Visalia City Council
October 2, 2023

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
Carleton Acres Specific Plan

April 2023
PREPARED BY:

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

City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291

Project Reference No. 048-2101

Draft Environmental Impact Report
Carleton Acres Specific Plan

Prepared for:

City of Visalia
707 W. Acequia Ave.

Visalia, CA 93291

Contact: Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
Phone: (559) 713-4636

Prepared by:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 310
Visalia, CA 93291

Contact: Travis Crawford, AICP
(559) 840-4414

April 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the EIR 1-1

1.2 Type of EIR 1-2

1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR 1-2

1.4 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies 1-3

1.5 Environmental Review Process 1-3

1.6 Organization and Scope 1-6

CHAPTER TWO – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1

2.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Use 2-1

2.2 Project Description 2-6

2.3 Project Objectives 2-16

2.4 Required Approvals 2-19

CHAPTER THREE – ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

3.1 Aesthetics 3.1-1

3.2 Agriculture & Forestry Resources 3.2-1

3.3 Air Quality 3.3-1

3.4 Biological Resources 3.4-1

3.5 Cultural Resources 3.5-1

3.6 Energy 3.6-1

3.7 Geology & Soils 3.7-1

3.8 Greenhouse Gases / Climate Change 3.8-1

3.9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 3.9-1

3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality 3.10-1

3.11 Land Use & Planning 3.11-1

3.12 Mineral Resources 3.12-1

3.13 Noise 3.13-1

3.14 Population and Housing 3.14-1

3.15 Public Services 3.15-1

3.16 Recreation 3.16-1

3.17 Transportation / Traffic 3.17-1

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 3.18-1

3.19 Utilities & Service Systems 3.19-1

3.20 Wildfire 3.20-1

CHAPTER FOUR – ALTERNATIVES 4-1

CHAPTER FIVE – OTHER CEQA REQUIREMENTS 5-1

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

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

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

3.8-2 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends 3.8-8

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

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

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

3.10-1 – Stormdrain Master Plan 3.10-23

3.10-2 – FEMA Floodplain Map 3.10-24

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

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

3.17-1 – Site Access Map 3.17-15

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

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

3.2-2 – LESA Scoring Thresholds 3.2-12

3.3-1 – Air Quality Monitoring Summary 3.3-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.6-3 – Construction Energy Consumption 3.6-13

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

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

3.8-1 – Description of Greenhouse Gases 3.8-5

3.8-2 – Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.8-42

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

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

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

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

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

3.10-1 – Public Water System 3.10-3

3.10-2 – Project Residential Water Demands 3.10-15

3.10-3 – Project Commercial Water Demands 3.10-16

3.10-4 – Projected Retail Water Supplies 3.10-17

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

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

3.11-1 – General Plan Consistency Analysis 3.11-11

3.13-1 – Representative Environmental Noise Levels 3.13-2

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

3.13-3 – Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 3.13-6

3.13-4 – California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines 3.13-8

3.13-5 – Visalia General Plan Noise Level Standards 3.13-10

3.13-6 – Visalia Noise Element Non-Transportation Noise Level Standard 3.13-11

3.13-7 – Visalia Municipal Code Exterior Noise Level Standards 3.13-12

3.13-8 – Visalia Municipal Code Interior Noise Level Standards 3.13-12

3.13-9 – Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites 3.13-16

3.13-10 – Project Contribution to Cumulative Traffic Noise – Cumulative 2042 Conditions 3.13-18

3.13-11 – Typical Construction Equipment 3.13-21

3.13-12 – Distances to Traffic Noise Contours 3.13-22

3.13-13 – Typical Vibration Levels During Construction 3.13-29

3.14-1 – Population Estimates 3.14-9

3.14-2 – Residential Units 3.14-10

3.15-1 – Population Estimates 3.15-10

3.15-2 – Student Generation Rates 3.15-13

3.15-3 – Proposed Project’s Anticipated Number of New Students 3.15-13

3.17-1 – Analysis Time Periods 3.17-12

3.17-2 – Project Trip Generation: Phase I 3.17-20

3.17-3 – Project Trip Generation: Phases I & II 3.17-20

3.17-4 - Project Trip Generation: Phases I, II & (50%) III 3.17-21

3.17-5 - Project Trip Generation: Phases I, II & III 3.17-21

3.17-6 – Project Trip Distribution 3.17-22

3.17-7 – Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-24

3.17-8 – Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-26

3.17-9 – Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-29

3.17-10 – Traffic Signal Warrants: Weekday 8 Hr Vehicular Vol. (Years are approximate) 3.17-32

3.17-11 – Summary of Queue Length Improvement Requirements 3.17-33

3.17-12 – Roadway LOS Weekday AM Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-34

3.17-13 – Roadway LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-34

3.17-14 – Roadway LOS Saturday Peak Hour Results (Years are approximate) 3.17-35

3.17-15 – Required Intersection Improvements (Years are approximate) 3.17-41

3.17-16 – Required Roadway Improvements (Years are approximate) 3.17-41

3.17-17 – VMT Analysis 3.17-43

3.19-1 – Public Water Systems 3.19-2

3.19-2 – Total Electricity Consumption in Tulare County 2011-2021 3.19-5

3.19-3 – Natural Gas Consumption in Tulare County 2010-2020 3.19-6

3.19-4 – WCP Wastewater Capacity and Project Wastewater Generation 3.19-22

3.19-5 – Population Estimates 3.19-23

APPENDICES
Appendix A – NOP & Comment Letters
Appendix B – Land Evaluation Site Assessment
Appendix C – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas / Energy Analysis Report Appendix D – Biological Resource Evaluation
Appendix E – Phase I Cultural Survey
Appendix F – Soils Report
Appendix G – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix H – SB 610 Water Supply Assessment
Appendix I – Acoustical Analysis
Appendix J – Traffic Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This Draft Environmental Impact Report ( Draft EIR or EIR) has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project (Project). Its intent is to inform the public, regulatory agencies and the City of Visalia (City) decision makers of the potential environmental impacts the proposed Project would have on environmental factors as specified in the CEQA Guidelines. This Draft EIR, in its entirety, addresses and discloses potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the environmental resources identified in the CEQA Guidelines environmental checklist. The City of Visalia is the “Lead Agency” pursuant to CEQA and is responsible for the preparation and distribution of the Draft EIR.

CEQA Process

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

Therefore, the Project’s NOP was re-circulated from June 2, 2022 through July 5, 2022. A scoping meeting (conducted virtually via a “Zoom” meeting) was held on June 14, 2022.

The next step in the process is circulation of this Draft EIR which will be distributed to the public for review and comment for at least 45 days. This Draft EIR is organized as follows:

Executive Summary: Summarizes the analysis contained in the Draft EIR.

Chapter 1 – Introduction: Provides a brief introduction to CEQA and the scope/contents of the Draft EIR.

Chapter 2 – Project Description: Describes the Project in detail. Includes Project location, objectives, environmental setting and regulatory context.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-2
Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis: Contains the CEQA checklist. Each topic discusses environmental/regulatory setting, P roject impact analysis, mitigation measures and conclusions.

Chapter 4 – Alternatives: Describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project. The proposed Project is compared to each alternativ es and potential environmental impacts are analyzed.

Chapter 5 – Other CEQA Sections: Describes other required sections such as environmental effects that cannot be avoided, social effects, growth inducement, etc.

Appendices: Following the text of the Draft EIR, several appendices and technical studies have been included as reference material.

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

However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses. Refer to Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map, Figure 2-2: City Boundary Map, Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use Designations, and Figure 2-4: Aerial Site Vicinity Map.

Project Description Summary

The Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan to develop approximately 507-acres of land into a mixed -use development. The Project will feature a variety of uses including single -family residential housing, multi-family residential housing, commercial, educational, and parks/trails facilities. The propos ed Project components are summarized below. Refer also to Table 2 -1:

Summary of Proposed Land Uses and Figure 2-5: Site Layout Plan.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

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

Therefore, for purposes of providing the maximum number of potential residential units, a total of 65 units was added to the total for both phases (13.0 acres X 5.0 units per acre = 65 units), for a maximum development potential of 1,592 low density residential units.

Commercial
The proposed Project includes up to 35.1 acres of commercial development in two locations within the Project for a total of approximately 205,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial area. The commercial developments will occur in the proposed Mixed Use Commercial Zone and the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The maximum size for a single or anchor tenant is proposed to be approximately 170,000 square feet within the Mixed Use Commercial Zone as shown in Figure 2-5. The first commercial area consists of up to 28.7 acres of Mixed Use Commercial at the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Road (Road 92). Anticipated uses at this location include development consisting of a Costco membership store, a Costco gas station, and a Costco car wash, as well as a drug store, retail, restaurants (including drive-throughs), and similar uses. The second commercial area consists of up to 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood at the northeast corner of the development. Anticipated uses at this location may include development such as retail, se rvices and restaurants. The commercial facilities are located to provide efficient accessibility to residents of the Project and the surrounding areas.

Other Project Components
Other proposed uses include approximately 13.0 acres for a potential future el ementary 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 Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-4
infrastructure, roadway improvements, and related impr ovements) will be required by the Project. Refer to the descriptions of these components in Chapter Two – Project Description.

Phasing
The Project is proposed to be built out in two phases as identified in Table 2 -1 and as shown in Figure 2-5 (both in Chapter Two – Project Description). Although the exact timing of construction and buildout will be determined by market conditions, the Project Applicant and the City, it is anticipated that the Project would be built out over a n approximately 15-year period with approximately 100 low-density residential units per year on average with the remaining buildout to be determined by demand. The Project is proposed to be generally built out in two phases as follows:

Phase 1
Phase 1 includes all of APN 077-100-105 (29.3 acres) and a portion of APN 077-100-088 (150 acres). For APN 077 -100-105, the site is within the Tier 1 boundary and is currently designated by the City’s General Plan for High Density Residential. The Project intends to retain this land use designation and to develop the site as follows:
• 29.3 acres of High Density Residential (440 units)
For APN 077-100-088, Phase 1 development only includes the southern portion of the parcel (approximately 150 acres) and is included in the Tier 2 boundary. This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 9.7 acres of High Density Residential (146 units)
• 9.1 acres of Medium Density Residential (91 units)
• 100.9 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 505 units) • 28.7 acres of Commercial Mixed Use
For APN: 077 -100-088, the Low Density Residential and commercial portions are anticipated to be built first.

Phase 2
Phase 2 includes the northern 329 acres of APN 077 -100-088 that is within the Tier 3 boundary. This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 21.7 acres of High Density Residential (326 units)
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-5
• 66.7 acres of Medium Density Residential (667 units)
• 204.5 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 1,022 units) • 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood
• 17.3 acres of Basin
• 13.0 acres of Public/Institutional
The phasing of development and installation of infrastructure for Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be identified in a Development Agreement.

Refer to Chapter Two – Project Description for the full description of the Project.

Project Objectives

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

Summary of Environmental Impacts
As described in Chapter 3, it was determined that all impacts were either less than significant, or could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of the following:
• Aesthetics – Degrade existing visual character (project and cumulative level) Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-6
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources - Loss of farmland (project and cumulative level) • Air Quality – Conflict with Air Quality Plan / Exceed criteria pollutant thresholds (project and cumulative level)
• Hydrology & Water Quality – Water supply (cumulative level only) • Transportation – Conflict with Plan/Program (project and cumulative level) • Utilities & Service Systems – Water supply (cumulative level only) Even with the mitigation measures described in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this Draft EIR, impacts in these issue areas would be significant and unavoidable.

Summary of Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed P roject.

This Draft EIR analyzed the following alternatives:
• No Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and the site would remain in agricultural production.
• Alternate Locations Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would be developed on a different site of similar size and scale.
• Reduced (50%) Project Alternative: Under this Alternative, the Project would be reduced by 50% (overall site acreage, residential units, commercial acreage, and recreational facilities).

See Chapter 4 – Alternatives for a full description of potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
State law requires that a public agency adopt a monitoring program for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the approved Project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with environmental mitigation during Project implementation and operation. Since there are potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation associated with the Project, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be included in the Project’s Final EIR, a draft of which is included herein on the following pages.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-7
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Agricultural & Forestry Resources
AG – 1:

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

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

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-8
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
AG – 2:

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
certificates
of occupancy
City of
Visalia

Air Quality
AIR-2A:

This measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Specific Plan to reduce emissions from construction. Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed Project, the Project applicant, Project sponsor, or construction contractor sha ll provide compliance with the following requirements to the City of Visalia Planning Department:
• Where portable diesel engines are used during construction, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off - road emission standards except as otherwise specified herein. If engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-9
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off -road equipment that is commercially available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the equipment at issue is available taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the Project site of equipment. If the relevant equipment is determined by the Project applicant to not be commercially available, the contractor can confirm this conclusion by providing letters from at le ast two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that is at issue.

AIR-2B:

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

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of
Visalia

AIR-3A:

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
future
discretionary
approval for
commercial
or
commercial
mixed-use
projects
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-10 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
A Health Risk Prioritization Screening Analysis or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of TACs during project construction and operations prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance. If the HRA shows that the incremental health ris ks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant shall be required to identify and incorporate commercially feasible mitigation including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level.

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-11 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
BIO-2: Protect burrowing owl
Conduct focused burrowing owl surveys to assess the
presence/absence of burrowing owl in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation1 and Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines .2 These involve conducting four pre-construction survey visits.

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW

BIO-3: Protect nesting Swainson’s hawks
To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the Swainson’s hawk nesting season, which extends from March through August.

If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and February, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk in accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW

1 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012. 34 pp.

2 California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC). 1997. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Pages 171–177, in Lincer, J. L. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1997. The Burrowing Owl, its Biology and Management. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-12 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swai nson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley.3 These methods require six surveys, three in each of the two survey periods, prior to project initiation. Surveys shall be conducted within a minimum 0.5 - mile radius around the Project site.

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

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

3 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWTAC). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. 5 pages. 4 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California.

California Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report #94.18.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-13 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
an active nest but greater than 1 mile from the nest shall provide

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

BIO-5: Protect nesting birds

To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August.

If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction -free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia and
CDFW

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-14 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

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

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

Project
Applicant
During
construction
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-15 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
CUL – 2: In order to ensure that the proposed Project does not impact buried human remains during Project construction, the Project proponent shall be responsible for on -going monitoring of Project construction. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Project proponent shall provide the City with documentation identifying construction personnel that will be responsible for on-site monitoring. If buried human remains are encountered during construction, further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall be halted until the Tulare County coroner is contacted and the coroner has made the determinations and notifications required pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determines that Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) require that he give notice to the Native American Heritage Commission, then such notice shall be given within 24 hours, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). In that event, the NAHC will conduct the notifications required by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Until the consultations described below have been completed, the
landowner shall further ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeologic al standards or practices where Native American human remains are located, is not disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the Most Likely Descendants on all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences and treatments, as prescribed by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b). The NAHC will mediate any disputes regarding treatment of remains in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k). The landowner shall be entitled to exerc ise rights established by Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
any grading
permit and
ongoing
during
construction
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-16 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) if any of the
circumstances established by that provision become applicable.

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

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

The components of the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City of Visalia. Erosion control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and
construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right-of-way of designated access roads;
iii. Adhere to construction sched ules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permits
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-17 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of
environmental concerns, pertinent laws and
regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion
control measures.

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia

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

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-18 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
there is known contamination, a project specific site
management plan should be prepared under the oversight of the Water Board and/or DTSC, as appropriate.

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

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

For sites with potential residual contamination that are planned for development with an occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environm ental 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 regulat ory agency requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Visalia department of Community Development Department.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-19 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
HAZ – 2 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Project proponent or contractor shall provide a site plan that clearly delineates the locations of all known oil wells. A copy of the map shall be submitted to the California Department of
Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) for review and evaluation. The Project proponent will work with CalGEM to implement any remedial actions that may result from CalGEM’s review of the on -site abandoned well. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Visalia department of Community Development Department. In addition, the
Project proponent shall include information about any
abandoned wells within the Project site in the Tulare County Recorder’s title information of the Project site.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia

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

CalGEM may determine that remedial plugging operations may be required. Copies of said approvals shall be submitted to the City of Visalia Community Development Department

Project
Applicant
During
grading and
construction
activities
City of
Visalia

Noise
NOI - 1: Prior to issuance of building permits for development within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, the City of Visalia will
determine if a detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a certified professional to document potential impacts to onsite Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-20 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
and offsite noise-sensitive land uses (as determined by the City of Visalia’s General Plan and Municipal Code thresholds). When specific uses within the Neighborhood Commercial Zone are proposed that could result in a noise‐related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source and existing or proposed noise‐sensitive receptor, an acoustical analysis shall be required by the City of Visalia that quantifies Project‐related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. Potential impacts in exceedance of the City of Visalia’s standards shall require incorporation of mitigation such as increased setbacks, sound walls, equipment enclosures, site design, and enhanced building materials to reduce impacts to levels below the City of Visalia standards. Development that cannot incorporate mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable City of Visalia standards shall not be approved. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be p rovided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

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

3.13-12), the City of Visalia will require construction of block walls to achieve noise attenuation to below the City’s noise thresholds. The City of Visalia Design and Improvement
Standards provide guidelines and standards for the construction of block walls, within the Cit y of Visalia. Standard wall heights permitted by the City of Visalia range between 6‐foot to 7‐ foot Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-21 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
in height. Depending on the height and geometric relationship between the roadway and the receiver location, walls of this height range would be typically expected to provide between approximately 5‐6 dB of noise attenuation. While specific wall height requirements would generally be determined once final lot layout designs and elevations are known, wall heights of up to 7 feet will be sufficient to mitigate traffic noise within all proposed residential land uses, to below the City’s acceptable maximum allowed noise exposure levels. Evidence of
compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City of Visalia prior to issuance of building permits.

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia

Transportation
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-22 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
TRA-1:

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia

TRA-2:

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

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Visalia

TRA-3:

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

Prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to City of Visalia, as appropriate, for approval. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with both the California Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and shall include, but not be limited to, the following issues:
a. Timing of deliveries of heavy equipment and building materials; Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
construction
or building
permits
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-23 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
b. Directing construction traffic with a flag person;
c. Placing temporary signing, lighting, and traffic control devices if required, including, but not limited to, appropriate signage along access routes to indicate the presence of heavy vehicles and construction traffic;
d. Ensuring access for emergency vehicles to the project site; e. Temporarily closing travel lanes or delaying traffic during materials delivery, transmission line stringing activities, or any other utility connections;
f. Maintaining access to adjacent property; and,
g. Specifying both construction-related vehicle travel and oversize load haul routes, minimizing construction traffic during the AM and PM peak hour, distributing construction traffic flow across alternative routes to access the project sites, and avoiding residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TRI-1: Prior to any ground disturbance, a surface inspection of the site shall be conducted by a Tribal Monitor. The Tribal Cultural Staff shall monitor the site during grading activities. The Tribal Staff shall provide pre -project-related information to supervis ory personnel and any excavation contractor, which will include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if resources are found. Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall offer the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground-disturbing Project
Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbance
City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-24 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
activities. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the tribe.

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

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

Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia

TRI-3: Upon coordination with the Lead Agency, any archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate tribal Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Executive Summary

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. ES-25 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.

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

Project
Applicant
Ongoing City of
Visalia

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Impact Report (EIR or Draft EIR) has been prepared on behalf of the City of Visalia (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This chapter outlines the purpose of and overall approach to the preparation of the EIR for the proposed Project. The Project Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan to develop approximately 507-acres of land into a mixed -use development. The Project will feature a variety of uses including single - family residential, multi-family housing, commercial, educational, and parks/trails facilities. The proposal features several different types of housing for a total of up to 3,262 residential units and approximately 35.1 acres (205,000 square feet) of commercial development at buildout . The proposed Project is in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggi n Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site consists of two parcels, one of which is within the unincorporated area of Tulare County and the other is within the City; however, the entire site is within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary and Sphere of Influence. Refer to Chapter Two – Project Description for the full description of the Project.

An EIR responds to the requirements of CEQA as set forth in Sections 15126, 15175, and 15176 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission and City Council will use the EIR during the public review process in order to understand the potential environmental implications associated with implementing the Project.

1.1 Purpose of EIR

The City of Visalia, as Lead Agency, determined that the proposed activities constitute a “project” within the definition of CEQA. The preparation of an EIR is required by CEQA prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

This Draft EIR has been prepared according to CEQA requirements to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Project. The Draft EIR also discusses alternatives to the Project, and proposes mitigation measures that will offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts. This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, California Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-2
Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Visalia.

An EIR must disclose the expected direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with a project, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts.

CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development.

1.2 Type of EIR

The State CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to di fferent project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Project -level EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. A Project-level EIR is described in State CEQA Guidelines § 15161 as: “The most common type of EIR (which) examines the environmenta l impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and ope ration. The project -level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of a proposed project.

1.3 Intended Uses of the EIR

The City of Visalia, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies wi th an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-3
This EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to eva luate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the Project. This EIR may also be used by other agencies within the area, including the Air District, which may use this EIR during the permitting process.

1.4 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies

The term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a “Trustee” agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (CEQA Guidelines Section 15386). The Project may require permits and approvals from Trustee and Responsible Agencies, which may include, but not be limited, to the following:

• Tulare County LAFCO (annexation)
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – approval of construction and/or operational air quality permits
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (Storm Water Pollution Control Plan)

1.5 Environmental Review Process

The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:

Notice of Preparation

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

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

Six agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were presented or submitted during the public review period (June 2 – July 5, 2022). The NOP and written comments provided to the City during the 30 -day public review p eriod for the NOP are presented in Appendix A. NOP comment letters are summarized as follows:

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-4
• CA Department of Conservation – Geologic Energy Management Division (June 6, 2022): Identified a previous properly abandoned oil or gas well on the site. The Department provided additional guidance on the proper handling of the well. Refer to Section 3.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials for further information.

• CA Department of Fish & Wildlife (July 11, 2022): Identified potential species in the project area and provided recommendations on handling of such species. Refer to Section 3.4 – Biological Resources for more information.

• CA Department of Conservation – Division of Land Resource Protec tion (June 14, 2022): Identified potential farmland impacts due to loss of agricultural lands on the site. Provided suggestions for mitigation for the loss of agricultural lands. Refer to Section 3.2 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources for more information.

• Native American Heritage Commission (June 8, 2022): Identified the applicable tribal consultation guidelines and requirements associated with the Project. Refer to Section

3.18 – Tribal Cultural Resources for more information.

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (June 22, 202 2): Identified the District’s applicable guidelines and requirements associated with air emissions from construction and operation of the Project. Refer to Section 3.3 – Air Quality for more information.

• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (June 2, 2022): Identified requirements and expectations of the Project traffic impact study. Provided additional information to support the study analysis. Refer to Section 3.17 – Transportation for more information.

Draft EIR

This document constitutes the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of the project’s direct and indirect impacts on the environment, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as w ell as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This Draft EIR identifies issues determined Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-5
to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in this EIR. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Visalia will file the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period.

Public Notice/Public Review

Concurrent with the NOC, the City of Visalia will provide a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR, and invite comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Consistent with CEQA requirements, the review period for this Draft EIR is forty-five (45) days. Public comment on the Draft EIR will be accep ted in written form. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Brandon Smith, Principal Planner
City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
[email protected]

Responses to Comments/Final EIR

Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to written comments received during the public review period and to oral comments during such review period.

Entitlement Procedures / Certification of the EIR / Project Consideration

The City of Visalia will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project will require the following approvals from the City of Visalia:

Specific Plan
• Certification of the Project EIR
• Approval of the Final Specific Plan
• Approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-6
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of a General Plan Amendment
• Approval of Zone Changes
Individual Projects Within the Specific Plan
• Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment to reflect the various stages of the Project (ministerial)
• Approval of Tentative Tract Maps
• Amendments to the Specific Plan, if necessary
• Site Plan Review
• Issuance of Grading / Building Permits (ministerial)
• Public street dedications
• One or more Conditional Use Permits for anticipated uses including, but not limited to a Costco retail store, gas station and car wash
Prior to taking action to approve the project, the City of Visalia will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the City Council may certify the Final EIR in acco rdance with CEQA. As set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the standards of adequacy require an EIR to provide a sufficient degree of analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project that intelligently take account of environment al consequences.

Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the project. A decision to approve the proposed project, for which this EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and C EQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.

