 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 Sto rm 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 Be st 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 Pr actice 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 pl an to inspect and maintain these facilities or project elements.

Waste Discharge Requirements
The Central Valley RWQCB typically requires a Waste Discharge Requirement s (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 se rves 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.

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 thes e 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 ser vice 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 Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-13 high priority and critically overdrafted, and SGMA req uires 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 mu st 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, right s, 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, ur inals, 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 Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-14 drought conditions kno wn 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 stakeho lders; equity concerns were included in the emergency regulations.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1 976 to address the huge volumes of municipal and industrial solid waste generated nationwide. After se veral amendments, the Act as it stands today governs the management of solid and hazardous wast e 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 s tate’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.

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 waste water 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 W ater 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 coope rative programs with local water management agencies and companies; and
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 fo r 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 developmen t 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 ser vices assessment during annexation reviews to determine infrastructure needs, feasibility, timing, and financing.

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, t he 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 W CF 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 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 W CF 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 mechan isms, 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.

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), t he 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 o f, 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.

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 d aily flow of 13 million gallons per day. In 2017, t he 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 day 11. The City’s sewer sy stem 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.

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 W CF 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 Requir ements (WDR) order No. R5 -2006-0091. The wastewater routed to the W CF includes all residential, commercial and industrial wastewater generated within the City service area.

The Project would generate wastewater with similar characteristics to discharge pr oduced 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.

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 i nfrastructure 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
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 W CF 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
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; t he 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 wa ste 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 (usin g SB 1016’s measurement system) was 4.5 pounds per person per day (PPD) in 2010 14. 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 ap proximately 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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.19-25 the County), the Project wou ld 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 ex pansion 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 2040 16. 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 D ivision 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 th e 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.

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 was tewater (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.

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 , t he cumulative impacts are less than significant for solid waste.

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 sever e 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 with in 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.

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 becom ing 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 Hi gh 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, area s 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.

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 disast er 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 complia nce 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.

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 reside nts 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 fiv e 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.

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 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 Midd le 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 con siderable contribution to any significant impact to wildfires.

Chapter 4

ALTERNATIVES
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 projec t 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 woul d 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)
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 sat isfies 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

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 de termine 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 whic h 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 determine d 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.

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 imp acts of approving the proposed p roject 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 ge neration of any environmental im pacts 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.

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 r emain 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 P roject.

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 rem ain 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 p roposed Project.

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 signif icance, 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, availab ility of land, adequately sized parcels, efficiency of access, and acceptable land use designations/zoning. There are areas of 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

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

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 or in 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 site s would require environmental review once the Applicant has prepared sufficient project description information. The time require ments 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, agricul tural 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 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 Resou rces - 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.

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 si milar size and scale to the Project (and contains similar pre - zoning 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, tele visions, 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 p ublic facilities). Since this Alternative would be of similar size and scale to the Project, impacts are determined to be similar to the proposed Project.

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 th is 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.

Visalia City CouncilOctober 2, 2023

Visalia City Council
October 2, 2023