Visalia City Council
November 20, 2023

Capacity Manual 2010 and 2000 methodology were utilized for the analysis.

Caltrans acknowledges that this TIS was conducted in 2019 when the new versions of Synchro and HCM methodology had not yet been upgraded. If the TIS is updated, it is requested that the latest version of Synchro and HCM be used.

Response B/14
Comment noted.

Comment B/15
Please clarify the statement on Page 147, paragraph 3.8, Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange, Alternatives 1 and 2 Traffic Conditions, as stated, “Alternative 1 encompasses the elimination of Mineral King Avenue from Tower Street …”.

Response B/15
As noted in Section 3.8 (first paragraph) on Page 147 of the TIS, study area intersections were evaluated considering the elimination of Mineral King Avenue between Tower Street and Road 152 with the implementation of the Tower Street interchange. This represents conditions at study area intersections under the Alternative 1 scenario.

Comment B/16
Caltrans predicts that the elimination of Mineral King Avenue at this location will disrupt the east-west circulation on this frontage road. Additionally, the main purpose of the new interchange is to provide 464
accessibility and continuous flow of traffic at this location for both north-south (Tower Street) as well as eastwest (Mineral King Avenue) movements.

Response B/16
Comment noted. As noted in Section 3.8 (first paragraph) on Page 147 of the TIS, study area intersections were evaluated considering the elimination of Mineral King Avenue between Tower Street and Road 152 with the implementation of the Tower Street interchange. This represents conditions at study area intersections under the Alternative 1 scenario. The TIS also includes an evaluation of Horizon Year conditions with the Tower Street interchange and Mineral King Avenue between Tower Street and Road 152 (See Section 3.7 on Page 123).

Comment B/17
Please clarify the statement on page 147, paragraph 3.8, as stated ‘Villoy Avenue will terminate at the cul-desac to the west of Tower Street …”, however, the figures (with Tower Street interchange scenarios) show Villoy Avenue intersecting with Tower Street as location #23.

Response B/17
As noted in Section 3.8 (second paragraph) on Page 147 of the TIS, study area intersections were evaluated considering the termination of Villoy Avenue just west of Tower Street (cul-de-sac). This represents conditions at study area intersections under the Alternative 2 scenario. Figures 3-40b, 3-41b, 3-42a, 3-42b, 3-42c depicts a T-Intersection for intersection #23.

Comment B/18
Figures 3-30b, 3-32b, 3-34b, 3-34c, 3-36b, 3-37b, 3-38b, 3-38c, 3-40b, 3-41b, 3-42a, 3-42b, 3-42c shows Tower Street at the new interchange, with intersection locations # 26 & #27, having 3 through-lanes in each direction.

Tower Street was originally proposed to be a 4-lane divided roadway throughout the area. Please note that Tower Street north of the future interchange is shown as 4-lane divided street. Would a 6-lane configuration for Tower Street at the interchange be needed? Please be aware that the bridge structure would also need to be widened for 6-lanes.

Response B/18
Comment noted. The preliminary Tower Street interchange configuration showed three travel lanes in each direction with a transition to two travel lanes in each direction just north of the interchange. Results of the Horizon Year analysis (With the Project) shows that three travel lanes in each direction at the Tower Street interchange would achieve LOS A/B conditions at ramp intersections and LOS C conditions along Tower Street at the interchange (V/C less than 0.17). A V/C ratio less than 0.85 generally indicates that adequate capacity is available, and vehicles are not expected to experience significant queues and delays. Therefore, it can be presumed that two travel lanes in each direction at the interchange would, in all likelihood, meet acceptable levels of service.

Comment B/19
Alternative transportation policies should be applied to the development. An assessment of multi-modal facilities should be conducted to develop an integrated multi-modal transportation system to serve and help alleviate traffic congestion caused by the Project and related development in this area of the City or County.

The assessment should include the following:
465
a. Pedestrian walkways should link this Project to transit facilities, bicycle pathways and other walkways in the surrounding area.
b. Coordinating connections to local and regional bicycle pathways should be done to further encourage the use of bicycles for commuter and recreational purposes. c. Transit service and bus stop accommodations should be extended to within ¼ mile of the Project site.

Response B/19
As the Project is developed, multi-modal feature service needs such as a bus stop, pedestrian pathways, and bicycle pathways will be implemented.

Comment B/20
Caltrans recommends the Project implement “smart growth” principles regarding parking solutions, providing alternative transportation choices to residents and employees. Alternative transportation choices may include but are not limited to parking for carpools/vanpools, car-share and/or ride-share programs.

Response B/20
The Project will evaluate and potentially implement smart growth features such as parking solutions and carshare and/or ride-share programs during the design phase.

Comment B/21
Based on Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, dated May 20, 2020, and effective as of July 1, 2020, Caltrans seeks to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, provide a safe transportation system, reduce per capita VMT, increase accessibility to destinations via cycling, walking, carpooling, transit and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Caltrans recommends that the Project proponent continue to work with the City or County to further implement improvements to reduce VMT and offer a variety of transportation modes for its residents.

Response B/21
Comment noted.
466
Letter C – California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (March 28, 2023 – Received after Comment Period closed on March 20, 2023) CDFW Letter C Comments and City Responses
Comment C/1
The DEIR indicates in Bio-5 that pre-construction surveys will be performed to evaluate the Project site for SWHA. CDFW is concerned that this will not be sufficient in detecting SWHA and adequately determining presence/absence of the species. CDFW recommends a qualified wildlife biologist conduct surveys for nesting SWHA following the entire survey methodology developed by the SWHA Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000) prior to Project implementation (during CEQA analysis). CDFW recommends that results of protocol-level surveys for SWHA be included in the Final EIR (FEIR) for the Project.

CDFW also recommends that if any activity will take place during the SWHA nesting season (March 1 through September 15), and active SWHA nests are present, a minimum ½-mile no-disturbance buffer be delineated and maintained around each nest, regardless of when it was detected by surveys or incidentally, until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, to prevent nest abandonment and other take of SWHA as a result of Project activities.

SWHA detection warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take or, if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to ground disturbing activities, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).

Response C/1
Numerous biological surveys have been conducted by Live Oak Associates (LOA) in the Project vicinity, including protocol level SWHA surveys, the most recent of which was completed for the Visalia Basin G Project in March 2023. No foraging SWHAs or SWHA nests were ever observed on or within 0.5 miles of the Project site or larger vicinity during these surveys. Based on these surveys, the City maintains that there is a low probability of SWHA nesting on or within 0.5 miles of the Project site and that preconstruction surveys out to

0.5 miles and avoidance or active nests are reasonable measures to assure a less than significant impact to SWHAs and avoid Project “Take” of SWHAs.

Since BIO-5a of the DEIR MMRP only stipulates preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and raptors be conducted out to 500 ft, the City will extend this distance to 0.5 miles for the SHWA, as that is CDFWs recommended buffer around an active SWHA nest and is the survey area recommended by the SWHA Technical Advisory Committee. This modification to MM BIO-5a does not constitute “significant new information” within the scope of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), and nothing further is required.

Recommendations by LOA in the response to CDFW Comment 3: General Comments, below, would satisfy CDFW concerns about consulting CDFW if SWHA nesting is detected during surveys.

Comment C/2
The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) determined that listing four bumble bee species “may be warranted” on June 12, 2019, advancing all four species to candidacy. The Commission’s determination was challenged in court soon after, and candidacy was stayed during much of the ensuing litigation. A California court of appeal ultimately upheld the Commission’s determination, and the state 467
Supreme Court declined to review the case. On September 30, 2022, the court of appeal issued remittitur in the litigation, which had the legal effect of reinstating candidacy for all four bumble bee species.

As of September 30, 2022, CBB, Franklin’s bumble bee, Western bumble bee, and Suckley’s Cuckoo bumble bee are again candidate species under CESA and as such, receive the same legal protection afforded to an endangered or threatened species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.2 & 2085). It is illegal to import, export, take (hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt engage in any of these activities), possess, purchase, or sell the four candidate bumble bee species or any part or product thereof (Fish & G. Code, §§ 86, 2080, 2085).

The DEIR does not mention any evaluation done for CBB. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records indicate that CBB have the potential to occur in the Project vicinity (CDFW 2023). Suitable CBB habitat includes areas of grasslands and upland scrub that contain requisite habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows. CBB primarily nest in late February through late October underground in abandoned small mammal burrows but may also nest under perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, under brush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs (Williams et al. 2014; Hatfield et al. 2015). Overwintering sites utilized by CBB mated queens include soft, disturbed soil (Goulson 2010), or under leaf litter or other debris (Williams et al. 2014). Therefore, potential ground disturbance and vegetation removal associated with Project implementation may significantly impact local CBB populations. While the land on the Project site and its adjacent plots are mostly active agricultural lands, to the west of the Project site are patches of ruderal grassland habitat. CDFW recommends the City of Visalia assess these habitat areas near the Project area for potentially suitable CBB habitat. If suitable CBB habitat exists in areas of planned Project-related ground disturbance, equipment staging, or materials laydown, potential CBB nesting sites in these areas would have to be avoided with a 50-foot no disturbance buffer to reduce to less-than-significant the Project-related impacts to the species.

CBB detection warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take or, if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire an ITP prior to ground disturbing activities, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).

Response C/2
As CDFW has stated in its comment, there has been much discussion regarding the Candidate listing status of the CBB. At the time of LOA’s analyses, the CBB was not officially a State Candidate species and impacts to this species were not addressed in LOA’s biological reports.

The CNDDB records show a single report of this species occurring in the Visalia area (CDFW 2023). This record describes collections of this species from over 50 years ago in 1954 and 1961. Exact locations of these collections are unknown and generally mapped as Visalia.

In its comment above, CDFW describes suitable habitat for this species as areas of grasslands and upland scrub that contain requisite habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows. CDFW acknowledges that these habitats are absent from the Project site but appear to be concerned with Project impacts to potential habitat outside the Project APE that may result in harm to individual CBB. In reviewing current and historical aerial photography back to 1956, as well as recent SWHA surveys for the Visalia Basin G Project that included the entire Eastside Regional Park Project APE, suitable habitat for CBB is absent from the Project site and immediately surrounding lands. Furthermore, the entire Project APE and surrounding lands have provided unsuitable habitat for the CBB since at least 1956, as observed on historic aerial photos of the area, as these lands have been used for agricultural and/or commercial uses during this time.

The City has no plans to impact lands outside the Project APE and would, therefore, not be impacting CBB habitat or individual CBB that CDFW believes may be present on nearby lands. 468
As a result, the City concludes that the Project would have no impact on CBB habitat or individuals.

Comment C/3
Bio-3b states: “Take” of listed (rare, threatened, or endangered) is prohibited. If a listed species is observed within the Project area, the biologist will stop work and contact the appropriate regulatory agency (CDFW and/or USFWS) for guidance on how to proceed.” Meanwhile Bio-6 states: “On discovery of any active nests or listed species near work areas, the biologist shall determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question.” Both of these measures are predicated on the discovery of a listed species on the worksite. Bio-3b indicates that all work will be stopped while Bio-6 appears to indicate that work will continue with construction setback distances. These measures are in conflict with one another and CDFW recommends resolution of the conflicting measures Bio3b, Bio-6 and Bio-7 and clearly indicating in the FEIR what the process of construction activities will be upon potential listed species discovery.

CDFW also recommends that adequate protocol-level surveys are conducted for sensitive biological species so that adequate permits can be acquired prior to construction in order to mitigate the risk of potential take of listed species. As proposed, the Project has not had appropriate, protocol-level surveys conducted for species and is assuming risk to listed species that would result in unauthorized take, a significant impact that cannot be mitigated.

Response C/3
The City agrees with CDFW’s comment on the inconsistencies in the language within MMs BIO-3b, BIO-6, and BIO-7 of the DEIR MMRP pertaining to procedures in the event a listed species is discovered during preconstruction or monitoring surveys, or by a worker during construction.

To rectify this, the language of MM BIO-3b will be modified. The current language of MM BIO-3b allows a qualified biologist to determine appropriate avoidance measures for listed species potentially found on or near the site during preconstruction surveys. This will be changed to include a requirement that the Project will contact the appropriate regulatory agency (CDFW and/or USFWS) for guidance on appropriate avoidance measures if a listed species is observed within or near the Project area during preconstruction surveys. This change would provide a consistent approach to procedures stated in all the measures of the MMRP concerning the potential observation of a listed species.

CDFW is also concerned with the inadequacy of protocol-level surveys for sensitive species so that appropriate permits can be issued, if needed, prior to construction. The only sensitive species with any potential to occur on or near the site that would also require a permit for potential Project impacts are the SWHA and tricolored blackbird, as these are State-listed species. Tricolored blackbird breeding habitat is absent from the Project site, as determined through numerous LOA surveys of the site. However, MM BIO-5 has conservatively included the tricolored blackbird in the list of species to be included in preconstruction surveys. MM BIO-5a will be modified to expressly As previously stated in the SWHA response above, protocol SWHA surveys have been recently completed for the Visalia Basin G Project. This survey incidentally covered the entire Eastside Regional Park Project site and surrounding lands mostly out to 0.5 miles surrounding the site.

Not only were SWHAs not observed, but other sensitive species including the tricolored blackbird were also not observed.

Past survey results, as well as the preconstruction surveys and other measures proposed in the MMRP, as amended per LOAs recommendations, would adequately protect the Project from the risk of Take of a listed species.
469

4. FEIR Revisions to the DEIR
The following revisions to the Draft EIR are made as a result of public comments and/or responses to those comments.

Section 3.4.4 a) on Page 3-59 is revised as shown below:
• BIO-5 (Pre-construction Survey)
• A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys specific to the following species:

Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, northern harrier, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, palled bat, western mastiff bat, and American badger. • BIO -5a Nesting Birds:
• If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), the survey shall include the proposed work area and surrounding lands within 0.5 miles for Swainson’s hawk and within 500 feet for all other nesting birds. • If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required. • Raptor nests are considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. • All other nests are considered “active” by the presence of eggs or young.

Table 6-1: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program on Page 6-5 is revised as shown below:

BIO – 5a: Nesting Birds
• If activities must occur within nesting bird
season (February 1 to August 31), the survey
shall include the proposed work area and
surrounding lands within 0.5 miles for
Swainson’s hawk and within 500 feet for all
other nesting birds.
• If no active nests are observed, no further
mitigation is required.
• Raptor nests are considered “active” upon the
nest-building stage.
• All other nests are considered “active” by the
presence of eggs or young.

Section 3.4.4 a) on Page 3-58 is revised as shown below:
▪ BIO-3b:
o Workers shall inspect areas beneath parked vehicles prior to mobilization. If special status species are detected beneath vehicles, the individual will either be allowed to leave of its own volition or will be captured by the qualified biologist (must possess appropriate collecting/handling permits) and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat beyond the influence of the Project work area.
o “Take” of listed (rare, threatened, or endangered) is prohibited. If a listed species is observed within the Project area, the biologist will stop work and contact the appropriate regulatory agency (CDFW and/or USFWS) for guidance on how to proceed appropriate avoidance 470
measures if a listed species is observed within or near the Project area during preconstruction surveys.

Table 6-1: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program on Page 6-3 through 6-4 is revised as shown below:

BIO – 3b: Best Management Practices (BMPs)
• Workers shall inspect areas beneath parked
vehicles prior to mobilization. If special status
species are detected beneath vehicles, the
individual will either be allowed to leave of its
own volition or will be captured by the
qualified biologist (must possess appropriate
collecting/handling permits) and relocated out
of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat
beyond the influence of the Project work area.
• “Take” of listed (rare, threatened, or
endangered) is prohibited. If a listed species
is observed within the Project area, the
biologist will stop work and contact the
appropriate regulatory agency (CDFW and/or
USFWS) for guidance on how to proceed
appropriate avoidance measures if a listed
species is observed within or near the Project
area during preconstruction surveys.

Section 3.16.5 on Page 3-167 is revised as shown below:
• TR-16 - Lovers Lane and Mineral King Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 100 feet to 325 feet the maximum feasible distance (approximately 250 feet).
• In the southbound left‐turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 175 feet to 225 feet. • In the westbound left-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 150 feet to 325 feet.

Table 6-1: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program on Page 6-17 is revised as shown below:

TR-16 - Lovers Lane and Mineral King Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 100 feet to 325 feet the
maximum allowable distance (approximately
250 feet).
• In the southbound left‐turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 175 feet to 225 feet.
• In the westbound left-turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 150 feet to 325 feet.

Attachment A found in Chapter 6 of this Final EIR is added to the Draft EIR as Appendix S.

Attachment B found in Chapter 6 of this Final EIR is appended to Appendix M of the Draft EIR. 471
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park &
Groundwater Recharge Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2014121076
Visalia, California
February 2023
Prepared for:

City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291
472
Report Prepared for:

City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia Ave
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact:

Rebecca Keenan, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
(559) 713-4541
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
400 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact:

Rick Darnley, Project Manager
(559) 636-1166
Project Team Members
Dawn E. Marple, Principal Planner
Mary E. Beatie, Senior Planner Emeritus
Jeffrey O’Neal, AICP, Senior Planner, QA/QC
Jarred Olsen, AICP, Associate Planner
Amy Wilson, Associate Planner
Ryan McKelvey, Assistant Planner
Kaitlin Palys, Associate Water Resources Specialist
Matt Klinchuch, PE, Project Engineer
Randy Hopkins, PE, Recharge Basin Engineer
Richard Moss, PE, Water Rights Specialist
Jason Thomas, GIS Specialist
Jackie Lancaster, Project Administrator
COPYRIGHT 2023 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
473
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Objectives for the Project.............................................................................................................................ES-1 ES.3 Project and Alternatives Summary..............................................................................................................ES-1 ES.4 Public Involvement Process.........................................................................................................................ES-2 ES.4.1 Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR .....................................................................................ES-2 ES.4.2 Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and Public Review Period......................................ES-2 ES.5 Summary of Impacts.....................................................................................................................................ES-2 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.................................................................................1-1

1.2 Content of the DEIR.......................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Organization of the DEIR ..............................................................................................................................1-1

1.4 Use of the DEIR...............................................................................................................................................1-2

1.5 Public Involvement...........................................................................................................................................1-2

1.5.1 Notice of Preparation of the DEIR................................................................................................1-2

1.5.2 Notice of Availability and Distribution of the DEIR..................................................................1-2

1.6 FEIR ...................................................................................................................................................................1-3 2 Project Description................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location and Boundaries...................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Project Components.........................................................................................................................................2-2

2.3.1 Groundwater Recharge and Storm Water Layoff Basins............................................................2-2

2.3.2 Regional Park Amenities...................................................................................................................2-2

2.3.3 Access and Roadways........................................................................................................................2-1

2.3.4 Annexation and Land Use Approvals ............................................................................................2-2

2.3.5 Site Plan Review.................................................................................................................................2-2

2.3.6 Construction Phasing ........................................................................................................................2-3

2.3.7 Early Approvals..................................................................................................................................2-3 3 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics...........................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ..............................................................................................................................3-2

3.1.3 Photos of the Project Site and Vicinity ..........................................................................................3-4 474
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ii

3.1.4 Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................ 3-13

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................................................ 3-14

3.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 3-14

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-16

3.2.3 Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................... 3-19

3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................ 3-20

3.3 Air Quality....................................................................................................................................................... 3-21

3.3.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 3-21

3.3.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 3-30

3.3.3 Criteria for Significance.................................................................................................................. 3-30

3.3.4 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-31

3.3.5 Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................... 3-38

3.3.6 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................ 3-42

3.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................................... 3-43

3.4.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 3-43

3.4.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 3-44

3.4.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-44

3.4.4 Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................... 3-50