1.6 Organization and Scope

Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include a description of the environmental setting, an Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-7
environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, alternatives, signi ficant irreversible environmental changes, growth -inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Discussion of the environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR was established through review of environmental and planning documentation developed for the proje ct, environmental and planning documentation prepared for recent projects located within the City of Visalia, and responses to the NOP. This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:

Executive Summary

The Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the project’s environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. This chapter identifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed project.

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the proposed project, the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible agencies, summ arizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, identifies the scope and organization of the Draft EIR, and summarizes comments received on the NOP.

Chapter 2.0 – Project Description

Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, subsequent projects and activities, and a list of related agency action requirements.

Chapter 3.0 – Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Chapter 3.0 contains an analysis of environmental topic areas as identified below. Each subchapter addressing a topical area is organized as follows:

Environmental Setting. A description of the existing environment as it pertains to the topical area.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-8
Regulatory Setting. A description of the regulatory environment that may be applicable to the project.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Identification of the thresholds of significance by which impacts are determined, a description of project-related impacts associated with the environmental topic, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and a conclusion as to the significance of each impact.

The following environmental topics are addressed in this Draft EIR:

• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Services
• Wildfire

Chapter 4.0 – Project Alternatives

Chapter 4.0 provides a comparative analysis between the merits of the proposed project and the selected alternatives. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 1

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1-9
of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen any significant environmental effects of the project.

Chapter 5.0 – Other CEQA-Required Topics

Chapter 5.0 evaluates and describes the following CEQA required topics: growth-inducing effects, significant and irreversible effects, significant and unavoidable impacts, substantial adverse effects on protected fish, wildlife, and plant species, substantial adverse effects on human beings, and effects not found to be significant.

Chapter 6.0 – Report Preparers

Chapter 6.0 lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

Appendices

This section includes the NOP and responses to the NOP in addition to biological, cultural, hydrology, air quality/GHG, noise and traffic technical studies.

Incorporation by Reference

In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft EIR has incorporated by reference the Visalia General Plan Update - Environmental Impact Report , adopted October 14, 2014 (State Clearinghouse #2010041078). That document is available for review at the City of Visalia, 315 E.

Acequia Avenue, Visalia, CA 93291.

Chapter 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-1
Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Use

The proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan Project (referred to herein as the “Project” or “proposed Project”) is located on approximately 507-acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077- 100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses. Refer to Figure 2-1: Regional Location Map, Figure 2-2: City Boundary Map, Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use Designations, and Figure 2-4: Aerial Site Vicinity Map.

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

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

Surrounding Land Uses

Location Existing Land
Use
North Dairy Farm /
Agriculture
South Residential /
Church / Water
Storage Tank
West Dairy Farm /
Agriculture
East Agriculture
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-2
Figure 2-1
Regional Location Map

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-3
Figure 2-2
City Boundary Map

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-4
Figure 2-3
Existing General Plan Land Use Map

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-5
Figure 2-4
Aerial Site Vicinity

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-6

2.2 Project Description

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

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

Therefore, for purposes of providing the maximum number of potential residential units, a total of 65 units was added to the total for both phases (13.0 acres X 5.0 units per acre = 65 units), for a maximum development potential of 1,592 low density residential units.

Commercial
The proposed Project includes up to 35.1 acres of commercial development in two locations within the Project for a total of approximately 205,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial area. The commercial developments will occur in the proposed Mixed Use Commercial Zone and the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The maximum size for a single or anchor tenant shall be 170,000 square feet within the Mixed Use Commercial Zone as shown in Figure 2 -5. The first commercial area consists of up to 28.7 acres of Mixed Use Commercial at the intersection of Riggin Avenue and Shirk Road (Road 92). Anticipated uses at this location will include development consisting of a Costco, gas station, car wash, drug store, retail, restaurants (including drive - throughs), and similar uses. The second consists of up to 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood at the northeast corner of the development. Anticipated uses at this location may include development such as r etail, services and restaurants. The commercial facilities are located to provide efficient accessibility to residents of the Project and the surrounding areas.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-7
Other Project Components
Other proposed uses include approximately 13.0 acres for a potential site for a future elementary school, 17.3 gross acres for a drainage basin, and approximately 17.3 acres of parks/trails/recreational facilities. Various other infrastructure improvements (water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure, roadway improvements, and related improvements) will be required by the Project. Refer to the descriptions of these components later in this Chapter.

The Project is proposed to be built out in two phases as identified in Table 2-1 and as shown in Figure 2-5. Refer to the subsection titled Visalia Urban Growth Boundary Tiers and Project Phasing for a description of proposed Project phasing.

Table 2 -1
Summary of Proposed Land Uses

Phase 1

Total
Acreage

Park /
Rec
Acreage*
Number
of Units

Proposed
Density
High Density Residential
(APN: 077-100-088) 9.7 0 146 ~15
units/acre
High Density Residential
(APN: 077-100-105) 29.3 0.8 440 ~15
units/acre
Medium Density Residential 9.1 0.1 91 ~10
units/acre
Low Density Residential 100.9 2.6 505** ~5 units/acre Commercial Mixed Use 28.7 - N/A -
Phase 1 Total: 177.7 3.5 1,182

Phase 2

Total
Acreage
Park /
Rec
Acreage*
Number of
Units
Proposed
Density
High Density Residential 21.7 0.2 326 ~ 15
units/acre
Medium Density Residential 66.7 3.4 667 ~10
units/acre
Low Density Residential 204.5 9.0 1,022** ~5 units/acre Commercial Neighborhood 6.4 0.3 N/A -
Basin 17.3 - N/A -
Public/Institutional (or LDR)*** 13.0 0.9 N/A (or 65) ~5 units/acre***
Phase 2 Total: 329.6 13.8 2,080***

Total for Both Phases: 507.3 17.3 3,262

* Park / Recreation acreage is included within each land use designation’s “total acreage”. ** The number of proposed units for low density residential portion of the development may be lower than 1,592 units depending on final configuration of the lots.
*** Includes 65 units of low density residential in place of the 13.0 acre elementary school.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-8
Figure 2-5
Site Layout Plan

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-9
Visalia Urban Growth Boundary Tiers and Project Phasing The City of Visalia’s General Plan includes a three-tier system to account for future growth (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3). Thresholds were set on residential permits, commercial square -footage, industrial square-footage and regional square -footage. Tier 1 c urrently allows development to occur within the Tier 1 boundary, while Tiers 2 and 3 can be developed after certain thresholds are met during/after buildout of Tier 1. Under the City of Visalia’s General Plan Policy LU-P-22, an approved specific-planned site can be annexed before development is permitted in Tier 2 or Tier 3. Annexations are reviewed within the context of the regulations and polices in the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Governments Reorganization Act of 2000 and the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Policy and Procedure Manual regarding development and inventory of existing vacant land designed for urban uses in the City limits. The City of Visalia’s General Plan Policy LU-P-22 allows the City Council to approve master-planned developments for sites under single ownership or unified control, which may include developable land within multiple Tiers. A Development Agreement will be prepared, which is a separate document that details the overall development, density, phasing, infrastructure needs and financing, as well as outlines the responsibilities of each party. The Development Agreement and the Master Plan have a consistent vision with Visalia’s General Plan and the City’s interest in growth through phasing. Figure 2-6 below identifies the City’s Tier boundaries relative to the Project site.

Figure 2 -6
City of Visalia Tier Boundaries

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-10
The Project is proposed to be built out in two phases as identified in Table 2 -1 and as shown in Figure 2-5. Although the exact timing of construction and buildout will be determined by market conditions, the Project Applicant and the City, it is anticipated that the Project would be built out over an approximate 15-year period with approximately 100 low-density residential units per year on average with the remaining buildout to be determined by demand . The Project is proposed to be generally built out in two phases as follows:

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

For APN 077-100-105, the site is within the Tier 1 boundary and is currently designated by the City’s General Plan for High Density Residential. The Project intends to retain this land use designation and to develop the site as follows:
• 29.3 acres of High Density Residential (440 units)
For APN 077 -100-088, Phase 1 development only includes the southern portion of the parcel (approximately 150 acres) and is included in the Tier 2 boundary. This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 9.7 acres of High Density Residential (146 units)
• 9.1 acres of Medium Density Residential (91 units)
• 100.9 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 505 units) • 28.7 acres of Commercial Mixed Use
For APN: 077-100-088, the Low Density Residential portion will be built first.

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

This portion is proposed to be developed with a variety of uses as follows:
• 21.7 acres of High Density Residential (326 units)
• 66.7 acres of Medium Density Residential (667 units)
• 204.5 acres of Low Density Residential (up to 1,022 units) • 6.4 acres of Commercial Neighborhood
• 17.3 acres of Basin
• 13.0 acres of Public/Institutional

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-11
The timing of development and installation of infrastructure for Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be identified in a Development Agreement.

Site Circulation and Access
The overall layout of the proposed Project is block form, with shortened roadway lengths and cul-de-sacs in order provide limited thru-traffic and to create a walkable urban environment. The site has been designed with 1 3 points of ingress and egress . Additional access points will be provided for the commercial uses that are proposed to occur at the southwest corner of the site and for the high -density residential development at the northwest corner of the site . The following is a summary of roadway improvements that will be required:

Arterials
W. Riggin Avenue, N. Shirk Road (Road 92), N. Akers Street (Road 100), and Avenue 320 are classified as arterial roads in the City’s Circulation Element with a right-of-way of 110 feet. The arterials in the Plan Area will include two through -lanes of traffic in each direction, as well as a left-turn channelization when needed. When applicable, road 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 project is fully developed Riggin will have four lanes. N. Shirk Road, N. Akers Street and Avenue 320 shall have two lanes in one direction and one lane in the opposite direction.

Widening of W. Riggin Avenue, N. Shirk Road and N. Akers Street will be necessary with right-of-way dedications.

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

Local Streets
The remaining streets within the Plan Area, including Sedona Avenue, are classified as local and will be developed to residential street standards. Most l ocal streets within the Plan Area will have a right of way width of 60 feet. A combination of speed tables and roundabouts will be used as traffic calming devices.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-12
The Project will be responsible for construction of internal roadways as well as for potent ial improvements to surrounding roadways to accommodate the Project. The Project also includes improvements and landscaping along the frontage roads and within the site itself.

Infrastructure
The Project will require connection to various City-operated utility and infrastructure systems. These include City-provided services such as sewer/wastewater, water and stormwater facilities. Non-City- provided infrastructure includes natural gas (to be provided by Southern California Gas Company) and electrical services (to be provided by Southern California Edison). The Project will be responsible for construction of connection points to the City’s existing infrastructure. Proposed infrastructure improvements for sewer/wastewater, water and stormwater facilities are described below.

Sewer/Wastewater
Sewer/wastewater generated by the Project will be treated by the City’s W ater Conservation Plant. The Project proposes to install and extend all City master planned sewer lines to the extent determined by t he City Engineer per development phasing plans. The system supporting the proposed development will tie in with the existing sewer system along North Akers Street and Sedona Avenue. A minimum 8” sanitary sewer main and appurtenances will be extended from N. Roeben Street, N. Akers Street, N. Shirk Road, Shannon Parkway, and Sedona Avenue. A 36” sanitary sewer line is proposed along Avenue 320, and a 42” sanitary sewer line is proposed along Shirk Road. The extension of sewer mains shall comply with the standards established in the City’s sewer and storm master plan.

Water
Potable water is anticipated to be supplied to the Project by Cal Water. The Project will require the extension of pipelines to accommodate future growth, including the installation of 12” mains to connect to the Project Area. A 12” main on Akers Street will be extended north of the Ridgeview Middle School. A 12” main will be extended from Shirk Road to the intersection of Riggin Avenue. A 12” main located on Riggin Avenue will also be extended from Shirk Road to Roeben Street. A planned completion of a main on Riggin Avenue to Akers Street will also serve the Project Area. Major streets around the property will require a 12” main, an d interior streets will require an 8” main. Fire hydrants will be located every 600 feet of linear residential and 500 feet of linear commercial.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-13
Stormwater
The storm water drainage system for the Project will be designed in compliance with City standards to ensure adequate facilities to serve the Project. The Project will discharge stormwater runoff through a proposed storm drain system that drains into a proposed drainage basin onsite.

A site survey was conducted to identify the appropriate location o f the drainage basin based on site slopes and other factors. The basin is proposed to be integrated into the western edge of the Project Area at the northeast corner of Shirk Road and Shannon Parkway. The proposed basin location is in the lowest elevation of the Project site and is in the natural drainage/low area of the development. This allows for natural stormwater runoff. The basin is approximately 17.3 gross acres, 11.4 net acres, with a capacity of 97.8 acre/feet. The 97.8 acre/feet of capacity is in excess of the 89.69 acre/feet of storage capacity that would be required by the Project. Half of the basin is proposed to be completed for Phase 1. In addition to serving the proposed development, t he basin will be designed to accommodate storm drainage for the existing Ridgeview Middle School, the proposed High School, future elementary school, and the City Park at the intersection of Akers Street and Riggin Avenue. A bioswale will be used to collect storm wate r from developments adjacent to the existing Modoc Ditch. The bioswale shall be connected to the proposed basin. The location of the bioswale adjacent to the bike path trail will enhance the landscape space.

Proposed infrastructure improvements are identified below, by phase.

Phase 1

1. Extension of 42” sewer trunk line along Shirk from the Shirk and Riggin intersection. The sewer trunk line is to extend north to Phase 2.

2. Extension of 12” water line from the Shirk and Riggin intersection. The water line is to extend north to Phase 2.

3. A 10” sanitary sewer main and appurtenances shall be extended from North Roeben Street, Shannon Parkway, and Sedona Avenue.

4. Extension of 8” water line along Shannon Parkway from Shirk to Roeben.

5. Installation of s torm drainage facility. Partial completion of proposed storm basin located within Phase 2.

6. Installation of improvements along Shirk frontage to Phase 2. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 8’ wide landscape, 7’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ w ide bike lane, 4’ buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes, median (18’ wide) and 12’ wide travel lane.

7. Installation of improvements along Riggin from Shirk to where improvements are already in place near Akers. Including 6’ tall block wall at residential, 7’ wide sidewalk, Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-14
5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ wide buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes and 18’ wide median

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

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

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

11. Installation of three roundabouts: Shannon Parkway and Roeben, Sedona and Denton, and Roeben and Sedona.

Phase 2

1. Extension of 42” sewer trunk line along Shirk to Ave 320.

2. Extension of 36” sewer trunk line along Ave 320 from Shirk to Akers.

3. A minimum 10” sanitary sewer main and appurtenances shall be extended Along Pratt from Shirk to Roeben.

4. Extension of 12” water line along Shirk to Ave 320., Ave 320 between Shirk & Akers, and Akers from Shannon Parkway to Ave 320.

5. Completion of proposed storm basin located within Phase 2.

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

7. Installation of improvements along Shirk frontage. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 8’ wide landscape, 7’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes, median (18’ wide) and (1) 12’ wide travel lane.

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

9. Installation of improvements along Akers to Ave. 320. Including: 6’ wide planter, 12' wide class 1 bike trail, 18' wide bioswale, +/ -12’ wide ditch & police access , existing 32’ wide Modoc Ditch, +/-10’ wide ditch access and walking path, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutter, 6’ Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-15
wide bike lane, 4’ wide buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes , median (18’ wide) and (1) 12’ travel lane.

10. Installation of improvements on Ave. 320 from Akers to Shirk. Including: 6’ tall block wall, 8’ landscape, 7’ wide sidewalk, 5’ wide planter, curb/gutte r, 6’ wide bike lane, 4’ wide buffer, (2) 12’ travel lanes, median (18’ wide) and (1) 12’ wide travel lane.

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

Parks, Trails and Open Space
The Project will provide a vari ety of public recreational facilities , including trails within the development that will be accessible by the public . A Landscaping and Lighting Act Assessment District shall be formed, prior to recordation of the final map. The purpose is for the maintenance of the landscaping, fences and/or walls along the public street frontages and open space areas of the subdivision. The Landscape and Lighting Act Assessment District shall include the operational and maintenance cost for the street lights within the subdivision and along streets abutting the subdivision. The Landscape and Lighting Act Assessment District shall include the provisions for the City to collect payment from the subdivider to cover the estimated cost to operate and maintain the improvement s of the District prior to assessments occurring on the property tax roll.

Refer to Figure 2 -7 for the general location of the proposed recreational facilities , which are described as follows:

Modoc Greenway: Modoc Ditch is an existing site feature along the northern portion of Akers and runs east/west through the center of the site. A trail will be installed along the existing Modoc Ditch. The trail will be located north of Shannon Avenue and the existing Modoc Ditch. Modoc Greenway will be installed along Akers Street, immediately west of the roadway and the existing Modoc Ditch. The Greenway will include a Class 1 bike trail with landscaping on either side and tree clusters will provide shade for the users. The Modoc Greenway will connect to the nearby basin trail. The trail will provide a route for residents to access school sites, the commercial areas of the development, and neighborhoods throughout Carleton Acres.

Trails: The network of trails proposed by the Project will provide convenient walking and biking options for residents to connect throughout Carleton Acres. Modoc Greenway is the main east/west and north/south trail facility within the development and will serve as a connection Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-16
point for other smaller trails. As described above, Modoc Greenway will be a Class 1 bike trail with landscaping on either side. Other trails throughout Carleton Acres will be 22’ wide (6’ walking & 6’ bike lane with 5’ landscaping on each side). These trails are as follows:
• Trail to connect the proposed high school to the future elementary school site (north & south) within the development.
• Trail to connect the future elementary school to Modoc Greenway to the east. • Trail along Roeben to connect the proposed high school, to the medium and high density residential along Riggin and to the commercial center at the northeast corner of Riggin and Shirk.
• Around the basin, a trail will connect Modoc Greenway to the high-density development in the northwest corner of the site.

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

2.3 Project Objectives

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following are the City of Visalia’s Project objectives:
• To provide a mixed-use development at pricing appropriate for the market, in a growing area of the City of Visalia that satisfies the City of V isalia’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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-17
• To provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, parks/open space areas, landscaping and other project amenities.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-18
Figure 2-7
Parks/Recreational Facilities Plan

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 2

CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2-19

2.4 Required Approvals

City of Visalia
The City of Visalia will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project will require the following approvals from the City of Visalia:

Specific Plan
• Certification of the Project EIR
• Approval of the Final Specific Plan
• Approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Approval of a General Plan Amendment
• Approval of Zone Changes
Individual Projects Within the Specific Plan
• Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment to reflect the various stages of the Project (ministerial)
• Approval of Tentative Tract Maps
• Amendments to the Specific Plan, if necessary
• Site Plan Review
• Issuance of Grading / Building Permits (ministerial)
• Public street dedication
• One or more Conditional Use Permits for anticipated uses including, but not limited to a Costco retail store, gas station and car wash
Other Public Agencies Approval and Consultation
The Project will require various permits and/or entitlements from regulat ory agencies.

Consultation may be required and the City of Visalia will integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review requirements. These may include, but not be limited to the following:
• Tulare County LAFCO (annexation)
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – approval of construction and/or operational air quality permits
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)

Chapter 3

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,

IMPACTS & MITIGATION

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-1

3.1 Aesthetics
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project on visual character, scenic resources, views, scenic highways and sources of light and glare. No NOP comment letters were received pertaining to Aesthetics.

Environmental Setting
Project Site and Surrounding Areas
The proposed Project is located on approximately 507 -acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue ) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077 -100-088 and APN 077 -100-105. APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County while APN 077- 100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses.

Visalia is part of the Central Valley province, one of several geomorphic provinces in California.

The Central Valley is in a basin bounded by the Sierra Nevada foothills and mountains to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west, and is filled with deep layers of sediment from the Sierra Nevada. The Project site is generally flat and averages approximately 309 feet above mean sea level. The topography in the area consists of a slight slope to the west / southwest.

The property was observed to be in varying stages of agriculture with the northern half planted with grapevines (as of July 2022) and the southern half recently disked. The proposed Project site is located in a developing area planned to be part of the City of Visalia. Currently, Ridgeview Middle School is located adjacent to and west of Akers Street and would abut the proposed Project site. In addition, the City is currently planning a new high school that will be constructed adjacent to and west of Ridgeview Middle School and would be surrounded by the proposed Project to the north, west and south.

Refer to Site Photographs 1 – 6 for representative pictures of the Project site and surrounding areas.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-2

Photograph 1: View of the northwest corner looking southwest.

Photograph 2: View of the northeast corner looking southeast.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-3

Photograph 3: View of the southeast corner looking northwest.

Photograph 4: View of the southeast corner looking northeast.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-4

Photograph 5: View from N. Shirk Road near center of development looking east.

Photograph 6: View from Avenue 320 near center of development looking south.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-5 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
There are no applicable federal regulations, plans or policies pertaining to aesthetics that are applicable to the proposed Project.

State Regulations
Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The 2019 Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards were adopted by the State of California Energy Commission (CEC) (Title 24, Parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards) went into effect on January 1, 2020 . The changes included modified standards to reflect an industry shift to LED lighting, and other changes.

Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program was established by the state Legislature in 1963 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been officially designated. The state laws governing t he scenic highways program are found in the Streets and Highways Code Sections 260-263.

State Scenic Highways
According to the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway Program, there are no designated State Scenic Highways within the Project area or in the City of Visalia. The closest eligible State Scenic Highway is SR 198, east of SR 99, and is approximately two miles south of the Project site1.

1 California State Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap- liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed July 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-6 Local Regulations
Scenic Views
Scenic views provided by the Sierra Nevada to the east and much of the rural agricultural land surrounding the City is beyond Visalia’s jurisdiction. Tulare County retains sole jurisdiction outside Visalia’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City of Visalia has authority for land use decisions that could affect sceni c views within City limits or on land in the SOI that would be urbanized under the General Plan. Caltrans has jurisdiction over the design of its facilities, and Tulare Irrigation District (TID) retains control over its canals within the City. Visalia adop ted its Scenic Highways Element in February 1976, in which Highway 198 is identified as a scenic resource.

Highway 198 is below grade through the city core.2
Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan includes specific goals and policies relate d to aesthetics and scenic resources. Those that apply to the proposed project are listed below.

OSC-P-8: Protect, restore and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation along Planning Area waterways, including the St. Johns River; Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks; and segments of other creeks and ditches where feasible, in conformance with the Parks and Open Space diagram of this General Plan.

OSC-P-10: Ensure that building and vehicle service areas, loading docks, trash enclosures and storage areas are setback back from waterways and/or screened from view from the creek corridor to minimize environmental and visual impacts.

OSC-P-13: In new neighborhoods that include waterways, improvement of the waterway corridor, including preservatio n and/or enhancement of natural features and development of a continuous waterway trail on at least one side, shall be required.

OSC-P-17: Require that new development along waterways maintain a visual orientation and active interface with waterways. Develop design guidelines to be used for review and approval of subdivision and development proposals to illustrate how this can be accomplished for different land uses in various geographic settings.

2 Visalia General Plan EIR, page 3.13-4.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-7 OSC-P-33: Develop a list of recommended native plants and la ndscaping guidelines.

Make this list and guidance accessible through the Community Development Department, the public library, and the City website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

LU-P-42: Develop scenic corridor and gateway guidelines that will maintain the agricultural character of Visalia at its urban fringe.

LU-P-43: Work with utilities and transportation companies to landscape power line and railroad right -of-ways throughout the community and to underground utilities where possible.

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

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-8 LU-P-72: Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are m itigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.

LU-P-106: Develop performance standards to supplement and augment design standards to minimize the negative impacts (glare, signage, noise, dust, traffic) associ ated with the establishment of new or expansion of existing service commercial and industrial development.

PSCU-P-11: Develop a system of natural corridors and greenways, consistent with the Parks and Open Space diagram.

