Agenda packet — Visalia City Council, July 20, 2026 (part 14 of 14)

APPROACH LANES
Both Approaches 525 900 630 1156 1086914
U
(600) (720) (504) 1156
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM U R
750 1006

2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
95 75 53 100 70

REQUIREMENT
Minor Street (42) (80) 98 67 53 71
98 67
Yes
(60) (56) 102

WARRANT FULFILLED
No
TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
80%
897
85111
1281 897
111 85
1006 914 1086
1269
1206
1281
5:00 PM
6:00 PM 1 2 or More
R
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
1 - - - -

V I I V V

I I I V V
I
I
r;, r
r r;,
r r;,
I /
r;, r
r;, r
I I
r r;,
---ii , ~ I
2943
7:00 AM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
Volume Volume Volume Volume
DCC 11/05/25
DC 11/07/25
Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Calculated By:

Checked By:

Date:

3. Lovers Lane / K Avenue
1281
95 102 111
(Higher Volume Approach)
1156
98 Major Street
(Total of Both Approaches)
Minor Street
1206 1269
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (Rural)
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions
Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals
November 7, 2014
2 or More
Lanes & 2
or More
Lanes
2 or More
Lanes &
1 Lane
1 Lane
&
1 Lane
Satisfied: Yes No
Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
2 www.JLBTraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W Shaw Ave., Ste 103
Fresno, CA 93704 .
(559) 570-8991 .
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) MINOR
STREET
HIGHERVOLUME
APPROACHVPH
400
300
200
RE LA~ES & 2
1 OR MOIRE LAN1
Es
2 OR JORE JNES & l LANE
1 JNE & 1
1 LANE
100 ---+--+----+-:::,,..,.,-:±----=-+,,:::::--....::::;,-"""="-+-----l ...... 7 __ -_-_+-+--- =- ==- ~ ::==-t°'I'-- - _- _-~--: aoJIIIIIIII' I 6Q• 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -

VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane. .. ■ •
r rv r
r
JLB!!Af.US. - - - - ----
•
2944
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
www.JLBtraffic.com Fresno, CA 93704
[email protected] (559) 570-8991
Warrant 3: Peak Hour (Rural)
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions

3. Lovers Lane / K Avenue
AM (PM) Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met
PM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met
Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals
November 7, 2014
K Avenue
Highest
Approach
Volume =
113 (75) VPH
Lovers Lane Total of Both Approaches =
1366 (1421) VPH
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400
300
200
100
300
JlB !!&.f.E!s. - - - -
1 JE LAN!S & 21 JE LAJ
2 0 MOREi LANESI & 1 LA~E
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane. 2945
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 844
(FHWA'S MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Signal Warrant Analysis

COUNT DATE

CALC DATE

CHK DATE
Major St: Critical Approach Speed 40 MPH
Minor St:

Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h (40 mph)……………… or RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population ………..

URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES NO (Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied) Condition A - Minimum Vehicle Volume 100% SATISFIED YES NO 80 % SATISFIED YES NO
DCC
DC
11/05/25
11/07/25
09/09/25
Fresno
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
006

DIST CO RTE KPM

N/A N/A
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions
Lovers Lane
Sunnyside Avenue
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Hour
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES NO 80 % SATISFIED YES NO

APPROACH LANES
U R
3:00 PM
U R
7:00 AM8:00 AM1:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM
2 or More 2:00 PM
6:00 PM
Major Street (480) 822
420 1035
1149
500 350
(400) 943
600 1105 943 858 1149 1205 1194
1 150 200 140 110
110 129 146
129
142 130
Highest Approach 146
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
1205
185
(336) 858 1194
822
(280)
Minor Street
177 160
(84) (160) (112) 177 185 160
1105 1035

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(120)
105 142 130
Both Approaches
Hour
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES NO
www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
[email protected] (559) 570 - 8991
1149
Major Street
Highest Approach
(420)
110 129 146 177
1205

APPROACH LANES
Both Approaches 525 900 630 1105 858 1035
U
(600) (720) (504) 1105
7:00 AM8:00 AM1:00 PM2:00 PM
U R
750 943

2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
146
75 53 100 70

REQUIREMENT
Minor Street (42) (80) 142 130 110 129
142 130
Yes
(60) (56) 177

WARRANT FULFILLED
No
TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
80%
822
185 160
1194 822
185 160
943 858 1035
1205
1149
1194
5:00 PM6:00 PM
1 2 or More
R
3:00 PM12:00 AM
1 JlBI&&.ms - - - -

V I I V V

V I I V V
V
V
P r
P r
P r
I /
P r
P r
I V
P r
--~I I ~ r I
2946
7:00 AM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
Volume Volume Volume Volume
DCC 11/05/25
DC 11/07/25
Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals
November 7, 2014
2 or More
Lanes & 2
or More
Lanes
2 or More
Lanes &
1 Lane
1 Lane
&
1 Lane
Satisfied: Yes No
Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (Rural)
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions

5. Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
1194
146 177 185
(Higher Volume Approach)
1105
142
Major Street
(Total of Both Approaches)
Minor Street
1149 1205
Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Calculated By:

Checked By:

Date:

Date:
2 www.JLBTraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W Shaw Ave., Ste 103
Fresno, CA 93704 .
(559) 570-8991 .
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) MINOR
STREET
HIGHERVOLUME
APPROACHVPH
400
300
200
RE LA~ES & 2
1 OR MOIRE LAN1
Es
2 OR JORE JNES & l LANE
1 JNE & 1
1 LANE
100 ----+---+---t-----=-d------=::'"-l<:=-----"::;,--.=-----,f------1 .---=--=-t=-"':.~~l====jj:::::
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -

VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane. .. ■ •
r P' r
r
JLB!!Af.US. - - - - ----
•
2947
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
www.JLBtraffic.com Fresno, CA 93704
[email protected] (559) 570-8991
Warrant 3: Peak Hour (Rural)
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions

5. Lovers Lane / Sunnyside Avenue
AM (PM) Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met
PM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met
Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals
November 7, 2014
Sunnyside
Avenue
Highest
Approach
Volume =
210 (141) VPH
Lovers Lane Total of Both Approaches =
1261 (1414) VPH
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400
300
200
100
300
JlB !!&.f.E!s. - - - -
1 JE LAN!S & 21 JE LAJ
2 0 MOREi LANESI & 1 LA~E
*
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane. 2948
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 844
(FHWA'S MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Signal Warrant Analysis

COUNT DATE

CALC DATE

CHK DATE
Major St: Critical Approach Speed 40 MPH
Minor St:

Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h (40 mph)……………… or RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population ………..

DIST CO RTE KPM

N/A N/A
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions
Pinkham Street
Caldwell Avenue
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Hour
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES NO 80 % SATISFIED YES NO

APPROACH LANES
U R
3:00 PM
U R
11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM
2 or More 2:00 PM
6:00 PM
Major Street (480) 804
420 844
937
500 350
(400) 826
600 806 826 789 937 899 918
1 150 200 140 55
55 71 80
71 48 48
Highest Approach 80
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
899
65 (336) 789 918
804
(280)
Minor Street
72 65
(84) (160) (112) 72 65 65
806 844

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(120)
105 48 48
Both Approaches
Hour
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES NO
www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
[email protected] (559) 570 - 8991
937
Major Street
Highest Approach
(420)
55 71 80 72
899

APPROACH LANES
Both Approaches 525 900 630 806 789 844
U
(600) (720) (504) 806
11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM
U R
750 826

2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
80 75 53 100 70

REQUIREMENT
Minor Street (42) (80) 48 48 55 71
48 48
Yes
(60) (56) 72

WARRANT FULFILLED
No
TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
80%
804
65 65
918 804
65 65
826 789 844
899
937
918
5:00 PM6:00 PM
1 2 or More
R
3:00 PM4:00 PM
1 JlBI&&.ms - - - -

V I I V V

V I I V V
V
V
r r;;
r r;;
r r;;
I /
r r;;
r;; r
I V
r r;;
--~I I r ~ I
2949
2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
Volume Volume Volume Volume
DCC 11/05/25
DC 11/07/25
Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals
November 7, 2014
2 or More
Lanes & 2
or More
Lanes
2 or More
Lanes &
1 Lane
1 Lane
&
1 Lane
Satisfied: Yes No
Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (Rural)
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions

10. Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue
918
80 72 65
(Higher Volume Approach)
844
71 Major Street
(Total of Both Approaches)
Minor Street
937 899
Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Calculated By:

Checked By:

Date:

Date:
2 www.JLBTraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W Shaw Ave., Ste 103
Fresno, CA 93704 .
(559) 570-8991 .
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) MINOR
STREET
HIGHERVOLUME
APPROACHVPH
400
300
200
RE LA~ES & 2
1 OR MOIRE LAN1
Es
2 OR J ORE JNES & l LANE
1 JNE & 1
1 LANE
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -

VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane. .. ■ •
r,; r r
r
JLB!!Af.US. - - - - ----
•
2950
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
www.JLBtraffic.com Fresno, CA 93704
[email protected] (559) 570-8991
Warrant 3: Peak Hour (Rural)
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions

10. Pinkham Street / Caldwell Avenue
AM (PM) Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met
PM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met
Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals
November 7, 2014
Pinkham
Street
Highest
Approach
Volume =
116 (89) VPH
Caldwell Avenue Total of Both Approaches =
811 (971) VPH
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400
300
200
100
300
JlB !!&.f.E!s. - - - -
1 JE LAN!S & 21 JE LAJ
2 0 MOREi LANESI & 1 LA~E
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane. 2951
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 844
(FHWA'S MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Signal Warrant Analysis

COUNT DATE

CALC DATE

CHK DATE
Major St: Critical Approach Speed 40 MPH
Minor St:

Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h (40 mph)……………… or RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population ………..

URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES NO (Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied) Condition A - Minimum Vehicle Volume 100% SATISFIED YES NO 80 % SATISFIED YES NO
DCC
MA
11/24/25
11/24/25
10/28/25
Fresno
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
006

DIST CO RTE KPM

N/A N/A
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions
Road 148
Caldwell Avenue
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Hour
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES NO 80 % SATISFIED YES NO

APPROACH LANES
U R
2:00 PM
U R
7:00 AM8:00 AM12:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM
2 or More 1:00 PM
5:00 PM
Major Street (480) 807
420 710
702
500 350
(400) 588
600 617 588 649 702 880 820
1 150 200 140 52
52 61 42
61 133 115
Highest Approach 42
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
880
106
(336) 649 820
807
(280)
Minor Street
146 113
(84) (160) (112) 146 106 113
617 710

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(120)
105 133 115
Both Approaches
Hour
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES NO
www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
[email protected] (559) 570 - 8991
702
Major Street
Highest Approach
(420)
52 61 42 146
880

APPROACH LANES
Both Approaches 525 900 630 617 649 710
U
(600) (720) (504) 617
7:00 AM8:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM
U R
750 588

2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
42 75 53 100 70

REQUIREMENT
Minor Street (42) (80) 133 115 52 61
133 115
Yes
(60) (56) 146

WARRANT FULFILLED
No
TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
80%
807
106 113
820 807
106 113
588 649 710
880
702
820
4:00 PM5:00 PM
1 2 or More
R
2:00 PM3:00 PM
1 JlBI&&.ms - - - -

V I I V V

V I I V V
V
V
r P
r P
r P
I /
r P
P r
I V
r P
--~I I r ~ I
2952
1:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
Volume Volume Volume Volume
DCC 11/24/25
MA 11/24/25
Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals
November 7, 2014
2 or More
Lanes & 2
or More
Lanes
2 or More
Lanes &
1 Lane
1 Lane
&
1 Lane
Satisfied: Yes No
Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (Rural)
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions

12. Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
807
146 106 113
(Higher Volume Approach)
710
61 Major Street
(Total of Both Approaches)
Minor Street
880 820
Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Calculated By:

Checked By:

Date:

Date:
2 www.JLBTraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W Shaw Ave., Ste 103
Fresno, CA 93704 .
(559) 570-8991 .
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) MINOR
STREET
HIGHERVOLUME
APPROACHVPH
400
300
200
RE LA~ES & 2
1 OR MOIRE LAN1
Es
2 OR JORE JNES & l LANE
1 JNE & 1
1 LANE
100 ----+---+---t-----=-d------=::'"-1<:=-----=:ll 1:::----t---l 7&"--=--=-t=-"':.~~l====jl:::::
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -

VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane. .. ■ •
r,; r r
r
JLB!!Af.US. - - - - ----
•
2953
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
www.JLBtraffic.com Fresno, CA 93704
[email protected] (559) 570-8991
Warrant 3: Peak Hour (Rural)
Cumulative 5-Year plus Buildout Traffic Conditions

12. Road 148 / Caldwell Avenue
AM (PM) Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Met
PM Peak Hour – Signal Warrant is Not Met
Source: California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2014 Edition) Chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals
November 7, 2014
Road 148
Highest
Approach
Volume =
160 (116) VPH
Caldwell Avenue Total of Both Approaches =
781 (799) VPH
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400
300
200
100
1 JE LAN!S & 21 JE LAJ
2 0 MOREi LANESI & 1 LA~E
----+---+--+---t-----:w=--=:±-------t====-----=E=-----11----- 100* ~ ---+-- ---l-----===1---- 75•
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with one lane.

JlB !!&.f.E!s. - - - -
2954
4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105, Fresno, CA 93722 • Phone (559) 271-1200 www.vrpatechnologies.com

TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PLANNING • PUBLIC OUTREACH

MEMORANDUM
TO: Jaymie Brauer, QK
FROM: Erik Ruehr, VRPA Technologies
DATE: March 17, 2026
RE: Clements Ranch Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis This memorandum provides a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for the proposed Clements Ranch project in the City of Visalia. The project is located east of Lovers Lanes between K Avenue and Caldwell Avenue. The project location and a preliminary site plan are shown in the attachments. The project proposes to build 292 single-family residential units and 375 multi-family residential units.

The VMT analysis was conducted using the City of Visalia VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines dated February 3, 2025 and the online tool that was created for use with the guidelines.

The results of the VMT analysis can be summarized as follows:
 A check was conducted to determine whether the project would be screened out of requiring a VMT analysis due to being located in a VMT-efficient area of the Tulare County. However, based on the City’s online screening tool, the project is located in traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 1421, an area of the City where there is currently no population and a determination of VMT per capita is not possible. Therefore, the determination of VMT per capita was based on the VMT per capita of all of the TAZ’s adjacent to the project site.
 In addition, it was noted that TAZ’s 1402, 1439, 1440, and 1478, which are adjacent to TAZ 1421, also have no population and there is no data available to determine VMT per capita. Therefore, the VMT per capita for each of these TAZ’s was calculated based on the average of the adjacent TAZ’s for which a VMT per capita value is available. The calculations are included in the attachments and the results are shown below:

TAZ 1402 VMT Per Capita: 9.51
TAZ 1439 VMT Per Capita: 9.98
TAZ 1440 VMT Per Capita: 10.92
TAZ 1478 VMT Per Capita: 18.11
v'RPA TECHNOIOGIES. INC.
2955
Jaymie Brauer
March 17, 2026

Page 2 of 3 ends

 Exhibit 1 shows the calculation of VMT per capita for TAZ 1421, where the project site is located.

Based on the average of all traffic analysis zones adjacent to the project site (including the TAZ’s described above), the existing VMT per capita is 11.03.  Shown below is a calculation that compares the VMT per capita value for TAZ 1421 to the average VMT per capita for Tulare County to determine whether there is a significant VMT impact:

TAZ 1421 VMT Per Capita: 11.03
Tulare County Average VMT Per Capita: 13.2
16% Below Tulare County Average VMT Per Capita: 11.1 (significance threshold) It can be concluded that the project has a VMT per capita of 11.03 which is below the significance threshold of 11.1. The project has a less than significant VMT impact and no mitigation measures are needed.

Please contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached by email at [email protected] or by phone at (858) 361-7151.

2956

10.39 9.51

9.30 8.62

11.37 9.98

10.92 18.11

11.03 (1) Source: City of Visalia Online VMT Analysis Tool (Accessed 3/17/26) (2) VMT per capita based on average VMT of adjacent TAZ's since the subject TAZ has no existing data. (See text.)
1401
1402 (2)
Exhibit 1
Clements Ranch
VMT Analysis
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE VMT/CAPITA (1)
Average
1403
1420
1477
1439 (2)
1440 (2)
1478 (2)
2957
Jaymie Brauer
March 17, 2026

Page 3 of 3 ends

ATTACHMENTS
Project Location
Project Site Plan
TAZ 1402 VMT Calculations
TAZ 1439 VMT Calculations
TAZ 1440 VMT Calculations
TAZ 1478 VMT Calculations
2958
MEMO
PAGE 2 OF 14
601 Pollasky Avenue, Suite 301 Clovis, California 93612 Tel (559) 449-2400 Fax (559) 733-7821 www.qkinc.com
♦
Figure 1
Project Site
♦ ♦
2959
For Analysis Purposes Only:

Maximum or 375 High Density
Multi-Family Units
SEESHEET3
------ ---
I
I
i
I

OVERALL BOUNDARY
G -----------~- ==~- ---------
~/ll l"A1.00!0f"SOU,,O,,C,,~
UJISON"°""""'/lEC.GRCfD fl llCCUVfMT
..-.,, ,,w.;~2•21 ...,.,,0
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP BEING TH E WEST HNI OF IBE SO lJTH\liEST GlUA'UER OF SECTIO~ J , T. 19S., R.25E .• t.mum D!ABLO B>.SEAND l,ffRIDIAN.