3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................ 3-60

3.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................................... 3-62

3.5.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 3-62

3.5.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 3-62

3.5.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-63

3.5.4 Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................... 3-67

3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................ 3-68

3.6 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................................................... 3-70

3.6.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 3-70

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-74

3.6.3 Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................... 3-76

3.6.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................ 3-78

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................................................... 3-79

3.7.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 3-79

3.7.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 3-79

3.7.3 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-80 475
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 iii

3.7.4 Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................... 3-85

3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................ 3-86

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................................................... 3-87

3.8.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 3-88

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-88

3.8.3 Impact Assessment......................................................................................................................... 3-90

3.8.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................ 3-91

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3-92

3.9.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 3-93

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3-95

3.9.3 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-100

3.9.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-105

3.10 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................................... 3-106

3.10.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 3-106

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-106

3.10.3 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-108

3.10.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-109

3.11 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................................ 3-110

3.11.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 3-110

3.11.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-110

3.11.3 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-113

3.11.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-113

3.12 Noise.............................................................................................................................................................. 3-114

3.12.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 3-114

3.12.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 3-116

3.12.3 Noise Fundamentals..................................................................................................................... 3-116

3.12.4 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-120

3.12.5 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-121

3.12.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-129

3.13 Population and Housing............................................................................................................................. 3-130

3.13.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 3-130

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-130

3.13.3 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-131

3.13.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-131

3.14 Public Services.............................................................................................................................................. 3-132 476
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 iv

3.14.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 3-132

3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-134

3.14.3 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-140

3.14.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-141

3.15 Recreation ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-142

3.15.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 3-142

3.15.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-143

3.15.3 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-144

3.15.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-144

3.16 Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................................................... 3-145

3.16.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 3-145

3.16.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................. 3-146

3.16.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-155

3.16.4 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-156

3.16.5 Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................... 3-158

3.16.6 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-170

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................................................................... 3-171

3.17.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................. 3-171

3.17.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-173

3.17.3 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................................... 3-176

3.17.4 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................... 3-178 4 Analysis of the Alternatives..................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Alternatives to be Analyzed ............................................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Alternative 1........................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2.2 Alternative 2........................................................................................................................................4-4

4.2.3 No Project Alternative ......................................................................................................................4-4

4.2.4 Project..................................................................................................................................................4-4

4.3 Comparative Impact Analysis of Alternatives..............................................................................................4-4

4.3.1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................4-4

4.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................................4-5

4.3.3 Air Quality...........................................................................................................................................4-6

4.3.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................................4-6

4.3.5 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................4-7

4.3.6 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................................4-7 477
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 v

4.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................................4-8

4.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................................................4-8

4.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ..........................................................................................................4-9

4.3.10 Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................................. 4-10

4.3.11 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................... 4-10

4.3.12 Noise................................................................................................................................................. 4-11

4.3.13 Population and Housing................................................................................................................ 4-11

4.3.14 Public Services................................................................................................................................. 4-12

4.3.15 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................ 4-12

4.3.16 Transportation................................................................................................................................. 4-13

4.3.17 Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................................... 4-13

4.4 Alternative Determination............................................................................................................................ 4-14 5 Other Mandatory CEQA Sections......................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Organizations and Persons Consulted ..........................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Agencies...............................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Other Persons.....................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.3 List of Preparers.................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.4 Subconsultants....................................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects..................................................................................5-2

5.3 Growth Inducement.........................................................................................................................................5-1

5.3.1 Growth Inducement Potential.........................................................................................................5-1 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program................................................................................................6-1 Appendix A. NOP..........................................................................................................................................................A-1 Appendix B. Site Plan Review Comments..................................................................................................................B-1 Appendix C. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment......................................................................C-1 Appendix D. Biological Evaluation ............................................................................................................................D-1 Appendix E. Jurisdictional Delineation.......................................................................................................................E-1 Appendix F. Valley Oak Memo....................................................................................................................................F-1 Appendix G. Cultural Resources Information..........................................................................................................G-1 Appendix H. Historical Study...................................................................................................................................... H-1 Appendix I. Paleontological Technical Memorandum..............................................................................................I-1 Appendix J. Technicon Repo.........................................................................................................................................J-1 Appendix K. H&H Analysis and Grading................................................................................................................. K-1 Appendix L. Noise..........................................................................................................................................................L-1 Appendix M. Traffic......................................................................................................................................................M-1 478
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 vi Appendix N. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis............................................................................................N-1 Appendix O. Lighting Analysis....................................................................................................................................O-1 Appendix P. Alternative Assessment........................................................................................................................... P-1 Appendix Q. Early Approval MNDs.........................................................................................................................Q-1 Appendix R. Tulare County Cumulative Project List ...............................................................................................R-1 List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map...............................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2. Project Study Boundary Map.....................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3. Proposed Stormwater and Recharge Basins Map...................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-4. 1937 Aerial Photo of Mill Creek ...............................................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-5. Concept B1 - Project...................................................................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-6. City of Visalia General Plan Map..............................................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-7. City of Visalia Zoning Map as of December 23, 2014 ....................................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-8. County of Tulare Zoning Map as of December 23, 2014.................................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-9. Construction Phasing............................................................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 3-1. Villoy Avenue looking East .......................................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-2. Road 152 looking West...............................................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-3. Road 152 looking Southwest.....................................................................................................................3-5 Figure 3-4. Road 152 at Packwood Creek....................................................................................................................3-5 Figure 3-5. Road 152 at Packwood Creek....................................................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-6. Road 152 at Oaks Ditch.............................................................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-7. Road 152 at Oaks Ditch.............................................................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-8. Road 152 at Mill Creek ...............................................................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-9. Road 152 at Mill Creek ...............................................................................................................................3-8 Figure 3-10. Road 152 north of Mill Creek looking West.........................................................................................3-8 Figure 3-11. Avenue 216 looking south along Tower Road .....................................................................................3-9 Figure 3-12. Villoy Avenue at Powerline Easement looking South.........................................................................3-9 Figure 3-13. Villoy Avenue looking North at Powerline Easement..................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-14. Project Light Glare Analysis................................................................................................................. 3-12 Figure 3-15. Farmland Designation Map.................................................................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-16. FEMA Flood Zones............................................................................................................................ 3-104 Figure 3-17. Mineral Resource Zone Designation................................................................................................. 3-112 Figure 3-18. Sensitive Receiver Boundary vs. On-Site Noise Sources............................................................... 3-124 479
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 vii Figure 3-19. Sound Wall Location ........................................................................................................................... 3-125 Figure 3-20. Intersections and Road Segments Studied ....................................................................................... 3-149 Figure 3-21. Project Peak Hour Trip Distribution without Tower Street Interchange................................... 3-153 Figure 3-22. Project Peak Trip Distribution with Tower Street Interchange.................................................... 3-154 Figure -1. Alternative 1 Conceptual Site Plan .............................................................................................................4-3 List of Tables
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................ES-4 Table 3-1. Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. Environmental lighting zone.......................................................................................................................3-3 Table 3-3. Maximum values for intensity of luminaires in designated directions .................................................3-3 Table 3-4. Agriculture and Forest Resources........................................................................................................... 3-14 Table 3-5. Air Quality................................................................................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-6. Maximum Pollutant Level Proximate to Project .................................................................................. 3-23 Table 3-7. Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources........................................................................................ 3-29 Table 3-8. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards......................................................................................... 3-34 Table 3-9. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................... 3-37 Table 3-10. Maximum Unmitigated Project Construction Related Emissions................................................... 3-40 Table 3-11. Maximum Unmitigated Project Operation-Related Net Emissions................................................ 3-40 Table 3-12. Biological Resources................................................................................................................................ 3-43 Table 3-13. List of Special Status Plant Species that could occur in the Project Vicinity ................................. 3-51 Table 3-14. List of Special Status Animal Species that could occur in the Project Vicinity ............................. 3-52 Table 3-15. Potential Impacts to Waters of U.S. ..................................................................................................... 3-58 Table 3-16. Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................... 3-62 Table 3-17. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................................... 3-70 Table 3-18. Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................................... 3-79 Table 3-19. Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 3-85 Table 3-20. Phase 1, 2, and 3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................. 3-85 Table 3-21. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................ 3-87 Table 3-22. Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................................ 3-92 Table 3-23. Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................................... 3-106 Table 3-24. Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................................. 3-110 Table 3-25. Noise........................................................................................................................................................ 3-114 Table 3-26. Noise Receiver Locations..................................................................................................................... 3-115 480
City of Visalia
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 viii Table 3-27. Existing Traffic Noise Contours......................................................................................................... 3-115 Table 3-28. City of Visalia - Noise Level Standards.............................................................................................. 3-121 Table 3-29. Typical Construction Equipment Noise ............................................................................................ 3-122 Table 3-30. On-Site Noise Source Impacts............................................................................................................ 3-123 Table 3-31. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.................................................................... 3-127 Table 3-32. Population and Housing....................................................................................................................... 3-130 Table 3-33. Public Services........................................................................................................................................ 3-132 Table 3-34. Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 3-142 Table 3-35. Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 3-145 Table 3-36. General Plan Target LOS by Intersection ......................................................................................... 3-150 Table 3-37. Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................................ 3-171 Table 4-1. Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Project and the Project Alternatives.............. 4-14 Table 6-1. Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program.......................................................................................6-2 481
Acronyms and Abbreviations
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ix Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB ................................................................................................................................................................Assembly Bill AE ...........................................................................................................................................Applied Earthworks, Inc.

AFV ............................................................................................................................................Alternative Fuel Vehicles AHERA.....................................................................................................Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act AMSL..............................................................................................................................................Above Mean Sea Level APCD .................................................................................................................................Air Pollution Control District APE ..............................................................................................................................................Area of Potential Effect APS .....................................................................................................................................Alternative Planning Strategy AQAP...................................................................................................................................Air Quality Attainment Plan AQMD..........................................................................................................................Air Quality Management District AQP ............................................................................................................................................................Air Quality Plan ASCE ......................................................................................................................American Society of Civil Engineers AST ..................................................................................................................................... Aboveground Storage Tanks BA .................................................................................................................................................Biological Assessment BAU ........................................................................................................................................................Business As Usual BE .................................................................................................................................................. Biological Evaluation BGS ............................................................................................................................................... Below Ground Surface BMP ........................................................................................................................................Best Management Practices BPS ......................................................................................................................................Best Performance Standards CAA ................................................................................................................................................................Clean Air Act CAAQS..........................................................................................................California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAL FIRE.............................................................................California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention CalGreen ........................................................................................................................California Green Building Code Cal/OSHA...................................................................... California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod .........................................................................................................California Emissions Estimator Model CAFE.........................................................................................................................Corporate Average Fuel Economy Caltrans.......................................................................................................... California Department of Transportation CAP .................................................................................................................................................... Climate Action Plan CARB...............................................................................................................................California Air Resources Board CBC ............................................................................................................................................California Building Code CDFW ........................................................................................................California Department of Fish and Wildlife CESA .........................................................................................................................California Endangered Species Act CFR ......................................................................................................................................Code of Federal Regulations 482
Acronyms and Abbreviations
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 x
CGP .....................................................................................................................................Construction General Permit CGS ......................................................................................................................................California Geological Survey CHRIS .........................................................................................California Historical Resources Information System CIE .............................................................................................................International Commission on Illumination City ............................................................................................................................................................... City of Visalia CLOMR...................................................................................................................Conditional Letter of Map Revision CNDDB.............................................................................................................. California Natural Diversity Database CNPS ................................................................................................................................California Native Plant Society CO ........................................................................................................................................................Carbon Monoxide COS ...............................................................................................................................................College of the Sequoias County ...........................................................................................................................................................Tulare County CPUC..................................................................................................................California Public Utilities Commission CRHR ..........................................................................................................California Register of Historical Resources CVP ..................................................................................................................................................Central Valley Project CWA ..........................................................................................................................................................Clean Water Act dB .......................................................................................................................................................................... decibels DEIR ..................................................................................................................... Draft Environmental Impact Report DOC .................................................................................................................California Department of Conservation DOT...................................................................................................... (United States) Department of Transportation DTSC..........................................................................................California Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR...........................................................................................................California Department of Water Resources EA ........................................................................................................................................Environmental Assessment EB ......................................................................................................................................................................eastbound EIR .................................................................................................................................. Environmental Impact Report EPA ........................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EPAct...............................................................................................................................The Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPCA......................................................................................................................Energy Policy and Conservation Act ESA .............................................................................................................................................Endangered Species Act ESA ................................................................................................................................Environmental Site Assessment FEIR ....................................................................................................................... Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA............................................................................................................ Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA.......................................................................................................................... Federal Highway Administration FIRM........................................................................................................................................Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP......................................................................................................Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FPPA...............................................................................................................................Farmland Protection Policy Act 483
Acronyms and Abbreviations
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 xi FT .................................................................................................................................................................................Feet Gal .......................................................................................................................................................................... Gallons GC .......................................................................................................................................................Government Code GHG......................................................................................................................................................... Greenhouse Gas GIS ...............................................................................................................................Geographic Information System GP .................................................................................................................................................................General Plan HAP ........................................................................................................................................... Hazardous Air Pollutants HDM............................................................................................................................................Highway Design Manual HSC .............................................................................................................................................. Health and Safety Code Hz ............................................................................................................................................................................... hertz IDDE........................................................................................................ Illicit Discharge Detection And Elimination In/sec.......................................................................................................................................................inches per second IPaC ......................(United States Fish and Wildlife Service) Information for Planning and Consultation system IS ...................................................................................................................................................................Initial Study IS/MND..................................................................................................Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ISR ...............................................................................................................................................Indirect Source Review ITE ......................................................................................................................Institute of Transportation Engineers KDWCD....................................................................................................Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District km ......................................................................................................................................................................kilometers KSJRA ..........................................................................................................Kaweah and St. John’s Rivers Association LAFCo.................................................................................................................Local Agency Formation Commission Ldn ............................................................................................................................. Day/Night Average Sound Level LF .......................................................................................................................................................................linear feet LOS ............................................................................................................................................................Level of Service MBTA.......................................................................................................................................Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEIR...................................................................................................................Master Environmental Impact Report mgd ................................................................................................................................................ million gallons per day MJLHMP............................................................................................Multi-Jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan MMRP ..................................................................................................Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMT....................................................................................................................................................Million Metric Tons MND................................................................................................................................Mitigated Negative Declaration MPF .................................................................................................................................................Multi-Purpose Facility MPO........................................................................................................................Metropolitan Planning Organization MOU...............................................................................................................................memorandum of understanding MRZ...............................................................................................................................................Mineral Resource Zone 484
Acronyms and Abbreviations
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 xii MS4 ..............................................................................................................(Small) Municipal Separate Storm Systems MTCO2e .........................................................................................................Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAAQS...........................................................................................................National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA......................................................................... Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC ..............................................................................................................Native American Heritage Commission ND ...................................................................................................................................................Negative Declaration NEPA.......................................................................................................................National Environmental Policy Act NFIP .........................................................................................................................National Flood Insurance Program NFPA.....................................................................................................................National Fire Protection Association NHPA........................................................................................................................National Historic Preservation Act NOA................................................................................................................................................. Notice of Availability NOI ........................................................................................................................................................... Notice of Intent NOC ................................................................................................................................................Notice of Completion NOP................................................................................................................................................. Notice of Preparation NOS ........................................................................................................................................................Notice of Scoping NO2 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................nitrogen dioxide NOx .............................................................................................................................................................nitrogen oxides NPDES............................................................................................National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS...............................................................................................................Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP......................................................................................................................National Register of Historic Places NTU...................................................................................................................................Nephelometric Turbidity Unit NWP ......................................................................................................................................Nationwide General Permit OHP.................................................................................................................................Office of Historic Preservation O3 ............................................................................................................................................................................. ozone OPR .............................................................................................................................. Office of Planning and Research QP ................................................................................................................................................................. Quasi-Public Pb ................................................................................................................................................................................. lead PBDB..............................................................................................................................................Paleobiology Database PM10 ......................................................................................................................Particulate Matter 10 Microns In Size PM2.5 ....................................................................................................................Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns In Size ppb ............................................................................................................................................................ parts per billion ppm ........................................................................................................................................................... parts per million PPV ..................................................................................................................................................Peak Particle Velocity PRC ............................................................................................................................................... Public Resources Code PRD ................................................................................................................................Permit Registration Documents 485
Acronyms and Abbreviations
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 xiii Project..............................................................................East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project RHNA......................................................................................................................Regional Housing Needs Allocation ROG..............................................................................................................................................Reactive Organic Gases RTP ....................................................................................................................................Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB .............................................................................................................Regional Water Quality Control Board SB ......................................................................................................................................................................Senate Bill SCAQMD .............................................................................................South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE ..................................................................................................................... Southern California Edison Company SCH ..................................................................................................................................................... State Clearinghouse SCS ............................................................................................................................ Sustainable Communities Strategy SDC ............................................................................................................................................ Seismic Design Category SGMA.......................................................................................................Sustainasble Groundwater Management Act SHPO.........................................................................................................................State Historic Preservation Officer SIP .........................................................................................................................................State Implementation Plan SJVAB.................................................................................................................................. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD........................................................................................ San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SJVCEO...............................................................................................San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization SLAMS..............................................................................................................State and Local Air Monitoring Stations SMARA .................................................................................................................Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SOC ................................................................................................................. Statement of Overriding Considerations SoCalGas...................................................................................................................Southern California Gas Company SO2 ................................................................................................................................................................sulfur dioxide SOx ...................................................................................................................................................................sulfur oxide SPL ..................................................................................................................................................Sound Pressure Level SR ....................................................................................................................................................................State Route SSJVIC..............................................................................................Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SWANCC............................................................................................Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County SWMP........................................................................................................................................ Storm Water Master Plan SWPPP.............................................................................................................. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB.................................................................................................................State Water Resources Control Board TAC .............................................................................................................................................Toxic Air Contaminants TCAG.......................................................................................................Tulare County Association of Governments TCEHSD..............................................................................Tulare County Environmental Health Services Division TCR .............................................................................................................................. Transportation Concept Reports TID ............................................................................................................................................ Tulare Irrigation District 486
Acronyms and Abbreviations
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 xiv TIP ................................................................................................................... Transportation Improvement Program TIS ................................................................................................................................................... Traffic Impact Study UCMP..............................................................................................University of California Museum of Paleontology USACE.............................................................................................................United States Army Corps of Engineers USBR .....................................................................................................................United States Bureau of Reclamation USDA .............................................................................................................United States Department of Agriculture USFWS .............................................................................................................. United States Fish and Wildlife Service UST ......................................................................................................................................Underground Storage Tanks UWMP............................................................................................................................Urban Water Management Plan VdB ..........................................................................................................................................................vibration velocity VECC.......................................................................................................... Visalia Emergency Communication Center VFD ..............................................................................................................................................Visalia Fire Department VMT................................................................................................................................................Vehicle Miles Traveled VPD ..........................................................................................................................................Visalia Police Department VRPA.........................................................................................................................................VRPA Technologies, Inc.