Thresholds of Significance

The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Appendix G Checklist:
o Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
o Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? o In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
o Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 3.1-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are the only natural and visual resource in the Project area. Views of these distant mountains are afforded only during clear conditions due to poor air quality in the valley. Distant views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains would largely be unaffected by the development of the Project because of distance from the mountains and limited visibility of these features under Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-9 current conditions. In addition, the Project would not substantially impede these existing views of the mountains from adjacent viewpoints because of the low-profile nature of the development (two-story maximum) and because of the lack of existing urban development adjacent to the site that currently have views of the mountains. The City of Visalia does not identify views of these features as required to be “protected.”
The Project site is within a developing area planned to be part of Visalia. There are no scenic vistas or other protected scenic resources on or ne ar the site. Therefore, the Project has a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

Visual character of the site is addressed further in Response 3.1-3 below.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact 3.1-2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. See Response to Impact a, above . In addition, there are no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildi ngs located on or near the site. The 44-mile stretch of State Route 198 between State Route 99 and Sequoia National Park is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status, but is not officially designated. This includes the length of SR 198 within the Planning Area of the City of Visalia. While the City has not requested official designation, it has evaluated the corridor in the Scenic Highways Element of the existing General Plan and has taken steps to preserve and enhance the corridor’s scenic quality3. The proposed Project is located approximately two miles north of State Route 198 and would not be visible to/from State Route 198 due to intervening land uses. Thus, the Project would not impact any scenic resources associated with State Route 198. Because there are no scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or scenic highways, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

3 Visalia General Plan EIR, page 3.13-2.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-10 Impact 3.1-3: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Significant and Unavoidable. The proposed Project is located in an area of Visalia that is planned for, and is undergoing urban development. The area to the west is planned for commercial/industrial development, areas to the east are planned for residential development and to the south is existing residential development. Areas to the north primarily consist of agriculture/dairy and scattered rural residences. In addition, the site is planned for urban development under the City’s General Plan. However, the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and is currently undeveloped. Implementation of the proposed Project will alter the visual character of the Project site from historically agricultural u ses to urban development. This includes residential housing (up to two stories in height) and commercial components including uses such as a Costco, retail, restaurants and other similar uses. New development would incrementally reduce views to open agricultural land now available to some residents and travelers on adjacent roadways. Visual changes caused by a project are evaluated in terms of their visual contrast with the area’s predominant landscape elements and features, their dominance in views relative to other existing features, and the degree to which they could block or obscure views of aesthetically pleasing landscape elements. Although this land use conversion could be perceived by some as a negative aesthetic impact in comparison with the Project site’s current pastoral appearance, based upon the subjective nature of aesthetics, the City does not anticipate that the development of the proposed Project with residential and commercial uses will create a substantially degraded visual character or qu ality to the Project site or to the properties near and around the Project site. The improvements such as those proposed by the Project are typical of large City urban areas and are generally expected from residents of the City.

The proposed Project would be similar in visual appearance to existing developments found throughout the City.

The Project design is subject to the City’s Design Guidelines adopted for the City’s General Plan which apply to site layout, building design, landscaping, interior street design, lighting, parking and signage. Detailed architectural plans, color palettes and building materials as well as landscaping plans will be submitted by the Project developer to the City of Visalia Community Development Department. The plans shall be required prior to issuance of any building permits.

In addition, landscaping easements will run along the trails and some roadways and additional landscaping design will accompany the park spaces and bicycle/ pedestrian use trails.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-11 Development of the proposed Project in compliance with the policies of the City of Visalia General Plan, the City Design Guidelines and development standards referenced above in the Regulatory Setting will ensure integ ration of new homes and non -residential structures in an aesthetically pleasing manner within the proposed development. However, because the Project would permanently alter the existing visual character of the site and area compared to existing conditions, this is considered a significant, unavoidable and irreversible impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are available.

Impact 3.1-4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Sig nificant Impact. Nighttime lighting is necessary to provide and maintain safe, secure, and attractive environments; however, these lights have the potential to produce spillover light and glare and waste energy, and if designed incorrectly, could be considered unattractive.

Light that falls beyond the intended area is referred to as “light trespass.” Types of light trespass include spillover light and glare. Minimizing all these forms of obtrusive light is an important environmental consideration. A less obtrusive and well-designed energy efficient fixture would face downward, emit the correct intensity of light for the use, and incorporate energy timers.

Spillover light is light emitted by a lighting installation that falls outside the boundaries of the property on which the installation is sited. Spillover light can adversely affect light-sensitive uses, such as residential neighborhoods at nighttime. Because light dissipates as it travels from the source, the intensity of a light fixture is oft en increased at the source to compensate for the dissipated light. This can further increase the amount of light that illuminates adjacent uses.

Spillover light can be minimized by using only the level of light necessary, and by using cutoff type fixtures or shielded light fixtures, or a combination of fixture types.

Glare results when a light source directly in the field of vision is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. The presence of a bright light in an otherwise dark setting may be distracting or annoying, referred to as discomfort glare, or it may diminish the ability to see other objects in the darkened environment, referred to as disability glare. Glare can be redu ced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angles, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-12 Currently the sources of light in the Project area are from streetlights, vehicles traveling along adjacent roadways, security lighting from Ridgeview Middle School, and lights from housing in the area. The Project would include nighttime lighting such as streetlights, residential outdoor lighting, vehicle lights, commercial facility lighting, and other similar lighting sources.

Additional night lighting sources on the Project site, especially any unshielded light, could result in spillover light that could impact surrounding properties. This would create new sources of light that could potentially have a significant impact on nighttime light levels in the area. The City’s General Plan p rovides the following information pertaining to potential light and glare from new development in the City:
“The construction of new buildings in the Planning Area may result in nighttime light pollution or daytime glare. However, their impacts are likely to be insignificant. As in most typical residential areas, homes emit some light and glare during the day and evening hours. Development under the proposed General Plan would include indoor lighting and outdoor lighting for safety purposes, but would gener ally not be out of character with the existing urban environment, and would not rise to a level of being significant. There are a number of circumstances that mitigate the potential for new or significant sources of light pollution in Visalia. The proposed General Plan policies help to ensure that lighting for new development is held to high design standards for light pollution reduction. In addition, the proposed General Plan includes policies related to buffering between urbanized and agricultural areas, further reducing the impact of light and glare associated with urbanization on neighboring rural areas.”4 During the entitlement process, the Project will be required to comply with the City’s policies pertaining to light and glare and City staff will review lighting plans to ensure that lighting plans will minimize spill-over light on neighboring properties. Thus, the Project will have a less than significant impact on light and glare.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

4 Visalia General Plan, Section 3.13 – Visual Resources, page 3.13-16.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.1-13 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the existing visual character of the area, including the introduction of light and glare?

Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to aesthetics includes the viewshed of the proposed Project and the areas surrounding the Project site from which the Project could be visible to viewers in the area. As described above, the Project will result in significant aesthetic impacts with respect to the existing visual character of the project site . The landscape in northern Visalia has been changing over the years from one of generally rural residential and agricultural uses to urban uses. Construction of future projects in the area allowed under Visalia and Tulare County General Plans would be required to be in compliance with the numerous policies and programs related to the preservation and enhancements of viewsheds and the protection of scenic resources , which wil l help ensure that projects are consistent with the character envisioned for these areas.

Several land development proposals envisioned by the City of Visalia and Tulare County General Plans, and individual project proposals, have received their entitlements, or are seeking them in the area. The northern Visalia area and its immediate environs are, therefore, the area affected by aesthetics cumulative impacts as the area of geographical visual analysis notwithstanding their consistency with adopted plans, because the planned development would change the existing character of the area from primarily agricultural to a more suburban development pattern.

Although the urban environment that is ultimately built could be aesthetically pleasing to many, these cumulative changes will significantly modify the existing visu al character and quality of the area. Based on this EIR's standards of significance , the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and related projects are significant and unavoidable , and the project’s development would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact considering the project's size and scope.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-1

3.2 Agricultural Resources
This section of the DEIR identifies potential impacts of the proposed Project pertaining t o Agricultural Resources. A California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was used to aid in the evaluation (See Appendix B). One NOP comment letter was received pertaining to this topic from the California Department of Conservation (DOC). The DOC letter outlined the requirements to evaluate loss of agricultural resources as well as suggestions for potential mitigation.

Environmental Setting
As described in Section 2.1, the Project site is located on approximately 507-acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia in Tulare County and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue) to the north. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-088 and APN 077-100-105. APN 077-100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia, with the zoning as R-M-3 (Multi-Family Residential). APN 077-100-088 consists of approximately 478 acres and is within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, with the zoning as AE-40. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia.

The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes but is designated by the City’s General Plan for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses.

The Project site is located in a developing area, with dairy farm/agricultural uses to the north and west, agricultural land uses to the east and residential area to the south. Currently, Ridgeview Middle School is located adjacen t to and west of Akers Street and would abut the proposed Project site. In addition, the City is currently planning a new high school that will be constructed adjacent to and west of Ridgeview Middle School and would be surrounded by the proposed Project to the north, west and south.

The Project site does not contain land under Williamson Act Contract, however, the entire Project site is designated Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)1. The FMMP map identifies areas to the north east, east and west as prime agricultural land. A portion of the areas to the north and the west, which

1 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

Accessed March 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-2 consist of dairy farms, are categorized as Confined Animal Agriculture, while a portion of the land adjacent to and east of the Project site consists of Urban and Built-Up Land.

The majority of forest land occurs in the eastern portion of Tulare County, in the Sierra Nevada foothills and Sierra Nevada. The Project site does not contain any land defined as forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or land zone d Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).

Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The federal Farmland Protection Policy Act, part of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, was passed in response to the National Agricultural Land Study of 1980 -1981, which found that millions of acres of farmland were being converted in the U.S. each year and a related report which found that much of this conversion was the result of programs funded by the federal government. The intent of the Act is to minimize the impact that federal programs have on unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that – to the extent possible – federal programs are administered to b e compatible with state and local government and private programs and policies to protect farmland.

State of California Regulations
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation uses the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil classifications to classify agricultural lands under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. These designated agricultural lands are included in the farmland maps used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural resources. The California Department of Conservation has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications. The categories are described below. In addition to mapping existing farmland, the FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use changes throughout California.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-3 California Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 defines agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts. Collectively, land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance is referred to as “agricultural land.” These same classifications of farmland are described as Important Farmland under the FMMP and are the also used in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G as the farmland classifications on which impacts on agricultural resources are to be evaluated.

Prime Farmland. This farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply necessary to produce sustained high yields. To be classified as Prime Farmland, the land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Unique Farmland. This is farmland of lesser quali ty soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. The land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Statewide Importance. This is farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance. This is farmland of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

Grazing Land. Grazing land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum contiguous mapping area for Grazing Land is 40 acres.

Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one building unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public and transportation uses, and other developed purposes.

Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category, including low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; animal confinement facilities; mines; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-4 nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use as a means of preserving California’s prime agricultural lands from urbanization. Prime Farmland under the Williamson Act includes land that qualifies as Class I and II under the Natural Resources Conservation Service classification of land. Through the voluntary contracts between landowners and a city or county, the owners agree to retain their lands in agricultural or other open space uses for a minimum of 10 years.

In return for entering into a Williamson Act contract, landowners receive property tax relief on the lands under contract. This relief is provided through the assessment of lands based upon their income-producing value rather than their market value, which may be considerably higher. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971. The Project site contains no lands that are subject to a Williamson Act Contract.

Local Regulations
Tulare County General Plan
The Tulare County General Plan has a number of policies that apply to projects within the County of Tulare.2 The following General Plan policies apply to the proposed Project: Policies designed to promote future development patterns that focus growth within established community areas and to mitigate loss of agricultural lands include the following:

LU-2.5 Agricultural Support Facilities wherein the County shall encourage beneficial reuse of existing or vacant agricultural support facilities for new businesses (including non-agricultural uses);
PF-1.2 Location of Urban Development wherein the County shall ensure that urban development only takes place in the following areas:

2 Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update, Part 1 – Goals and Policies Report.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-5

1. Within incorporated cities and CACUDBs;

2. Within the UDBs of adjacent cities in other counties, unincorporated communities, planned community areas, and HDBs of hamlets;

3. Within foothill development corridors as determined by procedures set forth in Foothill Growth Management Plan;

4. Within areas set aside for urban use in the Mountain Framework Plan and the mountain sub-area plans; and

5. Within other areas suited f or non -agricultural development, as determined by the procedures set forth in the Rural Valley Lands Plan; PF-1.3 Land Uses in UDBs/HDBs wherein the County shall encourage those types of urban land uses that benefit from urban services to develop within UDBs and HDBs.

Permanent uses which do not benefit from urban services shall be discouraged within these areas. This shall not apply to agricultural or agricultural support uses, including the cultivation of land or other uses accessory to the cultivation of land provided that such accessory uses are time -limited through Special Use Permit procedures;
PF-1.4 Available Infrastructure wherein the County shall encourage urban development to locate in existing UDBs and HDBs where infrastructure is available o r may be established in conjunction with development. The County shall ensure that development does not occur unless adequate infrastructure is available, that sufficient water supplies are available or can be made available, and that there are adequate provisions for long term management and maintenance of infrastructure and identified water supplies;
PF-2.4 Community Plans wherein the County shall ensure that community plans are prepared, updated, and maintained for each of the communities. These plans shall include the entire area within the community’s UDB and shall address the community’s short and long term ability to provide necessary urban services.

City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia’s General Plan has a number of policies that apply to agricultural lands.

Policies designed to promote future development patterns that focus growth within established community areas and to mitigate loss of agricultural lands include the following:

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-6 LU-O-11 Maintain Visalia as a separate and distinct community.

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

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

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

The General Plan Land Use Diagram establishes three growth rings to accommodate estimated City population for the years 2020 and 2030. The Urban Development Boundary I (UDB I) shares its bound aries with the 2012 city limits. The Urban Development Boundary II (UDB II) defines the urbanizable area within which a full range of urban services will need to be extended in the first phase of anticipated growth with a target buildout population of 178,000. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines full buildout of the General Plan with a target buildout population of 210,000. Each growth ring enables the City to expand in all four quadrants, reinforcing a concentric growth pattern...

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

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

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

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

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-7 LU-P-28 Continue to use natural and man -made edges, such as major roadways and waterways within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, as urban development limit and growth phasing lines.

LU-P-34 Work with Tulare County and other state and regional a gencies, neighboring cities, and private land trust entities to prevent urban development of agricultural land outside of the current growth boundaries and to promote the use of agricultural preserves, where they will promote orderly development and preservation of farming operations within Tulare County. Conduct additional investigation of the efficacy of agricultural conservation easements by engaging local, regional, and state agencies and stakeholders in order to further analyze their ongoing efforts an d programs that attempt to mitigate impacts from the conversion of agricultural lands through the use of agricultural conservation easements. Support regional efforts to prevent urban development of agricultural lands, specifically at the county level. Tulare County’s General Plan 2030 Update Policy contains two policies (AG -1.6 Conservation Easements and AG -1.18 Farmland Trust and Funding Sources) that discuss establishing and implementing an Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The City supp orts 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 t hat the agricultural land preserved demonstrate adequate water supply and agricultural zoning, and shall be located outside the City UDB, and within the southern San Joaquin Valley. The mitigation program shall, to the extent feasible and practicable, be i ntegrated with the agricultural easement programs adopted by the County and nearby cities. The City’s mitigation program shall allow mitigation to be provided by purchase of conservation easement or payment of fee, but shall indicate a preference for purchase of easements. The mitigation program shall require easements to be held by a qualifying entity, such as a local land trust, and require the submission of annual monitoring reports to the City. The mitigation program shall specifically Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-8 allow exemptions for conversion of agricultural lands in Tier I, or conversion of agricultural lands for agricultural processing uses, agricultural buffers, public facilities, and roadways.

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

Thresholds of Significance

The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Appendix G Checklist.

Would the project:
o Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? o Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? o Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
o Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? o Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-9 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 3.2-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Significant and Unavoidable . According to the FMMP, 3 the 507-acre proposed Project site is classified as Prime Farmland. The site is comprised of two parcels: APN 077-100-105 consists of approximately 29.3 acres and is within the City limits of Visalia, with the zoning as R-M-3 (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 and is located in both Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the City’s future growth threshold boundaries.

The City has evaluated the Project’s farmland conversion impacts utilizing the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode l (LESA) 4 , which the California Department of Conservation developed to provide lead agencies with a methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the e nvironmental review process. (See Public Resources Code §21095.)
The LESA is composed of six different factors, which are divided into two sets: Land Evaluation (LE) and Site Assessment (SA) factors. Two LE factors (Land Capability Classification Rating and Storie Index Rating) are based upon measures of soil resources quality and intended to measure the inherent, soil-based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. Four SA factors (Project Size Rating, Water Resource Availability Rating, Surrounding Agricultural Lands Rating, and Surrounding Protected Resource Lands Rating) are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land.

The two sets of factors are evenly weighted, meaning the two LE factors and four SA factors are of equal importance; however, for a given project, each of these six factors is separately rated in

3 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed December 2022. 4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Accessible at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/qh_lesa.aspx. Accessed November 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-10 a 100-point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points.

This final project score becomes the basis for making a determination of the potential impact’ s level of significance for the project, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds.

Land Evaluation Factors
The LESA includes two LE factors, discussed below, that are separately rated.

The Land Capability Classification Rating (LCC) : The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops and the risk of damage to soils when used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receiving the highest rating (Class I). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils.

The Storie Index Rating: The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a zero to 100 scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are considered in the Storie Index rating: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors such as drainage or salinity.

In some situations, only the United States Department of Agriculture’s LCC information may be available. In those cases, the Storie Index ratings can be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists; however, if limitation of time and/or resources restrict the derivation of the Storie Index rating for a given project, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating.

Site Assessment Factors
The four SA factors that are separately rated and included in the LESA are discussed below.

The Project Size Rating: The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining what grouping generates the highest Project Size score. The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating.

The Water Resources Availability Rating: The Water Resources Availability rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non-drought.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-11 The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating: Determination of the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is based upon identification of a project’s Zone of Influence (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands close to a given project. The LESA rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of the ZOI that accounts for surrounding lands (up to a minimum of 0.25 mile from the project boundary) is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use.

The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating : The Surrounding Protected Resource Land rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating, and it is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long -term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following:
• Williamson Act contracted lands
• Publicly owned lands maintained as a park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban and industrial uses Final LESA Scoring
A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all the individual LE and SA factors have been scored and weighted. The LESA is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the LE factors and 50 percent is derived from the SA factors. The final LESA score was determined for the proposed Project and the modeling results are described in Table 3.2-1.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-12 Table 3.2-1
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary

Category Factor Factor
Scores
Factor
Weight
Weighted
Factor
Points
Land
Evaluation
Land Capability
Classification 100 0.25 25
Storie
Index 80.66 0.25 20.17
LE Subtotal 0.50 45.17
Site
Assessment
Project
Size 100 0.15 15
Water Resource
Availability 100 0.15 15
Surrounding
Agricultural Land 80 0.15 12
Surrounding
Protected
Resource Lands
40 0.05 2
SA Subtotal 0.50 44
Final LESA Score: 89.17

LESA Thresholds of Significance
The LESA is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project’s conversion of agricultural lands during the CEQA process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score and the component LE and SA separate subscores. In this manner, the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score but a very low SA score, or vice-versa). The LESA scoring thresholds are described in Table 3.2-2.

Table 3.2-2
LESA Scoring Thresholds

Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 points Not considered significant
40 to 59 points Considered significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points
60 to 79 points Considered significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points
80 to 100 points Considered significant
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-13 LESA Results and Impact Determination
According to the LESA Threshold of Significance, the total score of 89.17 for the proposed Project site is considered significant. As such, the Project is subject to the City’s General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P-34 which requires mitigation for the loss of farmland.

The Project consists of 507 acres, of which approximately 29.3 acres are already within the City limits of Visalia (zoned R-M-3) and, being within Tier I, are not subject to the City’s agricultural mitigation policy. The 29.3 acres of prime farmland was previously evaluated under the City’s General Plan EIR, adopted in October 2014 (State Clearinghouse #2010041078). The remaining 478 acres are within an unincorporated area of Tulare County, are currently zoned AE-40 (Exclusive Agriculture-40 acres minimum), are within Tiers II and III, and are proposed for annexation into the City. As such, the 478 acres proposed for annexation are subject to the City’s agricult ural mitigation policy (See MM AG – 1).

The General Plan identifies the need for the conversion of agricultural land to urban development. The City has set aside three -tiered areas planned for development which contain land designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project is within Tier 2 and Tier 3, which has been deemed as land to be converted from agricultural land to urban development.

The 2014 General Plan Policy LU -P-34 contained a requirement for an Agricultural Mitigat ion Program to address the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Tier 2 and Tier 3 growth boundaries. Policy LU-P-34 requires the adoption of this type of program notwithstanding that such a program would not reduce t he environmental effects from the loss of such farmland to a level of less than significant. In order to meet the requirements of this policy, the City is preparing an Agricultural Preservation Ordinance applicable to properties within Tier 2 and Tier 3 th at requires a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved to agricultural land converted towards urban development. The Ordinance is anticipated to be adopted in mid-2023 and must be adopted for other pending entitlements submitted to the City of Visalia that are located within Tier 2 to be developed. The Ordinance will require that an equivalent amount of agricultural land converted be preserved outside the urban development boundary and within the southern San Joaquin Valley, or that a project comply with regulations within the Ordinance that will cause an equivalent amount of agriculture land to be preserved.

Additionally, the preserved agricultural land must demonstrate adequate water supply and agricultural zoning. Policy LU -P-34 notes that such a program shall, to the extent feasible and practicable, be integrated with the agricultural easement programs adopted by Tulare County and nearby cities. The City of Visalia’s program shall allow for compliance with the preservation ordinance to be completed by pur chase of easements, and that such easements be held by a Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-14 qualifying entity, such as a local land trust, and require the submission of annual monitoring reports to the City. Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance the Project proponent could mitigate for the loss of agricultural land and begin conversion of agricultural lands by providing verification to the City that it has preserved agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio using easements that meet the requirements identified in Policy LU -P-34 or participation in a n 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 complianc e is mandatory. Therefore, compliance with General Plan Policy LU -P-34 will allow the Project to convert Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance and preserve offsite farmland outside of the urban development boundaries at an equivalent ratio.

Although the Project will comply with the City’s agricultural mitigation policy based on City General Plan Policy LU -P-34 (Mitigation Measure AG – 1), conversion of agricultural land to urban use is not directly mitigable, aside from preventing development altogether. There is no additional feasible mitigation measure that would reduce the impacts related to the Prime Farmland converted as a result of development of the proposed Project. Therefore, even with mitigation, impacts as a result of farmland conversion are considered Significant and Unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
AG - 1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits , the Project proponent shall mitigate impacts for loss of up to 478 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Project site at a 1:1 ratio. The amount of land requiring mitigation shall correspond to the amount of land associated with the issuance of the grading or building permit, or for residential land associated with a subdivision map, the amount of land associated with the subdivision map. The Project proponent shall implement one or more of the following measure s to mitigate the loss: Payment of in-lieu fees, mitigation banks, fee title acquisition, and/or conservation easements on land(s) within the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California, specifically within Kern County, Tulare County, Kings County, Fresno County, or Madera County. The City shall require, at a minimum: evidence that the preserved land has adequate water supply, agricultural zoning, evidence of land encumbrance documentation, documentation that the easement/regulations are permanent and monitored, and documentation that the mitigation strategy is appropriately endowed. This mitigation shall be verified by Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-15 the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Should the City of Visalia develop an Agricultural Mitigation Program, the Project proponent, at its election, may mitigate for the loss of agricultural land through compliance with the Program that is adopted by the City in lieu of mitigating on a 1:1 ratio as described above.

Impact 3.2-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant With Mitigation.

Williamson Act Contract
As previously noted, the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, pursuant to Government Code Section 51200 et seq. Therefore, there would be no conflict with a Williamson Act Contract and as such, no impacts to this subject area.

Agricultural Zoning
Total Project acreage is 507 acres, of which approximately 29.3 acres are already within the City limits of Visalia (zoned R -M-3) and no land use changes are proposed for the 29.3 acres. The remaining 478 acres are within an unincorporated area of Tulare County , with the zoning as AE-40 (Exclusive Agriculture-40 acres minimum) and are proposed for annexation into the City.

Onced annexed, the zoning designations for 478 acres will be changed from agriculture to urban uses as described in Section 2.2 – Project Description. The new zoning would accommodate the proposed Project and as such, there would be no impact resulting from a zoning conflict.

However, in order to ensure that existing agricultural operations in the area can be maintained, a Right-to-Farm Covenant will be required as identified in Mitigation Measure AG – 2. After mitigation, the impact is determined to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
AG – 2 Reduce Conflicts Between Urban and Agricultural Uses In order to reduce potential conflicts between urban and agricultural uses, the following measures shall be implemented:
• Potential residents shall be notified about possible exposure to agricultural chemicals at the time of purchase / lease of prop erty within the development.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-16 • A Right-to-Farm Covenant shall be recorded on each residential tract map or be made a condition of each tract map to protect continued agricultural practices in the area.
• Potential residents shall be informed of the Right-to-Farm Covenant at the time of purchase / lease of property within the development.