IN rnECOUNTYOFTUI.ARE, STATEOFCALIFORN'-..

RECORO OWNER
D>.-ror<;-.~"'11lbl11
(W) l16- ffl0

LAND SURVEYOR
--•= LIH',l'l..s;Cf-
/"59)#9-<• 00
-
CIIYOf"~~'6<SIDU!Dl-''>!$'00/
<Qlll'PJYCA/1!3JRWC-"iGPMffl't
"°'"· lll'TOOISIIIUr,
--i--;io>.«111
""""-""="
~=
ll(M Pl'IOPU1>'flff'C-mlNIY,OFll£(>:)(.O<TrOf"ll,l,\Rf",S'JUl':OF '5rru.o;,,;
,,1u POOm<orll<[ rA.Sr 1WFor11£"""""""'"™""" or """""'.1," :.wr>(-~fA.Sf,"°'-"'f ~DIO<Sf-llfR(IWl,~rol><tO'TIQl<'Vof "6ITJF.~'5rou.- l".<CO'r)NG~Tl,tT-l!WG-OFl>£WlrrI/LJl/£0F..,_(.llffk', AS """'CIIID(=m,a,_r,
""'12J-<J20-ll20.12l-O.,o-.J21NllJ12J-Q2f)-(J22
-~,WO,,,/l-W',-ffi#<IY.CA !>J292 :-;-.,,.?;"""' U:R-1 (IU'-'l<U"':"'IY) 10-"'-"£--"' ounor SCHEDULE
ror<roroo:>1rrorornrcmor1<W"ro11°""'SP,a:
~N,PWIX:WDSCAor:~
,,,,.,,,.,,.,.,wro r11£c,rror"""""
l>lf:IIRE-ll'<J"" HOl£/Jl,/aS7!:-~"'50IUlr" ISIIIIDail ro F,aumc IUll(ll -«:US--"°'-""!>001SID£0Ff"l: l«IOll{',Uc:,,,,[>lf(Wlll.J}j[IJYl:Qf" "'1f.WP ... "1fY',..,- l ™lr'1IOll 1HIS<SM. A""""'-IW'IS"""' :mlOl/"100fffR1'tS'1/fA'5"1 l~Pl.OIU:""""1 "'1H II£ ,,_,,___,,.,,,,ro,,.,.,,..,..,,,,m,c:;,pIDJa.r11£1M:or--, 0,-11£N<St ~/!£RWN'5-SE"J,a,lll[flM£0,-flffi.""0£KlCfflEll"fOF IJI£ R"""""11,5NIJ WZ>l(J(f«lJ1011E""-'lfXJ/UJ.

TEMPORARY ACCESS FOR QARBAOE EASEt.lENT NOTE
I/ICMQil>OJ"">iU<£0ll'5 7!:-A<X.USfQ!<l<l!6'Cf-lSll<ill«l) ro F..curM< >U<fCU ACCESS 70 CU:UCf Gl.o!Q<Gl: s,.,;, ~ otJt.Ul ill:~ ,Mi M1Lro~~ " °""""'ro-2eM
VICINN~. MAP ~
-•=w•~-1 ~
i
f-------.i-'"'~-i
SHEET 10F3
2960

8.51 8.86

9.72 10.39

9.30 8.62

11.37 9.54

(1) Source: City of Visalia Online VMT Analysis Tool (Accessed 3/17/26) (2) VMT per capita based on average VMT of adjacent TAZ's since TAZ 1402 has no existing data. (See text.)
1376
1377
Clements Ranch
VMT Analysis
TAZ 1402
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE VMT/CAPITA (1)
Average
1378
1401
1403
1420
1477
2961

9.00 8.62

9.51 12.77

9.98 (1) Source: City of Visalia Online VMT Analysis Tool (Accessed 3/17/26) (2) VMT per capita based on average VMT of adjacent TAZ's since TAZ 1439 has no existing data. (See text.)
1419
1420
Clements Ranch
VMT Analysis
TAZ 1439
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE VMT/CAPITA (1)
Average
1438
1701
2962

8.62 11.37

12.77 10.92

(1) Source: City of Visalia Online VMT Analysis Tool (Accessed 3/17/26) (2) VMT per capita based on average VMT of adjacent TAZ's since TAZ 1440 has no existing data. (See text.)
1420
1477
Clements Ranch
VMT Analysis
TAZ 1440
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE VMT/CAPITA (1)
Average
1701
2963

11.37 33.71

14.57 12.77

18.11 (1) Source: City of Visalia Online VMT Analysis Tool (Accessed 3/17/26) (2) VMT per capita based on average VMT of adjacent TAZ's since TAZ 1478 has no existing data. (See text.)
Average
1847
1701
1477
1833
Clements Ranch
VMT Analysis
TAZ 1478
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE VMT/CAPITA (1)
2964

APPENDIX E

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT

2965

CLEMENTS

RANCH WATER
SUPPLY

ASSESSMENT
April 2026
California Water
Service Company,
Visalia District
Woodard
&Curran
2966
California Water Service Company 1 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF A WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Applicability of Senate Bill 610 and 221 to the Proposed Project .................................. 8

2.2 Responsibility for Preparation of the Water Supply Assessment ................................... 9

2.3 Components of a Water Supply Assessment ......................................................................... 9

2.4 Potential Implementation of Development Offset Program .......................................... 10

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 12

3.1.1 Single-Family Residential Developments .................................................................... 13

3.1.2 Multi-Family Residential Developments...................................................................... 13

4. PROJECT WATER DEMAND ............................................................................................... 14

4.1 Residential Water Use ................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Outdoor Water Use ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.3 Water Losses ..................................................................................................................................... 15

4.4 Existing Current Water Demands on the Proposed Project Site ................................... 15

4.5 Total Project Water Demand ...................................................................................................... 15

5. CAL WATER VISALIA DISTRICT WATER DEMAND .......................................................... 17

5.1 Current and Historical Water Demand within the Cal Water Visalia District Service Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Visalia District Water Demand Projections ............................................................................ 20

5.3 Total Projected Visalia District Water Demand (Including the Proposed Project Demand) ............................................................................................................................................. 20

6. CAL WATER VISALIA DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ............................................................. 24

6.1 Identification of Water Supply Rights ..................................................................................... 24

6.2 Groundwater Supply ...................................................................................................................... 25

6.2.1 Subbasin Description and Status ................................................................................... 28

6.2.2 Groundwater Management .............................................................................................. 28

6.2.3 Groundwater Use and Supply ......................................................................................... 34

6.2.4 Analysis of Sufficiency of Groundwater Supply ........................................................ 35

6.3 Historical and Current Water Supplies .................................................................................... 36

6.4 Projected Water Supplies ............................................................................................................. 39

6.5 Water Conservation & Demand Management .................................................................... 41

6.6 Water Supply Availability in Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years ................. 41

6.6.1 Normal Year ........................................................................................................................... 41

6.6.2 Single Dry Year ...................................................................................................................... 43 2967
California Water Service Company 2 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

6.6.3 Multiple Dry Years ............................................................................................................... 44

7. WATER SUPPLY SUFFICIENCY ........................................................................................... 46

7.1 Comparison of Supply & Demand ........................................................................................... 46

7.2 Finding of Water Supply Sufficiency ........................................................................................ 47

8. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 48

9. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 49 APPENDIX A: CLEMENTS RANCH OPERATIONAL STATEMENT ............................................. 50 APPENDIX B: CLEMENTS RANCH SITE PLAN ........................................................................... 51 APPENDIX C: VISALIA DISTRICT AWWA WATER AUDITS ...................................................... 52 APPENDIX D: ESTIMATED HISTORICAL WATER USE AT PROPOSED PROJECT SITE ............ 53 APPENDIX E: CLEMENTS RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ....................................... 54 TABLES
Table 3-1: Project Land Use Assumptions
Table 4-1: Summary of Estimated Annual Proposed Project Water Demand Table 5-1: Historical Water Demand for the Visalia District (AFY) Table 5-2: Projected Future Water Demand for the Visalia District (AFY) Table 6-1: Historical Water Supply for the Visalia District (2004-2024) Table 6-2: Historical and Projected Groundwater Production 2004-2045 (AFY) Table 6-3: Projected Normal year water supply and demand (AFY) Table 6-4: Projected Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) Table 6-5: Projected Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY)

FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Visalia District Service Area and Proposed Project Location Figure 1-2. Proposed Project Location
Figure 5-1. Historical Water Demand for the Visalia District Figure 5-2. Water Demand by Use type for the Visalia District (2020) Figure 5-3. Projected Future Demand for the Visalia District (Inclusive of Proposed Project) Figure 6-1. Regional Setting and Groundwater Basin (Cal Water Visalia District 2020 UWMP) Figure 6-2. Historical 20-Year Water Supply (2004-2024), Visalia District Figure 6-3. Historical (2004-2024) and Projected (2025-2045) Groundwater Production Figure 6-4. Historical (2004-2024) and Projected (2025-2045) Normal Year Water Supply and Demand
2968
California Water Service Company 3 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
Figure 6-5. Historical (2004-2024) and Projected (2025-2045) Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand
Figure 6-6. Projected Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand 2969
calwater.com
April 3, 2026
Aman Kaur Narwal
419 W. Murray Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Dear Mr. Narwal:

This letter serves as the California Water Service Company's (Cal Water) formal approval of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Clements Ranch Development. This approval is contingent on the developer's compliance with any conditions set forth in the WSA by Cal Water.

Authority for this approval is pursuant to Cal Water's “Resolution to Approve Water Supply Assessment and Related Documents for New Developments” dated October 27, 2021.

Should you have any questions, please contact Michael Bolzowski at [email protected] or (408) 367-8338.

Sincerely,
Ken Jenkins
Vice President, Water Resources Planning & Sustainability

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE
I Water Resource Sustainability Department 1720 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112
Quality. Service. Value~
2970

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
Resolution to Approve Water Supply Assessment
and Related Documents for New Developments
RESOLVED, that this Board of Directors delegates its authority to approve future water supply assessments and related documents, as required under California Water Code Sections 10910 - 10912, and other related Sections, to any Officer of California Water Service Company.

I, MICHELLE MORTENSEN, Secretary of California Water Service Company, a California corporation, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of certain resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of said Corporation at a regular meeting of said Board duly called and held October 27, 2021, at which a quorum was present, that all Directors present voted in favor of said resolution, and that said resolution have never been annulled or revoked but are still in force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed by name this 27th day of October 2021.

CllL~euSJw~
Michelle Mortensen
Corporate Secretary
2971
California Water Service Company 4 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

1. INTRODUCTION
California Water Code:
10910 (a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. 10914 (a) Nothing in this part is intended to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service. (b) Nothing in this part is intended to either impose, expand, or limit any duty concerning the obligation of a public water system to provide certain service to its existing customers or to any future potential customers. (c) Nothing in this part is intended to modify or otherwise change existing law with respect to projects which are not subject to this part.
(d) This part applies only to a project for which a notice of preparation is submitted on or after January 1, 1996.

This Senate Bill (SB) 610 compliant water supply assessment (WSA) is for the proposed Clements Ranch Development Project (proposed Project or Project) in California Water Service Company’s (Cal Water) Visalia District (District). The Visalia District is in Tulare County and overlaps with the boundaries of the City of Visalia, as shown in Figure 1-1. As displayed in Figure 1-2, the Project site is adjacent to the District’s eastern boundary. The Project consists of a residential development on approximately 81.5 acres that will include 370 multi-family residential dwelling units and 292 single-family residential dwelling units. The Project also includes 3.5 acres of landscaped space and 11.1 acres of Right-of-Way/Streets. The Project is described in more detail in Section 3.

The information provided in this WSA is consistent with California Water Code (CWC or Water Code) §10910-10912 requirements and the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR’s) Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001: To Assist Water Suppliers, Cities, and Counties in Integrating Water and Land Use Planning, dated 8 October 2003 (California Water Code § 10910; California Water Code § 10912; California Department of Water Resources, 2003). The text of specific sub-sections of the Water Code, California Government Code (CGC), the California Business and Professions Code (CBPC), and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) is included in indented and italicized font at the beginning of specific sections of this WSA. The information presented in those respective sections, and the associated tables and figures, respond directly to Water Code requirements.

The purpose of this WSA is to evaluate whether the Visalia District has sufficient water supply to meet the current and planned water demands within the Visalia District, including the demands associated with the proposed Project, during normal and dry hydrologic years over a 20-year time horizon. More specifically, this WSA includes:
• A summary of the WSA requirements articulated in Water Code §10910-10912 and a description of how those requirements apply to the Project; • An analysis describing the current and projected future water demands of the Project through the year 2045;
2972
California Water Service Company 5 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
• An analysis describing the historical and current water demands for the Visalia District, and projected future water demands for its service area through the year 2045; • An analysis describing the current and projected future water supplies for the Visalia District’s service area through the year 2045, including the demands associated with the Project;
• A description of the extent to which the District or the project proponent has the right to extract additional groundwater as needed to supply the Project; • A description of actions the District might take in response to water supply shortages, as summarized in the District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP); and • A summary of whether the Visalia District’s water supplies are sufficient to meet the demands for Visalia District’s service area, including the projected water demands associated with the Project.

The information contained in this WSA is based primarily on Cal Water’s Visalia District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), except where updated with relevant water demand, supply reliability, and other information provided by Cal Water.

This WSA concludes that sufficient water supply is available to the District to meet all future demands associated with current and planned development within its service area, including those of the proposed Project. The proposed Project lies within the jurisdictions of the Mid‑Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MKGSA) and the Greater Kaweah GSA (GKGSA). Although water use for the proposed Project is currently consistent with the GKGSA and MKGSA GSPs, the GKGSA, MKGSA, or another governing entity (e.g., the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)) may adopt and/or implement policies or management actions that could include groundwater allocations for urban users, groundwater extraction reporting requirements, or potential fees associated with groundwater extraction in the future. Should such policies or actions limit access to groundwater, Cal Water may need to undertake additional measures to mitigate any potential impacts on water supply reliability.
2973
California Water Service Company
Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment Woodard & Curran, Inc. April 3, 2026 6 FIGURE 1-1. VISALIA DISTRICT SERVICE AREA AND PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION Visalia District
Cal Water
Clements Ranch WSA
N
A
Legend
• -""=='""---"'I' ...

Woodard
• Curran
2974
California Water Service Company
Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment Woodard & Curran, Inc. April 3, 2026 7 FIGURE 1-2. PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION
Visalia District
C•I Wat,r
Clements Ranch WSA
N
A
Legend
Vis.Illa District
Woodard
• Curran
Ptqt<tlr:0013051 MlP C1e•cd Dcc:cntic, 202:5
-•~-.--"•-~,_.,.......,. ....
............. -~ ... --..... -.. :::=:::.=::...;:-..-::.=..-::.::
2975
California Water Service Company 8 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF A WATER

SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
The section outlines which projects require the preparation of a WSA. It also indicates who is responsible for preparing the WSA and summarizes the necessary components of a WSA.

2.1 Applicability of Senate Bill 610 and 221 to the Proposed Project CWC § 10910 (a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part.

CWC § 10912. For the purposes of this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) “Project” means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
(b ) If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then “project” means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections.

CGC § 66473.7 (a) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) "Subdivision" means a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units, except that for a public water system that has fewer than 5,000 service connections, "subdivision" means any proposed residential development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. (i) This section shall not apply to any residential project proposed for a site that is within an urbanized area and has been previously developed for urban uses, or where the immediate contiguous properties surrounding the residential project site are, or previously have been, developed for urban uses, or housing projects that are exclusively for very low and low-income households.

CBPC § 11010 (b)(6) A true statement of the provisions, if any, that have been made for public utilities in the proposed Subdivision, including water, electricity, gas, telephone, and sewerage facilities. For subdivided lands that were subject to the imposition of a condition pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 66473.7 of the Government Code, the true statement of the provisions made for water shall be satisfied by submitting a copy of the written verification of the available water supply obtained pursuant to Section 66473.7 of the Government Code. 2976
California Water Service Company 9 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

With the development of 662 residential buildings, the proposed Project exceeds the threshold for a “project” requiring a WSA pursuant to SB 610 (Water Code §10910(a) and 10912(a)(7)).