VUSD ...............................................................................................................................Visalia Unified School District μg/m3.................................................................................................................................... micrograms per cubic meter USPS ......................................................................................................................................United States Postal Service WB .....................................................................................................................................................................westbound WCP.......................................................................................................................................... Water Conservation Plant WDR................................................................................................................................Waste Discharge Requirements WEAP.......................................................................................................Worker Environmental Awareness Program WOTUS................................................................................................................................. Waters of the United States 487
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-1 Executive Summary
ES.1 Introduction
The City of Visalia (City) has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project (Project) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ES.2 Objectives for the Project
• Establish a groundwater recharge facility that will optimally capture east-to-west flowing surface water from waterways up-gradient of the City for longer-term storage and replenishment of declining groundwater reserves, thereby preserving a more sustainable supply of groundwater for long-term potable water use by the City;
• Facilitate a water exchange between the City and Tulare Irrigation District (TID), by exchanging imported Central Valley Project (CVP) surface water supplies into the Kaweah River up-gradient of the City for tertiary-treated recycled water from the City’s recently upgraded Water Conservation Plant located down-gradient of the City;
• Utilize the groundwater recharge facility for storm-water layoff capacity on an as-needed basis to capture east-to-west flowing stormwater from Mill Creek up-gradient of the City to reduce potential flooding along Mill Creek as it passes through the City; • Complete a fourth city-wide, regional scale recreational facility, this one located in the eastern quadrant of the City, consistent with the 2030 General Plan and meeting the goal for park space within a ¼ mile walking radius of adjacent residential neighborhoods for that quadrant. • Restore Mill Creek to a more historical alignment and riparian character.

ES.3 Project and Alternatives Summary
The Project consists of the construction and operation of an approximately 248-acre regional park with groundwater recharge facilities in the northeastern area of the City. The total Project area including planned street improvements spans approximately 286 acres. The Project will include Tower Street as a new arterial roadway, improvements to Houston Avenue and Road 152, an amendment to the City General Plan to change the planned land use of the Project Site with concurrent rezoning, and the annexation of a portion of the land from the County of Tulare (County).

Alternatives Considered but Rejected include many of the same components of the Project. The Tower Street extension, Houston Avenue and Road 152 improvements, and General Plan, zoning changes, and annexation are all contained in the rejected alternatives. The two alternatives differ from the preferred alternative primarily regarding configuration of the regional park facilities and the presence or absence of sports lighting.

This DEIR also considers the No Project Alternative, under which the land would retain its current land use and zoning, no portion will be annexed from the County, Tower Street will not be built, Houston Avenue and Road 152 improvements will not occur, and the regional park and groundwater recharge basins will not be constructed.
488
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-2 ES.4 Public Involvement Process
The development of the DEIR is designed to involve the public in the decision-making process. The CEQA process requires open discussion to determine the scope of a proposed Project and environmental topics of potential concern. The following sections identify the public processes that have been undertaken for the Project.

ES.4.1 Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR
The City provided a Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period for a duration of 30 days beginning on December 23, 2014 and ending on January 22, 2015 (Appendix A). This NOP was combined with a Notice of Scoping (NOS). The NOP/NOS had multiple purposes: to inform public agencies and the general public of the East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project scoping process; to solicit comments to assist the City in determining environmental impacts relating to the proposed Alternatives; and to identify potential feasible and reasonable mitigation for such impacts that should be considered in this EIR. The NOP/NOS was sent via United States Postal Service (USPS) mail to a number of local, State, and federal agencies; to interest groups; and to owners and residents of property within 300 feet of the Project. The NOP/NOS was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH) on December 23, 2014 and was assigned SCH Number 2014121076. The NOP/NOS was also published in the Visalia Times-Delta on December 23, 2014.

ES.4.2 Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and Public Review Period Following completion of the DEIR, a Notice of Completion (NOC) for the DEIR was filed with the SCH and the Tulare County Clerk’s Office and was mailed to interested public agencies and individuals on January 19, 2023 to initiate a 45-day DEIR public and State review period. The review period runs from January 19, 2023 through March 6, 2023. Comments should be submitted to the City prior to the end of the comment period and should be in writing if possible. Comments should be directed to:

City of Visalia
Attn: Rebecca Keenan
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Email: [email protected]
Additional copies of this DEIR are available for review for the following locations:

City of Visalia website at
http://www.visalia.city/depts/community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp Visalia Branch Library
200 W. Oak Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-2700
ES.5 Summary of Impacts
This DEIR has identified potentially significant adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation measures in the areas of Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise and Vibration, and Traffic and Transportation.

For all other environmental topics, either no impacts were identified, or impacts were determined to be less than significant. Table ES-1 below provides a summary of the Project’s potential environmental effects, each impact’s level of potential significance, potentially significant adverse impacts, and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact to a less than significant level or to the greatest degree feasible. After mitigation measures 489
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-3 are identified, the DEIR indicates the level of impact that would remain following incorporation of mitigation.

The identified levels of significance assume implementation of all permit and approval requirements of federal, State, and local law and regulations applicable to the Project, standard conditions of approval, and construction best management practices.
490
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-4 Table ES 1. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Aesthetics
Impact I-a. The removal of the pecan and walnut orchards would open additional viewsheds from the west, allowing for increased views of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Although the Project would constitute a substantial change of the existing scenic vista, it would not do so in a detrimental way.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact I-b. State Route (SR) 198, which abuts the Project site to the south, is eligible to be listed as a State Scenic Highway but is not officially designated. The proposed Project design emphasizes the importance of providing attractive facilities, such as the re-channelization of Mill Creek to a meandering stream and the integration of recharge basins as attractive park features.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact I-c. The aesthetics of the park design will not only improve the visual character, but will also give the public access to enjoy features that are not currently visible or accessible. Therefore, the Project would serve to enhance the aesthetic character of the site rather than degrade it.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact I-d. Skyglow is artificial lighting from urbanized uses that alters the rural landscape and, in sufficient quantity, lights up the nighttime sky, thus reducing the darkness of the night sky and the visibility of the stars. Development of the Project would include the addition of new lighting for security purposes as well as to illuminate the facility for nighttime uses or activities over several hundred acres.

To minimize lighting effects, the Project would comply with Section 17.30.015.H of the Visalia Zoning Ordinance which prohibits on-site lighting from directly or indirectly illuminating adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.

The City’s existing code requirements and policies would minimize impacts for potential Project lighting and glare impacts.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Impact II-a. The City foresaw the necessary conversion of farmland when adopting the 2030 General Plan Update. The EIR prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Update concluded that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts concerning the conversion of farmland. In certifying the EIR, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-37, which contained a Statement of Overriding Considerations declaring that Potentially
Significant Impact None feasible Significant and Unavoidable 491
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-5 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
the significant loss of agriculture was outweighed by the benefits that would result from its conversion, and that there were no feasible mitigation measures that could reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The General Plan designates narrow strips (i.e., buffers) that parallel and abut Mill Creek and Packwood Creek as Conservation; however, the overall Project site is designated as Parks/Recreation. Development of the site for recreational and other uses was addressed by the General Plan and the associated EIR and determined to be significant and unavoidable and a SOC was adopted, no further analysis is required (Guidelines Section 15152(d)(1)).

Impact II-b. The Project proposes to amend the City’s General Plan to reflect the entirety of the Project site as Parks/Recreation, with a corresponding change of zoning to Quasi-Public (QP).

No Impact None No Impact
Impact II-c. The Project would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. No designated forest land or timberland is present at the Project Site.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact II-d. The Project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, given that no designated forest land or timberland is present at the site.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact II-e. The Project does not involve any other components beyond those previously discussed under Impact II-a which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Air Quality
Impact III-a. The Project would be consistent with the currently adopted General Plan for the City and is therefore consistent with the population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) applied in the plan. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the applicable Air Quality Plans (AQPs). As a result, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any AQPs.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact III-b. The analysis of construction impacts assumes that Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Project will be constructed independently of each other and would not overlap. The annual emissions from the construction phase of Phase 1, 2, and 3 of the Project would be less than the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) emission thresholds for criteria pollutants as shown in Table 3-10. The construction emissions are therefore considered less than significant with the Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
492
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-6 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
compliance to the SJVAPCD applicable Regulation VIII control measures, which are provided below. If Phase 1, 2, or 3 of the Project is constructed simultaneously with another phase, the SJVAPCD threshold for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions would be exceeded. Long-Term emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions from the Project site and area sources such as lawn maintenance equipment. Emissions from long-term operations generally represent Projects most substantial air quality impact. Table 3-11 delineates operational emissions by phase. Appendix A contains Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 summarizing the Projects operational impacts by pollutant. Results show that Project operational emissions would not exceed applicable emission thresholds.

Impact III-c. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact III-d. An evaluation of nearby land uses completed by VRPA Technologies, Inc.(VRPA) showed that the Project will not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Since the Project is not located within the recommended buffer distances associated with the sources found in Appendix A-Table 4, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact III-e. The Project would not generate odorous emissions but would attract people to its site for recreational activities. It should be noted that the Double D Dairy, LLC is located approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the Project site, which is less than the one (1) mile screening distance. Given the size of the dairy, it is not anticipated that people attracted to the Project would be impacted by odors from Double D Dairy, LLC.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Biological Resources
Impact IV-a. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2016d) was queried for special status species occurrences in the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and immediately surrounding the Project Site (Exeter, Visalia, Monson, Ivanhoe, Woodlake, Rocky Hill, Lindsay, Cairns Corner, and Tulare). An official species list was obtained using the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system for federally listed species with the potential to be affected by the Project (USFWS 2016).

Potentially
Significant Impact
Bio 1-a, 1-b, 1-c, Bio
2-a, 2-b, 2-c, Bio 3-a,
3-b, Bio 4-a, 4-b, 4-c,
Bio 5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d
Less than Significant
Impact
493
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-7 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Special status species occur within 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) of the Project site and may be impacted.

Impact IV-b. Natural communities of special concern are limited to sporadic riparian habitat associated within Packwood Creek and Mill Creek. The value of this riparian habitat as a natural community of special concern has been diminished due to the fragmented nature of the woodland and close proximity of urban and suburban developments. Orchard, vineyard, ruderal, irrigation ditches, and agricultural basins are regionally abundant and/or a result of human manipulation and would not be considered natural communities of special concern. Because riparian habitats on site are extremely marginal and fragmented and other habitats are not considered sensitive (with the exception of jurisdictional waters), future Project construction would have a less than significant impact on these habitats.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact IV-c. The Project would result in potentially significant impacts to potential jurisdictional waters. The anticipated level and duration of impact would vary depending on the phasing and ultimate buildout of the project. Very minor direct, permanent impacts are anticipated with the initial phase of the project, which would entail tying into Mill Creek Ditch and Packwood Creek for the installation of the stormwater basins. During this initial phase, it is anticipated that a few hundred square feet of potential jurisdictional waters would be affected from installation of control structures to divert water from Mill and Packwood Creeks into the basins under gravity flow at specific locations. Any fill, placement of control structures, placement of rip-rap or other permanent erosion control measures within jurisdictional waters would be considered direct, permanent impact. Additionally, sedimentation and transport of polluted runoff into seasonal drainages has the potential to occur as a result of Project activities.

Potentially
Significant Impact
Bio 6, Bio-7-a, 7-b, 7-
c, 7-d, Bio-8, Bio 9
Less than Significant
Impact
Impact IV-d. The site does not contain important movement corridors for native wildlife.

Furthermore, the site would function in much the same manner as it does now, after the Project is complete. Birds using the Pacific flyway will continue to do so following Project development.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact IV-e. With the exception of potential removal of valley oaks on site, the Project appears to be in compliance with all other provisions of the County of Tulare General Plan polices. No known Habitat Conservation Plans are in effect for the area.

Potentially
Significant Impact Bio-10 Less than Significant Impact
494
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-8 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact IV-f. Special status animal species would use the site for foraging only due to the marginal and fragmented habitats. Because riparian habitat on site is extremely marginal and fragmented and other habitats are not considered sensitive (with the exception of jurisdictional waters) there would be a less than significant impact.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Cultural Resources
Impact V-a. The Cultural Resources Inventory conducted by Applied Earthworks (AE) identified five potential historical resources within the proposed Project study area.

Two of these resources are historic bridges which have been designated as ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); these bridges have not been evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), but the report found in Appendix G concluded that neither bridge appears to exhibit any characteristics that would make it significant at a local or state or federal level.

Potentially
Significant Impact CR-1
Less than Significant
Impact
Impact V-b. Refer to Impact V-a.

Potentially
Significant Impact CR-1
Less than Significant
Impact
Impact V-c. The Paleontological Technical Memorandum provided by AE determined that the Project area has a Low to High Potential for paleontological resources dependent on depth of ground disturbance. The Cultural Resources Inventory conducted by AE did not identify any unique geologic features within the Project area.

Project construction would not be expected to disturb any previously undisturbed or unknown paleontological resources or any unique geologic features.

Potentially
Significant Impact CR-2, CR-3
Less than Significant
Impact
Impact V-d. Although there is no indication that the Project would result in the disturbance of any human remains, in the event that human remains are encountered the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.

Potentially
Significant Impact CR-4
Less than Significant
Impact
Geology and Soils
Impact VI-a-i. There are no known active earthquake faults in the Visalia area; therefore, the Project Site does not fall within or adjacent to a Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact VI-a-ii. All proposed structures must be designed to comply with the California Building Code (CBC). The intent of the CBC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard against major failures and loss of life by providing for structures that will: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse. The CBC bases Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
495
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-9 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
seismic design on minimum lateral seismic forces (“ground shaking”), and operates on the principal that providing appropriate foundations, among other aspects, helps to protect buildings from failure during earthquakes. Compliance with CBC would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Impact VI-a-iii. Geotechnical investigations conducted at the Project Site by Technicon Engineering Services, Inc. in 2014 and 2015 indicated that groundwater at the Project site was at a depth greater than 70 feet below ground surface (bgs) and that generally subsurface soils had a density greater than what is typical for significant liquefaction potential. The potential for liquefaction at the Project site is considered to be low due to the absence of near‐surface groundwater and the generally dense cohesive nature of the subsurface materials.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant
Impact VI-a-iv. The Project site is not in an area susceptible to slope failure or landslides. No Impact None None
Impact VI-b. Surface soils at the Project site have been mapped as having K factors of 0.15 to 0.24, which are considered low to moderate for soil erosion susceptibility.

This combined with the generally flat terrain of the Project setting indicates that potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil is less than significant.

Additionally, soil conservation would be addressed by the City’s site review process and grading plan approvals.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact VI-c. As the Project is located on the Valley floor, no geologic landforms exist on or near the site that would result in a landslide event. Excavation, grading, and fill operations associated with construction could alter existing slope profiles making them unstable as a result of over-excavation of slope material, steepening of the slope, or increased loading. However, destabilization of natural or constructed slopes is unlikely to occur as surface topography at the project site is relatively flat. The Project is required to implement erosion prevention measures as part of its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Additionally, standard engineering design features and construction procedures would be implemented to maintain stable slopes and excavations during construction.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact VI-d. Surface soils at the Project are identified as Nord fine sandy loam and Grangeville sandy loam. Both the Grangeville sandy loam and Nord fine sandy loam soil types are characterized as having low shrink-swell potential. Additionally, based No Impact None No Impact
496
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-10 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
on information presented in the City 2030 General Plan Update EIR, there are no expansive soils located at the Project site.

Impact VI-e. Soil permeability is a consideration for projects that require septic system installation. The Project would tie into the City sewer and Cal Water services. The City has determined that capacity exists to serve the Project. As planned, the Project would not involve the installation of a septic tank or an alternative wastewater disposal system.

No Impact None No Impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact VII-a. Results of the analysis show that Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in the year 2020 are 2,187.47 MTCO2eq./year, which is below a threshold of 7,000 MTCO2eq./year for GHG emissions.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact VII-b. The Project incorporates various best performance standards (BPS) including recreational multi-use trails with fitness equipment that encourage biking, jogging, and walking and provide neighboring residential neighborhoods with direct access to its facilities. The types of facilities incorporated into the Project coincide with the pedestrian infrastructure-based mitigation measures included in the SJVAPCDs Mitigation Measures document. Those measures include providing pedestrian enhancing infrastructure that includes sidewalks and pedestrian paths and direct pedestrian connections.

The Project incorporates the following identified existing and proposed community measures assisting the City achieve its 2020 15% and 2030 30% reduction goals.

Expansion of bicycle paths, lanes, and trails: Based on the assessment above, the Project will further the achievement of the City’s GHG reduction goals and will not conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact VIII-a and b. Construction of the Project components will necessitate the transport and use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, diesel, and oil. These materials would be used in excavation equipment, generators, and other typical construction equipment and would be contained in vessels designed for safe storage. Although appropriate handling and disposal practices would result in low potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during the construction phases, Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
497
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-11 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
there is the potential for small leaks or spills. Standard construction and operational SWPPP Best Management Practices (BMPs), including the installation of regulated spill containment at each tank, will minimize the potential for the release of construction-related fuels and other hazardous materials. These BMPs will also help control storm water contamination from spills or leaks, control the amount of runoff from the site, and require proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials.

Impact VIII c. The Project is located approximately 0.5 mile southeast of Golden West High School. There are no schools either existing or proposed within a one-quarter mile radius.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact VIII d. The Project is not located on any designated hazardous materials site; therefore, no significant hazards would be created. No Impact None No Impact Impact VIII e. The Project is not located within the safety zones or airport influence areas of any public or public use airport, no safety hazards are present. No Impact None No Impact Impact VIII f. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no safety hazards would be posed. No Impact None No Impact Impact VIII g. The Project does not currently contain any public accessed routes that would be needed for an emergency response or emergency evacuation. Completion of the Project would actually increase emergency accessibility via construction of Tower Street as a new arterial roadway, which would include new local street connections to the existing stub-streets in the residential subdivisions to the west of Project. The Project would also provide three points of ingress/egress from the site.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact VIII h. The Project is located in an area designated as “Unzoned” by Cal Fire; therefore, the area is not subject to significant risk involving wildland fire. Further, the Project does not involve residential housing.

No Impact None No Impact
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact IX-a. Implementation of the Project could result in violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements as a result of proposed changes in existing drainage patterns, both in the short-term due to erosion and sedimentation during construction activities and in the long term based upon necessary recontouring of the site to establish recharge basins, external and internal roadways and parking areas and other sports fields and activity areas. Construction activities undertaken to implement subsequent development projects associated with build-out of the Project Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
498
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-12 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
would include excavation, soil stockpiling, boring, and/or grading activities that strip existing vegetation. Soil erosion is probable during construction which may result in water quality impairments if it is not sufficiently retained from reaching receiving waters. Water quality impairments may include turbidity, increased algal growth, oxygen depletion, or sediment buildup, thereby degrading aquatic habitats. Sediment from Project-induced erosion could also ultimately accumulate in downstream drainage facilities and interfere with stream flow, thereby aggravating downstream flooding conditions.

Since the Project would exceed the 1-acre disturbed area threshold, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) will require a SWPPP. The SWPPP would include the best management erosion control measures.

In addition, the Project includes facilities and features designed to capture and retain all run-off that will be generated by site development on-site for infiltration or controlled release to the City’s storm drain collection system.

Impact IX-b. When available, agreements between the City and TID will allow for the Project to take an average of approximately 5,500 AF per year.

Based on the geotechnical investigation prepared by Technicon, infiltration rates based on a double ring infiltration test show a range between 5 and 129 gallons (gal)/square-feet (sf)/day which is the equivalent of 0.3 cubic-feet per second (cfs)/acre to 8.7 cfs/acre. With the 129 gal/sf/day outlier removed, the average is more in the range of 21 gal/sf/day, or approximately 1.4 cfs/acre. This rate will vary depending on location and is expected to slow down with time after the basins have had time to fill.