Impact 3.2-3: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)), or result in the loss of forest land or convert forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed Project site lies in the central/eastern portion of the Central Valley floor, where there is no forest land. The Project is not zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and does not propose any zone changes related to forest or timberland. As such, there are no potential impacts resulting from forest or timber land conflicts or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Impact 3.2-4: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less Than Significant . The proposed Project site is located in an area that is surrounded by farmland / agricultural operations to the north, a proposed/future industrial complex to the west, existing residential to the south, and residential/agricultural land to the east. Total Project acreage is 507 acres, of which approximately 29.3 acres are already within the City limits of Visalia (zoned R-M-3) and no land use changes are proposed fo r the 29.3 acres. The remaining 478 acres are within an unincorporated area of Tulare County , with the zoning as AE -40 (Exclusive Agriculture-40 acres minimum) and are proposed for annexation into the City . Onced annexed, the zoning designations for the 478 acres will be changed from agriculture to urban uses as described in Section 2.2 – Project Description.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA| Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.2-17 The existing City’s Urban Growth Boundary (U GB) runs along the northern border of the proposed Project site along Avenue 320. The UBG represents the limits of available development for the City of Visalia in the Project area unless the UGB is amended in the future by the City and County. Therefore, development to the north is unlikely. There are existing and proposed urban developments to the south, east and west of the Project site, thus there is no possibility to induce further conversion of agricultural lands in these areas.

According to the LESA prepared for the Project, the site is substantially surroun ded by Prime Farmland to the north (existing agriculture), east (already planned for future urban development) and west (already planned for future urban development). However, the requested General Plan Amendment and annexation is site specific and does n ot apply to any properties other than the proposed Project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project would result in the conversion of other farmland or forest land. In addition, Mitigation Measure AG – 2 (identified in Impact 3.2-3) will ensure tha t agricultural operations can be maintained on adjacent sites. The Mitigation Measure includes a Right -to-Farm Covenant, which will further reduce the likelihood of additional conversion of farmland. Therefore, the impact is less than significant after mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AG – 2.

Cumulative Impacts
Significant, Unavoidable and Cumulatively Considerable. The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is the entire State of California. This cumulative analysis is based on the Statewide FMMP map. As discussed above, the Project includes the significant impact related to the conversion of protected farmland to urban uses. The Project will be required to mitigate the loss of farmland as identified in Mitigation Measure AG – 1. However, even with mitigation, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable impact on agricultural resources.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-1

3.3 Air Quality
This section of the DEIR evaluates the potential air quality impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Project. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.). The methodology follows the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District or SJVAPCD) for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources.

The information and analysis presented in this Section are based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas /Energy Analysis Report (AQGGEA) prepared for this Project by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting . The full AQGGEA can be reviewed in Appendix C.

During the NOP comment period, the City received a letter from the SJVAPCD that identified the District’s applicable guidelines and requirements associated with air emissions from construction and operation of the Project (See Appendix A).

Environmental Setting
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. The Air Basin is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).

Climate
The climate is important for air quality because of differences in the atmosphere’s ability to trap pollutants close to the ground, which creates adverse air quality; inversely, the atmosphere’s ability to rapidly disperse pollutants over a wide area prevents high concentrations from accumulating under different climatic conditions. The Air Basin has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-2 a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Air Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year.1
Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor.

Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution.

The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south -southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Mojave Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.

The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the San Joaquin Valley floor. This creates strong, low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to Tule fog. Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.

Existing Air Quality Conditions
The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the Project area. Table 3.3-1 summarizes 2018 through 2020 published monitoring data, which is the most recent three-year period available. The table displays data from the Visalia-N. Church Street (located approximately 3.69 miles southeast of the Project site. ) The data shows that during the past few years, the Project area has exceeded the standards for ozone (state and national), PM 10 (state and national), and PM2.5 (state and national). The data in the table reflects the concentration of the pollutants in the air measured using air monitoring equipment. This differs from emissions, which are calculations of a pollutant being emitted over a c ertain period. No recent monitoring data for Tulare County or the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin was available for CO or SO2. Generally,

1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

Revised March 19, 2015. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2022 and April 5, 2023.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-3 no monitoring is conducted for pollutants that are no longer likely to exceed ambient air quality standards.

Table 3.3-1
Air Quality Monitoring Summary

Air Pollutant Averaging
Time
Item 2018 2019 2020
Ozone1 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.112 0.093 0.127
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 8 0 7
Ozone1 8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.095 0.082 0.103
Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 58 26 37
Days > National Standard (0.070
ppm) 36 22 53
Carbon
monoxide
(CO)
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) ND ND ND
Days > State Standard (9.0 ppm) ND ND ND
Days > National Standard (9 ppm) ND ND ND
Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2)1
Annual Annual Average (ppm) 0.010 0.009 0.009
1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.069 0.070 0.053
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Annual Average (ppm) ND ND ND
24 Hour Max 24 Hour (ppm) ND ND ND
Days > State Standard (0.04 ppm) ND ND ND
Inhalable
coarse
particles
(PM10)1
Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 52.0 46.3 60.5
24 hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 159.6 418.5 305.7
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 164.4 115.8 157.0
Days > National Standard (150
µg/m3) 0.0 5.0 20.2
Fine
particulate
matter
(PM2.5)1
Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 17.4 12.3 19.6
24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 96.2 47.2 127.1
Days > National Standard (35
µg/m3) 42.3 19.9 51.2
Notes:
> = exceed ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = insufficient data ND = no data max = maximum
Bold = exceedance
State Standard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard 1 Visalia–N. Church Street Monitoring Station
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021a. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Accessed September 27, 2021.

The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways.

The clearest of these is comparable with the state and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health imp act would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount by which the standard is exceeded. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy -to-understand measu re of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air.

Table 3.3-2 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-4 Table 3.3-2
Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone 2

Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI—51–100—Moderate
Concentration 55–70 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements : Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI—101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Concentration 71–85 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements : Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI—151–200—Unhealthy
Concentration 86–105 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI—201–300—Very Unhealthy
Concentration 106–200 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements : Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor

2 Air Now. 2021. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculator-concentration/.

Accessed August 1, 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-5 Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

The AQI for the 8 -hour ozone standard is based on the current NAAQS o f 70 parts per billion (ppb). Based on the AQI scale for the 8 -hour ozone standard, the Project area experienced zero days in the last three years that would be categorized as very unhealthy (AQI 201 –300), and as many as 137 days that were either unhealthy (AQI 151 –200) or unhealthy for sensitive groups (AQI 101 –150), violating the 70 -ppb standard as measured at the Visalia –N. Church Street monitoring station. The highest reading was 103 parts per billion (ppb) in 2020, compared with the 105-ppb cutoff point for unhealthy. The most days over the standard was 58 days in 2018.

The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM 2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered moderate and would be triggered by a 24 -hour average concentration of 12.1 to 35.4 µg /m3. An AQI of 101 to 150 or 35.5 to 55.4 µg/m 3 is considered unhealthful for sensitive groups. When concentrations reach this amount, it is considered an exceedance of the federal PM 2.5 standard.

The monitoring station nearest the Project exceeded the standard on approximately 113.4 days in the three -year period spanning from 2018 to 2020. The highest number of exceedances was recorded in 2020 with 51.2 days over the standard. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children are the grou ps most at risk. Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

The AQI of 151 to 200 is classified as unhealthy for everyone. This AQI classification is triggered when PM 2.5 concentration ranges from 55.4 to 150.4 µg/m 3. At this concentration, there is increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and in the elderly. People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should limit prolonged exertion. Everyone else should reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. The highest concentration recorded at the Visalia –N. Church Street monitoring station in the last three years was 127.1 µg/m3 (AQI 192) in 2020. At this concentration, increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly and increased respiratory effects in general population would occur. People with respirat ory or heart disease, the elderly, and children should avoid prolonged exertion; everyone else should limit prolonged exertion when the AQI exceeds this level. The relationship of the AQI to health effects is provided in Table 3.3-3.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-6 Table 3.3-3
Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution 3

Air Quality Index/
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI—51–100—Moderate
Concentration 12.1–35.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups : Some people who may be unusually
sensitive to particle.

Health Effects Statements : Unusually sensitive people
should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

Cautionary Statements : Unusually sensitive people:

Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch
for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath.

These are signs to take it easier.

AQI—101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Concentration 35.5–55.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups : Sensitive groups include people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and
teenagers.

Health Effects Statements : Increasing likelihood of
respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in
persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly.

If you have heart disease: Symptoms such as palpitations, shortness of breath, or unusual fatigue may indicate a
serious problem. If you have any of these, contact your health care provider.

AQI—151–200—Unhealthy
Concentration 86–105 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups : Children and people with asthma are
the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as
asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else,

3 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-7 Air Quality Index/
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor
exertion.

AQI—201–300—Very Unhealthy
Concentration 106–200 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups : Children and people with asthma are
the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements : Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma;
increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements : Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially
children, should limit outdoor exertion.

Attainment Status
The EPA and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.

Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8 -hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is i n attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.

The current attainment designations for the Air Basin are shown in Table 3.3-4. The Air Basin is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-8 Table 3.3-4
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status

Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone—One Hour Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone—Eight Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
Carbon monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Merced, Madera, and Kings Counties are unclassified; others are in
Attainment
Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment No Designation/Classification
Source of State status: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013c. Area Designation Maps/State and National. 2012 State Area Designations. Page last reviewed October 18, 2017. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov /resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. Accessed April 3, 2021.

Source of National status: U.S. Environmental Protection Age ncy (EPA). 2021a. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants as of September 30, 2021. Website: https://www.epa.gov/green -book. Accessed October 7, 2021 and April 5, 2023.

Source of additional status information : San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2017a.

Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed August 1, 2022 and April 5, 2023.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations

Clean Air Act

Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970, and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA: particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO X), nitrogen oxides (NO X), and lead. The EPA labels these pollutants as criteria air pollutants because they are regulated by developing human health -based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines), which sets permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards. Another set of limits intended to Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-9 prevent environmental and property damage are called secondary standards. 4 The federal standards are calle d National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards. The criteria pollutants are:
• Ozone • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Lead • Sulfur dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.5 State of California Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988 to address air quality issues of concern not adequately addressed by the federal CAA at the time. California’s air quality problems were and continue to be some of the most severe in the nation, and required additional actions beyond the federal mandates. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the 1 0 air pollutants designated in the CCAA. The 10 state air pollutants are the six federal standards listed above as well visibility -reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The EPA authorized California to adopt its own regulations for motor vehicles and other sources that are more stringent than similar federal regulations implementing the CAA. The federal and state ambient air quality standards, relevant effects, properties, and sources of the pollutants are summarized in Table 2 of Appendix C. Additional discussion related to air pollutants and health effects is provided on pages 25 through 27 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report included as Appendix C. The discussion of Toxic Air Contaminants is provided on page 19 of Appendix C.

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Clean Air Act Requirements and History. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-requirements-and-history. Accessed September 26, 2021. 5 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. May 4. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2021 and April 5, 2023.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-10 Air Quality Plans and Regulations
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin or county level, and each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility: the EPA regulates at the national level, the ARB at the state level, and the District at the air basin level.

The EPA is responsible for national and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans, provides research an d guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards—also known as the federal standards described earlier.

A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal standards.

The SIP for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s SIP incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts; specifically, an air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which is sent to ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California State Implementation Plan. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms. The ARB then submits the SIP to the EPA for approval. After reviewing submitted SIPs, the EPA proposes to approve or disapprove all or part of each plan. The public has an opportunity to comment on the EPA’s proposed action. The EPA considers public input before taking final action on a state’s plan. If the EPA approves all or part of a SIP, those control measures are enforceable in federal court. If a state fails to submit an approvable plan or if the EPA disapproves a plan, the EPA is required to develop a federal implementation plan (FIP). The SIP approval process often takes several years.

The most recent federally approved attainment plans for the SJVAPCD are the 2007 8-hour Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The plan to address this standard was adopted by the SJVAPCD on June 16, 2016. The ARB approved the attainment demonstration plan for the San Joaquin Valley on July 21, 2016 and transmitted the plan to EPA on August 24, 2016. The plan for areas designated extreme nonattainment must demonstrate attainment of the new ozone standard by December 31, 2031. The 2016 Ozone Plan predicts attainment of the 2008 standard by 2031. On June 30, 2020, US EPA appr oved portions of the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM 2.5 Standards and the San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan related to the 2006 24 - hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) o f 35 μg/m³. Additionally, EPA Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-11 granted an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Federal review of portions of the plan that pertain to the other PM 2.5 standards will continue in 2020. The EPA Administrator signed the Final Rule revising the 8-hour ozone standard to 70 ppm on October 1, 2015. EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley as Extreme nonattainment for this standard in August 2018, with an attainment deadline of 2037. The SJVAPCD is mandated under federal Clean Air Act requirements to develop a new attainment plan for the revised ozone standard by 2022.6 Areas designated nonattainment must develop air quality plans and regulations to achieve standards by specified dates, depe nding on the severity of the exceedances. For much of the country, implementation of federal motor vehicle standards and compliance with federal permitting requirements for industrial sources are adequate to attain air quality standards on schedule. For many areas of California, however, additional state and local regulation is required to achieve the standards. Regulations adopted by California are described below.

Low-Emission Vehicle Program. The ARB first adopted Low -Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 State Implementat ion Plan. In 2012, ARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments, also known as the Advanced Clean Car Program, include more stringent emission standards for model years 2017 through 2025 for both criteria pollutants and GHGs for new passenger vehicles.7 On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program. The ARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on -road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on -road heavy -duty engines and vehicles, as well as test procedures. ARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in- use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others.8

6 Ibid. Page 32.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid. Page 32.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-12 ARB Truck and Bus Regulation. The latest amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation became effective on December 31, 2014. The amended regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low -use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks.9 Advanced Clean Truck Reg ulation. The Advanced Clean Trucks regulation was approved on June 25, 2020 and has two main components, a manufacturers ZEV sales requirement and a one- time reporting requirement for large entities and fleets. Promoting the development and use of advanced clean trucks will help CARB achieve its emission reduction strategies as outlined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Senate Bill (SB) 350, and Assembly Bill (AB) 32.

The proposed regulation has two components includin g a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
• Zero-emission truck sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b -8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero -emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero - emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 –8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. • Company and fleet reporting: Large emp loyers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations. This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero -emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.10

9 Ibid, Page 33.
10 Ibid, Page 34.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-13 ARB Regulation for In -Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and nitrous oxide (NO X) emissions from in -use (existing) off -road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than f ive consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. The ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation.

Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOX emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501–5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).

ARB Regulation for Consumer Products . The ARB Consumer Products Regulation was last amended in January 2015. The ARB regulates the VOC content of a wide variety of consumer products sold and manufactured in California. The purpose of the regulation is to reduce the emission of ozone precursors, TACs, and GHG emissions in products that are used by homes and businesses. The regulated products include but are not limited to solvents, adhesives, air fresheners, soaps, aromatic compounds, windshield cleaners, charcoal lighter, dry cleaning fluids, floor polishes, and general cleaners and degreasers.11 ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos. In July 2001, the ARB approved an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of best management practices to cont rol fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground - disturbing activities. The measure establishes specific testing, notification and engineering controls prior to grading, quarrying, or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than 1 acre in size. These projects require the submittal of a Dust Mitigation Plan and approval by the air district prior to the start of a project.

Construction sometimes requires the demolition of existing buildings where construction occurs.

Buildings often include materials containing asbestos. Asbestos is also found in a natural state, known as naturally occurring asbestos. Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally

11 Ibid. Page 34.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-14 contain asbestos can result in the release of fibers into the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultram afic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present.

The ARB has an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations, requiring the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize emissions of asbestos-laden dust. The measure applies to road construction and maintenance, construction and grading operations, and quarries and surface mines when the activity occurs in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be found. Areas are subject to the regulation if they are identified on maps published by the Department of Conservation as ultramafic rock units or if the Air Pollution Control Officer or owner/operator has knowledge of the presence of ultramafic rock, serpentine, or naturally occurring asbestos on the site. The measure also applies if ultramafic rock, serpentine, or asbestos is discovered during any operation or activity.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of state regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020.12

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulations The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District or SJVAPCD) is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The District, in coordination with eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing air quality plans for the Air District.

12 Ibid, Page 35.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-15 Ozone Plans
The Air Basin is designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone. To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the one -hour ozone standard, the District adopted an Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in 2004, with an attainment date of 2010. Although the EPA revoked the federal 1 -hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2005 and replaced it with an 8-hour standard, the requirement to submit a plan for that standard remained in effect for the San Joaquin Valley.

The planning requirements for the 1-hour plan remain in effect until replaced by a federal 8-hour ozone attainment plan. On March 8, 2010, the EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, including revisions to the plan, effective April 7, 2010. However, the Air Basin failed to attain the standard in 2010 and was subject to a $29-million Clean Air Act penalty.

The penalty is being collected through an additional $12 motor vehicle registration surcharge for each passenger vehicle registered in the Air Basin that will be applied to pollution reduction programs in the region. The District also instituted a more robust ozone episodic program to reduce emissions on days with the potential to exceed the ozone standards. On July 18, 2016, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that the San Joaquin Valley has attained the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. This determination is based on the most recent three -year period (2012 -2014) of sufficient, quality-assured, and certified data.

The penalty fees remain in place pending submittal of a demonstration that the San Joaquin Valley will maintain the 1-hour standard for 10 years.13 The EPA originally classified the Air Basin as serious nonattainment for the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of 2013. On April 30, 2007, the District’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan, which contained analysis showing a 2013 attainment target to be infeasible. The 2007 Ozone Plan details the plan for achieving attainment on schedule with an “extreme nonattainment” deadline of 2024. At its adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District also requested a reclassification to extreme nonattainment. ARB approved the plan in June 2007, and the EPA approved the request for reclassification to extreme nonattainment on April 15, 2010.

The 2007 Ozone Plan contains measures to reduce ozone and particulate matter precursor emissions to bring the Basin into attainment with the fed eral 8-hour ozone standard. The 2007 Ozone Plan calls for a 75 percent reduction of NOX and a 25 percent reduction of reactive organic gases (ROG). Figure 1 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report included in

13 Ibid, Page 35.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-16 Appendix C displays the anticipated NOX reductions attributed in the 2007 Ozone Plan (Source:
2007 Ozone Plan). The plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8 -hour ozone standard for all Air Basin reside nts. The District Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. The ARB approved the plan on June 14, 2007. The 2007 Ozone Plan requires yet to be determined “Advanced Technology” to achieve additional reductions after 2021, in order to at tain the standard at all monitoring stations in the Air Basin by 2024 as allowed for areas designated extreme nonattainment by the federal Clean Air Act.

The Air Basin is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the EPA’s 2008 8 -hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The District’s Governing Board approved the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8- Hour Ozone Standard on June 16, 2016. The ARB approved the attainment demonstration plan for the San Joaquin Valley on July 21, 2016 and transmitted the plan to EPA on A ugust 24, 2016.

The comprehensive strategy in this plan will reduce NO X emissions by over 60 percent between 2012 and 2031 and will bring the San Joaquin Valley into attainment of the EPA’s 2008 8 -hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, no later than December 31, 2031. The 2016 Ozone Plan predicts attainment of the 2008 standard by 2031. 14 To ensure that the plan is approvable with the necessary contingencies, the plan includes a “Black Box” that will require implementation of new advanced technologies and controls prior to the 2031 deadline.

The EPA Administrator signed the Final Rule rev ising the 8-hour ozone standard to 70 ppm on October 1, 2015. The new standard will require the District to prepare a new attainment to achieve the more stringent emission level within 20 years from the effective date of designation.15 State ozone standard s do not have an attainment deadline but require implementation of all feasible measures to achieve attainment at the earliest date possible. This is achieved through compliance with the federal deadlines and control measure requirements.

Particulate Matter Plans
The Air Basin was designated nonattainment of state and federal health -based air quality standards for PM10. The Air Basin is also designated nonattainment of state and federal standards for PM2.5.

14 Ibid, Page 36.
15 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-17 To meet Clean Air Act requirements for the PM 10 standard, the District adopted a PM 10 Attainment Demonstration Plan (Amended 2003 PM 10 Plan and 2006 PM 10 Plan), which has an attainment date of 2010. The District adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007 to assure the San Joaquin Valley’s continued attainment of the EPA’s PM 10 standard. The EPA designated the valley as an attainment/maintenance area for PM 10 on September 25, 2008.

Although the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded the standard since then, those days were considered exceptional events that are not considered a violation of the standard for attainment purposes.

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan builds upon the comprehensive strategy adopted in the 2007 Ozone Plan to bring the Air Basin into attainment of the 1997 national standards for PM 2.5. The EPA has identified NO X and SO 2 as precursors that must be addressed in air quality plans for th e 1997 PM2.5 standards. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan is a continuation of the District’s strategy to improve the air quality in the Air Basin. The EPA issued final approval of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan on November 9, 2011, which became effective on January 9, 2012. The EPA approved the emissions inventory, the reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology demonstration, reasonable further progress demonstration, attainment demonstration and associated air quality modeling, and the transport ation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets. The EPA also granted California’s request to extend the attainment deadline for the San Joaquin Valley to April 5, 2015 and approved commitments to measures and reductions by the District and the ARB.

Finally, it disapproved the State Implementation Plan’s contingency provisions and issued a protective finding for transportation conformity determinations.

In December 2012, the District adopted the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan to bring the San Joaquin Valley into attainment of the EPA’s 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 µg/m3. The ARB approved the District’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 standard at a public hearing on January 24, 2013.16 This plan seeks to bring the Valley into attainment with the standard by 2019.

The 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard approved by the District Governing Board on April 16, 2015—will bring the Valley into attainment of the EPA’s 1997 PM 2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2020. The plan was required to request reclassification to Serious nonattainment and to extend the attainment date from 2018 to 2020.17 The 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM 2.5 Standard was adopted on September 15, 2016.

This plan includes an attainment impracticability demonstration and request for reclassification

16 Ibid, Page 37.
17 Ibid, Page 38.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-18 of the Valley from Moderate nonattainment to Serious nonattainment. The 2016 PM 2.5 Plan is under ARB review.18
The District adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards on November 15, 2018. This plan provides a combined strategy to address the EPA federal 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard of 15 μg/m³ and 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m³; the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m³; and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m³. This plan demonstrates attainment of the federal PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable. On June 30, 2020, US EPA approved portions of the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards and the San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan related to the 2006 24 - hour PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 35 μg/m³. Additionally, EPA granted an extension of the Serious area attainment date for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Federal review of portions of the plan that pertain to the other PM2.5 standards were planned to continue in 2020; however, federal review of portions of the plan that pertain to the other PM2.5 is currently ongoing (SJVAPCD 2020; SJVAPCD 2022).19 District Rules and Regulations

The District rules and regulations that may apply to the Project include, but are not limited to the following:

Rule 4102—Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public, and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.

This rule is enforced on a complaint basis.

Rule 4601 —Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Org anic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling. Only compliant components are available for purchase in the San Joaquin Valley.

Rule 4641 —Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641. This regulation is enforced on the asphalt provider.

18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-19 Rule 4901—Wood-Burning Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Heaters. The purposes of this rule are to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood -burning fireplaces, wood-burning heaters, and outdoor wood -burning devices, and to establish a public education program to reduce wood -burning emissions. All development that includes wood -burning devices are subject to this rule.

Rule 4902—Residential Water Heaters. In 2009, the District amended Rule 4902 to strengthen the rule by lowering the limit to 10 nanograms per joule (ng/J) for new or replacement water heaters, and to a limit of 14 ng/J for instantaneous water heaters. Retailer compliance dates ranged from 2010 to 2012, depending on the unit type.

Regulation VIII —Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011 –8081 are designed to reduce PM 10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil d isturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.

Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NO X and PM 10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission red uction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off -site District-administered projects, or a combination of the two.

The Project is subject to Rule 9510.