2.2 Responsibility for Preparation of the Water Supply Assessment CWC § 10910 (b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system whose service area includes the project site and any water system adjacent to the project site that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined in Section 10912, that may supply water for the project.

If the city or county is not able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall prepare the water assessment required by this part after consulting with any entity serving domestic water supplies whose service area includes the project site, the local agency formation commission, and any public water system adjacent to the project site.

CGC § 66473.7 (a)(3) "Public water system" means the water supplier that is, or may become as a result of servicing the subdivision included in a tentative map pursuant to subdivision (b), a public water system, as defined in Section 10912 of the Water Code, that may supply water for a subdivision. (b)(1) The legislative body of a city or county or the advisory agency, to the extent that it is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map, shall include as a condition in any tentative map that includes a subdivision a requirement that a sufficient water supply shall be available. Proof of the availability of a sufficient water supply shall be requested by the subdivision applicant or local agency, at the discretion of the local agency, and shall be based on written verification from the applicable public water system within 90 days of a request. (2) If the public water system fails to deliver the written verification as required by this section, the local agency or any other interested party may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the public water system to comply. (4) If the written verification is not provided by the public water system, notwithstanding the local agency or other interested party securing a writ of mandamus to compel compliance with this section, then the local agency may make a finding that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion of the subdivision that will satisfy the requirements of this section.

This finding shall be made on the record and supported by substantial evidence. (l) Nothing in this section shall preclude the legislative body of a city or county, or the designated advisory agency, at the request of the applicant, from making the determinations required in this section earlier than required pursuant to subdivision (b).

The proposed Project is located within the Cal Water Visalia District service area and the water for the proposed Project will be supplied by Cal Water. Therefore, in accordance with Water Code §10910(b), Cal Water is the entity responsible for preparation and adoption of a WSA for the proposed Project.

2.3 Components of a Water Supply Assessment
CWC § 10910 (c) (4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

CWC § 10911 (b) The city or county shall include the water supply assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision (a), in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (c) The city or county may include in any environmental document an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document provided pursuant to subdivision (b). The city or county shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the city or county determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the city or county shall include that determination in its findings for the project.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses. In determining "sufficient water supply," all of the following factors shall be considered:
(A) The availability of water supplies over a historical record of at least 20 years. (B) The applicability of an urban water shortage contingency analysis prepared pursuant to Section 10632 of the Water Code that includes actions to be undertaken by the public water system in response to water supply shortages. (C) The reduction in water supply allocated to a specific water use sector pursuant to a resolution or ordinance adopted, or a contract entered into, by the public water system, as long as that resolution, ordinance, or contract does not conflict with Section 354 of the Water Code.
(D) The amount of water that the water supplier can reasonably rely on receiving from other water supply projects, such as conjunctive use, reclaimed water, water conservation, and water transfer, including programs identified under federal, state, and local water initiatives such as CALFED and Colorado River tentative agreements, to the extent that these water supplies meet the criteria of subdivision (d).

As listed above in CWC § 10910(c)(4) and CGC §66473.7(a)(2), the primary purpose of a WSA is to evaluate whether sufficient water supply is available to meet all future demands within the water supplier’s service area, including those associated with the proposed Project, during normal and dry hydrologic years for a 20-year planning horizon. More specifically, this WSA includes:
• A summary of the WSA requirements articulated in Water Code §10910-10912 and a description of how those requirements apply to the Project; • An analysis describing the current and projected future water demands of the Project through the year 2045;
• An analysis describing the historical and current water demands for the Visalia District, and projected future water demands for its service area through the year 2045; • An analysis describing the current and projected future water supplies for the Visalia District’s service area through the year 2045, including the demands associated with the Project;
• A description of the extent to which the District or the project proponent has the right to extract additional groundwater as needed to supply the Project; • A description of actions the District might take in response to water supply shortages, as summarized in the District’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP); and • A summary of whether the Visalia District’s water supplies are sufficient to meet the demands for Visalia District’s service area, including the projected water demands associated with the Project.

2.4 Potential Implementation of Development Offset Program As described in greater detail in Section 6.2, the GKGSA, the MKGSA, or another governing entity may implement policies or management actions in the future that may impact the availability of the District’s groundwater supplies, including but not limited to, groundwater allocations, groundwater extraction reporting requirements, and establishment of potential fees associated 2978
California Water Service Company 11 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

with groundwater extraction activities. Given the potential uncertainty surrounding future groundwater management, Cal Water is currently exploring implementation of a Development Offset Program for new developments to ensure that overall customer demand does not exceed the available future supply and to ensure water supply reliability. 2979
California Water Service Company 12 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project will be developed on an approximately 81.5-acre site located southeast of the City of Visalia, adjacent to the City limits within Urban Growth Boundary II. The Project site includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 127-020-20 and 127-020-21.

The proposed Project consists of a combined 662 market-rate multi-family (370) and single-family (292) residential dwelling units (DU). The site incorporates a mix of residential land use designations, including High-Density Residential (R-M-3, Multi-Family Residential – 1,200 square feet (SF) lots), Medium-Density Residential (R-M-2, Multi-Family Residential – 3,000 SF lots), and Low-Density Residential (R-1-5, Single-Family Residential – 5,000 SF lots). Access to both the LowDensity and Medium-Density portions of the site will be provided through two primary entry points located on Lovers Lane and Sunny Side Avenue. Table 3-1 summarizes the proposed Project’s land uses.

TABLE 3-1: PROJECT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Use Type Proposed
Use Total SF Commercial SF Acreage # of DUs Notes
Single-Family
Residential
Single-Family
Residential 1,964,556 N/A 45.1 292
139 units 50' x
100' lots & 153
38' x 72' lots
Multi-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential 949,608 N/A 21.8 370
Other Right-ofWay/Streets 483,516 N/A 11.1 N/A
Landscape Landscape 152,460 N/A 3.5 N/A
Total 3,550,140 0 81.5 662

2980
California Water Service Company 13 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

3.1.1 Single-Family Residential Developments
The single-family component of the Project includes 292 market-rate dwelling units located within the Low-Density Residential land use designation. This portion of the site is designed with lots consistent with the minimum 5,000 SF lot size required for low-density development. The singlefamily neighborhood will offer traditional detached homes, providing a lower-density residential environment that complements the higher-density multi-family areas elsewhere on the site.

3.1.2 Multi-Family Residential Developments
The multi-family component of the Project consists of 370 market-rate residential units that are distributed across seven parcels of 30 DU and four parcels of 40 DU, located within areas designated for High-Density and Medium-Density land uses. These portions of the site are planned to accommodate smaller lot sizes consistent with multi-family development standards, including 1,200-square-foot lots in the High-Density area and approximately 2,736 SF lots in the Medium-Density area. The Medium-Density multi-family area will be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow reduced lot sizes, private internal streets, and a gated community layout.
2981
California Water Service Company 14 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

4. PROJECT WATER DEMAND
City of Visalia and Tulare County have adopted green building standards and water-efficient landscaping ordinances consistent with previous versions of the CALGreen Building Standards Code and the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) (23 CCR 2.2.7 § 490-495, 2025; CALGreen, 2022) Landscaping will also comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 1572 (AB 1572, 2023). As part of state requirements, all new developments within City of Visalia and Tulare County must meet these efficiency standards. Accordingly, the proposed Project will incorporate low-flow lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, toilets, and urinals in accordance with CALGreen Code, and include low-water-use landscaping and high-efficiency irrigation systems to minimize outdoor water use in compliance with MWELO.

As described below, the average annual water demand for the proposed Project was estimated using the Cal Water WSA Water Factor Tool (Cal Water, 2019) and information provided by the Project Proponent in coordination with Cal Water. Outdoor water use was estimated using landscaping plans provided by the Project Proponent and methods described under MWELO.

Total water demands include water used by the proposed Project for residential and outdoor uses, in addition to distribution system losses and other unaccounted for water. Table 4-1 provides a summary of annual Project water demands by water use type, and forecasts Project water demands through 2050.

4.1 Residential Water Use
The Project includes 292 DU in single-family residential buildings and 370 DU in multi-family DU.

Based on the Cal Water WSA Water Factor Tool, each single-family DU is expected to use 409 gallons per day (GPD), and each multi-family DU is expected to use 148 GPD. Residential water demand is thus 174,188 GPD, which is equivalent to 195 AFY.

4.2 Outdoor Water Use
In accordance with MWELO, a Project’s water budget, or Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA), is calculated using the formula below, where ETo refers to local reference evapotranspiration, ETAF refers to the evapotranspiration adjustment factor, and LA and SLA refer to landscape area and Special Landscape Area, respectively (California Department of Water Resources, 2015). ETo for Visalia is 53.3 inches per year. Because the proposed Project is primarily residential, the MWELO residential ETAF standard of 0.55 will be applied. The conversion factor from inches to gallons is 0.62. The proposed Project does not have any SLAs, and the total landscape area is 152,460 SF. As shown in the calculations below, the MAWA, or total landscaping water budget, for the Project, is 2,784,414 gallons per year. = × 0.62 × [ × + 1 − × ]
= 2,784,414

/"#
$
2982
California Water Service Company 15 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

The Project will be required to meet MWELO, and final landscape plans must achieve ETWU ≤ MAWA. For purposes of this WSA, the water demand associated with the Project’s landscaping is assumed to be equal to MAWA.

4.3 Water Losses
Water losses (including both real and apparent losses) associated with the Project are expected to be minimal. However, estimates are included in this analysis to maintain conservative estimates of Project water demands. Between 2021-2023, the District’s water loss averaged approximately 806 AFY, across an average of 48,540 active and inactive service connections. (California Water Service, 2022; 2023; 2024). Project water loss was assumed to be proportional to the District’s water losses, so the same proportion was applied to the Project’s water demands. As shown in Table 4-1, water losses associated with the Project are estimated to be 6 AFY. Water Loss Audits are included in Appendix C.

4.4 Existing Current Water Demands on the Proposed Project Site The Proposed Project site has historically been used for irrigated agricultural production, relying exclusively on groundwater pumped from the underlying Subbasin. LandIQ land‑use data (2024), the most reliable and widely used dataset for agricultural land‑use classification in the region, indicates that between 2020 and 2024 the site supported a rotation of wheat on approximately 43 acres and almonds on approximately 25 acres. In addition, roughly 5 acres in the northwest corner of the site have been fallowed or idle for more than four consecutive years.

Because parcel‑specific groundwater pumping data are not available, historical groundwater use at the site was estimated using the MAWA methodology. This method applies crop‑ and climate‑based irrigation requirements to the mapped planted acreage, consistent with the approach used by the GSAs and in other recent WSAs in the Visalia area. Based on these MAWA‑derived estimates, historical irrigation demand for the site ranged from approximately 210 to 348 AFY between 2020 and 2024, with an average irrigation demand of about 264 AFY over the five‑year period.

These historical agricultural demands were met directly through on‑site groundwater pumping and were not supplied by Cal Water. Because agricultural pumping is independent of and not connected to the Cal Water Visalia District system, the Project’s potable water demand estimates do not subtract the historical agricultural groundwater use. This approach is consistent with Cal Water practice and with other WSAs (e.g., Carleton Acres and Pratt Family Ranch), even though both historical and future pumping originate from the same Subbasin. Once the agricultural use ceases, Cal Water becomes the exclusive supplier to the site, and the Project’s full potable water demand is therefore additive to the District’s overall demand projections.

4.5 Total Project Water Demand
At full buildout, assumed to be 2030, the proposed Project is estimated to have a total water demand of approximately 209 AFY from the water uses described below in Table 4-1. 2983
California Water Service Company 16 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL PROPOSED PROJECT WATER DEMAND Water Use
Project Characteristics Demand
Factor Units GPD1
Total Water Demand (AFY)
Area (SF) Area (acres) # of DUs 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Proposed Project
Single-Family
Residential 1,964,556 45 292 409 GPD/ unit 119,428 134 134 134 134 134 Multi-Family
Residential 949,608 22 370 148 GPD/ unit 54,760 61 61 61 61 61 Landscape 152,460 4 N/A 2,784,414 gallons per year N/A 9 9 9 9 9

Water Loss 6 6 6 6 6
Existing Site Demand
2 0 0 0 0 0
Net Annual Water Demand 209 209 209 209 209
1GPD values are rounded 2The average historical agricultural demand associated with the Project site was calculated to be 264 AFY (see Appendix D); as historical water demands were not supplied by Cal Water, the total Project demands do not consider existing site demands. 2984
California Water Service Company 17 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

5. CAL WATER VISALIA DISTRICT WATER DEMAND
CWC 10910 § (c)(1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610). (3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

The water demands of the Project were not accounted for in the District’s most recent UWMP.

The following sections assess the historical and projected water demands within the District service area, including the Project.

5.1 Current and Historical Water Demand within the Cal Water Visalia District Service Area
Historical water demands in the Visalia District have changed significantly in the last two decades.

As shown in Table 5-1, demand peaked in 2008 at 34,848 AF, driven largely by increases in singlefamily residential use (Cal Water, 2025). After 2008, overall demand began to decline, reaching its lowest point in 2015 at 24,675 AF, likely due to drought-related restrictions and efficiency measures. Following this dip, demand gradually rebounded, stabilizing around 29,000–30,000 AF between 2018 and 2024. Single-family residential use remained the dominant category throughout the period, accounting for the largest share of demand. Table 5-1 describes demands since 2004.

As displayed in Figure 5-2, 64% of demand in 2020 was attributed to single-family residential use, with losses (3%), commercial use (17%), institutional or governmental use (9%), multi-family residential use (5%), and industrial use (1%) accounting for the remaining 2020 demands (Cal Water, 2021).
2985
California Water Service Company 18 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
TABLE 5-1: HISTORICAL WATER DEMAND FOR THE VISALIA DISTRICT (AFY) Single-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential Commercial Institutional/ Government Industrial Other Losses Total Water Demand 2004 20,867 989 5,888 1,606 318 219 2,599 32,486 2005 19,556 926 5,431 1,636 288 408 2,456 30,701 2006 20,463 929 5,685 1,636 305 451 2,563 32,032 2007 22,027 914 6,376 1,889 312 337 2,770 34,625 2008 21,989 1,065 6,033 2,512 322 140 2,788 34,848 2009 21,362 1,197 5,942 2,515 270 54 2,725 34,065 2010 19,407 1,205 5,898 2,404 269 39 2,541 31,762 2011 18,109 1,576 5,382 2,434 286 53 2,421 30,260 2012 20,337 1,827 5,546 2,817 324 68 482 31,400 2013 20,995 1,846 5,595 2,900 393 97 535 32,360 2014 18,832 1,685 5,296 2,485 407 77 692 29,475 2015 15,338 1,479 4,526 2,001 366 96 870 24,675 2016 15,756 1,429 4,493 2,201 352 214 1,231 25,677 2017 16,954 1,477 5,012 2,505 407 215 1,129 27,698 2018 18,037 1,499 5,421 2,728 405 148 835 29,073 2019 18,112 1,497 5,342 2,873 414 118 298 28,654 2020 19,361 1,525 5,240 2,601 306 200 941 30,172 2021 19,496 1,483 5,541 2,410 344 125 767 30,166 2022 18,800 1,460 5,509 2,299 342 245 755 29,410 2023 17,803 1,396 5,405 2,255 380 139 608 27,985 2024 18,774 1,449 5,623 2,469 401 102 733 29,550 2986
California Water Service Company 19 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
FIGURE 5-1. HISTORICAL WATER DEMAND FOR THE VISALIA DISTRICT FIGURE 5-2. WATER DEMAND BY USE TYPE FOR THE VISALIA DISTRICT (2020) 40,000
35,000
:;:-
30,000
""CJ
C 25,000 ro E
V
0 20,000
15,000 ro 3
ro 10,000 0
I5,000
0 17%
lO r-- <X>
0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N
O') 0 ,- N
8 0 0 0

N N N N
Total Water Demand
0 N
0 N
N
0 N
N
N
0 N
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial
Institutional/Government
• Industrial
Other
Losses
M
N
0 N
2987
California Water Service Company 20 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

5.2 Visalia District Water Demand Projections
The District’s 2020 UWMP estimated future water demands through 2045 using historical water use data and projections of population change and climate variability (Cal Water, 2021). Table 5-2 presents the UWMP projections at a 5-year interval. District water demand is expected to increase approximately 26% between 2030 and 2045. The water demand projections are higher than the average demand observed between 2016 and 2020 and between 2021 and 2024.

Along with this proposed Project, Cal Water has also received several other development proposals and has completed Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and demand projections for each.