Given that the Project will contribute to improve groundwater supplies and lead to a net increase in aquifer volume, there will be no negative effects.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact IX-c. Mill Creek is planned to be re-aligned to accommodate park amenities while maintaining the creeks current capacity. The channel boundaries, bed surface, irregularities, obstructions, vegetation and channel meandering are to be considered in hydraulic computations to allow the creek to convey the current capacity without restriction. The restoration of Mill Creek to more closely resemble the riparian corridor that existed in the 1937 photo, shown in Figure 2-4 , could potentially lead to its utilization as habitat by a number of bird and amphibian species. This would constitute a beneficial change to the environmental baseline.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant
499
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-13 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
As part of the Project, an evaluation of the floodway status of all the channels must be made. If the channels are not designated floodways on the local Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), no Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) applications would be required. If, however, any of them are designated as floodways by FEMA (not as 100-year Special Flood Hazard Areas) then work with FEMA to authorize changes in the floodway would be required. This would take the form of a flood study demonstrating that the proposed changes will not result in an increase in flood surface elevations alongside of, upstream of or downstream of the Project. The City would then apply for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. Once that is approved, the work can be done. At that point, as-built plans would be submitted to FEMA demonstrating that the work conforms to the approved CLOMR and a Letter of Map Revision would be issued.

A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement would likely be required with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife due to the work within and adjacent to Packwood Creek and Mill Creek.

Because there will be work performed within waters of the United States (Packwood Creek and Mill Creek) a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit and 401 Certification would likely be required with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and RWQCB, respectively.

The Mill Creek channel restoration design aims at reconstructing the creek channel to a stable geometric configuration that is self-sustaining and in balance with imposed flow and sediment regimes and the character of the catchment landscape. This design would minimization future erosion or siltation. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Impact IX-d. As part of the Project, Mill Creek would be realigned, returning it to a more natural meandering channel alignment and riparian character that more closely resembles how it existed in 1937. The restored Mill Creek would potentially be utilized as habitat by a number of bird and amphibian species, and would be a benefit to the environment. This realignment would not change the creeks flow, or capacity. The site storm water runoff would be accommodated by strategically located drainage facilities that would direct storm water runoff from the Project into the basins. The storm water Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
500
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-14 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
runoff basins are located along the west side adjacent to Tower Street and along the east side adjacent to Road 152.

Each basin would include a low flow channel that allows for small volumes of water to be conveyed through the basins without filling up the entire basin and also allows more flexibility in gravity flowing water from the ditches or creeks. In an effort to minimize depth and maintain bi-directional flow, the channels are only one to two feet in depth and approximately 20 feet (ft) wide.

Therefore, the Project would alter the course of a stream, it would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off of the Project site.

Impact IX-e and f. Analysis of future Tower Street has been limited to south of the future Mineral King/Tower Street intersection, approximately 1300 feet north of the centerline intersection of SR 198 and Tower Street. At Race Avenue, preliminary plans show water from the west half of Tower Street would be routed into the subdivision to the west. In all other cases, Tower Street runoff is captured and routed to depressed basins at McKinley Avenue or to on-site underground and depressed storage facilities.

On-site, the park site was divided into three areas to determine capacity needs. The park area south of Mill Creek is one separate drainage area and the area north of Mill Creek is divided into to two drainage areas generally split on a north south line through the softball complex that reaches the center northern most baseball complex then turns east to the west edge of Basins A-B-C. Due to the proposed top of bank elevations for the recharge basins and the low flow line elevations of drop inlets it is not practical to gravity flow storm water runoff into the basins. If the City prefers, a pump system can be designed to take water generated from the site and from Tower Street that would be deposited into one or more of the proposed recharge basins.

Capacity of the Dog Park Basin and the McKinley Avenue Basins are based on the City’s Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP) retention design with gentle side slopes (generally 6:1 (H:V)) and a foot of freeboard. The basins capacities can be increased by deepening the basins. Criteria for preliminary sizing the basins are based on the City’s SWMP using Table 3-6, Rational Method Runoff Coefficients and Design Criteria for Storm-water Basins. A Storage Volume value of 0.191 for Residential – High Density Land Use was selected based on the combination of open space and Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
501
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-15 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
developed space including roads and parking lots shown on the master plan park layout.

Capacity of the underground basins are calculated from Storm-Tech MC-3500 Chambers and based on a 9-inch stone foundation depth. Each of the proposed parking lots would contain a system of chambers to allow for efficient routing of storm lines. If needed, it is possible to locate the chambers under designed play areas if the parking lots do not develop as proposed on the Park Master Plan.

Impact IX-g and h. The Project area is covered by both FEMA Flood Zone AE and X (Panel 06107C0954). For Zone AE, elevations have been established that would need to be respected when designing buildings, support structures, and critical equipment.

In general, for the proposed site the AE elevations range from a low of 352 ft on the west side to a high of 355 ft on the east side. Additionally, the park master plan areas that are not scheduled for recreation facilities/uses are primarily located along Tower Street and are scheduled to be raised mounds. No housing is proposed as part of this Project and no structures would impede or redirect flood flows.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact IX-i. In the context of the Project, the significant and unavoidable risk identified in the General Plan Update EIR can be considered a baseline condition. The risks of dam failure as a result of a seismic event are preexisting and will not be increased in any way due to Project implementation. Conversely, the basins would serve to minimally reduce risk of flooding due to dam failure, as they could capture a portion of the flood flows. Given this slight beneficial impact, and that flood risk due to dam failure is a baseline environmental condition, impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact IX-j. The Project area is located sufficiently inland to be out of what would be considered a potential hazard area for seiches, tsunamis, and sea level rise. In addition, the location of the park area makes the potential for mudflows also remote.

No Impact None No Impact
502
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-16 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Impact X-a. The Project is located on the far eastern edge of the City, at the outer boundary of existing development and therefore would not divide the community. No Impact None No Impact Impact X-b. Prior to pursuing development of the Project, the City will need to obtain approval from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) of the approximately 129 acres lying north of Mill Creek to Houston Avenue. As part of the annexation, the City would apply to pre-zone the annexation area to the QP zone under the City’s zoning ordinance to facilitate the Project. Approval by LAFCo of the annexation and pre-zoning will bring the property into the city limits and nullify the County’s AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural – 20-Acre Minimum) zoning. Upon approval of the annexation, the City would take an action to amend the official zone map consistent with the prezoning. The new QP zone will take effect 30-days after the City action.

In addition to the annexation and pre-zoning, the City would need to perfect a General Plan Amendment for approximately 42 acres of the annexation area currently designated for Low, Medium, and High Density Residential located in the northern third of the Project site. The change in land use would affect less than 0.4 percent of land within the City’s Sphere of Influence planned for Residential uses. These lands would be designated for Parks/Recreation consistent with the land use designation for the portion of the Project site already within the City limits and lying south of Mill Creek.

The majority of the southern two-thirds of the Project Site is located within Tier I of the City’s Urban Development Boundary, while the remainder (which is planned for residential use) is within Tier III, the Urban Growth Boundary. The General Plan contains criteria to determine whether land within Tier III can be developed, however it applies only to residential, commercial, and industrial development. Therefore, once these lands are annexed into the City and designated as QP zone, the tier distinctions would no longer apply for the development of the Project.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact X-c. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community plans in the vicinity of the Project.

No Impact None No Impact
503
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-17 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Mineral Resources
Impact XI-a. The easternmost portion of the Project site, lies within an MRZ-3a zone, an area of moderate potential for mineral deposits of economic value.

Although the MRZ-3a zone exists within the Project boundaries, the Project would not exploit the untapped potential of the known mineral resource present. The mineral resource would not be removed from the site, but development of the site with recharge basins and predominantly open recreational areas would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource through compliance with local, State, and federal legislation and permitting.

The Project would not devalue the mineral resource integrity of the site or result in the removal or alteration of the known mineral resources present.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact XI-b. See discussion under Impact XI-a. Considering that the Project would not remove or significantly alter the MRZ-3a geologic reserve, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to the availability of the known mineral resource for future recovery.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Noise
Impact XII-a. Implementation of the Project has the potential to result in short-term construction noise impacts to surrounding land uses due to construction activities.

Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. During the construction phase of any future development projects, noise from construction activities would add to the ambient noise environment in the immediate area. Noise levels on-site are anticipated to peak during games while spectators are present. Noise is generated from cheering spectators and players, as well as referee whistles.

Phase 3 of the Project would impact sensitive receivers directly to the west of the Project and exceed the City’s Stationary Noise Source criteria for the hourly equivalent sound level.

Potentially
Significant Impact NOI-1, NOI-2, NOI-3
Less than Significant
Impact
504
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-18 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact XII-b. Ambient vibration levels in residential areas are typically 50 VdB, which is well below human perception. The operation of heating/air conditioning systems and slamming of doors produce typical indoor vibrations that are noticeable to humans but not considered adverse or significant.

Construction activity can result in ground vibration, depending upon the types of equipment used and proximity to receptors. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations, which spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance from the source generating the vibration. Building structures that are founded on the soil in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations, with varied results. Ground vibrations as a result of typical construction activities very rarely reach vibration levels that would damage structures but can cause low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations for buildings very close to the site. Construction activities that generally create the most severe vibrations are blasting and impact pile driving. Neither of these activities would be needed to construct the Project.

Potentially
Significant Impact NOI-4
Less than Significant
Impact
Impact XII-c. VRPA Technology, Inc. Noise Study evaluated the impact of the Project to the modeled sensitive receivers evaluated in the study area. The results indicate that the changes in noise levels, as a result of the Project, are insignificant. There would be minimal changes in the traffic noise exposure levels at various setbacks of 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80 Leq(h) dBA for the major streets and roads within the study area.

Stationary Noise impacts were evaluated for Phase 2 in Impact XII-a. Noise levels onsite are anticipated to peak during games while spectators are present. Noise is generated from cheering spectators and players, as well as referee whistles. Results of the analysis shows that the sensitive receptors directly to the west of the Project site would be impacted by the ball fields in a worst-case scenario that assumes games are being played on all 13 ball fields at the same time.

Potentially
Significant Impact NOI-1, NOI-2, NOI-3
Less than Significant
Impact
Impact XII-d. Implementation of the Project has the potential to result in short-term noise impacts to surrounding land uses due to construction activities. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Although most of the types of exterior construction activities associated with the general plan update would not generate continually high noise levels, occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction activities are possible.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
505
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-19 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
During the construction phase of any future development projects, noise from construction activities would add to the ambient noise environment in the immediate area. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels.

Impact XII-e. The Project is not located within five miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the Project would not result in the stated impact. No Impact None No Impact Impact XII-f. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the Project would not result in the stated impact. No Impact None No Impact Population and Housing
Impact XIII-a. Project components are intended to address and accommodate expected growth, rather than inducing it. The recreational facilities and road improvements of the Project are addressed within the City’s General Plan, and are intended to accommodate the anticipated future growth of the City. The extension of roads and development of Tower Street is intended to provide access to the East Side Regional Park and to improve traffic flow. This Project would not result in an indirect induction of population growth.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact XIII-b. There is no housing located on the Project site, therefore implementation of the Project would not result in the displacement of any amount of existing housing. No Impact None No Impact Impact XIII-c. As stated in Impact XIII-b, there is no housing located on the site; therefore, the Project would in no way displace substantial or insubstantial numbers of people.

No Impact None No Impact
Public Services
Impact XIV-a-i. The Project is within the service area of the Visalia Fire Department Station 56 (Station 56), which is located 1.2 miles southwest of the Project. The Visalia Fire Department (VFD) provides services within the city limits. Thus, after the annexation of the northern portion of the Project site into the city limits, the entire extent of the Project area would be served by VFD. According to the City’s General Plan, “VFD staffs five paramedic engine companies, one truck company and Battalion Chief daily, from five fire station locations. The engines and truck are staffed with three personnel The Project site is within the VFDs target response time area.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact XIV-a-ii. The northern portion of the Project site is currently served by the Tulare County Sheriff. Following annexation, the Visalia Police Department (VPD) would provide service to the entire Project area. The VPDs main headquarters is located in No Impact None No Impact
506
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-20 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Downtown Visalia and leads two substations that engage in district-based operations.

Both the main headquarters and the District 1 substation would sufficiently serve the Project area.1
Impact XIV-a-iii. The Project would not include any residential development, nor would it directly or indirectly induce population growth. Project implementation would not result in an increase in students at any school.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact XIV-a-iv. The Project would include the conversion of agricultural and residential planned land uses to a regional park and recharge facility. Therefore, the development of this Project would not have an adverse impact on parks and recreation; rather, it would improve the City’s recreational facilities and decrease dependence on existing parks.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact XIV-a-v. The Project would not generate, directly or indirectly, any new residences or businesses that could lead to the need for the expansion of existing public facilities or the creation of new facilities.

No Impact None No Impact
Recreation
Impact XV-a. The Project would reduce the need for additional recreational facilities, would not result in residential development, and meets the expectations of the City’s General Plan. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than SignificantImpact
Impact XV-b. The physical and environmental impacts of this Project are outlined throughout this EIR. The primary source of environmental impacts, though minor, would occur during the construction phase of the Project. The potential environmental impacts would involve ground-disturbance, air pollution from ground disturbance and construction equipment, noise, hydrological, and biological impacts. All of these impacts are discussed in greater detail within their respective Impact Analysis sections.

Potentially
Significant Impact
Various Mitigation
Measures throughout
the document.

Less than Significant
Impact
1 City of Visalia 2014. Draft Environmental Impact Report – Chapter 3.9: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation, Public Services, Facilities and Utilities. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Page 3.9-1 to 3.9-3. Date Accessed: 8/8/2016 507
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-21 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Transportation/Traffic
Impact XVI-a. The potentially significant impacts resulting from the Project relate to the generation of unacceptable LOS at various intersections and road segments both in the near term and long term. The Project would be inconsistent with City General Plan identifies in T-P-9, considering the exceedance of levels of service. Described below are recommended improvements at study area intersections and segments for various scenarios that would in most cases mitigate the potential significant impacts to acceptable levels of service and thereby reducing the impact to less than significant.

It should be noted that statements of significance for the improvements identified below are related to Project impacts.

Potentially
Significant Impact
TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7,
TR-8, TR-9, TR-10,
TR-11, TR-12, TR-13,
TR-14, TR-15, TR-16,
TR-17, TR-18, TR-19,
TR-20, TR-21, TR-22,
TR-23, TR-24, TR-25,
TR-26, TR-27, TR-28,
TR-29, TR-30, TR-31,
TR-32
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact XVI-b. Impacts are identified in Impact XVI-a. Mitigation measures MM TR-1 through MMTR-56 would be implemented to minimize all feasibly mitigated impacts due to exceedances of level of service (LOS) standards, travel demand measures and other standards developed by the Tulare County Congestion Process Steering Committee Congestion Management Program
Potentially
Significant Impact
TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7,
TR-8, TR-9, TR-10,
TR-11, TR-12, TR-13,
TR-14, TR-15, TR-16,
TR-17, TR-18, TR-19,
TR-20, TR-21, TR-22,
TR-23, TR-24, TR-25,
TR-26, TR-27, TR-28,
TR-29, TR-30, TR-31,
TR-32
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact XVI-c. The nearest airport of any kind is the Exeter Airport, located 7.2 miles southeast of the Project. The next nearest airport is the Visalia Municipal Airport, located approximately 7.6 miles west of the Project.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact XVI-d. The Project would create additional streets and new intersections.

These streets and intersections are required to be constructed to Public Works Standards.

Potentially
Significant
TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7,
TR-8, TR-9, TR-10,
TR-11, TR-12, TR-13
Less than Significant
508
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-22 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact XVI-e. The project proposes multiple vehicular access points to the project location and would not create barriers to existing streets.

Potentially
Significant
TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7,
TR-8, TR-9, TR-10,
TR-11, TR-12, TR-13,
TR-14, TR-15, TR-16,
TR-17, TR-18, TR-19,
TR-20, TR-21, TR-22,
TR-23, TR-24, TR-25,
TR-26, TR-27, TR-28,
TR-29, TR-30, TR-31,
TR-32
Less than Significant
Impact XVI-f. The Project would be providing additional trails for pedestrian and bicycle traffic and is isolated from a public transportation route. The City General Plan Circulation Element identifies in policy T-P-33 to work with transit operators to establish transit stops adjacent to regional parks. To be consistent with the City General Plan and the City General Plan Environmental Impact Report, the City would be required to work with transit operators on establishing a public transportation stop within a reasonable vicinity of the regional park.

Potentially
Significant
TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR4, TR-5, TR-6, TR-7,
TR-8, TR-9, TR-10,
TR-11, TR-12, TR-13,
TR-14, TR-15, TR-16,
TR-17, TR-18, TR-19,
TR-20, TR-21, TR-22,
TR-23, TR-24, TR-25,
TR-26, TR-27, TR-28,
TR-29, TR-30, TR-31,
TR-32
Significant and
Unavoidable
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact XVII-a. The City Water Conservation Plant (WCP) recently underwent extensive upgrades. The WCP is located about one mile southwest of the intersection of State Highway 99 and Highway 198. Prior to the upgrades, the WCP was discharging approximately 13 million gallons per day (mgd) of effluent under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) from the California RWQCB, Central Valley Region to City owned holding basins and Mill Creek. The reason for the extensive upgrades to the WCP was for conversion from secondary level treatment to advanced tertiary treatment to comply with RWQCD waste discharge requirements. This resulted in the issuance of an updated WDR Order for the WCP. The tertiary treated recycled water Less than
Significant Impact None Less than Significant Impact
509
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-23 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
is planned for use by nearly 10,000 acres of farmland within the City and TID and for the City’s Valley Oak Golf Course and Plaza Park. The design capacity and permit capacity of the recent upgrade is 22 mgd with provisions to expand to 26 mgd. These upgrades to the WCP accommodate the anticipated wastewater discharge from the full buildout of the City’s recently adopted General Plan land uses and therefore, the Project would not significantly impact the existing permit issued by the RWQCB.

Impact XVII-b. While the WCP upgrade would have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts, the City certified an environmental impact report including a SOC to allow these impacts. The Project was not the impetus requiring the expansion and is not anticipated to place any significant demand on the City’s wastewater treatment facilities or Cal Water’s domestic water system; therefore, impacts relating to the upgrade of the WCP are not eligible for consideration in relation to the Project.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact XVII-c. The Project would involve the realignment and other minor improvements to Mill Creek and Packwood Creek, which are identified as main drains within the City’s stormwater drainage system. Project components also include the construction of groundwater recharge basins, which would serve a dual function as stormwater layoff basins, which would control and limit potential impacts from seasonal floods. These components would have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and are described and analyzed in this EIR. Other than those discussed in Chapter 3 of this document impacts would not occur as a result of the Project.

Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
Impact XVII-d. The recreational facilities, including splash pads and areas that require irrigation, would require the use of water throughout construction and operation.

Provided by Cal Water. The City is located in an area that is currently in conditions of groundwater overdraft, therefore water conservation is extremely important. The groundwater recharge basins, however, would ensure that the Project would have a net positive impact on water supplies given that they would also be used to receive surface waters that normally would not be recharged. The Project is designed to recharge surface water that is available from Mill Creek, Oakes Ditch and Packwood Creek. An agreement has been made with the Tulare Irrigation District for long-term exchange of water supplies. The City would deliver treated effluent to TID from its WCP on the west side of town and in exchange TID would provide a portion of its Less than Significant
Impact None Less than Significant Impact
510
Executive Summary
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ES-24 Summary of Potential Impact
Environmental Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Central Valley Project water supplies in certain higher flow year types marked by what is called “Uncontrolled Season” that would be available for delivery into the Project.

Therefore, no net loss of water supplies would result from the Project.

Impact XVII-e. The Project is not expected to result in a significant increase in wastewater. The recent upgrade of the City’s WCP would ensure that capacity for wastewater treatment continues to exceed the growth in supply that would occur in conjunction with the City’s anticipated growth.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact XVII-f. The Project is not anticipated to generate a large amount of solid waste.

