Refer to Table 4 -1 for a comparison of each environmental topic for the Alternate Locations Alternative versus the proposed Project.
Project Objectives
The Alternative Sites Alternative would meet most of the Project Objectives outlines in Section
4.2 herein. However, this Alternative would not be as feasible as compared to the proposed Project. The Alternative sites have different land owners who have not expressed a desire to develop a master planned community on their properties, thus those sites would likely not be Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-13
developed in a unified manner or at a rate of development that would produce housing and commercial development as quickly as the proposed Project. Thus, this Alternative would result in slower development of housing units (than the proposed Project) that would assist the City in meeting its General Plan and Housing Element requirements and objectives, and would not be fully consistent with this objective.
Reduced (50%) Project Alternative
A reduction of 50% in the Project’s size and scope is a reasonable amount to illustrate what impact such an alternative would have on the significant effects of the proposed Project.
Description
This alternative would reduce the Project components by 50% as follows:
• Reduction in acreage from 507 to 253.5
• Reduction in residential units from 3,262 to 1,631
• Reduction in commercial acreage from 35.1 to 17.5
• Reduction in parks/recreational acreage from 17.3 to 8.7 • Corresponding reductions in infrastructure, etc.
The Project would remain a mixed-use development with a variety of housing types, with the 50% reduction.
Environmental Considerations
Most of the environmental issues associated with this alternative would be less or similar to those of the proposed Project. Impacts from the Reduced (50%) Alternative, as compared to the Project, are summarized as follows:
• Aesthetics – With development of the 50% of the site, aesthetic impacts would occur through the conversion of farmland to urban uses, introduction of light/glare, and construction of residential u nits on non-urbanized land. Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources - With development of 50% of the site, agricultural impacts would occur through the conversion of farmland to urban uses. Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project. However, this Alternative would n ot Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-14
eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (project and cumulative) associated with this topic from the proposed Project.
• Air Quality - With development of 50% of the site, air quality impacts would occur from construction activities (construction vehicles and equipment, dust and other emissions) and from operational activities (vehicle trip emissions and other emissions from the development). According to the Project’s Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas / Energy Study prepared for the Project, the proposed Project will have annual air pollutant emission rates that are greater than the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District thresholds of significance. Due to the reduction in residential units and commercial facilities (and corresponding reduction in vehicle trips), this alternative would have lower annual emission rates than the proposed project for the following criteria pollutants: CO, NOx, VOC, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Air pollutant emission rates associated with this alternative are thus lower than the proposed projec t due to the reduced number of residential units and commercial acreage (and associated reduction in vehicle trips). • Biological Resources - With development of the Project site with 50% of the site, biological impacts could occur from development of a pre viously agricultural site to urban uses.
Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Cultural Resources - With development of 50% of the site, cultural resource impacts could occur from development of a previously agricultural site to urban uses. Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Energy - With development of 50% of the site, energy impacts would occur from construction activities (electricity, fuel) and operational activities (electricity, natural gas, fuel). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as compared to the proposed Project, energy impacts would be less than the proposed Project.
• Geology/Soils - With development of 50% of the site, impacts to geology and soils would occur from construction activities (grading and land disturbing activities) and operational activities (the Alternative project would be subject to geotechnical evaluation). Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Greenhouse Gas E missions - With development of 50% of the site, greenhouse gas emission impacts would occur from construction activities (construction equipment emissions and vehicle emissions) and operational activities (vehicle emissions). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-15
compared to the proposed Project, greenhouse gas emissions would be less than the proposed Project.
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials - With development of 50% of the site, hazardous impacts would o ccur from construction activities (use and storage of hazardous substances) and operational activities (use and storage of hazardous substances). Since this Alternative would have less residential and commercial facilities as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project. • Hydrology & Water Quality - With development of 50% of the site, hydrology and water quality impacts would occur from construction activities (water for dust control, requirement for preparation of a SWPPP, drainage control) and operational activities (water demand associated with the development, drainage control). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential units and commercial acreage as compared to the proposed Project, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (cumulative only) associated with water supply from the proposed Project. • Land Use / Planning - With development of 50% of the site, land use and planning impacts would occur from development of existing agricultural lands to urban uses. The Alternative would not divide an established community. Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Mineral Resources - With development of 50% of the site, mineral resource impacts could occur from construction activities (grading and ground -disturbing activities) and operational activities (conversion of land to urban uses). Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
• Noise - With development of 50% of the site, noise impacts would occur from construction activities (construction equipment and vehicles) and operational activities (commercial activities, vehicles, air conditioners, televisions, radios, lawn mowers, etc.).