Local Regulations
City of Visalia Air Quality Goals and Policies
The Visalia General Plan was adopted on October 14, 2014 (City of Visalia 2014). The General Plan lists the following policies that are supportive of improved air quality. Policies that are directly related to the Project are listed below:
• AQ-P-2. Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule. • AQ-P-3. Support implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regulations on the use of wood -burning fireplaces, as well as their regulations for the installation of EPA-certified wood heaters or approved wood -burning appliances in new residential development and a “No Burn” policy on days when the air quality is poor.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-20 • AQ-P-7. Be an active partner with the Air District in its “Spare the Air” program. Encourage businesses and residents to avoid pollution -producing activities such as the use of fireplaces and wood stoves, charcoal lighter fluid, pesticides, aeroso l products, oil -based paints, and automobiles and other gasoline engines on days when high ozone levels are expected and promote low-emission vehicles and alternatives to driving. • AQ-P-8. Update the Zoning Ordinance to strictly limit the development of dri ve-through facilities, only allowing them in auto -oriented areas and prohibiting them in Downtown and East Downtown.
• AQ-P-9. Continue to mitigate short -term construction impacts and long -term stationary source impacts on air quality on a case -by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.
• AQ-P-11. Continue to work in conjunction with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and others to put in place additional Transportation Control Measures that will reduce vehicle travel and improve air quality and to implement Air Quality Plans.

City of Visalia General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The General Plan lists General Plan Policies to reduce air quality associated with buildout of the General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The following policies from the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases Element were identified in the EIR to help reduce VMT in the City. AQ-P-8, AQ- P-11, and the following:
• AQ-P-13. Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low -emission technology.

The following policies from the Land Use Element support sustainable growth, including infill and mixed-used development, which the General Plan EIR states will help reduce VMT in the City:

LU-P-44, LU-P-45, LU-P-46, LU-P-52, LUT-P-55, LUT-P-56, LUT-P-57, LU-P-72, LU-P-74, LUT-P- 78, LUT-P-80, LUT-P-83, LUT-P-85, LUT-P-100, and LU-P-108.

The following policies from the Land Use Element support pedestrian-oriented design, which the General Plan EIR states will help reduce VMT in the City: LU -P-74, LU-P-62, LU-P-63, LU-P-66, LU-P-91, and LU-P-93.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-21 The following policy from the Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element supports biking and walking, which the General Plan EIR states will help reduce VMT in the City: PSCU- P-11.

The following policies from the Circulation Element promote t ransit and non -motorized transportation (e.g., bicycling), which the General Plan EIR states will help reduce VMT in the City: T-P-1, T-P-29, T-P-30, T-P-31, T-P-32, T-P-33, T-P-34, T-P-35, T-P-36, T-P-37, T-P-38, T-P-44, T-P-45, T-P-46, T-P-47, TP-48, T-P-49, T-P-50, T-P-51, T-P-52, T-P-53, and T-P-54.

The following policies from the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases Element help directly reduce area and mobile sources in the Planning Area : AQ-P-2, AQ-P-3, AQ-P-7, AQ-P-8, AQ-P-9, AQ-P-11, and the measures listed below.
• AQ-P-4. Support the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s “change -out” program, which provides incentives to help homeowners replace old word -burning fireplaces with EPA-certified non woodburning appliances.

Smoke released from fireplaces and wood stoves contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and inhalable particulate matter (PM 10). The change-out programs have been successful in areas of the State where emissions from woodburni ng fireplaces cause significant air pollution. Many grant programs offer cash rebates to encourage replacement of old wood -burning appliances with more efficient ones.
• AQ-P-12. Support the implementation of Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements (VERA) w ith the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the District) for individual development projects that may exceed District significance thresholds.

A VERA is a voluntary mitigation measure where a project proponent provides pound -for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emissions reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of emissions reduction programs and verifier of successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project- specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s Strategies and Incentives Program. The funds are disbursed in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. • AQ-P-13. Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low -emission technology.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-22 The following policies from the Land Use Element and Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, an d Utilities Element support energy conservation, which will help reduce building energy consumption and associated area source emissions: LU-P-38 and PSCU-P-14.

The policies described above from the Land Use Element, Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, a nd Utilities Element, and Circulation Element that would reduce VMT would also reduce associated mobile source emissions.

Thresholds of Significance

The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.

The following air quality significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact would occur if the Project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard;
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people).

While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the District recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the lead agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The applicable District thresholds and methodologies are contained under each impact statement below.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-23 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.3-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Significant and Unavoidable Impact . The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applic able air quality plan (s). The GAMAQI indicates that projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct applicable air quality plan s (AQPs). An additional criterion regarding the Project’s implementation of control measures was assessed to provide further evidence of the Project’s consistency with current AQPs. This document employs the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current AQPs:

1. Will the Project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs? This is addressed by comparing the Project’s emissions to the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants.

2. Will the Project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? The primary control measures applicable to development projects include Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions and Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review.

Contribution to Air Quality Violations
A measure for determining if a project is consistent with the air quality plans is whether the project would result in an increase in th e frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air quality plans. Regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of the cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin. Individual projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation of air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project is based on its incremental contribution. Because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM 2.5, and PM 10, if project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to contribute to violations of the applicable standards and conflict with the attainment plans.

As discussed in Impact 3.3-2 below, emissions of ROG, NO X, CO, and PM 10 associated with the operation of the Project would exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. Although Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-24 the Project would exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds for several pollutants, the Visalia General Plan EIR had already considered air quality to be a significant and unavoidable impact. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan would provide residential uses that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area and would provide conveniently located commercial development to serve north Visalia residents and the Carleton Acres development in a growing area of the City of Visalia. Several goals and policies contained in the City of Visalia’s General Plan promote walkable mixed-use development. As a mixed -use project located in a developing area of a built-up city, the proposed Specific Plan would create a considerable amount of internal capture among its components to reduce VMT compared to the same level of development built with land uses geographically separated from each other. Nonetheless, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under this criterion.20 Compliance with Applicable Control Measures
The AQP contains a number of control measures, whic h are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A description of rules and regulations that apply to the Project is provided below.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review (ISR) is a control measure in the 2006 PM10 Plan that requires NO X and PM10 emission reductions from development projects in the San Joaquin Valley. The NO X emission reductions help reduce the secondary formation of PM 10 in the atmosphere (primarily ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate) and also reduce the formation of ozone. Reductions in directly emitted PM 10 reduce particles such as dust, soot, and aerosols.

Rule 9510 is also a control measure in the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8 -Hour Ozone Standard.

Developers of projects subject to Rule 9510 must reduce emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on -site measures, or pay off -site mitigation fees. The Project is required to comply with Rule 9510.

Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions is a control measure that is one main strate gies from the 2006 PM 10 for reducing the PM 10 emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Residential projects over 10 acres and non-residential projects over 5 acres are required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. The

20 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 88.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-25 Project, or individual developments contemplated under the proposed Specific Plan, will be required to prepare DCPs to comply with Regulation VIII.

Other control measures that apply to the Project are Rule 4641 —Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving an d Maintenance Operation that requires reductions in VOC emissions during paving and Rule 4601 —Architectural Coatings that limits the VOC content of all types of paints and coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These measures apply at the point of sale o f the asphalt and the coatings, so Project compliance is ensured without additional mitigation measures.

The Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Therefore, the Project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan under this criterion.21 Conclusion
In conclusion, the Project’s emissions are significant for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 and would be considered inconsistent with the AQP for this c riterion. The Project complies with applicable control measures of the AQP and would be less than significant for this criterion. The growth accommodated by the proposed Carleton Acres Specific Plan is included in the City of Visalia’s General Plan (refer to Section 3.14 – Population & Housing, specifically Impact 3.14 -1 for more information regarding Project inclusion within the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan) ; therefore, it is consistent with the land use assumptions used to prepare the AQ P. The Carleton Acres Specific Plan includes numerous design features to reduce motor vehicle trips and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. In addition, development contemplated under the Specific Plan would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510, which is intended to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development in the San Joaquin Valley to the extent feasible.

However, after compliance with Rule 9510, total emissions will still exceed the SJVAPCD quantitative thresholds of significance for several pollutants. Incorporation of mitigation that would reduce the proposed Project’s regional criteria and ozone precursor emissions is identified under Impact 3.3-2. Because the combined emissions from operations of development under the proposed Specific Plan would continue to exceed at least one regional threshold after compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 and incorporation of mitigation, the impact would be significa nt.

21 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 89.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-26 Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2A and AIR-2B will reduce impacts; however, even after mitigation, impacts remain significant and unavoidable.

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

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

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

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

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

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NO X emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NO X are termed ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the state and national ozone standards.

Therefore, if the Project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the Project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM 10, and PM 2.5; therefore, substantial emissions generated by the Project may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants. The SJVAPCD’s annual emission significance Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-27 thresholds used for the Project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
• 100 tons per year CO
• 10 tons per year NOX
• 10 tons per year ROG
• 27 tons per year SOX
• 15 tons per year PM10
• 15 tons per year PM2.5
The Project does not contain sources that would produce substantial quantities of SO2 emissions during construction and operation. Modeling conducted for the Project show that SO2 emissions are well below the SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds, as shown in the modeling results contained in Appendix C. No further analysis of SO2 is required.

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

3.3-6.

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

As shown in Table 3.3 -5, the annual av erage emissions are below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. The maximum annual emissions exceed the applicable threshold for regional emissions of NOX.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-28 Table 3.3-5
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated)22
Construction Activity Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 Tier 1 Multifamily
Residential 2.11 5.18 6.83 1.07 0.46
Phase 1 Tier 2 Multifamily
Residential 1.10 2.76 3.72 0.48 0.22
Phase 1 Single-family Residential 6.38 30.92 36.39 4.18 2.16 Phase 1 Commercial 1.44 5.75 7.46 1.54 0.57
Phase 2 Multifamily Residential 6.96 22.22 35.20 10.20 3.17 Phase 2 Single-family Residential 11.90 42.83 63.17 11.17 3.97 Phase 2 Commercial 0.32 2.07 2.61 0.30 0.15
Phase 2 Basin 0.07 0.64 0.64 0.14 0.07
Average Annual Construction
Emissions (15 Years)1 2.02 7.49 10.40 1.94 0.72
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No No No No No
Notes:
1 Average annual construction emissions were calculated by summing emissions for all construction activities and then dividing by the anticipated construction duration of 15 years.

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

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

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

Table 3.3-6
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary –
Maximum Annual Emissions by Development Year (Unmitigated)

Construction Year
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Annual Emissions (2022) 0.22 2.29 1.53 0.60 0.33
Total Annual Emissions (2023) 1.56 13.14 14.96 2.07 1.04 Total Annual Emissions (2024) 2.45 8.84 10.74 1.45 0.66 Total Annual Emissions (2025) 1.20 9.57 12.66 1.56 0.68 Total Annual Emissions (2026) 2.31 13.10 15.66 2.62 1.22 Total Annual Emissions (2027) 5.15 15.67 20.28 4.02 1.58 Total Annual Emissions (2028) 1.96 11.62 15.07 3.34 1.20

22 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 91.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-29 Total Annual Emissions (2029) 1.16 8.46 11.61 2.92 0.93 Total Annual Emissions (2030) 1.02 5.93 10.66 2.33 0.69 Total Annual Emissions (2031) 0.98 5.90 10.47 2.33 0.69 Total Annual Emissions (2032) 0.96 5.89 10.36 2.34 0.69 Total Annual Emissions (2033) 3.83 3.96 7.28 1.19 0.37
Total Annual Emissions (2034) 0.60 3.00 5.24 0.80 0.25
Total Annual Emissions (2035) 0.91 2.83 5.25 0.80 0.24
Total Annual Emissions (2036) 5.20 2.14 4.19 0.69 0.20
Total Annual Emissions (2037) 0.79 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.01
Maximum Annual Emissions 5.20 15.67 20.28 4.02 1.58
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No Yes No No No
Notes:

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure AIR-2A requires the Project applicant, Project sponsor, or construction contractor for individual development projects under the Specific Plan to provide documentation to the City of Visalia that the construction fleet meet s the following requirement: all off -road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower meet EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final o ff-road emissions standards. Table 3.3 -7 provides the emission estimates with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2A.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-30 Table 3.3-7
Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary – Maximum Annual Emissions by Development Year (Mitigated)
Construction Activity
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Annual Emissions (2022) 0.05 0.63 1.77 0.50 0.24
Total Annual Emissions (2023) 0.69 3.77 16.55 1.56 0.57 Total Annual Emissions (2024) 1.89 3.16 11.79 1.13 0.37 Total Annual Emissions (2025) 0.70 5.51 13.89 1.28 0.42 Total Annual Emissions (2026) 1.57 7.45 17.72 2.20 0.83 Total Annual Emissions (2027) 4.26 6.80 22.55 3.54 1.15 Total Annual Emissions (2028) 1.36 5.54 16.65 3.03 0.91 Total Annual Emissions (2029) 0.81 5.13 12.42 2.73 0.74 Total Annual Emissions (2030) 0.73 4.94 11.23 2.30 0.65 Total Annual Emissions (2031) 0.69 4.91 11.05 2.30 0.65 Total Annual Emissions (2032) 0.66 4.90 10.94 2.31 0.65 Total Annual Emissions (2033) 3.55 2.87 7.74 1.15 0.33
Total Annual Emissions (2034) 0.40 1.69 5.57 0.78 0.23
Total Annual Emissions (2035) 0.72 1.68 5.59 0.79 0.23
Total Annual Emissions (2036) 5.05 1.23 4.45 0.68 0.19
Total Annual Emissions (2037) 0.78 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.01
Maximum Annual Emissions 5.05 7.45 22.55 3.54 1.15
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? No No No No No
Notes:

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

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

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

As shown in Table 3.3 -7, impacts would be less than significant on a project -level basis after incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2A. Therefore, regional construction emissions would have a less-than-significant impact on a project basis with the incorporation of mitigation.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-31 Operational Emissions (Non-Permitted)
Non-permitted operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from three main sources: area sources, energy consumption, and motor vehicles (or mobile sources). Project buildout for Phase 1 is assumed to occur in 2028, while buildout for Phase 2 of the Project would be completed in 2037. The SJVAPCD considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations. Furthermore, the SJVAPCD considers permitted and non-permitted emission sources separately when making significance determinations related to criteria pollutants. The emissions modeling results for non-permitted Project operational sources are summarized in Table 3.3-8.

As shown in Table 3.3 -8, the non-permitted operational emissions exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 after compliance with Rule 9510. The Project emissions include quantification of compliance with regulations and project design features that would reduce Project emissions. The combined Project emissions show the unmitigated emissions before and after compliance with Rule 9510, which applies to the unmitigated baseline. Non-permitted Project operational emissions would result in a significant impact.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-32 Table 3.3-8
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Non-Permitted Sources)23 Phase and Year
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 (with design features)
Area 6.19 0.54 8.90 0.08 0.08
Energy 0.13 1.09 0.48 0.09 0.09
Mobile 10.84 17.07 99.47 25.21 6.87
Phase 1 Total 17.16 18.70 108.85 25.39 7.04
Phase 2 (with design features)
Area 10.35 0.95 15.62 0.15 0.15
Energy 0.21 1.79 0.76 0.14 0.14
Mobile 2.99 6.93 40.24 17.35 4.69
Phase 2 Total 13.54 9.67 56.62 17.65 4.98
Combined Project Phases 1 and 2
Area 16.54 1.49 24.52 0.23 0.23
Energy 0.34 2.88 1.24 0.23 0.23
Mobile 13.83 24.00 139.71 42.56 11.56
Total Project Emissions (Non-
Permitted) 30.71 28.37 165.47 43.02 12.02
Significance threshold 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant
impact? Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Notes:

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

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

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

These measures would help reduce operational emissions; however, at the time of this analysis,

23 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 94.

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

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

Table 3.3-9
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Permitted Sources)

Phase and Year
Emissions (tons per year)

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

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

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

As shown above in Table 3.3-9, estimated emissions from the permitted sources associated with the proposed Costco gasoline station included as part of the Specific Plan would not exceed any applicable criteria pollutant regional threshold.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-34 Factors used to estimate the VOC emissions were obtained from the SJVAPCD and are shown below in Table 3.3-10.

Table 3.3-10
Emission Factors Used to Estimate Regional Criteria Pollutants from the Proposed Gasoline Dispensing Station

Process
Emission Factor
(lb VOC/1,000 gal gasoline) Toxic Speciation
Tank Filling Loss 0.15 Vapor
Vehicle Refueling 0.356 Vapor
Breathing Loss 0.024 Vapor
Hose Permeation 0.009 Vapor
Spillage 0.24 Liquid

Conclusion
The Project’s operational emissions exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10; therefore, this is considered a significant impact. The EIR for the Visalia General Plan identifies proposed General Plan policies to reduce air quality impacts that have since become policies included in th e adopted General Plan for the City of Visalia. The EIR identified General Plan policies that would reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent feasible and found regional air quality impacts to be significant and unavoidable. The reduction measures for regional emission impacts from the City of Visalia’s General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan’s consistency with the measures are provided below in Table 3.3-11.

Table 3.3-11
Proposed Specific Plan’s Consistency with Measures Identified in the General Plan EIR to Reduce Air Quality Impacts
General Plan Reduction Measure Project Consistency
AQ-P-2. Require use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as
a condition of approval for all subdivisions,
development plans and grading permits, in
conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule.

Consistent. Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10
Prohibitions is a control measure that is one of the
main strategies from the 2006 PM10 Plan for
reducing the PM10 emissions that are part of
fugitive dust. Residential projects over 10 acres
and non‐residential projects over 5 acres are
required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP)
containing dust control practices sufficient to
comply with Regulation VIII. The Project, or
individual developments contemplated under the
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-35 proposed Specific Plan, will be required to prepare
a DCP to comply with Regulation VIII.

Other control measures that apply to the Project
are Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified
Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operation that
requires reductions in VOC emissions during paving
and Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings that limits
the VOC content of all types of paints and
coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These
measures apply at the point of sale of the asphalt
and the coatings, so project compliance is
ensured without additional mitigation measures.

The Project would comply with all applicable
SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Therefore, the
Project complies with this criterion and would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality attainment plan under this
criterion.

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

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

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

Smoke released from fireplaces and wood stoves
contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
volatile organic compounds, and inhalable
particulate matter (PM10). The change-out
programs have been successful in areas of the
State where emissions from woodburning
fireplaces cause significant air pollution. Many
grant programs offer cash rebates to encourage
replacement of old wood-burning appliances with
more efficient ones.

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

AQ-P-7. Be an active partner with the Air District in
its “Spare the Air” program. Encourage businesses
and residents to avoid pollution-producing
activities such as the use of fireplaces and wood
stoves, charcoal lighter fluid, pesticides, aerosol
products, oil-based paints, and automobiles and
other gasoline engines on days when high ozone
levels are expected and promote low-emission
vehicles and alternatives to driving.

Consistent. The City will continue to encourage
these measures in this new development in the
same way that they are already encouraging
these measures presently with existing
developments. As a mixed-use focused project,
the Project is intrinsically positioned to reduce
vehicle miles traveled and increase walkability
due the proximity of residential and commercial
development to each other.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-36 AQ-P-8. Update the Zoning Ordinance to strictly
limit the development of drive-through facilities,
only allowing them in auto-oriented areas and
prohibiting them in Downtown and East
Downtown.

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

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

AQ-P-9. Continue to mitigate short-term
construction impacts and long-term stationary
source impacts on air quality on a case-by-case
basis and continue to assess air quality impacts
through environmental review. Require developers
to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with
the construction and operation of development
projects.

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

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

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

AQ-P-12. Support the implementation of Voluntary
Emissions Reduction Agreements (VERA) with the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(the District) for individual development projects
that may exceed District significance thresholds.

A VERA is a voluntary mitigation measure where a
project proponent provides pound-for-pound
mitigation of emissions increases through a process
that develops, funds, and implements emissions
reduction projects, with the District serving a role
of administrator of emissions reduction programs
and verifier of successful mitigation effort. To
implement a VERA, the project proponent and the
District enter into a contractual agreement in
which the project proponent agrees to mitigate
project-specific emissions by providing funds for
the District’s Strategies and Incentives Program.

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

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

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

Not Applicable. This mitigation measure specifies
actions that the City must take in order to fulfill the City’s own obligations. The proposed Specific Plan
does not include municipal operations. As such, it
is not relevant to this Specific Plan.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-37 As demonstrated in Table 3.3-11, the Specific Plan development would be consistent with several measures identified in the General Plan EIR , while one measure would not be applicable . In addition, the Project would comply with all local regulations required by the City of Visalia. The Project would incorporate design features and required mitigation measures (including MM AIR- 2A and MM AIR -B) that reduce air quality impacts. In addition, regulations adopted by the SJVAPCD and the State of California provide emission reductions that would align with requirements of the mitigation measures included in the EIR and relevant General Plan policies.

For example, Rule 9510 ISR, adopted in 2006, requires projects subject to the Rule to reduce operational NO X emissions by 33 pe rcent and PM 10 emissions by 50 percent through the implementation of design features or payment of off-site mitigation fees. Rule 4901 regulates the installation of wood burning devices in Project residences. Rule 9401 Employee Trip Reduction requires large employers to prepare plans to reduce employee trips with measures listed in the mitigation measure, among others. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and now require energy efficiency measures much more stringent t han envisioned at the time the EIR was prepared. Solar panels are now required for low -rise residential projects under 2019 Title 24 and continue to be required under 2022 Title 24 standards that became effective on January 1, 2023. Individual development projects will be subject to the most recent Title 24 in effect that building permits are issued, which will ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful or inefficient. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would provide future residents, visitors, and employees connectivity within the Project site and to adjoining land uses through pedestrian and bicycle connections. The proximity of the proposed new development to existing transit and existing buildout in the City of Visalia, coupled with the design features of the proposed Specific Plan, would increase accessibility to public transportation and would improve mobility within the Project area. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would create a considerable amount of internal capture between its components to reduce VMT compared to the same level of development built with land uses geographically separated from each other.

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

Mitigation Measures
AIR-2A This measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Specific Plan to reduce emissions from construction. Before a construction permit is issued for the proposed Project, the Project applicant, Project sponsor, or construction contractor shall provide compliance with the following requirements to the City of Visalia Planning Department:
• Where portable diesel engines are used during construction, all off - road equipment with engines g reater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off -road emission standards except as otherwise specified herein. If engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off -road emission standards are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off -road equipment that is commercially available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the equipment at issue is available taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical -path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the Project site of equipment. If the relevant equipment is determined by the Project applicant to not be commercially available, the contractor can confirm this conclusion by providing letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that is at issue.

AIR-2B The following measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Specific Plan during construction to facilitate the use of electric landscaping equipment during Project operations:
• Provide electrical outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of electrically powered landscape equipment.

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

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

It is anticipated that Phase 2 would begin construction once the low-density residential of Phase 1 is at 60 percent completion. Land uses and the surrounding area for Phase 2 are described below and include new land uses that are proposed as part of Phase 1. The surrounding land uses for Phase 2 are as follows:
• North—To the north of the Phase 2 area is a dairy , agricultural land, and a few rural residences.
• East—To the east of the Phase 2 area is agricultural land followed by more agricultural land.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-40 • South—To the south of the Phase 2 area is the Ph ase 1 residential and commercial development, as well as a middle school and a planned high school. • West—To the west of the Phase 2 area is a feedlot, followed by agricultural land.

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

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

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

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

The acute (shor t-term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes.24 The studies conducted by the U.S. Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to assess health effects from exposure to asphalt fumes were based on occupational exposure of fumes. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction would be less than significant.