As of 2014, the landfill that would serve the Project, the Visalia Landfill, had a maximum capacity of 18,630,666 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 16,145,591 cubic yards. The landfill is not expected to reach capacity until 2024.

No Impact None No Impact
Impact XVII-g. Solid waste would be collected from the proposed facilities and transported to the Visalia Disposal Site, in compliance with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations.

No Impact None No Impact
511
Chapter 1 Introduction
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 1-1 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project (Project). This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.).

The purpose of this DEIR is to inform decision-makers, representatives of affected or responsible agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may result from implementation of the Project. This DEIR describes potential impacts relating to a wide variety of environmental issues and along with methods by which these impacts can be mitigated or avoided.

This summary is provided in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(a), “an environmental impact report (EIR) shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its [sic] consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical.” As required by the Guidelines, this DEIR includes (1) a summary description of the Project; (2) a discussion of the areas of controversy associated with the project; (3) identification of the alternatives evaluated and the environmentally superior alternative; and (4) a synopsis of environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures.

To account for the possibility that the City may seek federal grant funding or federal permits or other federal approvals to construct any portion of the Project, the technical studies evaluating Biological Resources, Potential Waters of the United States, and Cultural and Historical Resources have been completed at a level adequate for the federal lead agency to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations.

1.2 Content of the DEIR
The City has prepared this DEIR for the Project in compliance with CEQA. This DEIR fully evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the Project (as further described within) for a regional park and groundwater recharge facility, as well as a No Project Alternative.

Specific areas of analysis will include all resource categories included in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines (as of the release date of the Notice of Preparation/Notice of Scoping, December 23, 2014), as follows:
aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Additionally, a consideration of cumulative impacts is included.

1.3 Organization of the DEIR
Executive Summary: Summarizes the content and determinations of this DEIR:

Chapter 1 – Introduction: Explains the purpose of an EIR, its content, and the environmental review process.

Chapter 2 –Project Description: Includes a detailed description of the Project.

Chapter 3 – Impact Analysis: Includes analysis of each of the topical areas consistent with Appendix G. 512
Chapter 1 Introduction
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 1-2 Chapter 4 – Analysis of Alternatives: Includes analysis of Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative.

Chapter 5 – Significant and Unavoidable Impacts: Describes any potential significant environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated and are therefore unavoidable and summarizes the substantial evidence contained in the DEIR that provides the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits that would result from the Project in the event that the City chooses to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations on a basis that these benefits override the potentially significant and unavoidable effects that may result.

Chapter 6 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP): In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the DEIR are implemented, the City shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. This program will summarize the significant environmental impacts and their corresponding mitigation measures, the agency or agencies responsible for carrying out the mitigation, and who determines when the mitigation has been satisfied. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity that accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.

Chapter 7 – List of Preparers: Provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the DEIR.

Appendices – Following the text of this DEIR, several appendices have been included as supporting or technical reference material.

1.4 Use of the DEIR
If found adequate, the DEIR will be certified as a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) by the City for the purpose of disclosing potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Project. The FEIR will incorporate responses to all comments received on the DEIR and will also identify all mitigation measures the City is required to implement to reduce potential impacts. Additionally, the FEIR may also be used by various other public agencies when considering the issuance of their own permits for the Project.

The following Responsible Agencies may utilize the FEIR in the issuance of any discretionary permits or approvals prior to construction of all or portions of the Project:
• California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
• Regional Water Quality Control Board –
Central Valley Region
• State Water Resources Control Board
• California Department of Transportation
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District
• Tulare County Airport Land Use
Commission
• County of Tulare

1.5 Public Involvement
The development of the EIR from draft to final is designed to involve the public and other potentially affected parties and agencies in the decision-making process. The CEQA process requires open discussion and interaction to determine the scope of a Project and environmental topics that are of potential concern. The following sections identify the public processes that have been undertaken for the Project.

1.5.1 Notice of Preparation of the DEIR
In accordance with CEQA, the City circulated an NOP of an EIR for 30 days beginning on December 23, 2014 and ending on January 22, 2015 (Appendix A). This NOP was combined with an NOS. The purpose of the 513
Chapter 1 Introduction
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 1-2 NOP/NOS was to inform the public agencies and the general public of the City’s intention to prepare an EIR for the Project and to solicit comments to assist the City in determining environmental impacts relating to the Project and to identify potential feasible and reasonable mitigation for such impacts or alternatives that would reduce impacts that should be considered in this EIR. The NOP/NOS was sent via USPS mail to a number of local, State, and federal agencies; to interest groups; and to owners and residents of property within 300 feet of the Project. The NOP/NOS was filed with the SCH of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on December 23, 2014. The NOP/NOS was also published in the Visalia Times-Delta on December 23, 2014.

Appendix A contains the NOP/NOS documents along with the mailing lists of those who were sent the NOP/NOS. This appendix includes the reviewing agency letter prepared and distributed by the SCH on December 23, 2014.

Comments received as a result of the NOP/NOS are attached as Appendix A hereto and helped direct the analysis presented in this EIR. Comments included discussion of the following general points:
• Concerns regarding noise generated by
nighttime activities;
• A need for more group picnic areas;
• Access to Road 152;
• Odors from dog park;
• Concerns regarding width of setbacks on
north and east boundaries;
• Desire for a “hands-off” habitat area;
• Desire for archery facilities;
• Concern regarding building in 100-year
flood zone.
• Desire for permeable paving where
possible;
• Desire for City garden bed space;
• Desire for play structures dispersed closer
to soccer fields and more splash parks;
• Concerns regarding bike access;
In addition to the NOP/NOS meeting, four Community Workshops were held on February 11, February 12, March 26, and June 18, 2015. These workshops ultimately resulted in the formulation of two concepts, A1 and B1. On August 17, 2015, the City Council reviewed both concepts and selected Concept B1 as the Project to be evaluated in this EIR, described in Chapter 2, Project Description. Concept A1 is evaluated in Chapter 4, as an Alternative.

1.5.2 Notice of Availability and Distribution of the DEIR On January 19, 2023, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Visalia Times-Delta and mailed to interested agencies and to individuals that had previously requested such notice in writing to initiate a 45-day DEIR public review period.

In addition to the NOA, a NOC transmittal form were received by the SCH in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on January 19, 2023.

The DEIR is now available for review and comment by public agencies and the general public for the same 45- day duration. In order to make a well-informed decision about whether to carry out the Project, the City welcomes comments and will receive written comments between January 19, 2023 and March 6, 2023. The City must receive written comments no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2023. Any written comments should be directed to:

City of Visalia
Attn: Rebecca Keenan
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
or
514
Chapter 1 Introduction
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 1-3 Email: [email protected]
Additional copies of this DEIR are available for review at the following locations:

City of Visalia website at http://www.visalia.city/depts/ community_development/planning/ceqa_environmental_review.asp Visalia Branch Library
200 W. Oak Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 713-2700

1.6 FEIR
Following the closure of the 45-day DEIR public review and comment period, the City will review comments received, prepare written responses, make any necessary changes to the DEIR, and prepare and publish the FEIR. The FEIR will be the document considered by the City for certification. The FEIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, will incorporate:
• The DEIR or a revision of the draft;
• Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; • The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
• Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

If the City chooses to certify the FEIR and approve the Project, it will be required to adopt findings relating to significant impacts. In the event that impacts are mitigated to the greatest extent feasible but remain significant and unavoidable, the City will be required to make findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and determine that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts through the adoption of a SOC pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

If the City chooses not to certify the FEIR and denies the Project, no additional CEQA review would be required.
515
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-1 2 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Boundaries
The City of Visalia (City) encompasses approximately 37.94 square miles and lies within northwestern Tulare County (County) in the central San Joaquin Valley (Figure 2-1). The Project evaluated in this DEIR is located partially within the City and partially within the County; one of the actions necessary for Project implementation is annexation of the unincorporated areas into the City.

As shown on Figure 2-2, the Project area evaluated in this DEIR comprises approximately 286 acres situated in the northeast quadrant of the City, lying north of State Route (SR) 198 and east of North McAuliff Street.

Approximately 130 acres of the Project site, lying north of Mill Creek and south of Houston Avenue, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 103-110-24, -25, -26, -27, -28, -29, -32, and -33, are currently situated in the County and will need to be annexed to the City. The APNs within the City limits are 103-500-001, -002, -003; 103-510- 002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -007 -008, and -009. The Project Site is generally bounded as follows: on the south by the proposed realigned Mineral King Avenue; on the west by existing single-family residences and proposed Tower Street; on the east by Road 152; and on the north by Houston Avenue (called Ivanhoe Drive within Tulare County). This segment of Houston Avenue is also designated as SR 216.

2.2 Environmental Setting
The Project location is in an area that has historically been predominately agricultural. The San Joaquin Valley, like most of California, experiences a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters.

The City experiences annual precipitation rates of approximately 10.93 inches, of which 85% falls between October and March.
2 Surrounding. The northerly portion of the Project is located at the far easterly edge of city limits and would be annexed by the City. Land to the north, south and east within the unincorporated portion of the County are agricultural, commercial, and rural residential uses. There are also County commercial uses to the south and east of the Project, fronting Noble Avenue and Mineral King Avenue, both of which are frontage roads to SR 198. Land to the west lies within the city limits and contains urban uses – predominantly single-family residential development. There is one rural single-family parcel fronting on Mineral King Avenue directly south of the agricultural tail water/recharge basin.

Adjacent to the west of the Tower Street alignment is an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) highvoltage transmission line corridor approximately 150 feet in width. The portion of the corridor south of Mill Creek is owned in fee title by the City. The portion of the corridor north of Mill Creek is primarily owned in fee title by SCE with a small portion owned in fee title by the City. The portions not owned by SCE are subject to an easement.

The City has approved a plan for the construction of a multi-use trail called the Greenway Trail. The Greenway Trail project, once constructed, would be within the SCE power line corridor. The trail is planned to begin where Cameron Creek crosses Road 148 approximately 1.2 miles south of SR 198. The trail would extend north for 2.7 miles within the SCE power line corridor traveling along the west edge of the Project site and connecting to the existing St. John’s River Trail. The St. John’s River Trail lies approximately a 0.25-mile north of Houston Avenue and runs east-west along the south bank of the St. John’s River. The City has received a Caltrans Active 2 (U.S. Climate Data. 2020). https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/visalia/california/united-states/usca1204 Accessed on August 23, 2020. 516
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-2 Transportation Planning Grant funding to construct the portion of the trail from Mineral King Avenue to Mill Creek. In the meantime, design and environmental clearance tasks are in progress.

Cutler Park, owned and maintained by the County, is located approximately 0.75-mile to the northeast of the Project along Ivanhoe Road/SR 216 at the St. John’s River. Cutler Park is a small rural park with access to the St. John’s River and offers playgrounds, grassy areas, trails, and general outdoor nature areas.

Project Site. The Project site has historically been and is currently used for agricultural purposes. There are multiple orchards in various stages, such as removal, planting, and harvesting, on the site. Two seasonal channels traverse the property: Mill Creek, and Packwood Creek. Three irrigation ditches traverse a portion of and terminate on the property or along the property boundary: Fleming Ditch, Oakes Ditch and one unnamed ditch. The unnamed ditch originates on the property as a bifurcation of Oakes Ditch (Appendix D). A portion of the Project site south of Packwood Creek and fronting along Mineral King Avenue is currently fallow with two depressed areas; the depressed area in the southeast corner was utilized in the past as a temporary parking lot. A portion of the Project site north of Packwood Creek and in the southwest corner contains an existing agricultural recharge basin.

2.3 Project Components
The purpose of the Project would be to co-locate city-wide/regional park amenities for both passive and active recreational uses, amongst functional groundwater recharge/storm water layoff basins. The Project would allocate approximately 148 acres park uses and approximately 104 acres for recharge/storm water facility purposes. The primary components of the Project are described in more detail below.

2.3.1 Groundwater Recharge and Storm Water Layoff Basins The groundwater recharge/storm water layoff basins would comprise approximately 104 acres and the site storm water runoff basins would comprise approximately 3.13 acres (Figure 2-3). The Project integrates both types of basins into the layout of the park amenities.

The site storm water runoff would be accommodated by strategically-located drainage facilities that would direct storm water runoff from the Project into the basins. The storm water runoff basins are located along the west side adjacent to Tower Street and along the east side adjacent to Road 152.

The Project would utilize the three existing waterways flowing through the property (Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, and Oakes Ditch) for groundwater recharge and storm water layoff functions. The dual-function design would include new control structures to divert recharge and layoff waters from these waterways into the basins, move water between basins, and return water to Mill Creek or Packwood Creek as needed.

Currently, the Oakes Ditch traverses the site east to west and goes underground to a drop inlet at the west end of the Project boundary. The inlet ultimately feeds a pipeline into an existing agricultural recharge basin outside the Project. As part of the Project, Oakes Ditch would be incorporated across the site as the low flow lines of one of the recharge basins. Oakes Ditch would then terminate within the recharge basin. The drop inlet and the pipeline would be removed as part of this Project.

2.3.2 Regional Park Amenities
The regional park amenities generally span across the entire Project site. The active recreational amenities would comprise approximately 139 acres. The passive amenities would utilize approximately 130 acres, which includes the groundwater recharge and storm water layoff facilities described above. These amenities would include the following (Figure 2-5):
517
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-1 • Four (4) lighted and fenced adult softball
fields (325’ to outfield fence)
• Four (4) lighted and fenced youth baseball
Fields (225’ to outfield fence)
• Five (5) lighted full-size soccer fields (210’
X 330’)
• Cricket field
• Lighted tennis courts
• Lighted pickleball courts
• Lighted full basketball court
• 18-hole disc golf course
• Amphitheater with seating capacity of
1,500
• Community center building (approx.
30,000 sq. ft.) including outdoor
swimming pools
• Dog park (approx. 3 acres)
• Multi-use trails with fitness equipment
• Event and open space turf areas
• Children’s adventure play areas and splash
pad
• Picnic areas (formal and informal)
• Agriculture education barn
• Resource center
• Maintenance yard
• Parking areas
To enhance the aesthetics of the park, the Project also proposes to realign Mill Creek to replicate its historical meandering alignment from 1937 as shown in Figure 2-4.

2.3.3 Access and Roadways
Mineral King Avenue. Currently there are two segments of Mineral King Avenue: one segment runs east to west; and the other curves off of the main segment to the north and would run through the Project before realigning with the main road. The straight east-west roadway segment would be referred to as the Mineral King Avenue (frontage road). The curvilinear segment of Mineral King Avenue would be referred to as Mineral King Avenue (existing re-alignment) west of Tower Street and the Mineral King Avenue (proposed re-alignment) east of Tower Street (arterial roadway). The Project proposes to construct the Mineral King Avenue (proposed realignment) east of Tower Street in a mirror image of the existing re-alignment located on the west side of Tower Street to retain access from the east-west frontage road to Road 152 (see Figure 2-9).

The existing and proposed re-alignments of Mineral King Avenue would have their alignments finalized and be constructed as part of the future Caltrans interchange at the intersection of Tower Street and SR 198. When this future interchange moves forward, a separate environmental document would be prepared by Caltrans.

Tower Street. To provide access to the Project a new arterial roadway (Tower Street) would be constructed along the western edge of the Project site. Tower Street would be built to City standards for an arterial roadway with an ultimate right-of-way of 110 feet. Tower Street would connect to Mineral King Avenue (frontage road) at the south and Houston Avenue (SR 216) at the north. Existing stub streets and roadway connections would be extended east across the 150-foot-wide SCE corridor to connect to Tower Street—from south to north, Mineral King Avenue (frontage road), Mineral King Avenue (existing re-alignment), Villoy Avenue, Murray Avenue, Race Avenue, Douglas Avenue, and McKinley Avenue.

These connections would be designed to allow the incorporation of the crossings of the Greenway Trail (a separate project) within the SCE corridor.

The improvements to the intersection of Tower Street and Houston Avenue (SR 216) would be made and a stop sign would be added. Later, Caltrans may either provide a signalized intersection or a roundabout pursuant to Caltrans direction and standards. This is not part of this Project’s activities and would be addressed by Caltrans in a separate environmental review.
518
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-2 In addition to the connections from the west, two park entrances would be constructed off Tower Street generally at the easterly alignments of Villoy Avenue and McKinley Avenue. These entrance points lead to an internal roadway system that provides circulation within the park. Areas for parking are available immediately off this internal roadway system.

Houston Avenue (SR 216). Currently, SR 216 exists as a four-lane divided roadway between Lovers Lane and McAuliff Street and as a two-lane roadway between McAuliff Street and Road 152.

Road 152. Improvements and underground utility extensions along Road 152 (western half of the road) would consist of a 10-foot roadway widening, grading, sidewalks, and curb and gutter.

2.3.4 Annexation and Land Use Approvals
Prior to pursuing development of the Project, the City would need to amend the General Plan Land Use designation of approximately 42 acres in the northern area from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential to Parks/Recreation consistent with the remaining 88 acres area north of Mill Creek and the portion already within the city limits. The City would also pre-zone the 130 acres between Mill Creek and Houston Avenue to the Quasi-Public (QP) zone district, under which the Project uses are permitted and which is also consistent with the area already within the city limits (Figure 2-6); the unincorporated acreage is currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural – 20-Acre Minimum) by the County.

The City would then apply to the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation of the northern 130 acres. LAFCo’s approval and subsequent perfection of the annexation would bring the property into the city limits, at which time the City’s zoning would take effect.

The majority of the southern two-thirds of the Project Site is located within Tier I of the City’s Urban Development Boundary, while the remainder (which is planned for residential use) is within Tier III, the Urban Growth Boundary. The City’s General Plan contains criteria to determine whether land within Tier III can be developed; however, it applies only to residential, commercial, and industrial development. Therefore, the City Council’s decision to annex the land for the regional park use constitutes the necessary criteria to allow the Project to be developed in the Tier 3 Urban Growth Boundary.

2.3.5 Site Plan Review
Proposed Concept Plans A1 and B1 were the subject of Site Plan Review on July 22, 2015. City Departments providing review comments included (Appendix B):
• Fire Department –Required fire hydrants and provided accessibility comments and conditions. • Police Department – Comments were given related to sufficient lighting, accessibility, and visibility.

Primarily in support of Concept B1 as that concept provides the most accessibility and visibility. • Public Works (sewer/water/storm drain) – Comments required the Project to comply with City Ordinance No. 13.08 and water features must use recirculated water. • Solid Waste – No comment.
• Planning – Comments were given regarding the annexation, general plan amendment, change of zone, and lighting and noise concerns.
• Building – No comment.
• Traffic Safety Division – Required a Traffic Impact Analysis. • Engineering – Comments required the Project to comply with City Standards. 519
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-3 • Parks & Recreation – Preserve valley oak trees.

Ultimately, the Site Plan Review Committee noted that the project should revise and proceed with the entitlement process.

The Project is intended to be built in three phases over an extended period of time, the duration of which is currently unknown. Timing of construction of each phase would be largely dependent on funding. As the project moves forward from phase to phase, construction-level engineering drawings for site grading, utility installation, roadway construction, and other improvements would need to be completed and approved by the City before construction can begin.

2.3.6 Construction Phasing
As noted, the Project would be constructed in multiple phases. The first phase would include the development of the groundwater recharge and stormwater layoff basins. The second phase would include the construction of Tower Street and Road 152 frontage improvements as well as the construction of the following park amenities: Adult Softball Fields, Youth Baseball Fields, Soccer Fields, and Ancillary facilities (maintenance yard, cricket field, basketball court, children’s play area, and picnic area) interior roadways and three entrances/exists.