However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as compared to the proposed Project, noise impacts would be less than the proposed Project.
• Population & Housing - With development of 50% of the site, population and housing impacts would occur from development of these sites. However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential units as compared to the proposed Project, population and housing impacts would be less than the proposed Project.
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-16
• Public Services - With development of 50% of the site, public service impacts would occur from development of these sites (need for police, fire, schools and other public facilities). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential units as compared to the proposed Project, public service impacts would be less than the proposed Project.
• Recreation - With development of 50% of the site, recreation impacts would occur from development of the site (the City requires 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents).
However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential units as compared to the proposed Project, recreation impacts would be less than the proposed Project. • Transportation - With development of 50% of the site, transportation impacts would occur from construction (vehicles and equipment, which would require a Traffic Control Plan) and operation (vehicles associated with the resi dential and commercial developments). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as compared to the proposed Project, transportation impacts would be less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with Level of Service impacts from the proposed Project (at the project and cumulative level ). Some Level of Service impacts would be significant and unavoidable with or without the proposed Project). • Tribal Cultural Resources - With development of 50% of the site, tribal cultural resource impacts could occur from development of these sites (conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses). Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project. • Utilities & Service Systems - With development of 50% of the site, utility and service system impacts would occur from construction activities (water for dust control, solid waste disposal) and operational activities (water demand associated with the development, wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal). However, since this Alternative would have 50% less residential and commercial components as compared to the proposed Project, utility and service system impacts would be less than the proposed Project. This Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts (cumulative only for water supply) associated with this topic from the proposed Project. • Wildfire - With development of 50% of the site, wildfire impacts could occur from development of these sites (conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses). Since this Alternative would occur on less acreage as compared to the Project, impacts are determined to be less than the proposed Project.
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-17
Refer to Table 4 -1 for a comparison of each environmental topic for the Reduced (50%) Project Alternative versus the proposed Project.
Project Objectives
The Reduced (50%) Alternative would meet some of the Project Objectives outlines in Section 4.2 herein. However, this Alternative would not be fully consistent with the objective to provide residential development that assists the City in meetings its Housing Element requirements (the City currently has a deficit in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals). A 50% reduction in units would r esult in a larger Regional Housing Needs Allocation deficit than the proposed Project.
4.6 Summary of Potential Impacts of Alternatives
Table 4-1 provides a summary and side -by-side comparison of the proposed project with the impacts of each of the alter natives analyzed. Please note that under “No Project”, “Alternate Sites” and “Reduced (50%) Project” columns in Table 4 -1, the references to “less, similar, or greater,” refer to the impact of the alternative compared to the proposed project, and the impacts “no impact, less than significant, or significant and unavoidable,” in the parentheses refer to the significant impact of the specific alternative.
Table 4-1
Alternatives Potential Impact Analysis
Environmental Issues Proposed
Project
No
Project
Alternate
Locations
Reduced
(50%) Project
Aesthetics Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Agriculture / Forest
Resources
Significant
and
unavoidable
(project and
cumulative)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Air Quality Significant
and
unavoidable
(project and
cumulative)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Biological Resources Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-18
Environmental Issues Proposed
Project
No
Project
Alternate
Locations
Reduced
(50%) Project
Cultural Resources Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Geology and Soils Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Significant
and
unavoidable
– water
supply
(project and
cumulative
level)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Land Use / Planning Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Noise Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Population / Housing Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Public Services Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Recreation Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Transportation and
Traffic
Significant
and
unavoidable
– level of
service
(project and
cumulative)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less than
Signifcant
Less Similar Less
Utilities and Service
Systems
Significant
and
unavoidable
– water
supply
(project and
cumulative
level)
Less Similar Less / Still
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-19
Environmental Issues Proposed
Project
No
Project
Alternate
Locations
Reduced
(50%) Project
Cumulative Impacts Significant
and
unavoidable
for
Agriculture,
Air Quality,
Hydrology,
Transportation
, and Utilities
Less Similar Less / Still
Cumulatively
Considerable
Impact Reduction Yes No Yes
Environmentally Superior Alternative
As presented in the comparative analysis above, and as shown in Table 4 -1, there are a number of factors in selecting the environmentally superior alternative. An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative to the project. The No Project Alt ernative would be environmentally superior to the Project on the basis of its minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states:
The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not appr oved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the oth er alternatives.