24 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Asphalt (Bitumen) Fumes. Website:
https://www.osha.gov/asphalt-fumes. Accessed April 5, 2022.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-41 Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis
Emissions occurring at or near the Project have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significan t if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health -based air quality standard. The impact from localized pollutants is based on the impact to the nearest sensitive receptor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Table 3.3-13
Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions during Operations 25

Maximum Daily Emissions per
Source Category
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Largest Individual Development Project in Phase 1 (Phase 1 Commercial/Mixed Use) Area 3.79 0.00 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.03 0.29 0.24 0.02 0.02
Mobile 27.25 21.71 146.61 7.42 2.07
Phase 1 Maximum Development
Total 31.07 22.00 146.87 7.44 2.09
Screening threshold — 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? — No Yes No No
Largest Individual Development Project in Phase 2 (Phase 2 Single-family Residential) Area 38.87 10.94 92.94 1.30 1.30
Energy 0.76 6.52 2.78 0.53 0.53
Mobile 6.00 7.90 48.50 3.60 0.98
Phase 2 Maximum Development
Total 45.63 25.36 144.21 5.42 2.81
Screening threshold — 100 100 100 100

25 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 107.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-44 Exceed screening threshold? — No Yes No No
Notes:

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

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

The Project would not exceed SJVAPCD screening thresholds for localized operational criteria pollutant impacts for NO X, PM 10, or PM 2.5; however, emissions would exceed the localized screening thresholds for CO. Specifically, the area -source emissions from resi dential uses are contributing to this exceedance. A review of the CalEEMod output files shows that the majority of area-source emissions are estimated to be from landscaping activities. The following option would reduce the operational CO emissions below the 100-pound-per-day screening threshold:
• Utilize only electric landscaping equipment in perpetuity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operation: PM10, PM2.5, NOX
As shown in Table 3.3 -13, localized emissions of PM 10, PM 2.5 and NO X would not exceed the SJVAPCD screening thresholds at full Project buildout for any individual development contemplated under the proposed Specific Plan. Residential development is an insignificant source of these pollutants, except for projects that allow woodburning devices that emit PM 10, PM2.5 in wood smoke. The Project will include only natural gas-fueled fireplaces and inserts that are insignificant sources of PM 2.5 and PM 10. The largest source of emissions from commercial projects is motor vehic les. Most motor vehicle emissions occur when employee and customer vehicles travel to and from the Project site and not during parking and idling on the site. The localized emissions of PM10, PM2.5, and NOX would not exceed the screening threshold; therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors located near the commercial sites to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations during operation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Appendix B of Appendix C.

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

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors (including future residents within the Specific Plan area) from Project-generated TACs from gasoline fueling activities and operational DPM from the proposed Costco gasoline station and warehouse. Mitigation Measure AIR -3A has thus been fully implemented for the Costco development.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-50 Mitigation Measure AIR-3A, which requires further evaluation of proposed commercial and commercial mixed -use development within the Specific Plan area, would require individual projects to reduce impacts to an acceptable level. Although individual development projects would be re quired to implement all feasible and enforceable mitigation to reduce a significant impact, information is insufficient to determine whether impacts would be less -than-significant after incorporation of all applicable mitigation. Therefore, this impact remains significant.

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

Consistency with these recommendations is assessed as follows:

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

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

Dry cleaning operations. ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, ARB recommends consultation with the local air district. The nearest dry -cleaning operation is approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project site at 5219 W Goshen Avenue.29 Auto body shops. Auto body shops have the potential to emit TACs related to painting. The nearest auto body shop is located at 601 E Acequia Avenue approximately 4.0 miles southeast of the Project site, which is beyond the distance that would result in a measurable impact.30 Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off- road activities.

26 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 112. 27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-52 The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. During 2000–2018, a total of 65,43 8 coccidioidomycosis cases were reported in California; median statewide annual incidence was 7.9 per 100,000 population and varied by region from 1.1 in Northern and Eastern California to 90.6 in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, with the largest increase (15-fold) occurring in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Incidence has been consistently high in six counties in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Tulare, and Merced counties) and Central Coast (San Luis Obispo County) regions. California experienced 6,490 new cases of Valley fever in 2020. A total of 195 Valley fever cases were reported in Tulare County in 2020.31 The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1) Rodent burrow s (often a favorable site for C. immitis , perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface)
2) Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire pits
3) Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
4) Areas with high salinity soils
5) Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available) 6) Packrat middens
7) Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils 8) Sandy, well-aerated soil with relatively high water-holding capacities Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1) Cultivated fields

31 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2021. Coccidioidomycosis in California Provisional Monthly Report January 2021. Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID
/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciinCAProvisionalMonthlyReport.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2021.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-53 2) Heavily vegetated areas (e.g. grassy lawns)
3) Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
4) Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g. ammonium sulfate) have been applied 5) Areas that are continually wet
6) Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
7) Soils containing abundant microorganisms
8) Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil.

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

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

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

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur, there are no such areas in the Project area. 32 Therefore, development of the Project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. I mpacts would be less than significant.

32 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 114.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-54 Conclusion
In summary, the Project would not exceed SJVAPCD localized emission daily screening levels for any criteria pollutant during Project construction. The localized emissions of PM 10, PM 2.5, and NOX would not exceed the screening thresholds during Project operations. Furthermore, the Project would not have a significant impact in regard to ROG during Project operations. The Project would not be a suitable habitat for Valley fever spores and is not in area known to have naturally occurring asbestos. However, the Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs from construction and/or operations of the Project and may expose sensitive receptors to significant levels of CO during Project operations. Therefore, the Project could result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors. As the exact timing, details surrounding potential sources, and exact locations and occupancy of planned residential receptors is unknown at this time, the impact is considered significant.

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

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

AIR-3A Prior to future discretionary approval for commercial or commercial mixed -use projects, the City of Visalia shall evaluate potential health risk impacts from new development proposals for any individual development projects within 1,000 feet of an existing or planned sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit the following to the City of Visalia’s Planning Division:

A Health Risk Prioritization Screening Analysis or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of TACs during project construction and operations prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant shall be required to identify and incorporate commercially feasible mitigation including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level.

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

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

Table 3.3-15
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources33

Odor Generator Screening
Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g.,
auto body shop) 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile

33 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015a. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

Revised March 19, 2015. Website: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2022 and April 5, 2023.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.3-56 According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:
• Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people ma y congregate, and
• Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people located near existing odor sources.

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Cumulative Impacts
In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed Project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants of concern for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin ). A project would be considered to have a significant cumulative impact if its contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative air quality impact). The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to air quality is the Air Basin. The SJVAPCD’s attainment statuses are a result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within t he Air Basin. For pollutants that the Air Basin is designated as non -attainment for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a cumulative impact exists regardless of the project’s incremental contribution. Significance thresholds established by the SJVAPCD are used to manage total regional and local emissions within the Air Basin based on the Air Basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants.

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

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

Therefore, evaluation of the information supports a finding that the Project’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable under this impact because the proposed Project’s local impact would be less than significant.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-1

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

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

Scattered Valley oaks exist in and around the City and along water courses creating riparian corridors, along areas of pristine Valley oak woodland and Valley oak riparian woodland. The Project site is underlain by Akers -Akers saline -sodic complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes and Grangeville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The Proj ect site is at an elevation of 304 –312 feet above mean sea level.1
Desktop Review

Colibri obtained a USFWS species list for the Project as a framework for the evaluation and reconnaissance survey. In addition, the California Natural Diversity Data Base and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants were searched for records of special-status plant and animal species from the vicinity of the Project site. Regional lists of special-status species were compiled using USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS database searches confined to the Visalia 7.5 -minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle, which encompasses the Project site, and the eight surrounding quadrangles (Traver, Monson, Ivanhoe, Goshen, Exeter, Paige, Tulare, and Cairns Corner). A local list of special-status species was compiled using CNDDB records from within 5 miles of the Project site. Species that lack a special-status designation by state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups were omitted from the final list. Species for which the Project site does not provide habitat were eliminated from further consideration. Aerial imagery from Google Earth and other sources,

1 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 11.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-2 USGS topographic maps, the Web Soil Survey, the National Wetlands Inventory, and relevant literature were also searched.

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

Searching the CNDDB for records of special -status species from the Visalia 7.5 -minute USGS topographic quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles produced 210 records of 41 species.3 Of those 41 species, four were not considered further because state or federal regulatory agencies or public interest groups do not recognize them through special designation. 4 Of the remaining 37 species, 23 are known from within 5 miles of the Project site, as demonstrated in Figure 3.4-1. Of those 23 s pecies, 21 are not expected to occur on or near the Project site due to either (1) the lack of habitat, (2) the Project site being outside the current range of the species, (3) their absence during the reconnaissance survey, or (4) a combination thereof. The remaining two species, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia), could occur on or near the Project site. One additional species known to occur from within seven miles of the Project site, Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii), could occur on or near the Project site.

2 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 11.
3 Ibid. Table 1 of Appendix D.
4 Ibid. Appendix D.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-3 Table 3.4-1
Special Status Species, Listing Status, Habitat and Occurrence Potential 5

Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Federally and State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species California jewelflower
(Caulanthus californicus)

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

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

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

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

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)

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

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

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)

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

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

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

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

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

None. Habitat lacking; the
Project site is outside the
current known range of this
species; no elderberry

5 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 12.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-4 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
plants were found in the
survey area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-7 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Northwestern pond turtle3
(Actinemys marmorata)
SSSC Ponds, rivers, marshes,
streams, and irrigation
ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation
and woody debris for
basking and adjacent
natural upland areas
for egg laying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western mastiff bat3 SSSC Roosts in crevices in
cliff faces, buildings,
trees, and tunnels in
open semi-arid and
None. Habitat lacking;
roosting habitat is not
present in the survey area.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-8 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
arid habitats such as
conifer forest, oak
woodland, coastal
scrub, chaparral,
grassland, desert
scrub, and urban
areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-9 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Earlimart orache3
(Atriplex cordulata var.
erecticaulis)
1B.2 Saline or alkaline soils
in Central Valley and
foothill grassland
below 230 feet
elevation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiny-sepaled button-
celery3
(Eryngium spinosepalum)
1B.2 Vernal pools and
swales in valley and
foothill grassland at
330–4200 feet
elevation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-11 Species Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur2
Status1 Potential to Occur2
FE = Federally listed Endangered None: Species or sign not observed; conditions unsuitable for occurrence.

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

FP = State Fully Protected

Moderate:

Neither species nor sign observed; conditions
suitable for occurrence.

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

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

ST = State listed Threatened
SR = State-designated Rare
SSSC = State Species of Special Concern
CNPS California Rare Plant Rank1: Threat Ranks1:

1B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere.

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

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

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-12 Figure 3.4-1
CNDDB Species within 5 miles of Project site6

6 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 20.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-13 Field Surveys
Land Use and Habitats
The Project site supported agricultural land that has been used for cultivation since at least 1985.7 The Project site was bordered by almond orchards to the east and west, two small dairies on the western and northwestern boundaries, and residential development to the south. Ridgeview Middle School formed most of the eastern border of the Project site. The northwestern portions of the Project site supported vineyards, the southwestern portions supported row crops of corn, and a small parcel just west of Ridgeview Middle School supported row crops of soybean.

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

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

Table 3.4-2
Species Observed During Site Reconnaissance 8
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Plants
Family Amaranthaceae
Palmer's amaranth Amaranthus palmeri Native
Family Asteraceae
Canada horseweed Erigeron canadensis Native
Common sunflower Helianthus annuus Native
Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Nonnative

7 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 21.
8 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 23.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-14 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Family Chenopodiaceae
Big saltbush Atriplex lentiformis Native
White goosefoot Chenopodium album Nonnative
Family Convolvulaceae
Ivyleaf morning glory Ipomoea hederacea Nonnative
Family Lamiaceae

White horehound Marrubium vulgare Nonnative
Family Poaceae
Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Nonnative
Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus Nonnative
Wall barley Hordeum murinum Nonnative
Wild oat Avena fatua Nonnative
Family Polygonaceae
Prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare Nonnative
Family Portulacaceae
Common purslane Portulaca oleracea Nonnative
Family Solanaceae
Coyote tobacco Nicotiana attenuata Native
Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium Nonnative
Family Zygophyllaceae
Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Nonnative
Birds
Family Accipitridae
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii MBTA, CFGC
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-15 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Family Cathartidae
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura MBTA, CFGC
Family Charadriidae
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus MBTA, CFGC
Family Columbidae
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura MBTA, CFGC
Family Corvidae
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos MBTA, CFGC
Family Fringillidae
House finch Haemorhous mexicanus MBTA, CFGC
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria MBTA, CFGC
Family Hirundinidae
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica MBTA, CFGC
Family Icteridae
Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus MBTA, CFGC
Family Mimidae
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos MBTA, CFGC
Family Passerellidae
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus MBTA, CFGC
Family Passeridae
House sparrow Passer domesticus --
Family Sturnidae
European starling Sturnus vulgaris --
Family Trochilidae
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-16 Common Name Scientific Name Status
Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna MBTA, CFGC
Family Turdidae
American robin Turdus migratorius MBTA, CFGC
Family Tyrannidae
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans MBTA, CFGC
Mammals
Family Procyonidae
Raccoon Procyon lotor Native
MBTA = Protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC § 703 et seq.) ; CFGC = Protected under the California Fish and Game Code (FGC §§ 3503 and 3513).

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

Regulated Habitats
One potentially jurisdictional feature (a reten tion pond along the western border of Ridgeview Middle School) was outside of the Project site but partially within the survey area. No impacts to this feature are anticipated. Modoc Ditch (which is likely regulated by the SWRCB and CDFW) runs east-west across the middle of the Project site. 9 The National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2021b) lists Modoc Ditch as an intermittent riverine streambed that is seasonally flooded and excavated. Another channelized creek, Mosquito Creek – Cross Creek, runs east-west along the southern half of the Project site (Figure 10) and is likely regulated by the SWRCB and CDFW. The National Wetlands Inventory also lists Mosquito Creek – Cross Creek as an intermittent riverine streambed that is seasonally flooded and excavated. Lastly, an unnamed canal runs north – south

9 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Figures 9-11.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-17 along the northeastern boundary of the Project site (Figure 11) and may also be a regulated by the SWRCB and CDFW. It is not listed on the National Wetlands Inventory. No impacts to these features are anticipated. If there are changes to the proposed Project, further delineation of their boundaries and consultation with the SWRCB and CDFW may be required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Porter-Cologne Act
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has determined in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions t hat reduce federal jurisdiction over Waters of the U.S., that the State would require that a Report of Waste Discharge be required for any discharge of waste, including fill, into “waters of the state”, other than those projects requiring a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit and the State’s CWA Section 401 Certification of the federal permit, under the authority of the state Porter-Cologne Act. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) is responsible for issuing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to protect state surface and groundwater quality after reviewing a Report of Waste Discharge.

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

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

Local Regulations

City of Visalia General Plan

Under City of Visalia General Plan policies, any new development would have to ensure minimal disruption/loss of habitat that could support special status animal species. Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCP) will be required for development that would potentially affect sensitive habitat. The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act allows a process for developing NCCPs under DFG direction. NCCPs provide regional protection of wildlife diversity, while allowing compatible development. The following policies apply to the Project:

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-20 Objective OSC-0-10: Protect and enhance natural vegetation throughout the Planning Area, especially types that are considered sensitive natural communities by the Department of Fish and Game.

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

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

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

Although this species was not detected during the reconnaissance survey, which was conducted

10 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 27.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-22 within the blooming period, aquatic habitat on and near the Project site could support this species. However, the frequent disturbance to these water conveyance features through vegetation clearing minimizes the potential of this species to occupy these habitats .

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

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

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

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

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

Swainson’s hawk
Swainson’s hawk is a state listed as threatened raptor in the family Accipitridae. It is a migratory breeding resident of Central California. It uses open areas including grassland, sparse shrubland, pasture, open woodland, and annual agricultural fields such as grain and alfalfa to forage on small mammals, birds, and reptiles. After breeding, it eats mainly insects, especially grasshoppers. Swainson’s hawks build small to medium -sized nests in medium to large trees near foraging habitat. The nesting season begins in March or April in Centr al California when this species returns to its breeding grounds from wintering areas in Mexico and Central and South

11 Biological Resource Evaluation for the Carleton Acres Development Project. Prepared by Colibri Ecological Consulting August 2021. Appendix D. Page 27.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-23 America. Nest building commences within one to two weeks of arrival to the breeding area and lasts about one week. One to four eggs are laid and incubated for about 35 days. Young typically fledge in about 38 –46 days and tend to leave the nest territory within 10 days of fledging.

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

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

Mitigation Measure:

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

12 Ibid. Page 28.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-24 BIO-2: Protect burrowing owl
Conduct focused burrowing owl surveys to assess the presence/absence of burrowing owl in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation 13 and Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines . 14 These involve conducting four pre-construction survey visits.

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

BIO-3: Protect nesting Swainson’s hawks
To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the Swainson’s hawk nesting season, which extends from March through August.

If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and February, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk in accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committ ee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley .15 These methods require six surveys, three in each of the two survey periods, prior to project initiation. Surveys shall be conducted within a min imum 0.5 -mile radius around the Project site.

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

13 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012. 34 pp.

14 California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC). 1997. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Pages 171–177, in Lincer, J. L. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1997. The Burrowing Owl, its Biology and Management. Raptor Research Report Number 9. 15 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWTAC). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. 5 pages.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-25 BIO-4: Compensate for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat Compensate for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (i.e., the fallow fields on the Project site) in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California .16 The CDFW requires that projects adversely affecting Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat provide Habitat Management (HM) lands to the department. Projects within 1 mile of an active nest shall provide one acre of HM lands for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio). Projects within 5 miles of an active nest but greater than 1 mile from the nest shall provide 0.75 acres of HM lands for each acre of urban development authorized (0.75:1 ratio). And projects within 10 miles of an active nest but greater than 5 miles from an active nest shall provide 0.5 acres of HM lands for each acre of urban development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). No compensation is required if an active nest is not found within 10 miles of the Project site.

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

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

16 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. California Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report #94.18.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-26 Impact 3.4-3: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery site?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project could impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the MBTA and CFGC. Migratory birds are expected to nest on and near the Project site. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort can be considered take under the MBTA and CFGC. Loss of fertile eggs or nesting birds, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, could constitute a significant effect if the species is particularly rare in the region. Construction activities such as excavating, trenching, and grading that disturb a nesting bird on the Project site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO -5 shall be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

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

If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, pre- construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall determine the extent of a construction -free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.4-27 Impact 3.4-4: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. No trees or biologically sensitive areas will be impacted and there is no adopted.

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

Mitigation Measure
None are required.

Cumulative Impacts
Would the Project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources?

Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to biological resources are the geographic areas covered by the City of Visalia General Plan / EIR and the County of Tulare General Plan / EIR. Mitigation measures associated with this topic are included to ensure that potential impacts to biological resources remains less than significant at a project level . Cumulative development would resul t in the conversion of existing potential habitat to urban uses. Both the City’s and County’s General Plan EIR, in addition to regional, State and federal regulations, include policies and measures that mitigate impacts to biological resources associated with future development.

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

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

Implementation of the proposed Project , with mitigation, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to biological resources.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-1

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

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

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

Environmental Setting
Natural Environment
The proposed Project is located on approximately 507 -acres in the northern area of the City of Visalia, California and is generally bound by W. Riggin Avenue to the south, N. Akers Street to the east, N. Shirk Road to the west and Avenue 320 (W. Kibler Avenue ) to the north. The entire site is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Visalia and the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the site has been designated by the City’s General Pl an for residential, commercial, public/institutional and park/recreation uses.

The elevation of the Project area ranges between 303 ft. and 315 ft. amsl. Currently this region can be characterized as a dry open valley bottom now utilized for agriculture. P rior to reclamation and channelization, the region would have been a low -lying, water-rich area characterized by streams, sloughs, marshes, and swamps. Occasionally inundated by floodwaters, in many years portions of this region would have been swampy during the winter rainy season and marsh land during other parts of the year. Historical and recent land-use has changed the vegetation that was once present within and near the Project area. The immediate Project location historically most Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-2 likely fell within the Valley Grassland community, however, with Riparian Woodlands present along streams and freshwater marshes common in the area.1

Ethnography and Ethnohistory

Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. According to the Cultural Resources Survey Report, the Project area was located in Telamni territory (generally Visalia and Goshen), but no known historical villages were located in the general area. Village locations were instead concentrated to the east, in the foothills, or west, closer to the Tulare Lake shore. The Yokuts settlement pattern was largely consistent, regardless of specific tribe involved. Winter villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses (as these existed circa AD 1800), with dispersal phase family camps located at elevated spots on the valley floor and near gathering areas in the foothills.

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

Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of Euro -American diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. Cook (1978) estimates that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokuts people continue to reside in the southern San Joaquin Valley today, including at the nearby Santa Rosa Rancheria.2

1 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), page 5 (Appendix D). 2 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), pages 5-7 (Appendix D).

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act (1966)
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the most prominent fe deral law dealing with historic preservation. The NHPA established guidelines to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice.” The NHPA includes regul ations specifically for federal land-holding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to NEPA are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and the NEPA requirements concerning cultural resources can be addressed through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Regulations
City of Visalia Historic Preservation Ordinance
The Historic Preservation Ordinance, adopted in 1979 and updated in 2001, established the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC). HPAC is responsible for periodically updating the Local Register, no minating properties to the State and Federal Registers, and reviewing planning and development actions related to historic structures or in the Historic District. With regard to zoning changes and applications for planned development permits within the historic district, HPAC’s recommendations are forwarded to the Planning Commission for its consideration. For applications for construction, exterior alteration, enlargement, or sign permits within the historic district or for “exceptional” or “focus” structures outside the district, HPAC has the power to approve, modify, or disapprove applications based on the criteria set forth in the Ordinance. Where HPAC has disapproved an application, the Building Official may only issue permits when authorized by the City Council. HPAC also reviews all applications for the demolition or moving of structures within the historic district or listed on the Local Register.

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

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

City of Visalia General Plan

The following lists goals and policies from the City of Visalia General Plan pertaining to cultural resources that are applicable to the proposed Project.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-7 LU-O-27: Provide adequate area for office developments in areas where they can be effectively integrated into surrounding areas and/or where they can provide close-in employment opportunities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

H-O-5: Promote the benefits of historic property ownership through programs such as tax incentives, available grants and loans, including but not limited to Federal Tax credits and similar programs for properties within the Historic District or on the Local Register of Historic Structures.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-8 OSC-O-11: Preserve and protect historic features and archaeological resources of the Visalia planning area including its agricultural surrounding for aesthetic, scientific, educational and cultural values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preservation in place is the preferred approach under CEQA to mitigating adverse impacts to significant or unique cultural resources.

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

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

The records search indicated there have been no previous cultural or historical studies that have been conducted within the Project area and no cultural resources of any kind are known to exist within it. Historical maps that includ ed the Project area were consulted to identify potential historical structures or resources. According to USGS topographic quandrangles, historical aerials, and Google Earth imagery, the Project area has undergone minimal development since at least the early twentieth century.3
Field Survey
An intensive Phase I cultural resources survey for the Project study area was conducted by ASM Associate Archaeologist Robert Azpitarte, B.A., with the assistance of ASM Assistant Archaeologists Maria Silva, B.A., Cameron Jackson, B.A., and Maggie Lemus, B.A. The field methods employed

3 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), pages 13 (Appendix D).

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-11 included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surface for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features (e.g., bedrock mortars, historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil, burnt animal bone). Special attention was paid to any exposed ground surface areas, rodent burrow spoils piles, cut-banks, cleared edges of disturbed areas, and other spots with better ground surface visibility. The survey methodology was designed to include the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they have been present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site integrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation Instructions for Recording Historic Resources, using DPR 523 forms.

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

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

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

4 Carleton Acres Phase I Survey (Dec. 2021), page 19 (Appendix D).

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-13

Impact 3.5-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered w ithin a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her author ity and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

CUL – 2: In order to ensure that the proposed Project does not impact buried human remains during Project construction, the Project proponent shall be responsible for on-going monitoring of Project construction. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Proj ect proponent shall provide the City with documentation identifying construction personnel that will be responsible for on-site monitoring.

If buried human remains are encountered during construction, further excavation or disturbance of the site or any ne arby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall be halted until the Tulare County coroner is contacted and the coroner has made the determinations and notifications required pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determines that Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) require that he give notice to the Native American Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.5-14 Heritage Commission, then such notice shall be given within 24 hours, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). In that event, the NAHC will conduct the notifications required by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Until the consultations described below have been completed, the landowner shall further ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices where Native American human remains are located, is not disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the Most Likely Descendants on all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences and treatments, as prescribed by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b). The NAHC will mediate any disputes regarding treatment of remains in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k). The landowner shall be entitled to exercise rights established by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) if any of the circumstances established by that provision become applicable

Cumulative Impacts
Would the Project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources?

Less Than Cumulatively Considerable. The scope for considering cumulative impacts to cultural resources is all of Tulare County. Development in Tulare County and the San Joaquin Valley has likely resulted in the loss or degradation of historic and/or archaeological resources. As discussed above, implementation of mitigation measures will ensure that Project implementation avoids and/or minimizes a cumulative loss of these resources if they are found during Project activities.