The third phase would include construction of the remainder of the park amenities (Figure 2-9).

2.3.7 Early Approvals
After the circulation of the NOP, the City adopted two (2) Mitigated Negative Declarations in 2018 (SCH No. 2018041014) and 2020 (SCH No. 2019129021) in response to grant opportunities available for two portions of the Project, the Multi-Purpose Facility (MPF) (Basins F & G) and Basins “D” and “E” , respectively. These areas are denoted in Figure 2-5. These analyses of the MNDs can be found in Appendix Q and are integrated into this Project EIR. Construction on a portion of the MPF will start soon, the environmental setting will not change significantly.
520
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-4 Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map
521
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-5 Figure 2-2. Project Study Boundary Map
522
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-6 Figure 2-3. Proposed Stormwater and Recharge Basins Map 523
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-7 Figure 2-4. 1937 Aerial Photo of Mill Creek
524
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-8 Figure 2-5. Concept B1 - Project
Basin “E”
Basin “D”
MPF
525
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-9 Figure 2-6. City of Visalia General Plan Map
526
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-10 Figure 2-7. City of Visalia Zoning Map as of December 23, 2014 527
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-11 Figure 2-8. County of Tulare Zoning Map as of December 23, 2014 528
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 2-12 Figure 2-9. Construction Phasing
529
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-1 3 Impact Analysis

3.1 Aesthetics
Table 3-1. Aesthetics
Aesthetics
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

3.1.1 Environmental Setting
The following description of the environmental setting for the Project is found in the City’s General Plan EIR.

The Project is located on the flat, agricultural plain of the San Joaquin Valley, about 10 miles west of the beginning of the Sierra Nevada foothills. The high mountain peaks, about 40 miles distant, create a dramatic backdrop on clear days. With a population of some 130,231, Visalia is the largest city in Tulare County, but retains what residents describe as a “small town feel.” The City has grown concentrically around its historic core and is surrounded by productive agricultural land.

Views of the Sierra Nevada range to the east and agricultural lands beyond the edges of the city help define the overall image and character of Visalia. Valley oak trees, both individually and in groves, also provide an important scenic feature and link to the natural setting of the San Joaquin Valley. Some groves are protected as part of regional parkland, while others are on agricultural land or within the city itself. Visalia’s regular urban grid overlays the natural forms of the Kaweah Delta. While the St. John’s River plays an important role in defining the City’s edge to the north-east, the smaller creeks and ditches generally have little visibility in the urbanized environment today. Preserving and re-establishing the City’s natural waterway system and valley oak tree groves with parks, conservation areas, and trailways is a goal of the proposed [General] Plan.

The 44-mile stretch of State Route 198 between State Route 99 and Sequoia National Park is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status, but is not officially designated…While the City has not requested official designation, it has evaluated the corridor in the Scenic Highways Element of the existing General Plan and has taken steps to preserve and enhance the corridors scenic quality.”3 Light and Glare
The Project site is primarily in agricultural use with rural uses to the north, south, and east and single-family residential uses to the west. There are few on-site sources ambient light and there are no sources of glare. Light 3 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan DEIR – Chapter 3.13: Visual Resources http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30504. Pages 3.13-1 and 3.13-2. Date Accessed: 7/6/2016 530
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-2 sources are located primarily along the western boundary of the Project and consist primarily of residential subdivision street lighting.

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that are relevant to the Project.

State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA establishes that it is the policy of the State to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state “with…enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities.” (California Public Resources Code Section 21001(b)).

California Scenic Highways Program
Recognizing the value of scenic areas and the value of views from roads in such areas, the State Legislature established the California Scenic Highway Program in 1963. Under this program, State highway segments are designated as eligible for inclusion as scenic routes. Once the local jurisdictions through which a roadway passes have established a corridor protection program, the State may officially designate a roadway as a scenic route.

Projects must then be evaluated for their impact on the scenic qualities of the corridor. Each designated corridor is monitored by the State and its designation may be revoked if a local government fails to enforce the provisions of the corridor protection program.

As stated in the Environmental Setting above, SR 198 through the Project vicinity is classified as eligible for State Scenic Highway status but is not officially designated.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy LU-P-37: Adopt specific development standards for scenic entryways (gateways) and roadway corridors into the City, including special setback and landscape standards, open space and park development, and/or land use designations.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
Section 17.30.015.H – Lighting: No on-site lighting shall directly or indirectly illuminate adjacent properties or the public street which provides access. The lights and standards to be used for the Project shall be subject to the requirements set forth by the City’s Site Plan Review Committee.

City of Visalia Valley Oak Ordinance
The City’s Valley Oak Ordinance provides basic standards, measures, and compliance requirements for the preservation and protection of native valley oak trees and landmark trees. The Ordinance prohibits destruction of valley oak trees except with an oak tree removal permit. A permit may be granted only if it is found that the oak tree is in danger of falling on a structure or is host for a plant, pest, or disease endangering other species; if removal is necessary to allow the reasonable enjoyment of private property; or if urban forestry or land management practices warrant removal. If a tree removal permit is granted, the tree must either be replaced by planting new oak trees at the specified mitigation ratio on the same property, or by paying mitigation fees to be 531
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-3 used by the City to plant new oak trees at other locations, consistent with the City Oak Tree Mitigation Policy.4 As described in Appendix F, the Project site does contain valley oak trees Other
Internationally-Recognized Guidelines
The International Commission on Illumination (CIE) provides guidelines for light levels for building facades.

CIE 150-2003 excerpts for reference:

Table 3-2. Environmental lighting zone
Zone Surrounding Lighting Environment Examples
E1 Natural Intrinsically dark National parks or protected sites E2 Rural Low district brightness Industrial or residential rural areas E3 Suburban Medium district brightness Industrial or residential suburbs E4 Urban High district brightness Town Centers and commercial areas Table 3-3. Maximum values for intensity of luminaires in designated directions Light Technical
Parameter
Application
Conditions
Environmental Zones
E1 E2 E3 E4
Luminous
intensity emitted
by luminaries
Pre-curfew 2,500 cd 7,500 cd 10,000 cd 25,000 cd
Post-curfew
hours 0 cd* 500 cd 1,000 cd 2,500 cd
*Note: If the luminaire is for public (road) lighting then this value may be up to 500 cd. 4 City of Visalia, 2007. Oak Tree Mitigation Policy. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=3800 Page 1. Date Access:
11/6/2017.
532
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-4

3.1.3 Photos of the Project Site and Vicinity
Figure 3-2. Road 152 looking West
Figure 3-1. Villoy Avenue looking East
533
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-5 Figure 3-3. Road 152 looking Southwest
Figure 3-4. Road 152 at Packwood Creek
534
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-6 Figure 3-5. Road 152 at Packwood Creek
Figure 3-6. Road 152 at Oaks Ditch
535
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-7 Figure 3-7. Road 152 at Oaks Ditch
Figure 3-8. Road 152 at Mill Creek
536
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-8 Figure 3-9. Road 152 at Mill Creek
Figure 3-10. Road 152 north of Mill Creek looking West
537
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-9 Figure 3-11. Avenue 216 looking south along Tower Road
Figure 3-12. Villoy Avenue at Powerline Easement looking South 538
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-10 Figure 3-13. Villoy Avenue looking North at Powerline Easement

3.1.4 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would change the use of the site from agricultural use to a combination of park facilities and groundwater recharge and storm-water layoff basins. While both uses are considered openspace uses, the view-shed for adjacent properties and the vicinity would convert from rows of dense orchards on a relatively flat horizontal aspect to undulating ground with excavated basins cleared of orchards and replaced with induced turf and other landscaping, including park-use related structures and amenities, parking areas, trails, and lighting. Views of agricultural lands beyond the City’s edge, including croplands, orchards, vineyards, and open rangelands, contribute to Visalia’s visual character. The removal of the pecan and walnut orchards would open additional viewsheds from the west, allowing for increased views of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Although the Project would constitute a substantial change of the existing scenic vista, it would not do so in a detrimental way. The impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. SR 198, which abuts the Project to the south, is eligible to be listed as a State Scenic Highway but is not officially designated. The Project design emphasizes the importance of providing attractive facilities, such as the re-channelization of Mill Creek to a meandering stream and the integration of recharge basins as attractive park features. There would be no impact.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed design of the park and recharge facilities would focus on incorporating the existing channels as attractive features with the express purpose of maximizing the visual 539
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-11 quality of the site. The two creeks and the irrigation ditches on the Project site are surrounded by privatelyowned pecan and walnut orchards and are currently blocked from public view. The aesthetics of the park design would not only improve the site’s visual character but would also allow and encourage the public to enjoy features that are not currently visible or accessible. Therefore, the Project would serve to enhance the aesthetic character of the site rather than degrade it. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Skyglow is artificial lighting from urbanized uses that alters the rural landscape and, in sufficient quantity, lights up the nighttime sky, thus reducing the darkness of the night sky and the visibility of the stars. Development of the Project would include the addition of new lighting for security purposes, as well as to illuminate the facility for nighttime uses or activities over a nearly 300-acre area. This lighting would reduce the ambient darkness of the nighttime sky and could be a substantial source of light and glare.

To minimize lighting effects, the Project would comply with Section 17.30.015.H of the Visalia Zoning Ordinance which prohibits on-site lighting from directly or indirectly illuminating adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. The City has not established a numerical threshold of significance for what would be considered substantial light or glare; thus, this EIR analyzes light generated by the Project against CIE 150-2003, an internationally-recognized standard set for light and glare. These standards can be found above in Section 0 of this document.

Although lighting would be designed to minimize spillover effects, lighting on the Project site could cause some spillover into adjacent areas. Furthermore, bright lighting of the park facility, particularly during evening hours, would contribute to skyglow.

Constructing the Project with shielded and downward-facing lights, as encouraged by the City zoning regulations, would minimize lighting effects. Lighting effects would also be minimized during site operation by turning off the lights for sports fields that are not in use. Similarly, lighting effects on adjacent land uses would be minimized by buffer landscaping and sound-mitigating walls. Thus, the Project skyglow effects would be limited, similar to the effects of a high school football stadium, and of shorter duration than the effects of numerous commercial and industrial uses that are brightly illuminated all night.

A Photometric and Glare Impact analysis (Figure 3-14, Appendix O) was prepared and superimposed onto the Concept Plans A1 and B1, juxtaposed with the existing residential developments to the west of the Project Site. Color gradients represent the intensity of glare that would be observed from that location, with the darkest of greens representing up to 500 candelas, to the darkest of reds representing greater than 150,000 candelas.

For reference, 500 candelas are equivalent to the glare generated from a 100-watt light bulb, and 25,000 candelas are comparable to high-beam headlights. Two residential subdivisions to the west of the Project site would receive minimal amount of glare from the Project, an amount comparable to pre- and post-curfew light levels expected in a suburban residential area. Light spillage from the Project at the property line would be less than

0.01 for both horizontal foot-candles (ground illumination) and vertical foot-candles (wall illumination). For comparison, local roads are typically illuminated between 0.3 and 0.8 foot-candles, or 300 times greater than the proposed property line illuminance. Illumination would be greatest at the Project west property line at 464 candelas, comparable to a 100-watt light bulb.

With implementation of the City’s existing code requirements and policies, potential lighting and glare impacts for the Project are considered less than significant.
540
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-12 Figure 3-14. Project Light Glare Analysis
541
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-13

3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. There are a total of four projects that have been proposed or approved within four miles of the Project. (See Appendix R for full list of projects) Implementation of the Project in combination with these related projects would result in more developed urban area. While many of the related projects, including this Project, would be visible from public and private properties, the related projects are too distant from each other to have a cumulatively considerable aesthetic effect. In addition, the development of the four projects is expected to occur in accordance with adopted plans and regulations of either the City or the County, depending upon specific location. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would occur. 542
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-14

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Table 3-4. Agriculture and Forest Resources
Agriculture and Forest Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
Agriculture has been the predominant land use in the Project area since the late 1800s. Due to the region’s rich soils, water resources, and favorable geographic and climatic conditions, agricultural activity in and around Visalia is highly productive. Visalia’s agricultural heritage has contributed significantly to the City’s economy – much of the region’s economic activity is related to the cultivation, processing, and distribution of agricultural products – as well as its visual and cultural character. Historically, City’s General Plan policies have acknowledged the value of the areas agricultural resources and sought to preserve them through urban growth management strategies and monitoring despite a prevalence of development pressures on local landowners and a growing urban population.5
Farmland, consisting primarily of pecan and walnut orchards, is the prominent land use within the Project Site. 5 City of Visalia. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 2: Land Use. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30474 Date Accessed: 7/6/2016 543
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-15 Figure 3-15. Farmland Designation Map
544
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-16

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) The USDA NRCS soil maps and farmland uses provide comprehensive information necessary for understanding, managing, conserving, and sustaining the nation’s limited soil resources. In addition to many other natural resource conservation programs, the NRCS manages the Farmland Protection Program, which provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farmland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA joins with State, Tribal, or local governments to acquire conservation easements or other interests from landowners.

The NRCS also classifies soils according to their suitability for agricultural use. The categories of the NRCS Soil Capability Classification System are as follows:
• Class I Soils have few limitations that restrict their use; • Class II Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices;
• Class III Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both;
• Class IV Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both;
• Class V Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use;
• Class VI Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation; and • Class VII Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act
The NRCS oversees the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 United States Code [USC] Section 4201, et seq.; see also 7 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 658). The FPPA (a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill) is national legislation designed to protect farmland. The FPPA states its purpose is to “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.” The FPPA applies to projects and programs that are sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the federal government.

The FPPA does not apply to private construction projects not subject to federal permitting and licensing, projects planned and completed without assistance from a federal agency, federal projects related to national defense during a national emergency, or projects proposed on land already committed to urban development.

The FPPA spells out requirements to ensure federal programs to the extent practical are compatible with State, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland and calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to aid in analysis. Because the City may ultimately seek some federal funding for transportation or other capital improvements related to this Project, this document addresses the FPPA as an applicable regulation.

State
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection As part of the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP), the California Department of Conservation (DOC) applies the NRCS soil classifications to identify agricultural lands, and these agricultural designations 545
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-17 are used in planning for the present and future of California’s agricultural land resources. These designated agricultural lands are included in the Important Farmland Maps. The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. The DOC has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications.

The list below provides a comprehensive description of all the categories mapped by the DOC. • Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long‐term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
• Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10‐acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
• Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

As shown in Figure 3-15, approximately 89% of the Project site is designated Prime Farmland, approximately 9% is designated Farmland of Local Importance, and approximately 2% is designated Urban and Built-Up Land.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code (GC) Sections 51200-51297.4. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas is eligible for enrollment under Williamson Act contracts. However, an agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. In order to meet this requirement two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous or if they are in common ownership. 546
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-18 The Williamson Act program is administered by the DOC in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10‐ year period, or a 20-year period for property restricted by a Farmland Security Zone Contract, wherein no conversion to a non-agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non‐renewal is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes as opposed to its unrestricted market value. A landowner may also submit an application for immediate cancellation, provided that the cancellation is consistent with the criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the affected county or city. Non‐renewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property. Participation in the Williamson Act program is dependent on city or county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners.6 The Project site does not contain any land subject to a Williamson Act contract; the closest Williamson Act parcels are located 60 feet to the east and 200 feet south of the Project, respectively.

Farmland Security Zone Act
The Farmland Security Zone Act is similar to the Williamson Act and was passed by the State Legislature is 1999 to ensure that long-term farmland preservation is part of public policy. Farmland Security Zone Act contracts are sometimes referred to as “Super Williamson Act Contracts.” Under the provisions of this act, a landowner already under a Williamson Act contract can apply for Farmland Security Zone status by entering into a contract with the county. Farmland Security Zone classification automatically renews each year for an additional 20 years. In return for a further 35% reduction in the taxable value of land and growing improvements (in addition to Williamson Act tax benefits), the owner of the property is precluded from developing the property into nonagricultural uses.7
California Farmland Conservancy Program
The California Farmland Conservancy Program (Public Resources Code Section 10200, et seq.) supports the voluntary granting of agricultural conservation easements from landowners to qualified nonprofit organizations, such as land trusts, as well as local governments. Conservation easements are voluntarily established restrictions that are permanently attached to property deeds, with the general purpose of retaining land in its natural, open-space, agricultural, or other condition while preventing uses that are deemed inconsistent with the specific conservation purposes expressed in the easements. Agricultural conservation easements define conservation purposes that are tied to keeping land available for continued use as farmland.

Such farmlands remain in private ownership and the landowner retains all farmland use authority, but the farmland is restricted in its ability to be subdivided or used for nonagricultural purposes, such as urban uses.

Potential impacts on conservation easements would be addressed in subsequent project-level documents.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Definition of Agricultural Lands Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 defines “agricultural land” for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts using the FMMP. The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. This Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan Update
• Policy LU-P-14: Recognize the importance of agriculture-related business to the City and region, 6 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/Pages/Index.aspx. Date Accessed:
1/2015.
7 Farmland Security Zone Act. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/farmland_security_zones/Pages/Index.aspx. Date Accessed: 1/21/2015. 547
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-19 • Policy LU-P-25: Provide planning and technical support for the relocation of agricultural operations currently located in the City to compatible locations in the Planning Area or the County. • Policy LU-P-30: Maintain greenbelts, or agricultural/open space buffer areas, between Visalia and other communities by implementing growth boundaries and working with County and land developers to prevent premature urban growth north of the St. Johns River and other sensitive locations within the timeframe of this General Plan.
• Policy LU-P-44: Develop land use and site design measures for areas adjacent to high-voltage power facilities. Measures will include landscape buffers and mandatory setbacks from substations and transmission towers and lines.

3.2.3 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would result in the conversion of approximately 253 acres of Prime Farmland and 21 acres of Farmland of Local Importance as shown on Figure 3-15. However, the Project would result in groundwater recharge in a region plagued by groundwater overdraft.

Implementation of the groundwater recharge component of the Project would increase the sustainability of groundwater levels and thereby helping the sustainability of agricultural efforts in the region and reducing the potential for the fallowing of farmland.

The Project site is located in Growth Area boundaries Tier II and Tier III. General Plan Policy LU-P-34 directs the City to “Create and adopt a mitigation program to address conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Important in Tiers II and III.” This policy however exempts public facilities, including regional parks and recharge basins.

The City foresaw the necessary conversion of farmland when adopting the 2030 General Plan Update. The EIR prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Update concluded that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts concerning the conversion of farmland. In certifying the EIR, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-37, which contained a SOC declaring that the significant loss of agriculture was outweighed by the benefits that would result from its conversion, and that there were no feasible mitigation measures that could reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The General Plan designates narrow strips (i.e., buffers) that parallel and abut Mill Creek and Packwood Creek as Conservation; however, the overall Project site is designated as Parks/Recreation. Development of the site for recreational and other uses was addressed by the General Plan and the associated EIR and the impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable and an SOC was adopted, no further analysis is required (Guidelines Section 15152(d)(1)). b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The portion of the site located within the Visalia City limits is currently zoned QP. The portion within unincorporated the County is zoned AE-20 (Agricultural). Recreational facilities are permitted by right within the City’s QP zone; however, they are not permitted within the County’s AE-20 zone. The Project would amend the City’s General Plan to reflect the entirety of the Project site as Parks/Recreation,8 with a corresponding change of zoning to QP. Given that the zoning of the Project site would no longer allow agriculture, there would not be a conflict with agricultural zoning. The site does not contain any land subject to a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact. 8 The creek buffer areas will remain designated as Conservation. 548
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-20 c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. No designated forest land or timberland is present at the Project Site. There would be no impact. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, given that no designated forest land or timberland is present at the site. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve any other components beyond those previously discussed under Impact a) above that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
Potentially Significant Impact. There are a total of four projects that have been proposed or approved within four miles of the Project. Implementation of this Project in combination with these related projects would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. The City General Plan includes policies that limit the conversion of Important Farmland areas to the minimum extent needed to accommodate longterm growth, and phasing development in such a way that prevents the possibility of reducing the viability of remaining farmland. There would be a cumulatively considerable impact to the conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance; this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 549
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-21

3.3 Air Quality
Table 3-5. Air Quality
Air Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
VRPA Technologies, Inc. prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment in March 2019. The following information can be found in Appendix C of this document.