These include:
• Carleton Acres
o Single‑Family Homes: 1,592 DUs
o Multi‑Family Homes: 1,670 DUs
o Total Commercial Area: 277,264 SF
o Total Landscape Irrigation Area: 1,016,280 SF
• Pratt Family Ranch
o Single‑Family Homes: 541 DUs
o Total Landscape Irrigation Area: 414,560 SF
• Kelsey–Hurley Industrial Park
o Total Land Use Area: 2,276,644 SF
In addition to the proposed Project, Cal Water has identified additional development projects within the District:
• CapRock Partners warehouses – About 1.27 million SF (75 acres) along Highway 99 in West Visalia near Plaza Drive.
• Seefried Industries – A 284-acre industrial park at the northwest corner of Shirk Street and Riggin Avenue
The status and water demand of the CapRock Partners and Seefried Industries projects above are unknown at this time and are therefore not included for in this WSA.

5.3 Total Projected Visalia District Water Demand (Including the Proposed Project Demand)
The total water demand for the proposed Project was not accounted for in the District 2020 UWMP projections (Cal Water, 2021). Consequently, the demands associated with the proposed Project are assumed to be additive to District’s overall demands. 2988
California Water Service Company 21 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
As discussed in Section 4 above, the proposed Project is estimated to have an annual water demand of 209 AFY. Thus, the District’s total water demand, including Project demand, is expected to reach 46,361 AFY in 2045, as shown in Table 5-2. Figure 5-3 displays the District’s total projected water demands through 2045.
2989
California Water Service Company 22 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
TABLE 5-2: PROJECTED FUTURE WATER DEMAND FOR THE VISALIA DISTRICT (AFY) Projected Water Demand 2030 2035 2040 2045
Visalia District* 35,275 38,309 41,258 44,529
Clements Ranch
Development 209 209 209 209
Carleton Acres 306 484 941 1,108
Pratt Family Ranch 275 275 275 275
Kelsey-Hurley Industrial Park 240 240 240 240
Total 36,305 39,517 42,923 46,361
* As reported in 2020 UWMP (Cal Water, 2021). Includes non-revenue water. 2990
California Water Service Company 23 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
FIGURE 5-3. PROJECTED FUTURE DEMAND FOR THE VISALIA DISTRICT (INCLUSIVE OF PROPOSED PROJECT) 50,000
45,000 40,000
LL 35,000
"'O
C 30,000 co E
QJ
0 25,000
..._
QJ
.....
co 20,000 co 15,000 .....
0 I10,000
5,000
2030 2035 2040 2045
District Clements Ranch Development Carleton Acres
Pratt Family Ranch Kelsey-Hurley Industrial Park
2991
California Water Service Company 24 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

6. CAL WATER VISALIA DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY
CGC § 66473.7 (c) The applicable public water system's written verification of its ability or inability to provide a sufficient water supply that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision as required by subdivision (b) shall be supported by substantial evidence. The substantial evidence may include, but is not limited to, any of the following: (1) The public water system's most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) of Division 6 of the Water Code. (2) A water supply assessment that was completed pursuant to Part 2.10 (commencing with Section 10910) of Division 6 of the Water Code. (3) A groundwater sustainability plan adopted or alternative approved pursuant to Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720) of Division 6 of the Water Code. (4) Other information relating to the sufficiency of the water supply that contains analytical information that is substantially similar to the assessment required by Section 10635 of the Water Code.

This section identifies the water supplies for the District and discusses the vulnerability of the various supplies to drought and other factors affecting water supply reliability. Unless otherwise noted, the source of the information included in this section is the District’s 2020 UWMP. The District’s water supply is sourced exclusively from groundwater extracted from the Kaweah and Tule Subbasins, both of which are part of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.

6.1 Identification of Water Supply Rights
CWC §10910 (d) (1) The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.

CGC § 66473.7 (d) When the written verification pursuant to subdivision (b) relies on projected water supplies that are not currently available to the public water system, to provide a sufficient water supply to the subdivision, the written verification as to those projected water supplies shall be based on all of the following elements, to the extent each is applicable:
(1) Written contracts or other proof of valid rights to the identified water supply that identify the terms and conditions under which the water will be available to serve the proposed subdivision. (2) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a sufficient water supply that has been adopted by the applicable governing body.
(3) Securing of applicable federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with supplying a sufficient water supply.
(4) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver a sufficient water supply to the subdivision.
(g) The written verification prepared under this section shall also include a description, to the extent that data is reasonably available based on published records maintained by federal and state agencies, and public records of local agencies, of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed subdivision on the availability of water resources for agricultural and industrial uses within the public water system's service area that are not currently receiving water from the public water system but are utilizing the same sources of water. To the extent that those reasonably foreseeable impacts have previously been evaluated in a document prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190) for the proposed subdivision, the public water system may utilize that information in preparing the written verification.

Pursuant to California law, WSAs are required to identify all water rights or supply entitlements relevant to the proposed Project. The District meets its demand solely through groundwater. This section summarizes the water rights and supplies available to the District. 2992
California Water Service Company 25 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

6.2 Groundwater Supply
CWC § 10910 (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment:
(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project.
(2) (A) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. (B) For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree.
(C) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as high- or medium-priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information regarding the following:
(i) Whether the department has identified the basin as being subject to critical conditions of overdraft pursuant to Section 12924.
(ii) If a groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan or has an approved alternative, a copy of that alternative or plan.
(D) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as low- or very low priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.

CGC § 66473.7 (a)(2)(E) If a proposed subdivision relies in whole or in part on groundwater, the following factors: (i) For a basin for which a court or the State Water Resources Control Board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, the order or decree adopted by the court or the State Water Resources Control Board. (ii) For a basin that has not been adjudicated, as follows: (I) For a basin designated as high- or medium-priority pursuant to Section 10722.4 of the Water Code, the most recently adopted or revised adopted groundwater sustainability plan or approved alternative. If there is no adopted groundwater sustainability plan or approved alternative, information as to whether the Department of Water Resources has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue. (II) For a basin designated as low- or very low priority pursuant to Section 10722.4 of the Water Code, information as to whether the Department of Water Resources has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue. (g) The written verification prepared under this section shall also include a description, to the extent that data is reasonably available based on published records maintained by federal and state agencies, and public records of local agencies, of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed subdivision on the availability of water resources for agricultural and industrial uses within the public water system's service 2993
California Water Service Company 26 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
area that are not currently receiving water from the public water system but are utilizing the same sources of water. To the extent that those reasonably foreseeable impacts have previously been evaluated in a document prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190) for the proposed subdivision, the public water system may utilize that information in preparing the written verification. (h) Where a water supply for a proposed subdivision includes groundwater, the public water system serving the proposed subdivision shall evaluate, based on substantial evidence, the extent to which it or the landowner has the right to extract the additional groundwater needed to supply the proposed subdivision. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to modify state law with regard to groundwater rights.

The District operates three public water systems (PWS): the Visalia System, the Tulco System, and the Mullen System. The Visalia PWS and Tulco PWS overlie the Kaweah Subbasin, while the Mullen System is located within the Tule Subbasin, as shown in as shown in Figure 6-1. Both subbasins are part of the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, identified by DWR as Basin Nos. 5-022.11 and 5-022.13.

Nearly all of the District’s water supply is pumped from the Kaweah Subbasin; only about 0.1% of annual production comes from wells in the Tule Subbasin. Because the Proposed Project (and most of the District’s customers) are located within the Kaweah Subbasin, this WSA focuses on groundwater conditions and management within that subbasin.

Cal Water operates as a public utility and is required by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to serve all customers within its approved service area under reasonable rules and tariffs.

The groundwater basin is not adjudicated, and the supply projections presented in this WSA do not limit, define, or otherwise alter Cal Water’s groundwater rights or its ability to pump the volumes needed to meet customer demand.
2994
California Water Service Company 27 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
FIGURE 6-1. REGIONAL SETTING AND GROUNDWATER BASIN (CAL WATER VISALIA DISTRICT 2020 UWMP) Tule East GSA
Huron
an
rth
Nav,1 Air
St.ition
Lemoore
Groundwater Basins ]
Cal Water V,sa lia D,strict
Tu a,e
Lake Bed
GSA Name
V\.
fZZI Greater Kaweah GSA
Mid-Koweoh GSA
Development Area
[=:J Service Area Boundary
Groundwater
Basins
D ~~QUIN VALLEY .
~::diAQUIN VALLEY • D ~~i OAQUIN VALLEY .
- VALLEY -
Th11d ~.,iy GI<; OouLo ,me,: Th,. '""f' i,, lo, ,. f.,.nc;., ..,,J 9<•phit41 P<" I-"" only .nd , ho,,, kl """' bt ,.,!;.d .,.P"" bv thi.d po,,,., lo, •nv l.g.l J...11.on, A")' ,,el,. nc; ~ upon the mtp o, d.,t, <ont .. ••ed her" n )11,II be et the u1cr,' 10~ 11)l Source,: E,i~ l 01nfom, G,,m•n. f.AO, NO,I.,\ VSGS. C ~nSl•ttl"4<tp conbit,,..tOlt. ond the GIS Uie r Comin,..,,ty. &,~ NASA, NGA.. lJS(jS N
A
0 0 0 0
--==---•Feet
1 ir,ch = feet
Woodard
&Curran
PiojectJI: 001305 1
M.'.lp Created: Apnl 2026
2995
California Water Service Company 28 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

6.2.1 Subbasin Description and Status
The Kaweah Subbasin encompasses approximately 446,000 acres, or 696 square miles, in the San Joaquin Valley. It is bordered by the Kings Subbasin to the north, the Tule Subbasin to the south, the crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills to the east, and the Tulare Lake Subbasin to the west. The Subbasin is not adjudicated. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), DWR determined that it is in critical overdraft (California Department of Water Resources, 2019) and designated it as a high-priority basin in its 2019 Phase 2 Basin Prioritization.

Basins are ranked on eight components, with scores above 21 points classified as “high priority”.

The Kaweah Subbasin received the maximum score of 40 points due to its critically overdrafted condition. Key factors contributing to this designation include irrigated acreage per square mile, population growth, and groundwater reliance, each scoring 5 out of 5 points. Additional factors include declining groundwater levels and subsidence, which scored 4 out of 5 points, as well as high well density, which also scored 4 out of 5 points.

6.2.2 Groundwater Management

6.2.2.1 Non-SGMA Groundwater Management Program
Before SGMA was adopted, groundwater in the Kaweah Subbasin was managed under the Kaweah River Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), last updated in July 2018. The IRWMP outlined objectives in five areas: groundwater management, water supply, water quality, flood control, and ecosystem restoration. These objectives guided regional water strategies and project proposals. Today, the Kaweah Subbasin GSPs have replaced the IRWMP as the primary groundwater management framework.

Historically, the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD) and other irrigation districts managed groundwater through conjunctive use of surface water. KDWCD programs provide additional surface water for irrigation, reducing groundwater pumping and promoting in-lieu recharge. Groundwater serves as a backup when surface water is limited and as the sole source in areas without surface water access. KDWCD also operates water management basins that support flood control and groundwater replenishment, with recharge occurring through direct infiltration and percolation from surface water applications.

In the Lower Kaweah River area, including Packwood and Cameron Creeks, surface water deliveries are managed by Tulare Irrigation District (TID) and other entities. The City of Visalia maintains a groundwater recharge program funded by Cal Water customers through a pumping charge. This program works in coordination with KDWCD and irrigation districts to enhance groundwater sustainability.

6.2.2.2 SGMA Groundwater Management Program
The California State Legislature enacted SGMA in 2014 with amendments in 2015. SGMA requires the creation of GSAs and the preparation of GSPs for medium- and high-priority groundwater 2996
California Water Service Company 29 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
basins (as designated by DWR). As a high-priority basin, the Subbasin must comply with SGMA requirements, including requirements to be managed under one or more GSAs and submitting one or more GSPs to DWR.

To meet these SGMA requirements, three GSAs were formed to assume responsibility for sustainable groundwater management of the Kaweah Subbasin: the MKGSA, EKGSA, and GKGSA.

Each GSA prepared an individual GSP, but certain technical efforts (e.g., development of a coordinated water budget) were cooperatively developed through a Coordination Agreement.

The majority of the Visalia District falls within the jurisdiction of the MKGSA, which covers an area of approximately 104,320 acres in the central to southwestern side of the Kaweah Subbasin. The Proposed Project falls within the GKGSA which covers roughly 217,600 acres.

All GSPs for the Subbasin were originally submitted to DWR ahead of the January 30, 2020 deadline. After DWR identified deficiencies in July 2022, the GSAs revised and resubmitted their plans. DWR later deemed those 2022 versions inadequate, prompting each GSA to release and adopt a second set of revisions in November 2024. These 2024 Second Amended GSPs represent the most current planning efforts for the Subbasin.

As defined under SGMA, sustainable yield means “the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in a basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing undesirable results” (CWC §10721(w)). Within this framework, the sustainable yield of the Subbasin is approximately 578,000 AFY (MKGSA, 2024) (GKGSA, 2024).

Projects and management actions described in the GSPs to support long‑term sustainability include development of new recharge and storage facilities, upgrades to existing recharge basins, and both agricultural and municipal conservation initiatives. The GSP also evaluates potential implementation of groundwater flow meters to support programs such as fee‑based management tools, incentive structures, groundwater markets, and allocation systems. The document notes that a formal allocation program may be pursued if other management approaches do not sufficiently achieve sustainability objectives.

6.2.2.2.1 Current Status of the GSPs
In January 2022, DWR issued a determination that the three original GSPs and the Subbasin’s coordination agreement, submitted in 2020, were “incomplete” under SGMA regulations (23 CCR §355.2(e)(2)). The specific deficiencies identified by DWR are listed below.

A. The Plan does not define sustainable management criteria for chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the manner required by SGMA and the GSP Regulations. a. The GSPs do not define metrics for undesirable results and minimum thresholds based on avoiding a significant and unreasonable depletion of groundwater supply, informed by, and considering, the relevant and applicable beneficial uses and users in their Subbasin.
2997
California Water Service Company 30 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
b. The GSPs do not describe specific potential effects from the chronic lowering of groundwater levels and depletion of supply that would be significant and unreasonable to beneficial uses and users of groundwater, on land uses and property interests, and other potential effects and, therefore, constitute an undesirable result. c. The GSPs do not consider how minimum thresholds developed for one sustainability indicator will affect other related sustainability indicators.

B. The Plan does not define sustainable management criteria, including undesirable results, minimum thresholds, and measurable objectives, for land subsidence in the manner required by SGMA and the GSP Regulations.
a. The Greater Kaweah GSP and Mid-Kaweah GSP do not define metrics for undesirable results and minimum thresholds based on the amount of subsidence that would substantially interfere with land surface uses and users in their Subbasin, as required by SGMA and the GSP Regulations. The Greater Kaweah and Mid-Kaweah GSPs set minimum thresholds that would allow for up to 0.75 feet per year of continued subsidence (up to 15 feet over the next 20 years), but these thresholds are not designed to avoid undesirable results as required by the GSP Regulations. b. Discordant sustainable management criteria for land subsidence in the vicinity of the Friant Kern Canal established by the Greater Kaweah and East Kaweah GSPs are not supported by convincing technical information demonstrating that the Greater Kaweah thresholds will not adversely affect conditions in East Kaweah and prevent that part of the Subbasin from achieving its sustainability goal.

C. The Plan does not sufficiently and consistently characterize interconnected surface water nor define sustainable management criteria for the depletion of those interconnected surface waters in the manner required by SGMA and the GSP Regulations. a. While the Plan identifies locations where interconnected surface water is likely present in the Subbasin, it is not coordinated in its management efforts for the depletion of interconnected surface water.
b. The Greater Kaweah GSP documents areas with likely interconnected surface water, as does the Coordination Agreement, but the Greater Kaweah GSA has not developed sustainable management criteria for interconnected surface water. c. The East Kaweah GSP elected to use groundwater level thresholds as a proxy for the depletion of interconnected surface water, but do not demonstrate adequate evidence showing those levels are an appropriate proxy.

Pursuant to 23 CCR §355.2(e)(2), the GSAs had 180 days from DWR’s determination to remedy the noted deficiencies, with July 27, 2022 serving as the resubmittal deadline. The agencies submitted amended GSPs on that date; however, on March 2, 2023, DWR determined that the revisions were still insufficient and issued an “inadequate” finding. DWR’s detailed evaluation of the GSAs’ corrective actions is provided in verbatim below.