Implementation of the proposed Project , with mitigation, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant impact to cultural resources.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-1

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

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

Energy Usage
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy consumption in California was 6,923 trillion BTU in 20 20 (the most recent year for which this specific data is available), which equates to an average of 175 million BT U per capita. 1 Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 34 percent transportation, 24.6 percent industrial, 19.6 percent commercial, and 21.8 percent residential.2 Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences and commercial and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use.

While BTUs measure total energy usage, electricity is generally measured in kilow att-hours (kWh) which is the standard billing unit for energy delivered to consumers by electrical utilities.

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed January 2023. 2 Ibid.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-2 The electricity consumption attributable to Tulare County from 20 11 to 2021 is shown in Table

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

Table 3.6-1
Electricity Consumption in Tulare County 2011 – 20213
Year Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2011 3,747
2012 4,136
2013 4,317
2014 4,492
2015 4,477
2016 4,363
2017 4,244
2018 4,438
2019 4,249
2020 4,643
2021 4,878

Natural Gas
Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natur al gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high -pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network, and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas provides almost one-third of the state’s total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel.

3 California Energy Commission. Energy Reports. Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 2023.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-3 Natural gas is provided to the Project area by Southern California Gas. The natural gas consumption attributable to Tulare County from 2011 to 2021 is provided in Table 3.6-2. Natural gas consumption in Tulare County varied approximately 13 percent over the 10-year span.

Table 3.6-2
Natural Gas Consumption in Tulare County 2011 – 20214
Year Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of Therms)
2011 159
2012 158
2013 158
2014 151
2015 149
2016 151
2017 150
2018 157
2019 155
2020 159
2021 168

Transportation Energy
According to the U.S. Energy Administration , transportation accounted for approximately 34 percent of California’s total energy consumption in 20 20. 5 In 20 20, California consumed approximately 524 million barrels, or 2 billion gallons, of gasoline (including aviation gasoline).

California has the highest number of motor vehicles registered and vehicle miles than any other state.6

4 California Energy Commission. Energy Reports. Gas Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx Accessed December 2021. 5 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed January 2023. 6 U.S. Energy Information Administration. California Profile Analysis. Updated February 18, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA. Accessed January 2023.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-4 According to the Board of Equalization (BOE), statewide taxable sales figures estimate a total of 181 million gallons of gasoline and 66 million gallons of diesel fuel were sold in Tulare county in 2021.7

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is respons ible for establishing additional vehicle standards.

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

The RFS programs regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel products, and other stakeholders and were created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The RFS program established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the US. As required under the act, the original RFS program required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. U nder the Act, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways that laid the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions through the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and for encouraging the development and

7 California Energy Commission. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874 Accessed January 2023.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-5 expansion of the nation’s renewable fuels sector. The updated program is referred to as RFS2 and includes the following:
• EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; • EISA increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; • EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one; and
• EISA required by the U.S. EPA to apply lifecycle GHG performanc e threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.8
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternate en ergy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.”
Federal Vehicle Standards
The CAFE law, first introduced in 1975, has become more stringent over time. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011; and, in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.

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

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium - and heavy- duty trucks for model years 2014 – 2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption

8 U.S. EPA. Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Overview for Renewable Fuel Standard. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel- standard-program/overview-renewable-fuel-standard. Accessed December 2021.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-6 are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines.

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

The 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) was adopted in March 2022, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in

9 U.S. Department of Transportation. Briefing Room. EPA and DOT Finalize Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/epa-and-dot-finalize-greenhouse-gas-and-fuel-efficiency- standards-heavy-duty-trucks. Accessed January 2023.
10 U.S. Department of Transportation. SAFE. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ‘SAFE’ Vehicles Rule. https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe. Accessed January 2023.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-7 California.11 The IEPR provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of energy issues facing the state. The IEPR discusses building decarbonization, energy reliability, decarbonizing California’s gas system, and the state’s energy demand forecast.

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

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

Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be identified as

11 California Energy Commission. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report. Accessed January 2023.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-8 meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC).

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

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

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

Executive Order B-55-18
In 2018, Governor B rown signed EO B -55-18 to achieve carbon neutrality by moving California to 100 percent cl ean energy by 2045. This Executive Order also includes specific measures to reduce GHG emissions via clean transportation, energy efficient buildings, directing cap -and- trade funds to disadvantaged communities, and better management of the state’s forest land.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-9 Senate Bill (SB) 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) In January 2009, California SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, went into effect. The objective of SB 375 is to better integrate regional planning of transportation, land use, and housing to reduce sprawl and ultimately reduce GHG emissions and other air pollutants. SB 375 tasks CARB to set GHG reduction targets for each of California’s 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Each MPO is required to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS is a growth strategy in combination with transportation policies that will show how the MPO will meet its GHG reduction ta rget. If the SCS cannot meet the reduction goal, an Alternative Planning Strategy may be adopted that meets the goal through alternative development, infrastructure, and transportation measures or policies.

In 2010, CARB released the proposed GHG reduction targets for the MPOs. The proposed reduction targets for the Tulare CAG region were 13 percent by year 2020 and 16 percent by year 2035 beginning in October of 2018.12
Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2017. The 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report recommended accelerating that goal to 20 percent by 2010, and the 2004 Energy Report Update further recommended increasing the target to 33 percent by 2020. The state’s Energy Action Plan also supported this goal. In 2006 under Senate Bill 107, California’s 20 percent by 2010 RPS goal was cod ified. The legislation required retail sellers of electricity to increase renewable energy purchases by at least one percent each year with a target of 20 percent renewables by 2010. Publicly owned utilities set their own RPS goals, recognizing the intent of the legislature to attain the 20 percent by 2010 target.

In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -14-08 requiring that “all retail sellers of electricity shall serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020.” The following year, Executive Order S-21-09 directed CARB to enact regulations to achieve the goal of 33 percent renewables by 2020.

12 California Air Resources Board. Regional Plan Targets. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities- program/regional-plan-targets. Accessed January 2023.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-10 In 2015, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 350 to codify ambitious climate and clean energy goals. One key provision of SB 350 is for retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure “half of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030.” The State’s RPS program was further strengthened by SB 100 in 2018. SB 100 revised the State’s RPS Program to require retail sellers of e lectricity to serve 50 percent and 60 percent of the total kilowatt-hours sold to retail end -use customers be served by renewable energy sources by 2026 and 2030, respectively, and to require that 100 percent of all electricity supplied come from renewable sources by 2045.

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

CARB has begun the rulemaking process for strengthening the compliance target of the LCFS through the year 2030. For a new LCFS target, the preferre d scenario in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies an 18 percent reduction in average transportation fuel carbon intensity, compared to a 2010 baseline, by 2030 as one of the primary measures for achieving the state’s GHG 2030 target. Achieving the SB 3 2 reduction goals will require the use of a low carbon transportation fuels portfolio beyond the amount expected to result from the current compliance schedule.13
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) Program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017-2025. The components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations and the Zero -Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases with requirements for greater numbers of zero- emission vehicles into a single package of standards. By 2025, new automobiles under California’s

13 California Air Resources Board. CARB amends Low Carbon Fuel Standard for wider impact. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/index.php/news/carb-amends-low-carbon-fuel-standard-wider-impact. Accessed January 2023.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-11 Advanced Clean Car program will emit 34 percent less global warming gases and 75 percent less smog-forming emissions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considering these factors that optimize transportation fuel use and that the Project would be built to meet demand for housing and commercial space, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful and inefficient use of energy resources during construction, and impacts would be less than significant. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix C. Construction energy use is summarized in Table 3.6-3.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-13 Table 3.6-3
Construction Energy Consumption14
Activity Energy Consumption
Activity
Consumption Amount
Phase 1
Construction
Equipment Diesel
Fuel Use
Off-road
Construction
Equipment fuel
13,588,140
Horsepower Hours
(total)
317,589 gallons
(diesel)
On-road
Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Worker 7,816,457 VMT (miles)
280,977 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Vendor 1,525,642 VMT (miles)
162,021 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Haul 5,320 VMT (miles) 793 gallons (diesel)
Phase 1
Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Subtotal
9,347,418 VMT (miles)
443,792 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Phase 2
Construction
Equipment Diesel
Fuel Use
Off-road
Construction
equipment fuel
20,714,975
Horsepower Hours
(total)
483,671 gallons
(diesel)
On-road
Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Worker 36,953,280 VMT (miles)
1,164,765 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Vendor 6,877,805 VMT (miles)
703,096 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)
Haul 4,840 VMT (miles) 651 gallons (diesel)
Phase 2
Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Subtotal
43,835,925 VMT (miles)
1,868,512 gallons
(gasoline and diesel
combined)

14 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 144.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-14 Activity Energy Consumption
Activity
Consumption Amount
Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuel Consumption
During operation of the proposed Project, vehicle trips would be generated by the Project. The Project was modeled with CalEEMod using project-specific trip generation rates and default trip lengths. The results show that the vehicle trips generated would result in approximately 62,519,489 VMT per year from Phase 1 development and 43,217,718 VMT from Phase 2 development for a total of 105,737,207 VMT from the Project. As shown in Table 3.6 -4, the proposed Project would result in the consumption of an estimated 2,175,089 gallons per year of transportation fuel for Phase 1 and 1,270,556 gallons per year of transportation fuel for Phase 2.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-16 Table 3.6-4
Long Term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption15
Vehicle Type Percent of
Vehicle Trips
Annual VMT Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phase 1
Passenger Cars (LDA) 53.0 33,145,359 37.19 891,279
Light Trucks and Medium
Duty Vehicles (LDT1, LDT2,
MDV)

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

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

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

3.1 1,340,730 11.0 121,739
Motorcycles (MCY) 0.4 165,515 38.07 4,347
Other (OBUS, UBUS, SBUS,
MH) 0.9 400,700 8.35 48,025
Phase 2 Total 100% 43,217,718 — 1,270,556

15 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 144.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-17 Vehicle Type Percent of
Vehicle Trips
Annual VMT Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Phases 1 and 2 Combined
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Total Annual Fuel Consumption
(gallons of gasoline and diesel combined)
3,445,645
Notes:

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

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

Modeling results are provided in Appendix A of Appendix C.

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

In summary, as described above, the Project would result in less than significant impacts, and it would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to project design features that will comply with the City’s design guidelines and regulations that apply to the Project, such as Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code that apply to commercial and residential buildings. The installation of solar panels required by 2022 Title 24 standards is required for most residential development .

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-18 Furthermore, various federal and state regulations , including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Progra m, would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand by the Project.

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

Table 3.6-5
Summary of Estimated Operational Annual Energy Consumption16 Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Phase 1
Electricity Consumption 9,025,740 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 23,553,340 kBTU/year
Total Vehicle Fuel Consumption 2,175,089 gallons/year (gallons of gasoline and diesel)
Phase 2
Electricity Consumption 13,587,571 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 38,770,625 kBTU/year
Total Vehicle Fuel Consumption 1,270,555 gallons/year (gallons of gasoline and diesel)
Notes:
kWh = kilowatt-hour
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source: Appendix A of Appendix C.

16 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 145.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-19 Based on the analysis herein, the Project would not result in the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Impact 3.6-2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant. The Project would comply with all applicable goals and measures identified in the City of Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City of Visalia has adopted local plans that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, many of which are summarized in the CAP. Actions that the City took to increase energy efficiency taken prior to adoption of the Climate Action Plan are summarized below.
• In January 2007, the Visalia City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the U.S. Mayors “Cool Cities” Climate Protection Agreement, which sets the goal of reducing City‐wide CO2 emissions.
• The City participated in an initiative called the Southwest Solar Transformation Initiative, a regional team of public and private entities committed to advancing solar power adoption across the partner municipalities in the Southwest United States. This facilitated an increase in solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in Visalia’s community. • The City of Visalia promoted and raised community awareness of the Energy Upgrade California program.
• The City of Visalia coordinated Direct Install opportunities for businesses in Visalia through the Southern California Edison Small Business Direct Install Program. As part of this program, SCE contracts with energy efficiency experts to provide free services to SCE business customers to increase energy efficiency.
• Facilitated and promoted the Southern California Gas Weatherization Program, which provided Energy Savings Assistance Programs to residential SoCalGas customers. • Community Service Employment Training (CSET), a private nonprofit corporation that serves as the community action agency for Tulare County, has been working closely with Visalia’s low‐income residents for a number of years to weatherize their homes. • In 2000, the City established a partnership with the Urban Tree Foundation to plant over 3,000 trees in the Downtown and along streets and medians. In 2 004, the City Council adopted the Street Tree Ordinance, which requires all new commercial and residential Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-20 development to plant street trees. Additionally, landscape standards require shade over at least 25 percent of area in city pocket parks.
• The City encouraged the use of Compact Fluorescent Lights throughout the community.

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

By proposing compact development, mixed -use centers, walkable neighborhoods, green building technology, and jobs-housing balance, the City will be helping to implement many of the strategies and programs in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan. • LU-P-39. Improve tree planting, landscaping and site design standards to minimize the visual impact of large parking lots and buildings, to enhance and promote natural characteristics compatible with urban form, to minimize heat gain and promote energy conservation, and to improve stormwater infiltration.
• LU-P-63. In higher-intensity and mixed-use areas, require pedestrian-oriented amenities such as small plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and active street frontages, with ground floor retail, where appropriate and justified.

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

Construction
As discussed under Impact 3.6-1, the proposed Specific Plan would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. The proposed Specific Plan would comply with these regulations. Consistent with A-P-16, LU-P-39, and LU-P- 63, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would increase the use of energy conservation Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-21 features and renewable sources of ene rgy within the City due to the mixed -use nature of the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan includes residences, commercial development, and schools, and it is designed for ease of travel using alternative transportation methods such as biking or walking, facilitated by the presence of bike lanes and trails throughout the Project area. Thus, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct policies of the City of Visalia General Plan and CAP aimed at reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, construction -related energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

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

The proposed Spec ific Plan would locate housing next to jobs in order to reduce or eliminate motor vehicle travel for home -to-work trips and provide connectivity through pedestrian and bicycle connections. Compliance with these mandatory measures would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, operational

17Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 148.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-22 energy efficiency and renewable energy standards co nsistency impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

The impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Cumulative Impacts
Less Than Cumulatively Considerable . Potential cumulative impacts on energy would result if the proposed Project, in combination with past, present, and future projects, would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This could result from development that would not incorporate sufficient building energy efficiency features, would not achieve build ing energy efficiency standards, or would result in the unnecessary use of energy during construction and/or operation. The cumulative projects within the areas serviced by the energy service providers would be applicable to this analysis; this includes ex isting aging structures that are energy inefficient. Projects that include development that would have the potential to consume energy in an inefficient manner would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact.

Carleton Acers Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.6-23 As previously described, the proposed P roject would not result in significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to various design features, including installation of solar, EV charging equipment, bicycle p arking, as well as following standards that promote energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency . Similar to the proposed P roject, newly constructed cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen, which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial and residential buildings. Over time, CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require the proposed P roject and newly constructed cumulative projects to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy.

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

Development associated with buildout of the proposed Project would be required to accommodate growth. As discussed above, new development and land use turnover would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (the CALGreen Code), which could decrease estimate d electricity and natural gas consumption compared to existing structures. Furthermore, energy consumed by development in the Project area would continue to be subject to the regulations described in the Regulatory Setting of this Section . For these reasons, energy that would be consumed by the Project is not considered unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful. Considering the information provided above, the proposed Project , in conjunction with other cumulative development, would not result in a significant cumulative impact to energy resources. Impacts are not cumulatively considerable.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-1

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

Environmental Setting
Geologic Setting
Visalia is part of the Central Valley province, one of several geomorphic provinces in California.

The Central Valley is in a basin bounded by the Sierra Nevada foothills and mountains to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west, and is filled with deep layers of sediment from the Sierra Nevada. The Visalia area is basically flat, lying at an elevation of approximately 330 feet above sea level. The St. Johns River flows through the northeastern portion of the City. The river, as well as smaller streams and canals, form alluvial fans.

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

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

Sediments comprising the Tulare Lake subbasin include younger and older alluvium, flood-basin deposits, lacustrine and marsh deposits and continental deposits. Younger alluvium consists of a heterogeneous complex of interstratified discontinuous beds of unsorted to fairly well sorted clay, silt, sand, and gravel. This unit is very permeable but largely above the water table. Older alluvium consists of poorly sorted lenticular deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, which may be loosely consolidated to cemented. Older alluvium is moderately to highly permeable and yields large quantities of water to wells. The unit is a major aquifer in the subbasin. Flood basin deposits are relatively impermeable silt and clay with some moderately to poorly permeable sand layers. This unit is not an important source of ground water, but locally, may yield sufficient supplies for domestic and stock use. Lacustrine and marsh deposits are reduced deposits of silt, clay, and fine sand. In the subsurface, lacustrine clay interfingers as tongues with continental and alluvial deposits. The lacustrine and marsh deposits include the Corcoran Clay which underlies the subbasin at depths ranging between about 300 and 900 feet. Continental deposits consist of Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-2 poorly sorted lenticular deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These deposits are moderately to poorly permeable and yield low to large quantities of water to wells. Land subsidence of one to four feet due to deep compaction of fine-grained units has occurred in the subbasin. (California's Groundwater Bulletin 118, 2006).1
Topography
The Project site is located in northern Visalia, to the northeast of the West Riggin Avenue and North Shirk Road intersection. The immediate area is primarily agriculture with residential to the south, and the Ridgeview Middle School to the southeast. The site is generally flat and averages approximately 309 feet above mean sea level. The topography in the area consists of a slight slope to the west / southwest.2
Soils
A Custom Soil Resource Report was prepared for the Project (Appendix F). According to that Report, the soil on the Project site consists primarily of Akers-Akers and Grangeville sandy loam soils. Akers-Akers soils consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granite rock. The soil is well drained and is suitable for various crop productions, cattle/dairy production and building site development. 3 Grangeville sandy loam soils consist of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils t hat formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite rock sources. This type of soil is typically used for a variety of crops as well as for urban development.4
Faults
The City of Visalia is in a seismically stable region of the State. While the southern San Joaquin Valley contains some small faults, the closest of these are 30 miles away, and none are known to be active. In comparison to many regions in California, Visalia exhibits relatively little tectonic activity. The major fault systems in the area include the San Andreas Fault, located 75 miles away

1 Carleton Acres Phase I ESA (June 2021), Appendix G, page 14. 2 Ibid, page 13.
3 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AKERS.html (accessed Sept. 2021). 4 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GRANGEVILLE.html (accessed Sept. 2021).

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-3 from Visalia, and the Owens Valley Fault Group, located east of the Sierras and more than 125 miles away from the City.5
Asbestos
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material once commonly used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before the EPA banned such uses in the 1970s. Asbestos can also be atmospherically deposited from vehicle brake shoes. Naturally occurring asbestos can be found in serpentinite or other metamorphosed ultramafic rocks such as dunite, peridotite, and pyroxenite. According to large scale mapping of ultramafic rocks in California, no known ultramafic rocks outcrops are present in the City of Visalia.

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

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

The NEHRPA designates FEMA as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities.

5 Visalia General Plan EIR (2014), page 3.7-4.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-4 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The primary legislation pertaining to fossils from National Park Service (NPS) and other federal lands is the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA) (16 U.S.C. § 470aaa 1-11) which was enacted on March 30, 2009 within the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

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

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

California Building Code
“The California Building Code ” is another name for the body of regulations known as the California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.), Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-5 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone Act), signed into law December 1972, requires the delineation of zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazards associated with fault rupture and to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across these traces.

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

Subdivisions).

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

Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural or man-made hazards. Visalia participates in the preparation of the Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ -LHMP) which covers Tulare County and eleven participating cities. The plan has been desi gned 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.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-6 Thresholds of Significance

The thresholds of significance for this section are established by the CEQA Checklist Item. o Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides?
o Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? o Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
o Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? o Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? o Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resourc e or site or unique geological feature?

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 3.7-1: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-7 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?

Less Than Significant Impact. This impact analysis evaluates the proposed Project’s potential to expose persons or structures to seismic hazards (fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and landsliding). Each of these hazards and their potential environmental impacts are discussed below.

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

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

To ensure that impacts remain less than significant, the City of Visalia, as well as Project’s Specific Plan, requires the applicant to prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical study that complies with all applicable seismic design standards of the California Building Standards Code. The design-level analysis shall addre ss site preparation measures and foundation design requirements of the project. The design-level analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. Final design-level project plans shall be designed in accordance with the approved geotechnical analysis. This shall include certification of engineered fills and subgrade preparation

6 Visalia General Plan EIR (2014), page 3.7-4.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-8 through monitoring of earthwork and compaction testing by a geotechnical engineer during construction. Seismic design standards account for peak ground accelera tion, soil profile, and other site conditions and they establish corresponding design standards intended to protect public safety and minimize property damage. This geotechnical study would ensure potential ground shaking impacts remain less than significant.

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

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

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

7 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels (accessed Sept. 2021).

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-9 Impact 3.7-2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Soils on the Project site consists primarily of Akers- Akers and Grangeville sandy loam soils. Akers -Akers soils consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granite rock. The soil is well drained and is suitable for various crop productions, cattle/dairy production and building site development. 8 Grangeville sandy loam soils consist of very deep, somewhat poo rly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite rock sources. This type of soil is typically used for a variety of crops as well as for urban development.9 Construction activities associated with the Project invo lves ground preparation work for the proposed development of the site. These activities could expose barren soils to sources of wind or water, resulting in the potential for erosion and sedimentation on and off the Project site.

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

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

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

The Applicant and/or contractor would be required to employ appropriate sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

8 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AKERS.html (accessed Sept. 2021). 9 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GRANGEVILLE.html (accessed Sept. 2021).

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.7-10 (SWPPP) that would be required and submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized through impleme ntation of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) fugitive dust control measures (See Section 3.3 – Air Quality). Once construction is complete, the Project would not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Mitigation Measure GEO – 1 (requirement to prepare a SWPPP) will ensure that impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

GEO – 1 In order to reduce on-site erosion due to project construction and operation, an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for the site preparation, construction, and post -construction periods by a registered civil engineer or certified professional. The erosion control plan shall incorporate best management practices consistent with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The erosion component of the plan must at least meet the requirements of the SWPPP required by the Central Valley RWQCB. If earth disturbing activities are proposed between October 15 and April 15, these activities shall be limited to the extent feasible to minimize potential erosion related impacts. Additional erosion control measures may be implemented in consultation with the City of Visalia. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the Project proponent shall submit detailed plans to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. The components of the erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City of Visalia. Erosion control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
i. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction;
ii. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right -of- way of designated access roads;
iii. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;
iv. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construc tion activity is shut down during the winter periods; and
v. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion control measures.

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

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

Mitigation Measures
GEO – 2 The project proponent shall retain a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical analysis prior to t he issuance of any grading and/or building permit. The design-level analysis shall address site preparation measures and foundation design requirements of the project. The design-level analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Visalia. Final design-level project plans shall be designed in accordance with the approved geotechnical analysis.

This shall include certification of engineered fills and subgrade preparation through monitoring of earthwork and compaction testing by a geotechnical engineer during construction.

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

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

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

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

Mitigation Measures
None are required.

Impact 3.7-6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

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

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

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

Cumulative Impacts
Would the project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to geology, soils, seismicity, or paleontological resources?

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

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

While some cumulative impacts may occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the City’s General Plan goals, objectives and policies, as well as State and federal regulations, will reduce the risk to people in the region. Considering the protection granted by local, state, and federal agencies and their requirements for the seismic design, as discussed above, the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contr ibution to any significant impact to geological or soils resources.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-1

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

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

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

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

Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios. 1 The report also concluded that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthr opogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Consequences of Climate Change in California
In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following2:

1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, page 45.
2 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-2 • Reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies.

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

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

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

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

Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
• An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chr onic disease or heat -related illness.
• A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non - native species.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-3 Consequences of Climate Change in the Visalia Area
Figure 3.8 -1 displays a chart of measured historical and projected annual average maximum temperatures in the Project area. As shown in the figure, temperatures are expected to rise in the low and high GHG emissions scenarios. The results indicate that temperatures by the end of the century are predicted to increase by 5.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) under the low emission scenario and 8.6°F under the high emissions scenario.3
Figure 3.8-1
Observed and Projected Temperatures for Climate Change in the Project Area 4

Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, CO 2, methane, NO X, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and

3 Ibid. Page 48.
4 Ibid, Page 47.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-4 aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The presence of GH Gs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. It is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.