The Project lies within the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley in Tulare County. The Project is located near the eastern border of the City at an elevation of approximately 331 feet above sea level with the surrounding area mostly flat.

The County, including the City, is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), one of the most polluted air basins in the Country –The surrounding topography includes foothills and mountains to the east and west.

These mountain ranges direct air circulation and dispersion patterns. Temperature inversions can trap air within the Valley, thereby preventing the vertical dispersal of air pollutants. In addition to topographic conditions, the local climate can also contribute to air quality problems. The climate in the County is classified as Mediterranean, with moist cool winters and dry warm summers.

The SJVAB comprises eight counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. Encompassing 24,840 square miles, the San Joaquin Valley is the second largest air basin in California.

Cumulatively, counties within the Air Basin represent approximately 16 percent of the States geographic area.

The Air Basin is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east (8,000 to 14,492 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains on the south (9,000 feet elevation). The San Joaquin Valley is open to the north extending to the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.

Wind patterns within the SJVAB result from marine air that generally flows into the Basin from the San Joaquin River Delta. The Coastal Range hinders wind access into the Valley from the west, the Tehachapis prevent southerly passage of airflow, and the high Sierra Nevada Mountain Range provides a significant barrier to the east. These topographical features result in weak airflow that becomes restricted vertically by high barometric 550
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-22 pressure over the Valley. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversion layers (1,500 – 3,000 feet).

Ozone, classified as a “regional” pollutant, often afflicts areas downwind of the original source of precursor emissions. Ozone can be easily transported by winds from a source area. Peak ozone levels tend to be higher in the southern portion of the Valley, as the prevailing summer winds sweep precursors downwind of northern source areas before concentrations peak. The separate designations reflect the fact that ozone precursor transport depends on daily meteorological conditions.

Other primary pollutants, carbon monoxide (CO) for example, may form high concentrations when wind speed is low. During the winter, County experiences cold temperatures and calm conditions that increase the likelihood of a climate conducive to high CO concentrations.

Precipitation and fog tend to reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog block the required radiation. CO is slightly water-soluble, so precipitation and fog tends to “reduce” CO concentrations in the atmosphere. Inhalable particulate matter at 10 micrometers (PM10) is somewhat “washed” from the atmosphere with precipitation. Precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley is strongly influenced by the position of the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure belt located off the Pacific coast. In the winter, this high-pressure system moves southward, allowing Pacific storms to move through the San Joaquin Valley. These storms bring in moist, maritime air that produces consideration precipitation on the western, upslope side of the Coast Ranges. Significant precipitation also occurs on the western side of the Sierra Nevada. On the Valley floor, however, there is some down slope flow from the Coast Ranges and the resultant evaporation of moisture from associated warming results in a minimum of precipitation. Nevertheless, the majority of the precipitation falling in the San Joaquin Valley is produced by those storms during the winter. Precipitation during the summer months is in the form of convective rain showers and is rare. It is usually associated with an influx of moisture into the San Joaquin Valley through the San Francisco area during an anomalous flow pattern in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Although the hourly rates of precipitation from these storms may be high, their rarity keeps monthly totals low.

Precipitation on the San Joaquin Valley floor and in the Sierra Nevada decreases from north to south. Stockton in the north receives about 20 inches of precipitation per year, Fresno in the center, receives about 10 inches per year, Bakersfield at the southern end of the valley receives less than 6 inches per year and the City received on average 10.93 inches per year.

In addition to climatic conditions, air pollution can be caused by human/socioeconomic conditions. Human causes of air pollution in the Valley consist of population growth, urbanization (gas-fired appliances, residential wood heaters, etc.), mobile sources (i.e., cars, trucks, airplanes, trains, etc.), oil production, and agriculture.

These are called anthropogenic, or human-caused, sources of emissions. The most significant factors, which are accelerating the decline of air quality in the SJVAB, are the Valley’s rapid population growth and its associated increases in traffic, urbanization, and industrial activity.

CO emissions overwhelmingly come from mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley; on-road vehicles contribute 65 percent, while other mobile vehicles, such as trains, planes, and off-road vehicles contribute another 17 percent. Motor vehicles account for significant portions of regional gaseous and particulate emissions. In addition, construction and agricultural activities can generate significant temporary gaseous and particulate emissions (dust, ash, smoke, etc.).

Other sources may not seem to fit into any one of the major categories or they may seem to fit in a number of them. These could include agricultural uses, dirt roads, animal shelters, animal feed lots, chemical plants and industrial waste disposal, which may be a source of dust, odors, or other pollutants. For the County, this category includes several agriculturally related activities, such as plowing, harvesting, dusting with herbicides and pesticides, and other related activities. Finally, industrial contaminants and their potential to produce various effects depend on the size and type of industry, pollution controls, local topography, and meteorological conditions. Major sources of industrial emissions in the County consist of agricultural production and processing operations, wine production, and marketing operations. 551
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-23 The primary contributors of PM10 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley are fugitive windblown dust from "open" fields (38%) and road dust from both paved and unpaved roads (38%). Farming activities only contribute 14% of the PM10.

The SJVAB is regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). SJVAPCD and CARB maintain numerous air quality monitoring sites throughout each County in the Air Basin to measure ozone, Inhalable Particulate Matter at 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and PM10. The closest monitoring station to the Project is the N. Church Street Monitoring Station.

The station monitors particulates, ozone, CO, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in parts per million (ppm).

Table 3-6. Maximum Pollutant Level Proximate to Project Maximum Pollutant Levels at N. Church Street Monitoring Station Pollutant Time
Averaging
2011 2012 2013 Standards
Maximums Maximums Maximums National State
Ozone (O3) 1-hour 0.119 ppm 0.111 ppm 0.095 ppm - 0.090 ppm Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.084 ppm 0.094 ppm 0.084 ppm 0.075 ppm 0.070 ppm Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8-hour 0.105 ppm 0.108 ppm 0.095 ppm 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
1-hour 0.058 ppm 0.061 ppm 0.062 ppm 100 ppb
(0.100 ppm) 0.18 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual
Average 0.012 ppm 0.012 ppm 0.012 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm Particulates
(PM10)
24-hour 78.1 µg/m3 76.2 µg/m3 160.0 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 Particulates
(PM2.5)
Federal
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

33.4 µg/m3 37.3 µg/m3 43.2 µg/m3- 20 µg/m3
Particulates
(PM2.5)
24-hour 73.2 µg/m3 76.2 µg/m3 124.6 µg/m3 35 µg/m3-
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Federal
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

16.0 µg/m3 14.7 µg/m3 18.9 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
CARB Website, 2015
The SJVAPCD operates regional air quality monitoring networks that provide information on average concentrations of pollutants for which State or federal agencies have established ambient air quality standards.

Descriptions of nine pollutants of importance in County follow (Appendix C).

Ozone (1-hour and 8-hour)
The most severe air quality problem in the Air Basin is the high level of ozone. Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere. Here, ground level, or “bad” ozone, is an air pollutant that damages human health, vegetation, and many common materials. It is a key ingredient of urban smog. The troposphere extends to a level about 10 miles up, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric, or “good” ozone layer, extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” ozone is what is known as a photochemical pollutant. It needs reactive organic gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), and sunlight in order to form. ROG and NOX are emitted from various sources throughout the 552
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-24 County. In order to reduce ozone concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these ozone precursors.

Significant ozone formation generally requires an adequate number of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

Ozone is a regional air pollutant. It is generated over a large area and is transported and spread by wind. Ozone, the primary constituent of smog, is the most complex, difficult to control, and pervasive of the criteria pollutants. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not emitted directly into the air by specific sources. Ozone is created by sunlight acting on other air pollutants (called precursors), specifically NOX and ROG. Sources of precursor gases to the photochemical reaction that form ozone number in the thousands. Common sources include consumer products, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and combustion products of various fuels.

Originating from gas stations, motor vehicles, large industrial facilities, and small businesses such as bakeries and dry cleaners, the ozone-forming chemical reactions often take place in another location, catalyzed by sunlight and heat. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins. Approximately 50 million people lived in counties with air quality levels above the United State Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) healthbased national air quality standard in 1994. The highest levels of ozone were recorded in Los Angeles, closely followed by the San Joaquin Valley. High levels also persist in other heavily populated areas, including the Texas Gulf Coast and much of the Northeast.

While the ozone in the upper atmosphere absorbs harmful ultraviolet light, ground-level ozone is damaging to the tissues of plants, animals, and humans, as well as to a wide variety of inanimate materials such as plastics, metals, fabrics, rubber, and paints. Societal costs from ozone damage include increased medical costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems, such as forests and foothill communities and some man-made materials, such as rubber, paint, and plastic.

High concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. High levels of ozone may negatively affect immune systems, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia. Ozone accelerates aging and exacerbates pre-existing asthma and bronchitis and, in cases with high concentrations, can lead to the development of asthma in active children. Active people, both children and adults, appear to be more at risk from ozone exposure than those with a low level of activity.

Additionally, the elderly and those with respiratory disease are also considered sensitive populations for ozone.

People who work or play outdoors are at a greater risk for harmful health effects from ozone. Children and adolescents are also at greater risk because they are more likely than adults to spend time engaged in vigorous activities. Research indicates that children under 12 years of age spend nearly twice as much time outdoors daily than do adults. Teenagers spend at least twice as much time as adults in active sports and outdoor activities. In addition, children inhale more air per pound of body weight than adults, and they breathe more rapidly than adults. Children are less likely than adults to notice their own symptoms and avoid harmful exposures.

Ozone is a powerful oxidant—it can be compared to household bleach, which can kill living cells (such as germs or human skin cells) upon contact. Ozone can damage the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, and it can induce symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and worsening of asthmatic symptoms. Ozone in sufficient doses increases the permeability of lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. Exposure to levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standard leads to lung inflammation and lung tissue damage and a reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lungs.

CARB found ozone levels in the SJVAB in nonattainment of federal and State standards (Appendix C). 553
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-25 Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles that can remain suspended in the air for long periods. Some particles are large or concentrated enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Others are so small they can be detected only with an electron microscope. Particulate matter is a mixture of materials that can include smoke, soot, dust, salt, acids, and metals. Particulate matter is emitted from stationary and mobile sources, including diesel trucks and other motor vehicles; power plants; industrial processes; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; wildfires; dust from roads, construction, landfills, and agriculture; and fugitive windblown dust. PM10 refers to particles less than or equal to 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter. PM2.5 refers to particles less than or equal to 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter and are a subset of PM10. Particulates of concern are those that are 10 microns or less in diameter. These are small enough to be inhaled, pass through the respiratory system and lodge in the lungs, possibly leading to adverse health effects.

In the western United States, there are sources of PM10 in both urban and rural areas. Because particles originate from a variety of sources, their chemical and physical compositions vary widely. The composition of PM10 and PM2.5 can also vary greatly with time, location, the sources of the material and meteorological conditions. Dust, sand, salt spray, metallic and mineral particles, pollen, smoke, mist, and acid fumes are the main components of PM10 and PM2.5. In addition to those listed previously, secondary particles can also be formed as precipitates from chemical and photochemical reactions of gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX in the atmosphere to create sulfates and nitrates. Secondary particles are of greatest concern during the winter months where low inversion layers tend to trap the precursors of secondary particulates.

The Air Resources Board 2008 PM2.5 Plan builds upon the aggressive emission reduction strategy adopted in the 2007 Ozone Plan and strives to bring the valley into attainment status for the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan indicates that all planned reductions (from the 2007 Ozone Plan and state standard.

The following new controls considered in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan include:
• Tighter restrictions on residential wood burning and space heating; • More stringent limits on PM2.5, SO2, and NOX emissions from industrial sources; • Measures to reduce emissions from prescribed burning and agricultural burning; and • More effective work practices to control PM2.5 in fugitive dust.

PM10 and PM2.5 particles are small enough—about one-seventh the thickness of a human hair, or smaller—to be inhaled and lodged in the deepest parts of the lung where they evade the respiratory systems natural defenses.

Health problems begin as the body reacts to these foreign particles. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Nonhealth-related effects include reduced visibility and soiling of buildings. PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. PM10 and PM2.5 can aggravate respiratory disease and cause lung damage, cancer, and premature death.

Although particulate matter can cause health problems for everyone, certain people are especially vulnerable to adverse health effects of PM10. These “sensitive populations” include children, the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from chronic lung disease such as asthma or bronchitis. Of greatest concern are recent studies that link PM10 exposure to the premature death of people who already have heart and lung disease, especially the elderly. Acidic PM10 can also damage manmade materials and is a major cause of reduced visibility in many parts of the United States.

CARB found PM10 levels in the SJVAB in attainment of federal standards and nonattainment for State standards and found PM2.5 levels in the SJVAB in nonattainment of federal and State standards. 554
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-26 Carbon Monoxide
CO is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. CO is an odorless, colorless, poisonous gas that is highly reactive. CO is a byproduct of motor vehicle exhaust, contributes more than two thirds of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. These emissions can result in high concentrations of CO, particularly in local areas with heavy traffic congestion. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes and fuel combustion in sources such as boilers and incinerators. Despite an overall downward trend in concentrations and emissions of CO, some metropolitan areas still experience high levels of CO.

CO enters the bloodstream and binds more readily to hemoglobin than oxygen, reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and thus reducing oxygen delivery to organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. Healthy individuals are also affected but only at higher levels of exposure. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases and can impair mental abilities. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, difficulty performing complex tasks, and in prolonged, enclosed exposure, death.

The adverse health effects associated with exposure to ambient and indoor concentrations of CO are related to the concentration of carboxyhemoglobin in the blood. Health effects observed may include an early onset of cardiovascular disease; behavioral impairment; decreased exercise performance of young, healthy men; reduced birth weight; sudden infant death syndrome; and increased daily mortality rate.

Most of the studies evaluating adverse health effects of CO on the central nervous system examine high-level poisoning. Such poisoning results in symptoms ranging from common flu and cold symptoms (shortness of breath on mild exertion, mild headaches, and nausea) to unconsciousness and death.

CARB found CO levels in the SJVAB in attainment of federal standards and unclassified for State standards.

Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx is a family of highly reactive gases, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), that are primary precursors to the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NOx is emitted from combustion processes in which fuel is burned at high temperatures, principally from motor vehicle exhaust and stationary sources such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. A brownish gas, NOx is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts in the air to form corrosive nitric acid, as well as toxic organic nitrates.

NOx is an ozone precursor that combines with ROG to form ozone. See the ozone section above for a discussion of the health effects of ozone.

Direct inhalation of NOx can also cause a wide range of health effects. NOx can irritate the lungs, cause lung damage, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. Short-term exposures (e.g., less than 3 hours) to low levels of NO2 may lead to changes in airway responsiveness and lung function in individuals with preexisting respiratory illnesses. These exposures may also increase respiratory illnesses in children. Long-term exposures to NO2 may lead to increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and may cause irreversible alterations in lung structure. Other health effects associated with NOx are an increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may lead to eye and mucus membrane aggravation, along with pulmonary dysfunction. NOx can cause fading of textile dyes and additives, deterioration of cotton and nylon, and corrosion of metals due to production of particulate nitrates. Airborne NOx can also impair visibility. NOx is a major component of acid deposition in California. NOx may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. NOx in the air is a potentially significant contributor to a number of environmental effects such as acid rain and eutrophication in coastal waters. Eutrophication occurs when a body of water suffers an increase in nutrients that reduce the amount of oxygen in the water, producing an environment that is destructive to fish and other animal life.
555
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-27 NO2 is toxic to various animals as well as to humans. Its toxicity relates to its ability to combine with water to form nitric acid in the eye, lung, mucus membranes, and skin. Studies of the health impacts of NO2 include experimental studies on animals, controlled laboratory studies on humans, and observational studies.

In animals, long-term exposure to NOx increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, lowering their resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, exposed to high concentrations of NO2 can suffer lung irritation and, potentially, lung damage.

Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes as well as hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.

NOx contributes to a wide range of environmental effects both directly and when combined with other precursors in acid rain and ozone. Increased nitrogen inputs to terrestrial and wetland systems can lead to changes in plant species composition and diversity. Similarly, direct nitrogen inputs to aquatic ecosystems such as those found in estuarine and coastal waters can lead to eutrophication as discussed above. Nitrogen, alone or in acid rain, also can acidify soils and surface waters. Acidification of soils causes the loss of essential plant nutrients and increased levels of soluble aluminum, which is toxic to plants. Acidification of surface waters creates conditions of low pH and levels of aluminum that are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.

CARB found NO2 levels in the SJVAB in attainment of federal and State standards.

Sulfur Dioxide
The major source of SO2 is the combustion of high-sulfur fuels for electricity generation, petroleum refining, and shipping. High concentrations of SO2 can result in temporary breathing impairment for asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. Short-term exposures of asthmatic individuals to elevated SO2 levels during moderate activity may result in breathing difficulties that can be accompanied by symptoms such as wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath. Other effects that have been associated with longer-term exposures to high concentrations of SO2, in conjunction with high levels of PM2.5 and PM10, include aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and alterations in the lung’s defenses. SO2 also is a major precursor to PM2.5, which is a significant health concern and a main contributor to poor visibility. In humid atmospheres, sulfur oxides can react with vapor to produce sulfuric acid, a component of acid rain.

CARB found SO2 levels in the SJVAB as unclassified for federal standards and in attainment for State standards.

Lead
Lead, a naturally occurring metal, can be a constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Lead is neither created nor destroyed in the environment, so it essentially persists forever. Lead was used until recently to increase the octane rating in automobile fuel. Since the 1980s, lead has been phased out in gasoline, reduced in drinking water, reduced in industrial air pollution, and banned or limited in consumer products. Gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major source of airborne lead through the use of leaded fuels; however, the use of leaded fuel has been mostly phased out. Since this has occurred the ambient concentrations of lead have dropped dramatically.

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause neurological impairments such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses and young children. Effects on the nervous systems of children are one of the primary health risk concerns from lead. In high concentrations, children can even suffer irreversible brain damage and death.

Children 6 years old and under are most at risk, because their bodies are growing quickly.

CARB found lead levels in the SJVAB in attainment of federal and State standards. 556
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-28 Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination. The ten TACs are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (diesel PM). Caltrans guidance for transportation studies references the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memorandum titled “Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents” which discusses emissions quantification of six “priority” compounds of 21 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) identified by the EPA: diesel exhaust (particulate matter and organic gases), benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein.

Some studies indicate that diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs listed above. A 10-year research program (CARB 1998) demonstrated that diesel PM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to diesel PM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increasing the risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems.

Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies, depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. Unlike the other TACs, however, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a diesel PM exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. Table 3-7 depicts the CARB Handbook recommendation buffer distances associated with various types of common sources.

Existing air quality concerns within County and the entire SJVAB are related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in GHG emissions contributing to climate change. The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles.

Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction and grading activities, and smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, and agricultural burning.

Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person to react to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another.

It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity. 557
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-29 Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor.

Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.

When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult.