Deficiency 1: The corrective action advised the Agencies to define sustainable management criteria for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels. The corrective action also advised the 2998
California Water Service Company 31 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
Agencies that if the GSPs intend to rely on mitigation actions to address impacts as a means to support the reasonableness of their sustainable management criteria then the GSPs should be revised to include specific details that will allow the Department to assess their feasibility and likely effectiveness. It is never expressly made clear what specific conditions the Plans are meant to avoid, which causes uncertainty in how the basin will be managed to achieve sustainability and precludes or impairs the Department’s ability to evaluate the likelihood of the Plan to attain sustainability goals, and would prevent the Department and the public at large from monitoring progress towards any sustainability goal under that Plan. The minimum thresholds selected have not been selected based on the avoidance of undesirable results and significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users. The Plan does not consider how minimum thresholds developed for one sustainability indicator will affect other related sustainability indicators. Also, the level of commitment to the Mitigation Framework and Mitigation Plans is unclear to the Department and the Department is unable assess the feasibility and likely effectiveness of the mitigation program(s). The Staff Report indicates that the Agencies did not take sufficient actions to correct this deficiency, which materially affects the ability of the Agencies to achieve sustainability and the ability of the Department to evaluate the likelihood of the Plan to achieve sustainability.

Deficiency 2: The corrective action advised the Agencies to define sustainable management criteria for the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency and Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency areas, and explain how minimum thresholds in the vicinity of identified critical infrastructure (i.e. the Friant Kern Canal) will not substantially interfere with the Canal’s use. The Plan does not explain how it was determined that approximately 10 inches or greater amount of subsidence would result in a 10% or more capacity loss in the Subbasin’s conveyance infrastructure. Department staff are still not fully able to evaluate how the management criteria for chronic lowering of groundwater levels will affect potentially localized inelastic subsidence which is a permanent condition in relation to water levels that may decline and rebound over time. The Staff Report indicates that the Agencies did not take sufficient actions to correct this deficiency, which materially affects the ability of the Agencies to achieve sustainability and the ability of the Department to evaluate the likelihood of the Plan to achieve sustainability.

Deficiency 3: The corrective action advised the Agencies to define sustainable management criteria for the East Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency and Greater Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency areas or if the GSAs do not have sufficient information at this time, they should identify depletion of interconnected surface water as a data gap and provide a plan to close the data gap as soon as possible. The resubmitted GSPs identify data gaps and propose the creation of a Work Plan culminating in the incorporation of key data into the 2025 GSP Update and set preliminary sustainable management criteria to be refined upon further research and data collection. While not yet fully consistent with the requirements of the GSP Regulations, the Agencies’ efforts to address this deficiency are sufficient at this time, although further efforts and revisions will be required in subsequent GSP updates to align the sustainable management criteria for interconnected surface water with the GSP Regulations and Department guidance.
2999
California Water Service Company 32 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
The GSAs have continued to make substantial progress in resolving the deficiencies previously identified by DWR, working closely with staff from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). In June 2024, the GSAs released three draft amended GSPs for public review and SWRCB feedback. After receiving comments from both the Board and the public, the GSAs prepared updated versions and issued the revised GSPs for review in October 2024. Subsequently, the GSAs adopted these updated plans in November 2024.

A probationary hearing had originally been scheduled for January 7, 2025; however, SWRCB postponed the hearing to allow additional time to evaluate the newly adopted 2024 GSPs. On December 2, 2025, the SWRCB adopted a resolution determining that a probationary designation was not necessary, and the Kaweah Subbasin would return to DWR oversight. DWR has not yet re-evaluated these 2024 amended GSPs and issued a new determination.

The long-term impacts of SGMA implementation in the Subbasin are not yet certain. The discussion of groundwater reliability within the Subbasin in this WSA is based on the recently adopted MKGSA and GKGSA 2024 GSPs, which include the projected water demands for Cal Water’s Visalia District in the Water Budget’s projections for the municipal and industrial pumping.

6.2.2.2.2 Sustainable Management Criteria
The GKGSA and MKGSA 2024 GSPs establish sustainable management criteria for groundwater levels in both the upper and lower aquifers of the Subbasin. Under the plans, Undesirable Results are triggered when groundwater elevations fall below the Minimum Thresholds (MTs) that are tied to the number of potentially impacted domestic wells and the GSAs’ ability to implement mitigation actions for affected beneficial uses. These MTs were developed through the Subbasinwide evaluation of annual groundwater level conditions and refined through collaboration among GSA staff, technical teams, and local stakeholders. Based on this analysis, the MKGSA and GKGSA determined that Undesirable Results would not occur if groundwater levels remain above the established MTs.

Groundwater level representative monitoring wells (RMWs) used for tracking conditions are identified in the 2024 GSPs. Current MTs in these wells average 44 feet below Fall 2022 water levels. In Water Year (WY) 2023, the Subbasin reported groundwater levels that exceeded several MTs, most notably in areas within or near the Visalia System. During the same period, the Subbasin recorded approximately 997,000 acre-feet of groundwater storage increase (Provost & Pritchard, 2024).

The MKGSA and GKGSA 2024 GSPs also establish management criteria for nine primary drinking water constituents, referencing state Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). In WY 2023, nitrogen was the primary constituent of concern (COC). This constituent is tied to legacy conditions and long-term practices evaluated through the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP). 3000
California Water Service Company 33 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

6.2.2.2.3 Groundwater Allocations and Water Budgets
Groundwater allocations are already being used in the Subbasin for agricultural water users. The GKGSA and MKGSA create and enforce the rules for these allocations. These rules do not apply to municipal and industrial users.

Each year before the new water year begins, the GKGSA announces how much water per acre landowners can use. This allocation has two parts:

1. Native sustainable yield: Every acre of land gets 0.62 AF of groundwater for free. This amount represents the long‑term, sustainable amount of water available in the Subbasin.

2. Temporary allocations (Tier 1 and Tier 2): These are additional amounts of water based on past overdraft in the area. They will be reduced over time and are only available to land that has been historically irrigated. Landowners must pay to use this water, and Tier 2 costs more than Tier 1. Water use is counted in this order: first the free native yield, then Tier 1, and finally Tier 2.

For WY 2024, landowners with historically irrigated acreage in the GKGSA receive 0.62 AF native yield, 0.56 AF from Tier 1, and 0.69 AF from Tier 2 for a total of 1.87 AF per acre (GKGSA, 2024).

MKGSA uses a similar system. For WY 2024, MKGSA provides 0.83 AF per acre of native yield, 0.5 AF per acre from Tier 1, and 0.5 AF per acre from Tier 2 for a total of 1.83 AF per acre (MKGSA, 2024).

MKGSA set this groundwater allocation after creating an Emergency Ordinance in 2022 to limit how much groundwater farmers could pump. The ordinance was later extended and changed in 2023 to reduce pumping even more.

When the ordinance first passed, the MKGSA set a limit of 2.5 AF of water per acre per year for farms larger than four acres. This amount was based on how much groundwater the Subbasin can naturally supply and how much water the Water Accounting Framework said each parcel could use. If a farmer used less water than their limit, they were allowed to carry all the unused amount into the next year.

In October 2023, the MKGSA changed the rule again for WY 2024, lowering the limit from 2.5 AF/acre to 1.83 AF/acre. Of this amount, 0.83 AF/acre is the sustainable native groundwater supply.

The remaining water was based on how much water TID added back into the aquifer in WY 2023.

Under this update, only water that had been recharged into the groundwater system could be allocated for future use.

These pumping limits do not apply to cities or other municipal water users. The District stays involved in these decisions by serving on the GKGSA Board and Technical Advisory Subcommittee and participating in the MKGSA Advisory Subcommittee, so it can stay informed and involved in any future allocation or pumping‑limit discussions.
3001
California Water Service Company 34 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
The Proposed Project site has historically been used for production of wheat and almond crops.

Approximately 43 acres of the site has been used for wheat crops with an additional 25 acres for almonds. In WY 2024, the site had a pumping allocation based solely on the GKGSA. Using the GKGSA groundwater allocation rate of 1.87 AF per acre, the site would have received a total pumping allocation of approximately 127 AFY. While these allocations will not apply to the Proposed Project, agricultural activities will cease and temporary groundwater allocations are planned for eventual phase-out, it is relevant that the site historically received a Subbasin groundwater allocation.

The Water Budget supporting the MKGSA and GKGSA 2024 GSPs include an updated estimate of groundwater demand associated with projected urban growth within the City of Visalia. These projections anticipate higher pumping needs than those reflected in the District’s 2020 UWMP.

For example, both the MKGSA and GKGSA 2024 GSPs incorporate an estimated municipal water demand of approximately 54,987 AFY by 2040, an increase of roughly 13,729 AFY above the 2040 demand identified in the 2020 UWMP (GKGSA, 2024).

The Proposed Project and other anticipated development within the Visalia area are not directly accounted for in the 2020 UWMP; however, these demands are implicitly included in the Subbasin-wide Water Budget and in the GSP’s 2040 projections (for instance, the projected demands associated with the Proposed Project and other planned developments total approximately 42,923 AFY in 2040).

6.2.3 Groundwater Use and Supply
The District has a total of 59 active wells located within the Visalia PWS, two wells within the Mullen PWS, and one well within the Tulco PWS service area boundaries. Under CWC §10910(f)(3) and CGC §66473.7(2)(A), the volume of groundwater extracted by Cal Water within the District, including pumping historically associated with the Proposed Project site and adjacent development areas, must be evaluated. Table 6-1 summarizes groundwater pumping from 2004- 2024. Available groundwater supplies have historically been sufficient to meet all recorded demands.

Table 6-3 provides the District’s projected groundwater pumping through 2045 under normal hydrologic conditions. The District’s 2020 UWMP anticipates continued reliance on groundwater as a primary supply source through 2045 to satisfy all projected demands. Groundwater demands associated with the Proposed Project and other planned developments were not included in the 2020 UWMP. Consequently, these additional demands are conservatively added to the UWMP projections. Although the Project will increase total pumping, groundwater use is expected to remain below the volumes assumed in the relevant 2024 GSPs.

To maintain a dependable water supply for both existing and future customers, Cal Water implements an ongoing asset management program that prioritizes system reliability. This program includes proactive maintenance, facility upgrades, and improvements to aging infrastructure to preserve operational performance. Through continued reinvestment in system 3002
California Water Service Company 35 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
assets and strategic expansion, Cal Water is positioned to meet long-term service demands throughout the District.

6.2.4 Analysis of Sufficiency of Groundwater Supply
The District’s only water source is groundwater from the discussed Subbasins. While the 2020 UWMP projects adequate groundwater supply under all conditions for the District overall, the proposed Project’s demands were not included in those projections. Therefore, an analysis of groundwater sufficiency to meet Project demands is required under CWC §10910(f)(5) and CGC §66473.7(a)(2)(E).

Groundwater supplies have historically met all District demands, and projected pumping (including the Proposed Project and other known developments) remains below the municipal volumes evaluated in the water budgets supporting the 2024 GSPs. District pumping represents a relatively small portion of total Subbasin groundwater use, most of which is agricultural. In WY 2023, the District pumped 28,159 AFY, accounting for about 49% of municipal and industrial pumping and approximately 9.1% of total Subbasin pumping (Cal Water, 2025).

While SGMA implementation introduces some long‑term uncertainty, the primary driver of Subbasin sustainability will continue to be agricultural pumping, which far exceeds urban use.

District pumping consistent with the adopted GSPs is not expected to adversely affect other groundwater users. Over time, growth within the District will likely replace irrigated agricultural land with urban development, which generally reduces overall consumptive use on a per‑acre basis.

Cal Water’s groundwater rights, established through overlying and appropriative use and dedicated to public service, are protected under CPUC requirements and California water law.

Municipal and domestic uses hold priority over other water uses under CWC §§106 and 106.5.

SGMA is intended to preserve, not alter, existing water rights. While SGMA implementation and the 2024 GSPs are not expected to limit groundwater availability for meeting projected District demands, future actions by the GKGSA, MKGSA, or the State Water Resources Control Board could introduce groundwater allocations, reporting requirements, or extraction-related fees.

6.2.4.1 Sustainable Yield Analysis
Groundwater from the Kaweah and Tule Subbasins has historically been sufficient to meet the Visalia District’s demands. District pumping decreased during and after the 2012–2015 drought due to conservation measures, with average use falling to about 27,736 AFY between 2014 and 2019 compared to about 32,502 AFY in the prior decade.

It is also important to note that most groundwater pumping in the Kaweah Subbasin is for agricultural use. According to the Mid‑Kaweah GSP water budget, average pumping from 1981– 2017 was about 754,415 AFY, including roughly 685,375 AFY for irrigation and 69,040 AFY for municipal and industrial uses. This means M&I pumping represents about 9% of total use, and District pumping accounts for only a portion of that amount. 3003
California Water Service Company 36 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
Groundwater conditions in the Tule Subbasin show a similar pattern. As described in the Tule East GSP, average pumping from 1986/87 through 2016/17 was about 712,200 AFY, with approximately 664,000 AFY used for agriculture and 19,400 AFY used for M&I purposes. District pumping in the Mullen System represents only a very small share of this M&I total.

Under state law, it’s important to recognize that some farms and businesses in the District’s service area use groundwater from the Subbasin even though they don’t get water from the District. The Proposed Project will not affect these users because the District’s groundwater pumping follows the rules in the GKGSA and MKGSA groundwater plans.

Given the District’s proven ability to meet historical and the absence of any indication from GSAs in the Tule or Kaweah Subbasins that urban pumping will be restricted under GSP implementation, it is reasonable to conclude that groundwater from the Subbasins will be sufficient to meet the District’s needs, including the Proposed Project.

Cal Water holds groundwater rights as both an overlying owner and appropriator, and these rights have been dedicated to public use. Under CPUC regulations, Cal Water must provide water to all customers within its service area under reasonable rules. California law prioritizes municipal water rights over other uses, including under SGMA. Domestic water use is recognized as the “highest use” of water in the state (CWC §106), and urban water purveyors’ rights are protected to ensure both current and future needs (CWC §106.5).

SGMA was designed to preserve the security of water rights in the state to the greatest extent possible and does not alter or redefine surface or groundwater rights or priorities (CWC §§10720.1(b), 10720.5(a)-(b)). SGMA should not reduce, adversely impact, or limit Cal Water’s present or future exercise of its domestic water rights or its obligation to serve its municipal customers, and Cal Water’s rights should be subject to less restrictions and limitations than any other types of water rights or uses.

As the District grows (the District’s UWMP projects that service area population will increase by more than 50% over the next 25 years), some land currently used for irrigated agriculture is expected to transition to residential and commercial development. Because agriculture generally uses more water per acre than urban land uses, this land‑use change is likely to reduce overall groundwater demand within the subbasins over time.

6.3 Historical and Current Water Supplies
As discussed in Section 6.2 above, demands in the District are met entirely by groundwater pumped from Kaweah Subbasin. Historical groundwater supply volumes are catalogued in Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2.

3004
California Water Service Company 37 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
TABLE 6-1: HISTORICAL WATER SUPPLY FOR THE VISALIA DISTRICT (2004-2024) Groundwater Total Water Supply
2004 32,486 32,486
2005 30,701 30,701
2006 32,032 32,032
2007 34,625 34,625
2008 34,848 34,848
2009 34,065 34,065
2010 31,762 31,762
2011 30,260 30,260
2012 31,400 31,400
2013 32,360 32,360
2014 29,475 29,475
2015 24,675 24,675
2016 25,677 25,677
2017 27,698 27,698
2018 29,073 29,073
2019 28,654 28,654
2020 30,172 30,172
2021 30,166 30,166
2022 29,410 29,410
2023 27,985 27,985
2024 29,550 29,550
3005
California Water Service Company 38 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
FIGURE 6-2. HISTORICAL 20-Year WATER SUPPLY (2004-2024), VISALIA DISTRICT 40,000
35,000
:;:- 30,000 LL
~
~ 25,000 0.
:::,
Vl
~ 20,000
"'
~
"' u 15,000
·s
.!!!
I 10,000
5,000
0 ■ Groundwater
3006
California Water Service Company 39 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

6.4 Projected Water Supplies
The District’s 2020 UWMP projects that groundwater production will continue to meet and exceed District demands for the foreseeable future (Cal Water, 2021). Table 6-2 and Figure 6-3 display the forecasted groundwater supplies, which are assumed to be equal to the forecasted demands.