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

Individual GHG compounds have varying global warming potential and atmospheric lifetimes. CO2, the reference gas for global warming potential, has a global warming potential of one. The global warming potential of a GHG is a measure of how much a giv en mass of a GHG is estimated to contribute to global warming. To describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the carbon dioxide equivalent is used. The calculation of the carbon dioxide equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent reference gas, CO 2. For example, CH 4’s warming potential of 25 indicates that CH4 has 25 times greater warming effect than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. A carbon dioxide equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its global warming potential.

GHGs defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (see the Climate Change Regulatory Environment section for a descrip tion) include CO 2, CH 4, NOX, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. They are described in Table 3.8-1. A seventh GHG, nitrogen trifluoride, was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. The global warm ing potential amounts are from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The AR4 GWP amounts, incorporated into the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, are used in this analysis. Although the newer IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) includes new global warming potential amounts, ARB continues to use AR4 rates for inventory purposes, including the 2018 inventory released on October 19, 2020, to ensure consistency with past inventories. Until such time as ARB updates its Scoping Plan inventories to utilize AR5 GWPs, it is appropriate to continue using AR4 GWPs for CEQA analyses, which are based on Scoping Plan consistency.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-5 Table 3.8-1
Description of Greenhouse Gases5
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical
Properties Sources
Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) is a
colorless GHG. It has a lifetime
of 114 years. Its global warming
potential is 298.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sulfur hexafluoride
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an
inorganic, odorless, colorless,
and nontoxic, nonflammable
gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200
This gas is man-made and used
for insulation in electric power
transmission equipment, in the
magnesium industry, in

5 Ibid, Page 49.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-6 Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical
Properties Sources
years. It has a high global
warming potential of 22,800.
semiconductor manufacturing,
and as a tracer gas.

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

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

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

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

ARB was required to complete an emission inventory of these pollutants, identify research needs, identify existing and potential new control measures that offer co-benefits, and coordinate with other state agencies and districts to develop measures. The Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy was approved by the ARB in March 2017. The strategy calls for reductions of 50 percent from black carbon, 40 percent from methane, and 40 percent from HFCs from the 2030 Business as Usual (BAU) inventory for these pollutants.6
The short-lived climate pollutants include three main components: black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane. Fluorinated gases and methane are described in Table 3.8-1 and are already included in the California GHG inventory. Black carbon has not been included in past GHG inventories; however, ARB will include it in its comprehensive strategy.7 Ozone is another short -lived climate pollutant that will be part of the strategy. Ozone affects evaporation rates, cloud formation, and precipitation levels. Ozone is not directly emitted, so its precursor emissions—VOC and NOX on a regional scale and CH4 on a hemispheric scale—will be subject of the strategy.8
Black carbon is a component of fine pa rticulate matter. Black carbon is formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. Sources of black carbon within a jurisdiction may include exhaust from diesel trucks, vehicles, and equipment, as well as smoke from biogenic combustion. Biogenic combustion sources of black carbon include the burning of biofuels used for transportation, the burning of biomass for electricity generation and heating, prescribed burning of

6 Ibid, Page 50.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-7 agricultural residue, and natural and unnatural wildfires. Black carbon is not a gas but an aerosol— particles or liquid droplets suspended in air. Black carbon only remains in the atmosphere for days to weeks, whereas other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for years. Black carbon can be deposited on snow, where it absorbs sunlight, reduces sunlight reflectivity, and hastens snowmelt. Direct effects include absorbing incoming and outgoing radiation; indirectly, black carbon can also affect cloud reflectivity, precipitation, and surface dimming (cooling).

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

Water vapor is also considered a GHG. Water vapor is an important component of our climate system and is not regulated. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased CO2 allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.9 Emissions Inventories
An emissions inventory is a database that lists, by source, the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere of a geographic area during a given time period. Emissions worldwide were approximately 43,286 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2012. As shown in Figure 3.8-2, China was the largest GHG emitter with over 10 billion metric tons of CO2e, and the United States was the second largest GHG emitter with over 6 billion metric tons of CO2e.10

9 Ibid, Page 51.
10 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-8 Figure 3.8-2
Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends11

Figure 3.8-3 presents 2019 United States GHG emissions by economic sector. Emissions decreased from 2018 to 2019 by approximately 1.7 percent. This decrease was driven largely by a decrease in emissions from fossil fuel combustion resulting from a decrease in total energy use in 2019 compared to 2018 and a continued shift from coal to natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector.

Total U.S. emissions have increased by 1.8 percent from 1990 to 2019 (from 6,437 MMT CO2e in 1990 to 6,558 MMT CO2e in 2019).12

11 Ibid.
12 Ibid, page 51.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-9 Figure 3.8-3
2019 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector 13

Figure 3.8-3 shows the contributors of GHG emissions in California between years 2000 and 2019 by Scoping Plan category. The main contributor was transportation. The second highest sector in 2019 was industrial, which includes sources from refineries, general fuel use, oil and gas extraction, cement plants, and cogeneration heat output. Emissions from the electricity sector account for 14 percent of the inventory and have shown a substantial decrease in 2019 due to increases in renewables. ARB reported that California’s GHG emissions inventory was 418.2 MMTCO2e in 2019.

13 Ibid, Page 52.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-10 Figure 3.8-4
Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Scoping Plan Category in California 14

Regulatory Setting
International Regulations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was tasked with assessing the scientific,

14 Ibid, Page 53.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-11 technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

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

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

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

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

Greenhouse Gas Endangerment
Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate four GHGs, including CO2, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether

15 Ibid, Page 55.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-13 emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribu te to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles an d new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

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

The first phase of the national program applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium- duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon; that is, if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut CO 2 emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012–2016). The EPA and the National Highway Safety Administration issued final rules on a second-phase joint rulemaking, establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles for

16 Ibid, Page 56.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-14 model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012 (EPA 2012b). The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements.

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

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

New Source Review
The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010 that establishes thresholds for GHGs, which will define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these Clean Air Act permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to the revisions to the federal code of regulations, the EPA states:

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-15 This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the Clean Air Act, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to greenhouse gas sources, starting with the largest greenhouse gas emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phase-in. The rule also commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps addressing smaller sources, but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting for greenhouse gas emissions until at least April 30, 2016.

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

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

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

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

Electric Utility Generating Units an Energy Independence.

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

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

The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners are California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Currently, only California and Quebec are participating in the Cap-and-Trade program.17

State of California Regulations
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions.

This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.

AB 32. The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “Greenhouse gases” as defined under AB 32 include CO 2, methane, NO X, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs. The ARB is the state agency c harged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following:

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

The ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMTCO2e on December 6, 2007. Therefore, to meet the State’s target, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a BAU scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, which

17 Ibid, Page 58.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-17 do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (ARB 2008a). At that rate, a 28 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMTCO 2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, ARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the effects of the 2008 recession and slower forecasted growth.

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

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

Calculation of the original 1990 limit approved in 2007 was revised in 2014 using the scientifically updated IPCC AR4 global warming potential values, to 431 MMTCO 2e. ARB approved 431 MMTCO2e as the 2020 emission limit with the approval of the First Update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014.18
ARB 2008 Scoping Plan. The ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 to comply with AB 32. The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors a nd the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG target include:
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation -related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.

18 Ibid, Page 59.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-18 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program is a key element of the Scoping Plan. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The program is design ed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. The program conducted its first auction in November 2012. Compliance obligations began for power plants and large industrial sources in January 2013. Other significant milestones include linkage to Quebec’s Cap-and-Trade system in January 2014 and starting the compliance obligation for distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels in January 2015.19
The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, ensuring that the 2020 statewide emission limit will not be exceeded. An inherent feature of the Cap-and-Trade Program is that it does not guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions reductions are guaranteed only on an accumulative basis. As summarized by ARB in the First Update:

The Cap-and-Trade Regulation gives companies the flexibility to trade allowances with others or take steps to cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own facilities. Companies that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance instruments. Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turn in fewer allowances. But as the cap declines, aggregate emissions must be reduced. In other words, a covered entity theoretically could increase its GHG emissions every year and still comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program if there is a reduction in GHG emissions from other covered entities. Such a focus on aggregate GHG emissions is considered appropriate because climate change is a global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative.20 The Cap-and-Trade Program works with other direct regulatory measures and provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions more than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively fewer emissions reductions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions less than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively more emissions reductions. Thus, the Cap-and-Trade Program assures that California will meet its 2020 GHG emissions reduction mandate:

19 Ibid, Page 60.
20 Ibid.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-19 The Cap-and-Trade Program establishes an overall limit on GHG emissions from most of the California economy—the “capped sectors.” Within the capped sectors, some of the reductions are being accomplished through direct regulations, such as improved building and appliance efficiency standards, the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] LCFS, and the 33 percent [Renewables Portfolio Standard] RPS. Whatever additional reductions are need ed to bring emissions within the cap is accomplished through price incentives posed by emissions allowance prices.

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

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

1. SB 350
• Achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030.

21 Ibid, Page 61.
22 Ibid, Page 60.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-20 • Doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the refinery sector.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-21

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

The key elements of ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan focus on the transportation sector, where reductions are primarily influenced by regulations at the state level. Under the 2022 Scoping Plan, the State will lead efforts to meet the 2045 carbon neutrality goal through implementation of the following objectives:24
• Reimagine roadway projects that increase VMT in a way that meets community needs and reduces the need to drive.
• Double local transit capacity and service frequencies by 2030. • Complete the High-Speed Rail (HSR) System and other elements of the intercity rail network by 2040.
• Double local transit capacity and service frequencies by 2030. • Complete the High-Speed Rail (HSR) System and other elements of the intercity rail network by 2040.
• Expand and complete planned networks of high-quality active transportation infrastructure.
• Increase availability and affordability of bikes, e-bikes, scooters, and other alternatives to light-duty vehicles, prioritizing needs of underserved communities. • Shift revenue generation for transportation projects away from the gas tax into more durable sources by 2030.

23 The Final 2022 Scoping Plan was released on November 16, 2022 and adopted by ARB on December 16, 2022. 24 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2022-scoping-plan-documents. November 16. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-22 • Authorize and implement roadway pricing strategies and reallocate revenues to equitably improve transit, bicycling, and other sustainable transportation choices. • Prioritize addressing key transit bottlenecks and other infrastructure investments to improve transit operational efficiency over investments that increase VMT. • Develop and implement a statewide transportation demand management (TDM) framework with VMT mitigation requirements for large employers and large developments.
• Prevent uncontrolled growth of autonomous vehicle (AV) VMT, particularly zero- passenger miles.
• Channel new mobility services towards pooled use models, transit complementarity, and lower VMT outcomes.
• Establish an integrated statewide system for trip planning, booking, payment, and user accounts that enables efficient and equitable multimodal systems. • Provide financial support for low-income and disadvantaged Californians’ use of transit and new mobility services.
• Expand universal design features for new mobility services. • Accelerate infill development in existing transportation-efficient places and deploy strategic resources to create more transportation-efficient locations. • Encourage alignment in land use, housing, transportation, and conservation planning in adopted regional plans (RTP/SCS and RHNA) and local plans (e.g., general plans, zoning, and local transportation plans).
• Accelerate production of affordable housing in forms and locations that reduce VMT and affirmatively further fair housing policy objectives.
• Reduce or eliminate parking requirements (and/or enact parking maximums, as appropriate) and promote redevelopment of excess parking, especially in infill locations. • Preserve and protect existing affordable housing stock and protect existing residents and businesses from displacement and climate risk.

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

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

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

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

Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs.

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

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

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

SB 1078—Renewable Electricity Standards. On September 12, 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed SB 1078, requiring California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with

25 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report for the Carleton Acres Specific Plan. Prepared by Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting. See Appendix C, Page 64.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-25 renewable energy by 2020. Governor Schwarzenegger also directed the ARB (Executive Order S-21- 09) to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. The ARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23. In 2011, the state legislature adopted this higher standard in SB X1-2. Renewable sources of electricity subject to the legislation include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas.

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

SB 100 California Renewable Portfolio Standard (2018). The goal of the program is to achieve that 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. The bill approved by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018 would require that

26 Ibid, Page 66.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-26 retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt-hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard was subject to legal challenge in 2011. Ultimately, ARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation to the Board for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low-carbon fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement. The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the regulation on November 16, 2015. The regulation was amended in 2018 to strengthen and smooth carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030, in-line with GHG reduction target enacted through SB 32.27 Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “. . . first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Orders B -55-18 Carbon Neutrality by 2045 (2018). This Executive Order signed on September 10, 2018 sets a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The executive order directs ARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal. This goal is in addition to the statewide targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

27 Ibid, Page 67.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-28 California Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

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

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

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 code) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect January 1, 2011. The code is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent update consisting of the 2016 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2017. Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The Code recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided the ordinances include a minimum 50-percent diversion requirement. The code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-29 The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 code) requires:
• Short-term bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for five percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1).
• Long-term bicycle parking. For buildings with over 10 tenant -occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for five percent of tenant-occupied motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space (5.106.4.1.2).
• Designated parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2).
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling. (5.410.1).
• Construction waste. A minimum 50-percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and 80 percent for new homes and 80-percent for commercial projects. (5.408.1, A5.408.3.1 [nonresidential], A5.408.3.1 [residential]). All (100 percent) of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled (5.408.3).
• Wastewater reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by one of the following methods:
o The installation of water-conserving fixtures or
o Using nonpotable water systems (5.303.4).
• Water use savings. Twenty percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35, and 40 percent reductions (5.303.2, A5303.2.3 [nonresidential]). • Water meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (5.303.1). • Irrigation efficiency. Moisture -sensing irrigation system s for larger landscaped areas (5.304.3).
• Materials pollution control. Low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particleboard (5.404).
• Building commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-30 ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies (5.410.2).

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

CEQA Guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, the Court advised that:
• Substantiation of Project Reductions from BAU. A lead agency may use a BAU comparison based on the Scoping Plan’s methodology if it also substantiates the reduction a particular project must achieve to comply with statewide goals. The Court suggested a lead agency could examine the “data behind the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual model” to determine the necessary project-level reductions from new land use development at the proposed location.
• Compliance with Regulatory Programs or Performance Based Standards. “A lead agency might assess consistency with A.B. 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from particular activities. (See Final Statement of Reasons, supra, at p. 64 [greenhouse gas emissions ‘may be best analyzed and mitigated at a programmatic level.’].) To the extent a project’s design features comply with or exceed the regulations outlined in the Scoping Plan and adopted by the Air Resources Board or other state agencies, a lead agency could appropriately rely on their use as showing compliance with ‘performance based standards’ adopted to fulfill ‘a statewide . . . plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.’ (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a)(2), (b)(3); see also id., § 15064(h)(3) [determination that impact is not cumulatively considerable may rest on compliance with previously adopted plans or regulations, including ‘plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions’].)” • Compliance with GHG Reduction Plans or Climate Action Plans (CAPs). A lead agency may utilize “geographically specific GHG emission reduction plans” such as climate action plans or greenhouse gas emission reduction plans to provide a basis for the tiering or streamlining of project-level CEQA analysis.
• Compliance with Local Air District Thresholds . A lead agency may rely on “existing numerical thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions” adopted by, for example, local air districts.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-33 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulations Climate Change Action Plan
On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD Governing Board approved a proposal called the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP began with a public process bringing together stakeholders, land use agencies, environmental groups, and b usiness groups to conduct public workshops to develop comprehensive policies for CEQA guidelines, a carbon exchange bank, and voluntary GHG emissions mitigation agreements for the Board’s consideration. The CCAP contains the following goals and actions:
• Develop GHG significance thresholds to address CEQA projects with GHG emission increases.
• Develop the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange for banking and trading GHG reductions. • Authorize use of the SJVAPCD’s existing inventory reporting system to allow use for GHG reporting required by AB 32 regulations.
• Develop and administer GHG reduction agreements to mitigate proposed emission increases from new projects.
• Support climate protection measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as toxic and criteria pollutants. Oppose measures that result in a significant increase in toxic or criteria pollutant emissions in already impacted areas.

On December 17, 2009, the SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted “Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,” and the policy “District Policy—Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.” The SJVAPCD concluded that the existing science is inadequate to support quantification of the impacts that project-specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change. The SJVAPCD found the effects of project-specific emissions to be cumulative, and without mitigation, their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered cumulatively considerable. The SJVAPCD found that this cumulative impact is best addressed by requiring all projects to reduce their GHG emissions, whether through project design elements or mitigation.28 The SJVAPCD’s approach is intended to streamline the process of determining if project-specific GHG emissions would have a significant effect. Projects exempt from the requirements of CEQA, and projects complying with an approved plan or mitigation program, would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted

28 Ibid, Page 73.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-34 by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources, and must have a certified final CEQA document.

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

The SJVAPCD has not yet adopted BPS for development projects, so quantification of Project emissions is required. The SJVAPCD has not updated its guidance to address SB 32 2030 targets.29 San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange
The SJVAPCD initiated work on the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange in November 2008. The purpose of the carbon exchange is to quantify, verify, and track voluntary GHG emissions reductions generated within the San Joaquin Valley. However, the SJVAPCD has pursued an alternative strategy that incorporates the GHG emissions into its existing Rule 2301—Emission Reduction Credit Offset Banking that formerly only addressed criteria pollutants. The SJVAPCD is also participating with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), of which it is a member, in the CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx). The GHG Rx is operated cooperatively by air districts that have elected to participate. Participating districts have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CAPCOA and agree to post only those credits that meet the Rx standards for quality. The objective is to provide a secure, low-cost, high-quality greenhouse gas exchange for credits created in California. The GHG Rx i s intended to help fulfill compliance obligations or mitigation needs of local projects subject to environmental review, reducing the uncertainty of using credits generated in distant locations. The SJVAPCD currently has no credits posted to the GHG Rx as of this writing.30
Rule 2301
While the Climate Change Action Plan indicated that the GHG emission reduction program would be called the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange, the District incorporated a method to register voluntary GHG emission reductions into its existing Rule 2301—Emission Reduction Credit Banking

29 Ibid, Page 73.
30 Ibid, Page 74.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-35 through amendments of the rule. Amendments to the rule were adopted on January 19, 2012. The purposes of the amendments to the rule include the following:
• Provide an administrative mechanism for sources to bank voluntary GHG emission reductions for later use.
• Provide an administrative mechanism for sources to transfer banked GHG emission reductions to others for any use.
• Define eligibility standards, quantitative procedures, and administrative practices to ensure that banked G HG emission reductions are real, permanent, quantifiable, surplus, and enforceable.

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

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

The plan is meant to provide a long-range, fiscally constrained guide for the future of Tulare County’s transportation system. The 2018 RTP plan extends to the year 2042 in its scope. As required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375), the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) contains a Sustainable Communities Strategy that considers both land use and transportation together in a single, integrated planning process that accommodates regional housing needs and projected growth. The 2018 RTP/SCS meets the requirements of SB 375 and demonstrates how the integrated land use an d transportation plan achieves the region’s mandated GHG emission targets for passenger vehicles.31 City of Visalia General Plan
The City of Visalia General Plan includes numerous policies aimed at reducing and controlling GHG emissions. The City of Visalia included a Climate Action Plan (CAP) as part of the General Plan Update that incorporates strategies that would help reduce GHG emissions associated with development projects. The General Plan policies included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

31 Ibid, Page 74.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-36 chapter to support the City’s objective to reduce emissions of GHGs that contribute to climate change in accordance with federal and state law (AQ-O-3) are listed below. • AQ-P-12. Support the implementation of Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the District) for individual development projects that may exceed District significance thresholds.

A VERA is a voluntary mitigation measure where a project proponent provides pound -for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emissions reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of emissions reduction programs and verifier of successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project- specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s Strategies and Incentives Program. The funds are disbursed in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. • AQ-P-13. Where feasible, replace City vehicles with those that employ low -emission technology.
• AQ-P-14. Promote and expand the trip-reduction program for City employees to reduce air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gas.

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

By proposing compact development, mixed -use centers, walkable neighborhoods, green building technology, and jobs-housing balance, the City will be helping to implement many of the strategies and programs in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan.
• AQ-P-17. Prepare and adopt a Climate Action Plan that incorporates a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Plan. The GHG Emissions Reduction Plan will quantify current and anticipated future emissions and focus on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of General Plan implementation on climate change and air quality.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-37 City of Visalia General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The General Plan EIR relies on General Plan goals and policies to mitigate GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Many of the policies are applicable at a city level and are only applicable to municipal operations, while those applicable to community development projects would apply to individual development projects through compliance with regulations. General Plan policies listed in the EIR section include AQ-P-12, AQ-P-13, AQ-P-14, AQ-P-15, AQ-P-16 and the additional measures provided below.
• T-P-20. Work with major employers and the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) to reduce total vehicle miles traveled [VMT] and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips and provide better utilization of the transportation system through development and implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that are tailored to the needs of geographic areas within the city and the time period of traffic congestion.

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

These could include projects that integrate transit facilities, incorporate a mix of uses with differing peak parking demand periods (e.g., residential and office), incorporate shared parking or common area parking, or incorporate other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies for residents or tenants (car-sharing, requiring paid parking, etc.). • T-P-67. Participate in the planning process for a potential Cross Valley Rail Line, which could provide east-west light rail service from Visalia to Huron and potentially connect to a future High Speed Rail system.
• T-P-77. Work with TCAG to ensure that the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy are consistent with Visalia’s Land Use and Transportation policies.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-38 Visalia Climate Action Plan
Visalia’s 2013 CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory of municipal and community emissions, identification and analysis of existing and proposed GHG reduction measures, and reduction targets to help Visalia work toward the State’s goal of an 80 pe rcent reduction below baseline emissions by 2050. The plan sets 2020 and 2030 reduction targets, and it includes reduction actions for energy, transportation, and waste and resource conservation. The CAP includes targets and action steps for the municipal and community sectors. The CAP was prepared concurrently with the General Plan, with an environmental review conducted through the EIR prepared for the General Plan. The CAP includes objectives and specific policies from the proposed General Plan to address long-term emissions reduction efforts by the City.

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

This partnership led to the development of the Valley Innovative Energy Watch: a partnership with Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization, and other public jurisdictions in Kings/Tulare Counties. One major task in this initiative was assisting each of the local government partners to develop comprehensive clean energy/GHG reduction plans, including the identification of baseline GHG emissions and energy use.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-39 Thresholds of Significance
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.”
The following GHG significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which were amendments adopted into the Guidelines on March 18, 2010, pursuant to SB 97 and most recently amended December 28, 2019. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or

(b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

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

Visalia’s 2013 CAP provides the following reduction targets for Visalia’s community and municipal sectors based on the baseline year emissions and emissions projections estimates:
• A reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2020 ( selected to be in- line with ARB’s recommended reduction targets)
• A reduction target of 30 percent below 2005 baseline year level by 2030 (strategy consistent with Executive Order S-3-05)
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides guidance for preparing a BAU analysis. Under the SJVAPCD guidance, projects meeting one of the following would have a less t han significant impact on climate change:
• Exempt from CEQA;
• Complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program; • Project achieves 29 percent GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards; and
• Project achieves AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG reductions compared with “business as usual.”
The 29 percent GHG reduction level is based on the target established by ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008. The GHG reduction level for the State to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 was reduced to 21.7 percent from BAU in 2020 in the 2014 First Update to the Scoping Plan to account for slower than projected growth after the 2008 recession. In addition, the State reported that the 2016 greenhouse gas inventory was below the 20 20 target for the first time.

Furthermore, the 2017 Scoping Plan states that California is on track to achieve the 2020 target. In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan outlines objectives, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure that outlines how the State can achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045. First occupancy at the Project site is expected to occur as early as 2023, which is after the AB 32 target year. Full buildout of the single family portion is expected to take up to fifteen (15) years with the remaining to be determined by demand . Until a new threshold or BPS are identified for projects constructed after 2020, significance is based on making continued progress toward the SB 32 2030 goal.

Carleton Acres Specific Plan EIR | Chapter 3
CITY OF VISALIA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3.8-41 A quantitative analysis was prepared for this Project to determine the extent to which it may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting to fulfill Consideration 1. This analysis is included under Impact 3.8 -1 as one of two considerations used to determin e if the proposed Project would generate direct or indirect greenhouse emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment.

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

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

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

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

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