Because the No Project Alternative cannot be the Environmentally Superior Alternative under CEQA, the Reduced (50%) Project Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior alternative because it would result in less adverse physical impa cts to the environment with regard to air, water, noise, public services , population/housing, utilities and traffic. However, the Reduced (50%) Project Alternative does not eliminate the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts associated wit h Agriculture - Loss of Farmland (project and cumulative) ; Air Quality (project and cumulative); Hydrology – Water Supply (cumulative only); Transportation - Conflict with Plan/Program (project and cumulative) ; and Utilities & Service Systems – Water Supply (cumulative only). Furthermore, the Reduced (50%) Project Altenative does not meet all of the Project objectives, particularly with regard to quantity and diversity of housing.
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 4
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4-20
Summary and Determination
Only the No Project and Reduced (50%) Project Alternatives could potentially result in fewer impacts than the proposed Project’s impacts. These Alternatives however, would not fully meet the objectives of the proposed Project. After this full, substantial, and deliberate analysis, the proposed Project remains the preferred alternative.
Chapter 5
OTHER CEQA
CONSIDERATIONS
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 5
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5-1
CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts
CEQA Sections 15126 (d) and 15126.2(e) require that any growth-inducing aspect of a project be addressed in an EIR. This discussion includes consideration of ways in which the proposed Project could directly (e.g. construction of residential or commercial facilities) or indirectly (e.g. construction of oversized public utilities) result in physical impacts on the environment if the Project’s construction or operation induces economic or population growth in the surrounding area, including an analysis of the infrastructure and planning changes necessary to accommodate any induced growth.
The proposed Project involves the establishment of a mixed-use development that is being proposed in response to the demand for housing and commercial facilities in the area. The Project is consistent with the City of Visalia’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and will connect to all existing City utility services. The anticipated population and housing unit increase associated with the proposed Project are within the growth projections of the City’s General Plan. The proposed Project would create a relatively minor amount of new employment opportunities during construction and for the proposed commercial facilities associated with the Project. As of February 2023, Tulare County (Visalia-Porterville Metropolitan Statistical Area) had an unemployment rate of 10.6 percent1 and it is anticipated that those new employment opportunities associated with the Project could likely be filled by the existing employment base. There are no other indirect aspects of the Project (such as creation of oversized public utility lines, etc.) that would induce further growth in the area. The proposed Project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts.
Conclusion: The project would have less-than-significant growth-inducing impacts.
5.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from project implementation. CEQA Section 15126.2(d) identifies irreversible environmental changes as those involving a large commitment of nonrenewable resources or irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents.
Irreversible changes associated with the project include the use of nonrenewable resources during construction, including concrete, plastic, and petroleum products and renewable resources such
1 https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/visa$pds.pdf . Accessed April 2023.
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 5
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5-2
as timber. To the extent nonrenewable uses are used during construction, the Project is being created to meet existing demand for housing and services in the City, which would lead to the consumption of these resources elsewhere if the Project were not built. The refore, the Project would not result in a new impact to nonrenewable resources. During the operational phase of the proposed Project, energy would be used for lighting, heating, cooling, and other requirements and petroleum products would be used by vehicles associated with the residents of the proposed development and the commercial facilities. The use of these resources would not be substantial, would not be inefficiently used, and would not constitute a significant effect. Refer to Section 3.6 – Energy for more information pertaining to the proposed Project’s energy use.
In the future, the site could be rezoned or redeveloped for a different use also allowed in the existing General Plan or Zoning Ordinance designations , in which case, at the end of the useful life of the Project, the use could change. Therefore, the Project would not commit future generations to a significant change in land use. This is in contrast to a large industrial use, where reuse for non -industrial uses likely would require exte nsive remediation, making such reuse difficult, or large infrastructure projects that are rarely moved or dismantled once constructed.
The proposed Project would not result in irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents. The Project consists of a mixed-use residential and commercial development. None of these land uses routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, with the exception of common residential and commercial hazardous materials such as cleaners, paint, petroleum products, etc. Handling and use of hazardous materials and the disposal of the resulting hazardous wastes would be required to follow the applicable laws and regulations, as described in Section 3.9-1 – Hazards & Hazardous Materials herein. As such, irreversible environmental accidents are unlikely.
Conclusion: The project would have less-than-significant irreversible environmental changes.
APPENDICES