TABLE 6-2: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION 2004-2045 (AFY)

Historical
Groundwater
Production
Projected
Groundwater
Production
(2020 UWMP)
Projected
Groundwater
Production
(Proposed
Project)
Projected
Groundwater
Production
(Other New
Development)
Total Projected
Groundwater
Production
2004 32,486 - - - -
2005 30,701 - - - -
2006 32,032 - - - -
2007 34,625 - - - -
2008 34,848 - - - -
2009 34,065 - - - -
2010 31,762 - - - -
2011 30,260 - - - -
2012 31,400 - - - -
2013 32,360 - - - -
2014 29,475 - - - -
2015 24,675 - - - -
2016 25,677 - - - -
2017 27,698 - - - -
2018 29,073 - - - -
2019 28,654 - - - -
2020 30,172 - - - -
2021 30,166 - - - -
2022 29,410 - - - -
2023 27,985 - - - -
2024 29,550 - - - -
2025 - 32,520 - - 32,520
2030 - 35,276 209 821 36,305
2035 - 38,310 209 999 39,517
2040 - 41,258 209 1,456 42,923
2045 - 44,529 209 1,623 46,361
3007
California Water Service Company 40 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
FIGURE 6-3. HISTORICAL (2004-2024) AND PROJECTED (2025-2045) GROUNDWATER

PRODUCTION
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 """V, (J') --.J
NNNNNN
000000
0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNNNW 00 I..O 0 N W .i:,. v, O"I --.J 00 I..O O N W .i:,. v, 0 ■ Historical Groundwater Production ■ Projected Groundwater Production N N N 0 0 0
w"""""" V, 0 V,
3008
California Water Service Company 41 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

6.5 Water Conservation & Demand Management
The Visalia District is subject to the administration of Cal Water’s conservation programs, which are described in detail in the District’s 2020 UWMP (Cal Water, 2021). These programs are designed to ensure water reliability during normal and shortage conditions and include staged response actions outlined in the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). The District’s Conservation Master Plan integrates with actions described in its UWMP and WSCP by providing guidance for ongoing conservation programs, including appliance and turf rebates and public education. As described in the District’s 2020 UWMP, Cal Water’s demand management policies largely fit into the following categories: water waste prevention ordinances, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, and management of real distribution system losses.

6.6 Water Supply Availability in Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years CWC § 10910 (c)(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

The following estimates of supplies in normal, single dry, and multiple dry year hydrologic conditions are derived from the District’s 2020 UWMP (Cal Water, 2021). According to the District’s 2020 UWMP, its available groundwater supplies “…are expected to be sufficient to meet projected water demands of the District under all hydrologic conditions, including normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.” As the District only pumps the groundwater volume necessary to meet demands, reported supply volumes in this analysis do not represent the total available supply, and instead reflect that supplies are expected to be adequate to meet future demands, regardless of hydrologic conditions.

Historically, the District has not experienced supply shortfalls, even in years with higher demands than those forecasted. The District has been able to meet demands up to 34,848 AFY without experiencing any supply constraints.

6.6.1 Normal Year
A normal hydrologic year represents the supplies available under normal conditions. The UWMP uses 1991 climatic conditions to represent a normal year. In a normal year, the District’s potable water supplies are expected to meet all demands inclusive of the proposed Project (“Clements Ranch Development” in the following tables and figures), as shown in Table 6-3 and Figure 6-4. 3009
California Water Service Company 42 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
TABLE 6-3: PROJECTED NORMAL YEAR WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Supply 32,520 36,305 39,517 42,923 46,361
Visalia District Demand 32,520 35,276 38,310 41,258 44,529 Clements Ranch
Demand 0 209 209 209 209
Other Developments 0 821 999 1,456 1,623
Total Potable Water
Demand Inclusive of
Project
32,520 36,305 39,517 42,923 46,361
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Shortfall (% of
Demand) None None None None None
FIGURE 6-4. HISTORICAL (2004-2024) AND PROJECTED (2025-2045) NORMAL YEAR WATER

SUPPLY AND DEMAND
60,000
50,000
s:-
u..
~
-g 40,000 re
E
w
0 -g 30,000 re
>,
c..

C.
~ 20,000
w
-re
~ 10,000
0 N N 0 0
~ 0
U"1
N N N N N N 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 s s
°' -.J 0, <D 0
Historical Demand (Visalia District)
- Clements Ranch Development
- - Historical Supplies
N N N
s s s N UJ .i,.

N
s
U"1

N N N N N N N N N N N N N
s s s s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N UJ UJ ~
°' -.J 0, <D 0 N UJ .i,. U"1 0 U"1 0
- Projected Normal Vear Demand (Visalia District)
- other Developments
Projected Supplies
N
~ U"1
3010
California Water Service Company 43 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

6.6.2 Single Dry Year
A single dry year represents the lowest available water supply. As described above, groundwater supplies are expected to be able to meet all demands in all year types. Therefore, supply changes from a normal to single dry year are based upon forecasted usage reductions and other demand regulations, as forecasted in the District’s 2020 UWMP (Cal Water, 2021). During a single dry year, supplies are projected to meet District demands inclusive of proposed Project demands and other development demands, as shown in Table 6-4 and Figure 6-5.

TABLE 6-4: PROJECTED SINGLE DRY YEAR WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Supply 33,152 36,992 40,265 43,728 47,232
Visalia District Demand 33,152 35,962 39,057 42,063 45,400 Clements Ranch Demand 0 209 209 209 209
Other Developments 0 821 999 1,456 1,623
Total Potable Water Demand
Inclusive of Project 33,152 36,992 40,265 43,728 47,232 Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Shortfall (% of Demand) None None None None None 3011
California Water Service Company 44 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
FIGURE 6-5. HISTORICAL (2004-2024) AND PROJECTED (2025-2045) SINGLE DRY YEAR WATER

SUPPLY AND DEMAND

6.6.3 Multiple Dry Years
Multiple dry years represent the driest consecutive 5-year period, or the 5-year period with the lowest available water supply. The UWMP uses 2011-2015, which was the driest 5-year period within the range of years of 1980-2019. As described above, groundwater supplies are expected to be able to meet all demands in all year types. Therefore, supply changes from a normal year to multiple dry years are based upon forecasted usage reductions and other demand regulations.

In a multiple dry year scenario, supplies are projected to meet the District’s demands, including proposed Project demands and other development demands, as shown in Table 6-5. Figure 6-6 displays supplies and demands in the multiple dry year scenario for 2025 to 2045. 50,000
45,000
f 40,000
~
-g 35,000
'1l
E
Q)
0 30,000
-g 25,000 '1l
>,
i5. 20,000 C.
::l
~ 15,000
! > 10,000
5,000
0 -- ........ -
0 ,- N ,.... ,.... ,.... 0 0 0
N N N
m st ,.... ,.... 0 0
N N
----.... .,, ....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ,- N <Y'l ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S S

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
- Other Developments - Clements Ranch Development
- Proj ected Single-Dry Year Demand (Visalia Distri ct) Historical Demand (Visalia District) - - Historical Supplies - - Projected Supplies
3012
California Water Service Company 45 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
TABLE 6-5: PROJECTED MULTIPLE DRY YEAR WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND (AFY) Start Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Year # 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Supply 33,543 33,543 33,543 33,543 33,543 37,417 37,417 37,417 37,417 37,417 40,728 40,728 40,728 40,728 40,728 44,227 44,227 44,227 44,227 44,227 47,771 47,771 47,771 47,771 47,771 Visalia
District 33,543 33,543 33,543 33,543 33,543 36,387 36,387 36,387 36,387 36,387 39,520 39,520 39,520 39,520 39,520 42,562 42,562 42,562 42,562 42,562 45,939 45,939 45,939 45,939 45,939 Clements
Ranch
Development - - - - - 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 Other
Developments - - - - - 821 821 821 821 821 999 999 999 999 999 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,623 1,623 1,623 1,623 1,623 Total
Potable
Water
Demand
33,543 33,543 33,543 33,543 33,543 37,417 37,417 37,417 37,417 37,417 40,728 40,728 40,728 40,728 40,728 44,227 44,227 44,227 44,227 44,227 47,771 47,771 47,771 47,771 47,771 Supply
Shortfall
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% FIGURE 6-6. PROJECTED MULTIPLE DRY YEAR WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND 50,000
45,000 40,000
f 35,000
$
" 30,000
0 25,000
ro
_;,;.

0. g- 20,000 V,
JI!
;: 15,000
10,000
5,000
0 2025 2030
- Projected Visalia District Multiple Dry Year Demand
2035 2040 2045
- Clements Ranch Development - Other Developments Projected Total Supplies 3013
California Water Service Company 46 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

7. WATER SUPPLY SUFFICIENCY

7.1 Comparison of Supply & Demand
CWC § 10910 (c)(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

CGC § 66473.7 (a)(2) "Sufficient water supply" means the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multipledry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses. In determining "sufficient water supply," all of the following factors shall be considered:
(A) The availability of water supplies over a historical record of at least 20 years. (B) The applicability of an urban water shortage contingency analysis prepared pursuant to Section 10632 of the Water Code that includes actions to be undertaken by the public water system in response to water supply shortages. (C) The reduction in water supply allocated to a specific water use sector pursuant to a resolution or ordinance adopted, or a contract entered into, by the public water system, as long as that resolution, ordinance, or contract does not conflict with Section 354 of the Water Code.
(D) The amount of water that the water supplier can reasonably rely on receiving from other water supply projects, such as conjunctive use, reclaimed water, water conservation, and water transfer, including programs identified under federal, state, and local water initiatives such as CALFED and Colorado River tentative agreements, to the extent that these water supplies meet the criteria of subdivision (d).
(a)(3) If the written verification provided by the applicable public water system indicates that the public water system is unable to provide a sufficient water supply that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, then the local agency may make a finding, after consideration of the written verification by the applicable public water system, that additional water supplies not accounted for by the public water system are, or will be, available prior to completion of the subdivision that will satisfy the requirements of this section. This finding shall be made on the record and supported by substantial evidence.
(e) If there is no public water system, the local agency shall make a written finding of sufficient water supply based on the evidentiary requirements of subdivisions (c) and (d) and identify the mechanism for providing water to the subdivision. (f) In making any findings or determinations under this section, a local agency, or designated advisory agency, may work in conjunction with the project applicant and the public water system to secure water supplies sufficient to satisfy the demands of the proposed subdivision. If the local agency secures water supplies pursuant to this subdivision, which supplies are acceptable to and approved by the governing body of the public water system as suitable for delivery to customers, it shall work in conjunction with the public water system to implement a plan to deliver that water supply to satisfy the long-term demands of the proposed subdivision.

CGC § 66473.7 (j) The determinations made pursuant to this section shall be consistent with the obligation of a public water system to grant a priority for the provision of available and future water resources or services to proposed housing developments that help meet the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing needs for lower income households, pursuant to Section 65589.7.
(o) Any action challenging the sufficiency of the public water system’s written verification of a sufficient water supply shall be governed by Section 66499.37.
3014
California Water Service Company 47 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
According to the Water Code, WSAs must assess whether a water purveyor’s projected supplies will be sufficient to meet its existing demands in addition to proposed Project demands in normal, single dry, and multiple dry year hydrologic scenarios. Section 6.6 provides comparisons of District demands and supplies in all required scenarios. Under all scenarios, available water supplies are expected to be sufficient to meet the District’s demands inclusive of the proposed Project and other known development demands. The District’s groundwater supplies have always met its demands, even during extended drought periods.

7.2 Finding of Water Supply Sufficiency
The analyses completed as part of this WSA find that the District’s water supply is expected to be sufficient to provide for the District’s existing demands in addition to the demands of the proposed Project. The inclusion of Project demands is not expected to lead to any actual supply shortfalls.

Cal Water is committed to the development needs of the proposed Project and will be able to provide water service, with infrastructure tailored to the proposed Project’s plans. This infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, transmission lines, distribution systems, meters, and water system monitoring. Cal Water anticipates collaborating with the Project Proponent, the City/County, and the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water throughout the design, construction, and operation phases. Cal Water will need to ensure that all current and future state standards are met regarding pipe sizes, fire flows, equipment, and materials and will be responsible for ongoing operations, maintenance, and design of any proposed constructed water facilities. Cal Water may require additional facilities to provide water service to the proposed Project depending on the pressure zone's specific needs for pressures and flows. To accomplish this, Cal Water may request dedication of parcels of land for the future needs of pumped storage and/or additional well supply. Additional evaluation may be needed to determine the optimized location and required minimum area. Cal Water’s commitment to the development needs of the proposed Project may need to be reassessed in the case of changing water supply conditions within the District and will expire five years after the date of this WSA if the proposed Project has not begun construction and made on-going progress towards completion.
3015
California Water Service Company 48 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

8. CONCLUSIONS
According to the Water Code, the purpose of a WSA is to evaluate the sufficiency of a purveyor’s water supply to meet future water demands, including those associated with the proposed Project, during normal, single dry, and multiple dry hydrologic years for a 20-year time horizon.

As described in Section 4, the total water demand of the proposed Project has been conservatively estimated. As discussed in Section 5, these demands and other development demands are considered additive to the projected water demand growth in the adopted 2020 UWMP. As discussed in Section 6, groundwater supply to the District is considered reliable based on the findings of the 2020 UWMP and review of the GSPs for the Mid-Kaweah GSA, the Greater Kaweah GSA, and the ETGSA. Therefore, sufficient water supply is estimated to be available to Cal Water to meet the future District demands inclusive of the additive demands associated with the proposed Project from 2025 through 2045 under all hydrologic conditions (i.e., current and projected, and for normal, single dry, and multiple dry years including a five-year drought period).

Should such policies or actions limit access to groundwater, Cal Water may need to undertake additional measures to mitigate any potential impacts on water supply reliability. 3016
California Water Service Company 49 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026

9. REFERENCES
23 CCR 2.2.7 § 490-495. (2025). Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations Division 2, Chapter

2.7 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance § 490-495.

AB 1572. (2023). Potable water: nonfunctional turf. Retrieved from California Legislature. Assembly Bill 1572. Chapter 849, Statutes of 2023:
https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab1572 Cal Water. (2019). Cal Water WSA Water Factor Tool. Developed by M. Cubed.

Cal Water. (2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Visalia District.

Cal Water. (2025). Historical water use data provided by Cal Water.

CALGreen. (2022). California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. Retrieved from https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1
California Department of Water Resources. (2003). Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610.

California Department of Water Resources. (2015). Landscape, Irrigation, Water Budget Overview.

Retrieved from 2015 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Guidebook:
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-AndEfficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/MWELO-Files/MWELO-Guidebook/C--LandscapeIrrigation-Water-Budget-Overview.pdf California Department of Water Resources. (2019). Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization, State of California.

California Water Code § 10910. (2024).

California Water Code § 10912. (2024).

California Water Service. (2022; 2023; 2024). CWS Visalia Water District Water Audits. Retrieved from Water Audit Data Reports: https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/awwa_plans DWR. (2025, March 11). CADWR Land Use Viewer. Retrieved from https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/?page=home ETGSA. (2021). Revised Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Retrieved from https://ckgsa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/10/CKGSA-GSP-ADOPTED-2022-Update-Secure.pdf GKGSA. (2024). Second Amended November 2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

MKGSA. (2024). Second Amended November 2024 Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

MKGSA. (2025). Mid Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2024 Overview.

Provost & Pritchard. (2024). Kaweah Subbasin Water Year 2023 Annual Monitoring Report. 3017
California Water Service Company 50 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
APPENDIX A: CLEMENTS RANCH OPERATIONAL STATEMENT
3018
Visalia Clements Ranch Operational Statement
QK has prepared a Site Plan for of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 127-020-21 and -20. The Project site is to be developed as single-family homes consistent with the intent of the General Plan. The Project can move forward based on existing development code requirements, physical conditions, and the existing environment. However, we will recommend amendments to the Project site in order to reduce any significant environmental, economic, and physical impacts.

There are two lot sizes proposed for the site. The Low Density will have 50x100 lots, consistent with the low density 5,000 square foot lots. The Medium Density portion will have 38x72 lots, 2,736 square feet roughly 250 square feet below the minimum lot size. The Medium Density area will have a planned unit development to allow for smaller lot sizes, private streets and will be a gated community. There are two points of access to both the Low Density and Medium Density proposed on Lovers Lane and Sunny Side Avenue.

R-M-2 - Setbacks
Front – 15ft
Side – 4ft / Corner- 10 feet
Rear – 15 feet
The proposed Project will maintain its consistency with the City of Visalia General Plan as much as possible. The Project site is located southeast of the City of Visalia (City), adjacent to the city limits (Urban Growth Boundary II). The site consists of two separate APNs, which total roughly 75 acres.

The Project site has three existing General Plan land use designations: Residential Low-Density, Residential Medium-Density, and Residential High-Density. As a facet of the Project, the General Plan land uses are proposed to be rearranged within the overall Project site. The proposal to shift the land uses is to make the Project site more developable and allow for each land use to have better access and circulation. The land use arrangement will take into account local General Plan and Municipal Code policies, in addition to State Law (SB 330), Senate Bill 330, or the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which facilitates housing production in California. SB 330 addresses the State’s housing crisis in multiple parts. However, the one regulation that is applicable to the alteration of land uses is commonly referred to as the “No Net Loss” provision.

SB 330 prohibits the redesignation of land where housing is an allowable use by changing or applying general plan, specific plan, or zoning criteria that would reduce the intensity of land use below that which was allowable on January 1, 2018. There is an exception to this; a reduction in housing intensity is allowed if the reduced density is concurrently made up elsewhere within the jurisdiction.

Therefore, as a part of the Project design, the General Plan land use amendment must have a net zero change as it relates to density. The site will rearrange the existing land uses in a manner that does not reduce residential density or land use types.

The Project will require the establishment of a Zoning District that is consistent with the underlying General Plan land use. Below is a list of the Zone Districts that will be established consistently with the land use. The allowed densities are shown in Table 2. 3019
• High-Density Residential Land Use – R-M-3 (Multi-family Residential 1,200 SF Lots) • Medium-Density Residential Land Use – R-M-2 (Multi-family Residential 3,000 SF Lots) • Low-Density Residential Land Use - R-1-5 (Single-family Residential 5,000 SF Lots) The Trail section on the proposed map is intended to be dedicated to the city for further build out. 3020
California Water Service Company 51 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
APPENDIX B: CLEMENTS RANCH SITE PLAN
3021
~ - ••• ~. -- ----- -- 11 7'=
FFff
I
I;
:1
11 ,1
,1
--- --7:
,I
'1
/1
~~="~oo!: I
'1
I I
I
I! I
I! I
I I
:1 1,~ L....:__y
II
II
I
..='!!:?I I H~- II _J: 1,
SCCOOHI.H"
'-=-==-=-=-=-=-==---_J_ - -- - --=
,----
7 ---i-
/
FUTURE
PHASE
COHSIRIK:1 arr
C!.118NIDGU11£1t1YP.
'"'
COHSll!LCI~~
STNIONKJs.o£ll'AU:;IYP.

SfAHCIW)CUR9NtfJ ~=
GtlllI)l,n'P,

PROPOSED SUMMARY TABLE
TYPrCAL PRIVATE STREET
~E: 1' • 10'
TYPICAL LOCAL ST11EET
50ll.£: 1"• 10'
rt7,,_

TYPICAL COLLECTOR STREET
CCWSl1!LC7CITY
ST~-1SIR!IT. l'rP.
.Ml...J!L.llMLS 1:RQSS Af1§IIl'. OtnUS/KRfl
5Q ' rJOO'IQfSANIJPl/&:IG5Ilif£TS
lll' r ZZ'IDfSNtlPRNAlf SlBfffS·
HArlO&N5PdCfff'BNA,ff)
Gt'O( 5f'Aff 0,/fll«:=)·
NOTES
I. PfKJPf.lm' OIi/NCR: IW10lD IJfNt CI .. DIDITS

2. ll'H:117---020---(J20NIIJ117- a2(Hl21
J. PRO.Cr:T CONIACT, o« CllMC £SC00C00 rM9J-Ml- 2<00

GENERAL INFORMATION
D.RHoooo,AmMce°"&dder 4111 W. .vi.ray A\'9/lU61
Vfsalllt, CAl/3231
(559)635-9850
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL HUIIIBER:
f27--020--020andf27--020-021
SrTE AOORESS:

Sooffleas!CornetolEutKA"8Jl<llland
SoilfhofL~lArre
SrTEAREA:
~(+I-IKl.1 AC.J
Gron(+l-715.0AC.)
:=~"/~:

PROPOSED GENERAL Pl.AN LAND USE:

ResldMtle/Low.~Medlum.and
RN/dlmllq/ High O.fl5.fy11ndeon-t1cn
EXtST1NG GENERAL Pt.AN LAND USE:

Rnlderdle/Low,RflJdontlalMedlum.and
Re~H/gh~sl-JandConSlllWllcn
EXJSTINGZONtNO:

AE20~Agrlr;,J/lufv.20-Act9Mlnlmum)
(TulanlCounty)

GATED COMMUNITY TYPICAL

SETBACK DIMENSIONS
LEGEND
SCALE:1"• 150'
CLEMENTS RANCH SITE PLAN l QIV' J
:
______________________ A_P_N_: 1_27_-0_2_0-_0_20_A __ N.:..::.D_1.:..27_-0:..:2.:..0-..:.02:..:1 _________________ ___) - .-::i:n""'-::-...;; 3022
California Water Service Company 52 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
APPENDIX C: VISALIA DISTRICT AWWA WATER AUDITS
3023
Water Audit Report for:

Reporting Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:

Volume from own sources: 5 30,278.782 acre-ft/yr 3 acre-ft/yr Water imported: n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr n/a acre-ft/yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr n/a acre-ft/yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 30,278.782 acre-ft/yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 29,319.161 acre-ft/yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr
Unbilled metered: n/a 0.000 acre-ft/yr Pcnt: Value:

Unbilled unmetered: 5 75.697 acre-ft/yr 1.25% acre-ft/yr AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 29,394.858 acre-ft/yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 883.923 acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:

Unauthorized consumption: 75.697 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Customer metering inaccuracies: 5 598.350 acre-ft/yr 2.00% acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors: 73.298 acre-ft/yr 0.25% acre-ft/yr Apparent Losses: 747.345 acre-ft/yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 136.578 acre-ft/yr WATER LOSSES: 883.923 acre-ft/yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 959.620 acre-ft/yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered

SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 612.3 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 9 47,217 Service connection density: 77 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: 10 ft
Average operating pressure: 7 55.0 psi

COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $25,624,618 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $1.62 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $93.24 $/acre-ft WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/100 cubic feet (ccf)

0.000
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 63 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score

0.000

0.000
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Reporting Worksheet

75.697
2021 1/2021 - 12/2021
CWS VIS Visalia (CA5410016)
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property
boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water
supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 • 1a======~I
- l'--____ _,I
I I
11§1 ll§§ g : 11
-- 0 @7
I I
-
51~~ [ O @ii
-I I t
I I
"' -- I I I I (e) r ) II I
::c11 I I t•J < l II I
I I (eJ I I I
-I I
-I I
I I
-I I
l!EII
I I
--
--□I I
ii§I II I
□
I I
I I
I I
I I
3024
Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER SUPPLIED choose entry option:

VOS Volume from Own Sources: n g 5 29,488.709 Acre-ft/Yr n g 8 9.00% volume acre-ft/yr over-registration VOSEA WI Water Imported: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr n g n/a 10.00% volume acre-ft/yr WIEA WE Water Exported: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr n g n/a 8.00% volume acre-ft/yr WEEA 29,470.201 Acre-ft/Yr
.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
BMAC Billed Metered: n g 8 28,584.114 Acre-ft/Yr
BUAC Billed Unmetered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr
UMAC Unbilled Metered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr choose entry option:

UUAC Unbilled Unmetered: n g 3 71.460 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unbilled Unmetered, with automatic data grading of 3 28,655.575 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES 814.627 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 choose entry option:

SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 71.460 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 6 583.349 Acre-ft/Yr 2.00% percent acre-ft/yr under-registration UC Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 71.460 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3 726.270 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses

88.357 Acre-ft/Yr
814.627 Acre-ft/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
886.087 Acre-ft/Yr

SYSTEM DATA
Lm Length of mains: n g 10 627.4 miles (including fire hydrant lead lengths) Nc Number of service connections: n g 8 47,991 (active and inactive) Service connection density: 76 conn./mile main
Yes
Lp Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10 ft (average distance between property line and meter) AOP Average Operating Pressure: n g 8 62.9 psi

COST DATA
CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge: n g 10 $1.65
VPC Variable Production Cost: n g 10 $104.24 $/acre-ft $/yr (optional input) WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER:
go to
dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:

Based on the information provided, audit reliability can be most improved by addressing the following components: OPTIONAL: If targets exist for the operational performance indicators, they can be input below:
1: Volume from Own Sources (VOS) Unit Total Losses: gal/conn/day 2: Billed Metered (BMAC) Unit Apparent Losses: gal/conn/day 3: Unauthorized Consumption (UC) Unit Real LossesA
: gal/conn/day
Unit Real LossesB: gal/mile/day
If entered above by user, targets will display on KPI gauges (see Dashboard) Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Worksheet

25.000
CWS VIS Visalia

18.508
Jan 01 2022 - Dec 31 2022
Water Supplied Error Adjustments
2023 Calendar Year
Real Losses:

WATER LOSSES:

Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier III (51-70). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. *** $/100 cubic feet (ccf)
$26,860,133
Total Annual Operating Cost
go to start page
NON-REVENUE WATER:

If entering an
Error Adjustment,
select under- or overregistration
336.000

12.000
125.000
WATER SUPPLIED:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:

Apparent Losses:

Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
Click 'n' to add notes
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

To access definitions, click the input name
To edit water system info:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Worksheet 1
E§ 1-----1 -
; 1-----1 -
EE 1---i -
[TI
[TI .--------------
EE ,___I-~-~
3025
Water Audit Report for:

Audit Year:

All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR
WATER SUPPLIED choose entry option:

VOS Volume from Own Sources: n g 6 28,062.105 Acre-ft/Yr n g 8 volume acre-ft/yr over-registration VOSEA WI Water Imported: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr n g n/a volume acre-ft/yr WIEA WE Water Exported: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr n g n/a volume acre-ft/yr WEEA 28,062.105 Acre-ft/Yr
.

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
BMAC Billed Metered: n g 8 27,310.882 Acre-ft/Yr
BUAC Billed Unmetered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr
UMAC Unbilled Metered: n g n/a 0.000 Acre-ft/Yr choose entry option:

UUAC Unbilled Unmetered: n g 4 32.100 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% custom acre-ft/yr 27,342.982 Acre-ft/Yr
WATER LOSSES 719.123 Acre-ft/Yr
Apparent Losses
Default option selected for Systematic Data Handling Errors, with automatic data grading of 3 choose entry option:

SDHE Systematic Data Handling Errors: n g 3 68.277 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr CMI Customer Metering Inaccuracies: n g 6 557.365 Acre-ft/Yr 2.00% percent acre-ft/yr under-registration UC Unauthorized Consumption: n g 3 68.277 Acre-ft/Yr 0.25% default acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unauthorized Consumption, with automatic data grading of 3 693.919 Acre-ft/Yr
Real Losses

25.204 Acre-ft/Yr
719.123 Acre-ft/Yr

NON-REVENUE WATER
751.223 Acre-ft/Yr

SYSTEM DATA
Lm Length of mains: n g 10 632.4 miles (including fire hydrant lead lengths) Nc Number of service connections: n g 8 48,540 (active and inactive) Service connection density: 77 conn./mile main
Yes
Lp Average length of (private) customer service line: n g 10 ft (average distance between property line and meter) AOP Average Operating Pressure: n g 8 62.0 psi

COST DATA
CRUC Customer Retail Unit Charge: n g 10 $1.68
VPC Variable Production Cost: n g 10 $95.31 $/acre-ft $/yr (optional input) WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY TIER:
go to
dashboard
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION TO IMPROVE DATA VALIDITY: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS:

If entering an
Error Adjustment,
select under- or
over-registration
WATER SUPPLIED:

AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION:

Apparent Losses:

Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading of 10 has been applied A weighted scale for the components of supply, consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score *** The Water Audit Data Validity Score is in Tier III (51-70). See Dashboard tab for additional outputs. *** $/100 cubic feet (ccf)
$27,859,185
Total Annual Operating Cost
Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop/property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:

Worksheet

32.100
CWS VIS Visalia
Jan 01 2023 - Dec 31 2023
Water Supplied Error Adjustments
2023 Calendar Year
Real Losses:

WATER LOSSES:

Click 'g' to determine data validity grade
Click 'n' to add notes
FWAS v6.0
American Water Works Association.

To access definitions, click the input name
To edit water system info:

AWWA Free Water Audit Software v6.0 Worksheet 1
E§ I~ [TI
; 11--------------
EE 11--------------
[TI
[TI ~
EE lf---------1'-------------'
3026
California Water Service Company 53 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
APPENDIX D: ESTIMATED HISTORICAL WATER USE AT PROPOSED PROJECT SITE
3027
Year Parcel ID Crop Area (acres) Method Efficiency Eto Initial (in) Eto Mid (in) Eto Late (in) Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 ETAF 1 ETAF 2 ETAF 3 ETWU1 (in) ETWU2 (in) ETWU3 (in) Sum ETWU (in) Parcel ETWU (AF) 2024 5410708 Almonds 9.64 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 54.38 2024 5434606 Almonds 10.24 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 57.76 2024 5416709 Almonds 5.95 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 33.59 2024 5416034 Almonds 12.55 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 70.80 2024 5426732 Almonds 4.85 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 27.36 2024 5404285 Wheat 7.64 Sprinkler 0.75 15.99 26.65 10.66 0.3 1.15 0.25 4.80 30.65 2.67 6.40 40.86 3.55 50.81 32.37 2024 5419926 Wheat 16.92 Sprinkler 0.75 15.99 26.65 10.66 0.3 1.15 0.25 4.80 30.65 2.67 6.40 40.86 3.55 50.81 71.66 2024 5420452 Idle (Long Term) 5.22 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2023 5410708 Almonds 9.64 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 54.38 2023 5434606 Almonds 10.24 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 57.76 2023 5416709 Young Perennials 5.95 Drip 0.81 13.325 29.31 5 10.66 0.15 0.55 0.35 2.00 16.12 3.73 2.47 19.91 4.61 26.98 13.39 2023 5416034 Almonds 12.55 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 70.80 2023 5426732 Almonds 4.85 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 27.36 2023 5404285 Wheat 7.64 Sprinkler 0.75 15.99 26.65 10.66 0.3 1.15 0.25 4.80 30.65 2.67 6.40 40.86 3.55 50.81 32.37 2023 5419926 Wheat 16.92 Sprinkler 0.75 15.99 26.65 10.66 0.3 1.15 0.25 4.80 30.65 2.67 6.40 40.86 3.55 50.81 71.66 2023 5420452 Idle (Long Term) 5.22 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2022 5410708 Almonds 9.64 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 54.38 2022 5434606 Almonds 10.24 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 57.76 2022 5416709 Young Perennials 5.95 Drip 0.81 13.325 29.31 5 10.66 0.15 0.55 0.35 2.00 16.12 3.73 2.47 19.91 4.61 26.98 13.39 2022 5416034 Almonds 12.55 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 70.80 2022 5426732 Almonds 4.85 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 27.36 2022 5404285 Idle (Long Term) 7.64 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2022 5419926 Idle (Short Term) 16.92 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2022 5420452 Idle (Long Term) 5.22 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2021 5410708 Almonds 9.64 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 54.38 2021 5434606 Almonds 10.24 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 57.76 3028
Year Parcel ID Crop Area (acres) Method Efficiency Eto Initial (in) Eto Mid (in) Eto Late (in) Kc1 Kc2 Kc3 ETAF 1 ETAF 2 ETAF 3 ETWU1 (in) ETWU2 (in) ETWU3 (in) Sum ETWU (in) Parcel ETWU (AF) 2021 5416709 Idle (Short Term) 5.95 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2021 5416034 Almonds 12.55 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 70.80 2021 5426732 Almonds 4.85 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 27.36 2021 5404285 Idle (Short Term) 7.64 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2021 5419926 Idle (Short Term) 16.92 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2021 5420452 Idle (Long Term) 5.22 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2020 5410708 Almonds 9.64 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 54.38 2020 5434606 Almonds 10.24 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 57.76 2020 5416709 Idle
(Unclassifie
d)

5.95 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2020 5416034 Almonds 12.55 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 70.80 2020 5426732 Almonds 4.85 Sprinkler 0.75 7.995 31.98 13.325 0.2 1.1 1.05 1.60 35.18 13.99 2.13 46.90 18.66 67.69 27.36 2020 5404285 Idle
(Unclassifie
d)

7.64 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2020 5419926
Idle
(Unclassifie
d)

16.92 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2020 5420452
Idle
(Unclassifie
d)

5.22 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3029
California Water Service Company 54 Woodard & Curran, Inc.

Clements Ranch Water Supply Assessment April 3, 2026
APPENDIX E: CLEMENTS RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
3030
-""---l=;=~ iL~ 1
==:;:::::j...d J ['="· NIii,..,, ~ ""· TYf'JCM. PRtVATE STREET ? \_=.::..~.
,· l J "
Y\;;~"· •• ~l ~-~ rTl = " - • .::... '
~ ~ ""· TYPrcAl COUE :::SC- 5[lllOCJI"
=· ,·. ,o· wrrrll,""·
CDmlUCOFr,sc,,on ,. f ,MJRCIIIUM£
~~~~~
TEMPORARY 1VRNAROUND EASEMENT
{Sfff'IOTE)

OVERALL BOUNDARY
0 ,oo· ,w
SCALE: 1°• 10()'
fASEJICNll<f- Of"S(Mlj{J/f,/C<tl"QIN<
WISll'lctlMIIWl'R[ctllll[IIHPOC(OO'f
N0.20I0;5/JJQl: :l<:12 /WX510

CLEMENTS RANCH

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
IJ.~. --,.;<'SIIJUO'
-...oomJ,
(W)IJf--"'50
UND8UMYOR
L.Etw.. DE8CAIPTION
~~;:~u-
~~~-
-
211/t WIDO«<!llllM;
IO!PIIOPUlfY"lh£-IIDAIIDOfllt"Qll.Ml'OFIIUIC.Sl'Al[OI'
-Daalll[l),SltUD!fS,
fMl1POIIIOO OFllt" rut-rOFl>CSOt/DIIIESl'°"""1110FSLC,O,J,~•f sa,m-.C2"USf,llaMl'llllaDIM'l£NCIW£JIDW,~ffllh£<>'11:Wl'IA1 f1€11CD'", OCSCll&:O AS tru.OOS:,
DtlPIIMG--llM1/>0lllOI I -SWIIIOl'lh£(Vll[IUOfOf~Cll(lK,AS S<,llOl[[J(DtfSlfJ)C:,,l'UJIIIJNtrJ;IIIC. - 121--.."20, '21- 470-<Ur - >21- - r,n
.:wr,-IIVKCUI.WJY.ll<aJ>"1
!>011:: M Y,JrJn =~,_,-'%~~--
ltlllfllWICAllllJOlh£r;nYOFIISII.M""'OPCII-,
l'£DCSIRM,l'IJIJX;,_1'U11'(151'.S.
fDIICDftlc.<IEllltl1'1Ct:m'Ol'-..,ro,,l!IAf.

SHEETl OF3
3031
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP BEING n,1~1:~.~ R~. °!"ai~ ~:~~t;.!~E:E~6i!fTION 3. ltlTHE COU NTYOFTl.Jl.J,.F!E, STATEOfCAI.JfORNIA.

MIIO'OO'OOT1',l15f'
SUNNYSIDEA\ll/,NV!?
-. --,---~-----·~ -- ' -. ;i
;, I ;,
---- - ~- , 1 ~ ~ ---~= -=~ _I
-- ~-- -
!!Jlv "~v §J,Sf" !!,.JI,,. /iA'! f sr " J.tsr !!Jissr .. e.~ v :
1"1'<1£-t
.. ' ' . w " ,.. ~ ,,, " "' ~ ,., lili
JJ,3,. 'J,.JJlv 1,JJ}v -
HIUOO"OC ""'' T~
, . i
ii
ii
:
' 'J _- •-- • 1 1 1
I I~ ~Sf"
If' I!;~ ;s,
- I~ .. ,-~ .. =.--+----
. ., l~ ,;/v
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
. •--~filW _ _ ~----- : I __,----.;. '=--- ~ 1 1 I ~;;;~ ::::':::3!~::::::= -- -=----~···, .. ,... ! I - ---------~, \ I
'
--•ocw .. ~ I I I
~-•!••·-, !
I
I I ... ~ I I
' / I I I ,F '1 '
,,
/,
, ~-•m""":'l\ i'• I I I I -~-•-:.i_~ I
I _ _ J l----~~:':::.:t~ - - , --_~,[---:-- - ~ --~-- ~ -- ~ --- ---- -----T~-===~t~=-~~-==-=-=--C ,)..,- ·--- ____ ,
PIIOP(lS[IICITT'RICff10Ellllrl.lfllfCAIIOH
"""'"" """" ..:U/51l£""""5J
ro'
0 SCAL.E: 1·- so·
ro'
SHEET2 OF3
3032
rt7
TYPrCAl ~ SJ1HT
1------- --~-7--- - ------ - - -- 1 WldOF!i'.m:lHJ !UU©.oo..90 :J t'W lU, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
; I
I ~ I
Ii __ , 9
It
: I
I I
I
I
I
TlcMPORAAY TURNAROUND EASEMENT
(SCCNOm
'"'

OVERALL BOUNDARY
0 - --- ---- --- ~- -"'"'~ - - ------ - ~ ~ O(ITl.OTS
oo:[IVl>H f"'l>'IOF SOlllhUIH~
l'JJIS/JNCOWWfrRCCCl'lllCDHooa.won
llll.11«.llll0Cl<l-111Pla:51Q
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP BEING'THEWESTHAI.FOFTI1ESOUTHWESTQUARTEROFSECTION J.

T.19S.,R,25E.,MOUNT DIA8LOBASEANOMERIDIAN,
IN THE COUNTY or nJl.,+.RE, STATE or CAI.IFORNL'I,

AECOAD OWNEA
UND UIYEYllR
J.IBJDUHl,1'15,<JCa.ows,c:<fJf>2
~)'-If- MO
LEGM. DESCflPTION
~
CIIYOF-.i<~R/1-
115/'!l•'l:MI. _,._,,,...,r,
~
artOF"""""'""'9l!<llll1'/'!l•-CMI. _,._,,,...,r,
1/EN.PIIOl'£ll1'/"IIE._1lDNICAOFfl£COUHl'l'OFl!lM£.S1•1£0F CtUll'IHl\l.lfSCIIIIE)AS~
IH'11'1lfffl'.»10Fl>E""1WldOFl>E--Q'.WIIIJIOF5Ecmo.l,~1R 50tll><,...,,CC15""1,IGl'T-.09'SE:--..:CO,,O,,C101>1£0f10<L ....... T IIEIEOF,1BQ1&11NlfW.<Jft DICCPIIIOCfl£RCFWNIIMll'OlfflOIILl'WC5'MHOFIIErnf1£11MCOFCNICIIDIOa/£R,.S -C>iW<OISITTlc:Mlllll\lUl1 .l, 191Q.
- J17-Q1Q. J1'---()1()--<J2J - 117- rJl<>-Qn
~-.....,,-co,:,,,rr,c:<an,;,
=:::.r:':::-== - -
OUT1.0T 8CHEDULE
fD/£00lC<llllltl11£WYOF-..l'OlllffllSlw:E;
~PIJIV(;~~
0Ffl£NICAIAOO.fll/VIECMNl'PH<SfJ",Alll£l!OC OFfWlll£ ~0FII£ ----otlll.08f.-.o>.
mi:-.-Hfll(twAS-..a:a51T/RGUJaa_,,,.-6MlMl£DfD
FIQ.lf.011:>0CL{,a:asl!)CWECfC-..CCSOCl~IICUDJIC--
Nliffl......,DIIUWIIIHGl!l- 21'H'S£2.

SHEETl 0F3
3033
I
' -I
LEGEND
PIIOP(lS[IICITT'RICff10Ellllrl.lfllfCAIIOH
"""'""""""..:U/51l£""""5J
ro'
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP BEING n,1~1:~.~ R~. °!"ai~ ~:~~t;.!~E:E~6i!fTION 3. ltlTHE COU NTYOFTl.Jl.J,.F!E, STATEOfCAI.JfORNIA.
0 ro'
SCAL.E: 1·- so·
SHEET2 OF3
3034
0 (Ot:) - - ---- ("') _ _ ___ _
~.
-~· ✓ _,:;;,- ,,,.,,.
- -/
,/-
;;::::.'.'.-::,: (,-
, ,
' . :
' ' 1.
''· '' ,. :i:.
:e:.
'' ! •
TE~YT~ND
-
I ,
: I I ,
'" I•
~ //' ' ' ' I
/;/ 11
:~--:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~-- --=--:=--::-~(~ _::----i --· ' I j I ' i" ~/ I~ •
~ :1 '".-~---.-.------------"---------,i.,.~------""' ------------------------- + - ...,..,,,..,,,'t,. ........ - ------------ -~ j -~ SUNNYSIDEAVENUE ,;-
-- - -- - - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - - -7±= -- - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - ==> ,, I ,. I ,. I " I .. I ,, I ,. I ,, I " I " I 'P! I , I , I , I , I , I • I , I , I , :1 ; SE£SHEET2

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
""0l'OSE!lcm'IO(l(Jl' - llfl"(l<0CW
El2SIN:lPClllUIPOIL('Sll[-,S)
SHEET3 OF3
3035
,I , n - tt~'--==-c;..== -= -(Of.) _ _ _ - - - --
1 I
/ I i
I It/
I
I I I
I I :! I I : ~
I 1 I I I i I I : I I i'
I I i
I I
I Q
I i :~----_-_-_-_-_-_-
/ I ,/>.f
i . ./ I ;~ , I
i
(Ot:) - - ---- (ti<) __ ___ _
----------------------- ,: -----------------~
( ,, \ " I .. I ,, I .. I " I ,. I ,, I ,, I " I '~! I , I • I ~.l: I , I • I , I , I , i1

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
""0l'OSE!lcm'IO(l(Jl' - llfl"(l<0CW
El2SIN:l PClllUI POIL ('Sll[ -,S)
SHEET 3 OF3
3036
woodardcurran.com
Woodard
&Curran
3037
MEMO
Date: Project No.: 240208
To:

From:

May 31, 2026
Jarred Olsen- Principal Planner, City of Visalia,
Jaymie L. Brauer, Principal Planner
Subject: Response to Comments for the proposed Clements Ranch Tentative Tract Map 5606 As Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 15000 et seq.), the City of Visalia (City) prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the above referenced Project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. The document was circulated for a 30-day public comment period, which began on May 8, 2026, and will end on Jume 7, 2026.

CEQA guidelines do not require nor provide guidance on responding to comments on an IS/ MND. However, this memo provides information relating to the comments received from the District, and the recommendations contained therein. These project clarifications fall within the scope of the original project analysis included in the IS/MND and do not result in an increase in impacts or any new impacts. No significant new environmental impacts would result from the recommended clarifications below. Therefore, it is our opinion that no substantial issues have been made that would require recirculation of the draft IS/MND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 (Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Certification).

A letter from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) was received by the City on May 12, 2026. Their comments are summarized below, however, the bracketed comment letter is included as Attachment A of this memo. Comments are noted as #1-1 through #1-4 in the bracketed letter.

The following comments and responses are as follows:

1. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Comment #1-1:

The commenter correctly summarized the project description related to the proposed project.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. DTSC is a recognized reviewing agency, and their comments are appreciated. DTSC comments are noted for the record and are a part of the final IS/MND document.

Comment #1-2
The commenter states that the amounts and types of pesticides historically used on the site be identified. Also, soil samples should be taken to determine if petroleum hydrocarbons are found on the site.
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220  Bakersfield, California 93309-1697  Tel (661) 616-2600  Fax (661) 616-5970 www.quadknopf.com 3038
PAGE 2 OF 4
5080 California Avenue, Suite 400  Bakersfield, California 93309-1697  Tel (661) 616-2600  Fax (661) 616-5970 www.quadknopf.com
Response:

DTSC comments are noted for the record and are a part of the final IS/MND document.

As noted in the IS/MND Section (d)- Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) or the EnviroStor (DTSC) lists, and there are no hazardous or toxic sites in the vicinity (within one mile) of the project site.

Although not included in the IS-MND, according to the project applicants, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project in which the potential for agricultural chemicals was evaluated (DR Horton 2026). According to the aerial imagery, portions the subject site have been utilized for agricultural purposes up until approximately 2018. While there is a potential that environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides may have been applied to the crops grown on the subject site, no chemical mixing or chemical storage areas were observed during the site reconnaissance and no material evidence of the use of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides was obtained during the course of this assessment. Also, it is know that pesticides such as DDT have been banned from use since the 1970s.

Therefore, the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to currently exist in the near-surface soils of the subject site appears to be low.

There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment, other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision.

In addition, as noted in Section III (a-c)- Air Quality, the site is relatively flat, and grading of the site will be minimal. The project is anticipated to generate PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions that are well below the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) adopted thresholds during construction.

Additionally, the project will comply with the following measures related to dust control following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues.
• Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions – a series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate the generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the vicinity of the Project. o Rule 8011 – General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
o Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities.

Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions. o Rule 8041 – Carryout and Trackout – requires that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil, or mud that is tracked off-site and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation. o Rule 8051 – Open Areas – limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust. 3039
PAGE 3 OF 4
5080 California Avenue, Suite 400  Bakersfield, California 93309-1697  Tel (661) 616-2600  Fax (661) 616-5970 www.quadknopf.com
The project would comply with the above listed mitigation measures and applicable SJVAPDC regulations during construction, and exposure from potential pesticides in the soil during construction will be minimal.

Once the homes are constructed, there will be little to no areas of exposed dirt that might be dispersed into the air and create a health concern. Impacts remain less than significant, and no further action is warranted.

Based on the analysis presented in the IS/MND prepared for the project and the summary of findings outline herein, impacts remain less than significant, and the City feels that the MND has adequately acknowledged the potential for historic or future activities to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site.

Comment #1-3:

The commenter recommended the proper sampling of soil fill materials should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

Response:

The project does not propose to import fill for use on the site. Additionally, the Phase I conducted concluded that there are no recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs) or historical RECs (HRECs) in conjunction with the project site (DR Horton 2026). It is highly unlikely that any undiscovered material would be uncovered during construction activities. As noted in the IS, structures will be constructed in accordance with all applicable International Building Code (IBC), California Building Code (CBC) standards, and City development standards, relating to soils. Adherence to all applicable regulations would avoid any potential impacts related to uncovered hazardous materials. Impacts remain less than significant, and no further action is necessary.

Comment #1-4:

The commenter recommended DTSC soil testing by DTSC staff should be conducted to ensure that the site soil is free of contamination.

Response:

See Responses #1-2 through #1-3. As previously noted, the Phase I ESA concluded that there are no recognized environmental conditions and the potential for elevated concentrations of environmentally persistent pesticides/herbicides to currently exist in the near-surface soils of the subject site appears to be low. Adherence to all applicable regulations would avoid any potential impacts related to uncovered hazardous materials. Impacts remain less than significant, and no further action is necessary.

References
DR Horton. 2026. "Personal Communication." May 13.
3040
PAGE 4 OF 4
5080 California Avenue, Suite 400  Bakersfield, California 93309-1697  Tel (661) 616-2600  Fax (661) 616-5970 www.quadknopf.com
Attachment AComment Letter Received
3041
dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
May 12, 2026
Jarred Olsen
Principal Planner
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
[email protected]
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CLEMENTS RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5606 DATED MAY 7, 2026, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2026050300
Dear Jarred Olsen,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)For Clements Ranch Tentative Tract Map No. 5606 (Project). The Project site consists of approximately 370 multifamily highdensity units, 153 singlefamily mediumdensity units in a gated community with a Homeowners Association (HOA), and 139 singlefamily lowdensity units in a nongated community, for a total of approximately 662 units. DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. When agricultural crops and/or land uses are proposed or rezoned for residential use, several contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present.

The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring further analysis are dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin. Additionally, any level of arsenic 3042
Jarred Olsen
May 12, 2026

Page 2 ends

present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet approved local area baselines or thresholds. If they do not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds. Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed.

If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required. These recommendations should be adhered to and become part of the environmental document. Please refer to the DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage for the most recent guidance and screening levels.

2. DTSC recommends all imported soil/fill material be tested to ensure all COCs meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Furthermore, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing soil/fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil/fill material, there should be documentation of the origins of the soil/fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil/fill material is suitable for the intended land use.

The sampling should include analysis based on the source of the soil/fill and knowledge of prior land use.

3. The City of Visalia should consider soil testing as mentioned in comment #1.

If, in the event any COC results are above DTSC residential screening levels, DTSC recommends the City of Visalia address the contaminations within the Project area through an Environmental Site Assessment and/or receive oversight from a self-certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. 3043
Jarred Olsen
May 12, 2026

Page 3 ends

Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact the relevant Regional Brownfield Coordinator for your Project.

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Clements Ranch Tentative Tract Map No. 5606. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
3044
Jarred Olsen
May 12, 2026

Page 4 ends

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Jaymie L. Brauer
Principal Planner
QK, Inc. / Consulting Firm
[email protected]
Aman Kaur Narwal
Forward Planner
D.R. Horton / Project Applicant
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Analyst II
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
Project Description

Clements Ranch TTM No. 5606 May 2026
City of Visalia Page 2-6

Figure 2-3 IV Project Site Location
3069
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia Administration
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 26-0018 Agenda Date: 7/20/2026 Agenda #: 1.

Agenda Item Wording:

Upcoming City Council Meetings
Monday, August 3, 2026 @ 7:00 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia
Monday, August 17, 2026 @ 7:00 p.m. at 707 W. Acequia
Note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change, check posted agenda for correct details. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in meetings contact 713-4512.

Written materials relating to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda are available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, 220 N. Santa Fe Street, Visalia CA 93292, during normal business hours.

Visalia City Council Page 1 of 1 Printed on 7/14/2026
powered by Legistar™3070

Visalia City CouncilJuly 20, 2026

Visalia City Council
July 20, 2026