At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

The intensity of an odor sources operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. The SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJVAB. The types of facilities that are known to produce odors are shown in Table 8 along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. Information presented in Table 3-7 will be used as a screening level of analysis for potential odor sources for the Project.

Table 3-7. Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Type of Facility Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Compositing Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shops) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
SJVAPCD, 2015.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California.

Asbestos is commonly found in ultramafic rock and near fault zones. Asbestos typically makes up 1% up to approximately 25% and sometimes more of these rocks. It is released from ultramafic rock when the rock is broken or crushed. This can happen when cars drive over unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with these rocks, when land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying operations. Asbestos is also released naturally through weathering and erosion. Once released from the rock, asbestos can become airborne and may stay in the air for long periods of time. Asbestos is hazardous and can cause lung disease and cancer dependent upon the level of exposure. The longer a person is exposed to asbestos and the greater the intensity of the exposure, the greater the chances for a health problem.

The Project construction phases may cause asbestos to become airborne due to the construction activities that would occur on site. In order to control naturally occurring asbestos dust, the project can use some of the following control actions to reduce the release of airborne asbestos fibers:
• Water wetting of road surfaces;
558
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-30 • Rinse vehicles and equipment;
• Wet loads of excavated material; and
• Cover loads of excavated material.

3.3.2 Methodology
An Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment was completed by VRPA Technologies, Inc. in March 2019.

The Assessment Report includes an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas model completed in September 2017 using CalEEmod 2016.3.1. and is attached as Appendix C
The impact assessment for air quality focuses on potential effects the Project might have on air quality within the County region. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds for determining environmental significance.

These thresholds separate a project’s short-term emissions from its long-term emissions. The short-term emissions are mainly related to the construction phase of a project, which are recognized to be short in duration.

The long-term emissions are primarily related to the activities that would occur indefinitely as a result of project operations. Impacts would be evaluated both on the basis of CEQA Appendix G criteria and SJVAPCD significance criteria. The impacts to be evaluated would be those involving construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants.

CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operations (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use.

The model is an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects throughout California. The model can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable such as CEQA documents, NEPA documents, pre-project planning, compliance with local air quality rules and regulations, etc.

3.3.3 Criteria for Significance
According to CEQA, a project would normally have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it would “violate any ambient air quality standard, conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable Air Quality Plan (AQP), result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, create substantial objectionable odors, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

For regional pollutants such as ozone, PM10, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide, the impact of new development cannot be predicted in terms of concentrations but is addressed in terms of changes in the regional burden of emissions.

For localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, an increase in concentrations that would result in a predicted violation of the most stringent State or federal standard (20.0 ppm for 1-hour or 9.0 ppm for 8-hours) is considered to represent a significant impact. This assessment provides for two types of localized area pollutant impact analysis; street and highway improvements and traffic volumes and construction impacts.

For purposes of this environmental assessment, an impact is considered significant if one or more of the following conditions occur from implementation of the Project:
• Regional air quality emission exceeds standards;
559
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-31 • Local air quality emission exceeds standards;
• Conflict/obstruct implementation of an applicable AQP; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant in non-attainment area; • Significant construction related air quality impacts occur; and/or • The creation of objectionable odors.

The SJVAPCD has established thresholds for certain pollutants shown in Table 9 of Appendix C

3.3.4 Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Clean Air Act (CAA), first adopted in 1967 and periodically amended since then, established federal ambient air quality standards. A 1987 amendment to the CAA sets a deadline for the attainment of these standards. That deadline has since passed. The other CAA Amendments, passed in 1990, share responsibility with the State in reducing emissions from mobile sources. The EPA is responsible for enforcing the 1990 amendments.

CAA and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) identify levels of air quality for six “criteria” pollutants, which are considered the maximum levels of ambient air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. The six criteria pollutants include ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM2.5 and PM10, and lead (Pb). Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as visibility restrictions.

The CAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The EPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance with the mandates of the CAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine if implementation would achieve air quality goals. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures.

CAA Section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 93 Subpart A) require that each new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) be demonstrated to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) before the RTP and TIP are approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in this case the County Association of Governments (TCAG) or accepted by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). The conformity analysis is a federal requirement designed to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. However, because the San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan for CO, PM10, PM2.5 and ozone address attainment of both the State and federal standards for these pollutants, demonstrating conformity to the federal standards is also an indication of progress toward attainment of the State standards. Compliance with the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) is provided on the pages following this federal conformity discussion.

The EPA approved San Joaquin Valley reclassification of the ozone (8-hour) designation to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010, even though the San Joaquin Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In accordance with the CAA, EPA uses the design value at the time of standard promulgation to assign nonattainment areas to one of several classes that 560
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-32 reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem; classifications range from marginal nonattainment to extreme nonattainment. In the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary standard to 0.070 ppm to provide increased public health protection against health effects associated with longand short-term exposures. The previous ozone standard was set in 2010 at 0.075 ppm.

National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA provides general information on the effects of federally funded projects. The act was implemented by regulations included in the 40 CFR 6. The code requires careful consideration concerning environmental impacts of federal actions or plans, including local projects that receive federal funds. The regulations address impacts on land uses and conflicts with state, regional, or local plans and policies, among others. They also require that projects requiring NEPA review seek to avoid or minimize adverse effects of proposed actions and to restore and enhance environmental quality as much as possible. The Project is subject to NEPA compliance because of the potential for federal grant funding for construction of the Project. The air quality assessment required under federal air quality standards and regulations covers the basic outline for project-level assessment under NEPA guidelines. The CAA also requires a parallel “Conformity” in addition to the basic impact assessment.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act first authorized the EPA to regulate asbestos in schools and public and commercial buildings under Title II of the law, which is also known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). AHERA requires Local Education Agencies to inspect their schools for AsbestosContaining Building Materials and prepare management plans to reduce the asbestos hazard. The Act also established a program for the training and accreditation of individuals performing certain types of asbestos work.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the CAA, the EPA established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).

State
California Air Resources Board and the California Clean Air Act The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing its own air quality legislation called the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988. CARB was created in 1967 from the merging of the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board and the Bureau of Air Sanitation and its Laboratory.

CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA. Whereas CARB has primary responsibility and produces a major part of the SIP for pollution sources that are statewide in scope, it relies on the local air districts to provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. CARB combines its data with all local district data and submits the completed SIP to the EPA. The SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources and consumer products set by the CARB, and attainment plans adopted by the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) and Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) and approved by CARB. The SJVAPCD is one of 35 AQMDs that have prepared air quality management plans to accomplish a five percent annual reduction in emissions documenting progress toward the CAAQS. 561
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-33 States may establish their own standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS.

California has established the CAAQS pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes.

Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 39608 requires CARB to “identify” and “classify” each air basin in the state on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Subsequently, the CARB designated areas in California as nonattainment based on violations of the CAAQS. Designations and classifications specific to the SJVAB can be found in the next section of this document. Areas in the state were also classified based on severity of air pollution problems.

For each nonattainment class, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted. For all nonattainment categories, attainment plans are required to demonstrate a five percent-per-year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three-year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. In addition, air districts in violation of CAAQS are required to prepare an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) that lays out a program to attain and maintain the CCAA mandates.

Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality. CARB has established and maintains, in conjunction with local APCDs and AQMDs, a network of sampling stations (called the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations [SLAMS] Network), which monitors the present pollutant levels in the ambient air.

All of Tulare County, including the City, is in the SJVAB. A map of the SJVAB is provided in Appendix C.

Table 3-8 contains a summary of State and federal air quality standards and the SJVABs attainment status for common pollutants.

CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
CARB is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the state. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, CARBs motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, CARB has adopted regulations that require auto manufacturers to phase in less-polluting vehicles.

The CCAA was first signed into law in 1988 and is administered by CARB. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the States air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CAAQS, established pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 39606(b), are similar to, but more stringent than, the NAAQS. 562
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-34 Table 3-8. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards
Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration* Attainment
Status Primary Attainment Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm
Non- Attainment
– Non-Attainment
(Extreme)** 8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3
Non-Attainment
–
Attainment 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3
Non-Attainment
12 μg/m3
Non-Attainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm
Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm
Attainment/
Maintenance
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm –
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm
Attainment

0.053 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM –
Attainment

0.03 ppm
Attainment/
Unclassified
24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
3-hour – --
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead
30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Attainment
–
No Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average – 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment
No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour
Extinction
coefficient: 0.23/kmvisibility of 10 miles
or more (0.07-30
miles or more for
Lake Tahoe) due to
particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.

Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit :http//www.arb.ca.gov.research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hour standard May 5, 2010. ***Secondary Standard
Source: ARB 2015; SJVAPCD 2015
563
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-35 Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as a TAC. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TACs. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted EPAs list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. CARB list of TACs is provided below:
▪ Benzene
▪ Ethylene Dibromide
▪ Ethylene Dichloride
▪ Hexavalent chromium
▪ Asbestos
▪ Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans
▪ Cadmium
▪ Carbon Tetrachloride
▪ Ethylene Oxide
▪ Methylene Chloride
▪ Trichloroethylene
▪ Chloroform
▪ Vinyl chloride
▪ Inorganic Arsenic
▪ Nickel
▪ Perchloroethylene
▪ Formaldehyde
▪ 1,3-Butadiene
▪ Inorganic Lead
▪ Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled
Engines
▪ Environmental Tobacco Smoke
▪ EPA Hazardous Air Pollutants (187)
If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology to minimize emissions.

California Assembly Bill 170
Assembly Bill 170, Reyes (AB 170), was adopted by state lawmakers in 2003 creating GC Section 65302.1 which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality.

State Tailpipe Emission Standards
To reduce emissions from off-road diesel equipment, on-road diesel trucks, and harbor craft, CARB established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new engines. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy duty trucks, off-road construction equipment, tugboats, and barges, would be required to comply with the standards.

Local
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the agency responsible for monitoring and regulating air pollutant emissions from stationary, area, and indirect sources within the County and throughout the SJVAB. The District also has responsibility for monitoring air quality and setting and enforcing limits for source emissions. The CARB is the agency with the legal responsibility for regulating mobile source emissions. The District is precluded from such activities under State law.

The District was formed in mid-1991 and prepared and adopted the San Joaquin Valley AQAP, dated January 30, 1992, in response to the requirements of the CCAA. The CCAA requires each non-attainment district to reduce pertinent air contaminants by at least five percent (5%) per year until new, more stringent, 1988 State air quality standards are met.
564
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-36 Activities of the SJVAPCD include the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspection of stationary sources of air pollution and response to citizen complaints, monitoring of ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementation of programs and regulations required by the CAA and the CCAA.

The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2013 Ozone Plan to achieve federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone. It provides a comprehensive list of regulatory and incentive-based measures to reduce emissions of ozone and particulate matter precursors throughout the SJVAB, and calls for major advancements in pollution control technologies for mobile and stationary sources of air pollution, a 75- percent reduction in ozone-forming oxides of nitrogen emissions, and addresses the remaining requirement under the 1979 revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

The EPA in 2006 issued a Final Rule determining that the Basin had attained the NAAQS for PM10, it did however note that the Final Rule did not constitute a redesignation to attainment until all of the CAA requirements under Section 107(d)(3) were met. In response, the SJVAPCD prepared the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation (2007 PM10 Plan). The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan provides a comprehensive list of regulatory and incentive-based measures to reduce PM2.5.

The Guide for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts was prepared in 2015, which is an advisory document that provides Lead Agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality impacts in environmental documents. It describes the criteria that SJVAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents and recommends thresholds for determining whether or not projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts.

The SJVAPCD documents identified above represent the SJVAPCDs plan to achieve both State and federal air quality standards. The regulations and incentives contained in these documents must be legally enforceable and permanent. These plans separate emissions reductions and compliance into different emissions source categories. The SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations that are applicable to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081): This regulation is a series of rules designed to reduce particulate emissions generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, carryout and trackout, use of paved and unpaved roads and traffic areas, bulk material handling and storage, open space areas, etc. If a non-residential area is five or more acres in size, a Dust Control Plan must be submitted as specified in Section 6.3.1 of Rule 8021. Additional requirements may apply, depending on total area of disturbance. • Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Other Earthmoving Activities: District Rule 8021 requires owners or operators of construction projects to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District if at any time the project involves non-residential developments of five or more acres of disturbed surface area or moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on at least three days of the project. The Project will meet these criteria and will be required to submit a Dust Control Plan to the District in order to comply with this rule. • Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review: Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review (ISR), fulfills the SJVAPCD emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans through emission reductions associated with construction and operational activities for projects subject to the rule. Since the project contains more than 20,000 square feet of recreational space it will be required to comply with Rule 9510. Compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA process, although the control measures used to comply with Rule 9510 may be used to mitigate CEQA impacts. 565
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-37 • Rule 4641 – Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations: If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the Project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt, and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.
• Regulatory Attainment Designations: Under the CCAA, CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The EPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The EPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” The SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state PM10 standard, ozone, and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the national 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.

Table 3-9 shows the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for both construction- and operation-related emissions from a given project.

Table 3-9. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance
SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr)
Pollutant Construction Emissions Operation Emissions
ROG 10 10
NOx 10 10
CO 100 100
SOx 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD, May 2015.

City of Visalia General Plan
• Policy AQ-P-2: Require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emission as a condition of approval for all subdivisions, development plans and grading permits, in conformance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Rule. 566
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-38 • Policy AQ-P-9: Continue to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term stationary impacts on air quality on a case-by-case basis and continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review. Require developers to implement BMPs to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.

City of Visalia Climate Action Plan
The City Climate Action Plan (CAP) was created as one of the first key steps to guiding the development and enhancement of actions designed to reduce Visalia’s GHG emissions. The CAP represents the results of a GHG emissions inventory effort which serves as a starting point for the development of a comprehensive municipal and community strategy for addressing GHG emission reduction goals.

The major long-term objectives of the City’s CAP for the City government and the community as a whole include the following:
▪ Reduce net GHG emissions from both municipal operations and community activities; ▪ Promote cleaner and healthier air to breathe;
▪ Help the City and its residents save on energy costs; ▪ Reduce vulnerability to changes in energy availability and price; and ▪ Increase public awareness of climate change issues.

The City selected the years 2020 and 2030 to establish mitigation targets for the CAP. A reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline year level was the target for 2020. A reduction of 30% below the 2005 baseline year level is the target for 2030. The City established two mitigation milestones to correlate with the planning horizon of the 2030 General Plan Update, and to ensure that the City is working towards the States goal of an 80% reduction below baseline by 2050.

The City has instituted various actions in an effort to meet the year 2020 and 2030 mitigation targets. The measures identified to achieve mitigation targets are organized into five categories: Energy Systems, Transportation, Water and Resource Conservation, Transportation / Land Use, and Waste and Resource Conservation. Included in the Transportation category is a measure regarding the expansion of bicycle paths.

The Project includes the development of multi-use trails which coincides with the goals of the CAP.

3.3.5 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The primary way of determining consistency with an AQP is to determine a projects consistency with the applicable General Plan. This ensures that the projects population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the air basin. As this Project requires a General Plan Amendment, the following criteria for determining Project consistency with the current AQPs are as follows:

1. Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs?

2. Would the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? Regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin. Individual projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation of air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project is based on its cumulative contribution. Because of the regions non-attainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if Project generated emission of either of the ozone precursor pollutants ROG, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the SJVAPCDs significance thresholds, then the Project would be considered to contribute to violations of the applicable standards and conflict with the attainment plans. As demonstrated in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9, 567
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-39 Project emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the SJVAPCDs significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to air quality violations in conflict with attainment plans.

The AQP contains a number of control measures, including Regulation VII-Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions and Rule 9510 ISR which are applicable to the Project. Regulation VII-Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions and Rule 9510 ISR are adopted rules and regulations that constitute enforceable requirements with which the project must comply. The Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations; therefore, the Project complies with the criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plans. As a result, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any AQP.

Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Less than Significant Impact.

Short-Term Impacts
The analysis of construction impacts assumes that Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Project would be constructed independently of each other and the periods of construction would not overlap. As shown in Table 3-10, the annual emissions from the construction phase of Phase 1, 2, and 3 of the Project would be less than the applicable SJVAPCD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. The construction emissions are therefore considered less than significant with the compliance to the SJVAPCD applicable Regulation VIII control measures, which are provided below. If Phase 1, 2, or 3 of the Project is constructed simultaneously with another phase, the SJVAPCD threshold for NOx emissions would be exceeded.

1. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.

2. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

3. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.

4. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.

5. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.

Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.

6. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

7. Within urban areas, track out shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)
The Project construction phases, particularly activities involving earthmoving, may cause asbestos to become airborne. In order to control naturally occurring asbestos dust, the Project would be required to submit a Dust Control Plan under SJVAPCD Rule 8021. The Dust Control Plan may include the following measures:
568
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-40

1. Water wetting of road surfaces

2. Rinse vehicles and equipment

3. Wet loads of excavated material

4. Cover loads of excavated material
Long-Term Impacts
Emissions from long-term operations generally represent a projects most substantial air quality impact. Longterm emissions from the Project are generated primarily by mobile source (vehicle) emissions related to operational activities (i.e., vehicle trips by those driving to and from the site) and area sources such as lawn and facility maintenance equipment. Table 3-11 delineates operational emissions by phase. Appendix C contains Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 summarize the operational impacts by pollutant. Results show that Project operational emissions would not exceed applicable emission thresholds. Therefore, Project long-term emissions would be considered less than significant.

Construction-Related Emissions
Table 3-10. Maximum Unmitigated Project Construction Related Emissions Maximum Unmitigated
Project Construction-Related Emissions
Pollutant
Construction Emissions (tons/yr)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 2 Tower
Street Phase 3

SJVAPCD
Thresholds of
Significance
ROG 0.86 0.64 0.28 1.71 10
NOx 6.82 6.87 2.89 7.44 10
CO 5.52 3.89 2.31 4.31 100
SOx 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 27
PM10 1.37 1.20 1.42 2.79 15
PM2.5 0.77 0.72 0.39 1.47 15
Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.1., March 2019 (see Appendix C) Operational Emissions
Table 3-11. Maximum Unmitigated Project Operation-Related Net Emissions Maximum Unmitigated
Project Operational-Related Net Emissions
Pollutant
Operational Emissions (tons/yr)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

SJVAPCD
Thresholds of
Significance
ROG 0.04 0.83 0.99 10
NOx 0.00 2.79 4.58 10
CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 100
SOx 0.00 0.01 0.02 27
569
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-41 Maximum Unmitigated
Project Operational-Related Net Emissions
Pollutant
Operational Emissions (tons/yr)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

SJVAPCD
Thresholds of
Significance
PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 15
PM2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 15
Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.1., March 2019 (see Appendix C) c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less than Significant Impact. County is nonattainment for Ozone (1 hour and 8 hour) and PM10 (State standards) and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD has prepared the 2013 Ozone Plan, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan to achieve federal and State standards for improved air quality in the SJVAB regarding ozone and PM.

Inconsistency with any of the plans would be considered a cumulatively adverse air quality impact. As discussed in a), the Project does not obstruct implementation of these plans.

As described in b) above, impacts related to construction and operational emissions would be less than significant. In addition, results of the CALINE analysis (Section 3.3.2 of Appendix C) show that the intersections of Lovers Lane and Mineral King Avenue, McAuliff Street and Mineral King Avenue, and Road 156 and Noble Avenue are expected to generate CO concentrations that would not exceed the federal or State 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Further, as indicated in Section 3.3.2 of Appendix C, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health problems affected by air quality). Land uses that have the greatest potential to attract these types of sensitive receptors include schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. From a health risk perspective, the Project is a Type B Project in that it may potentially place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing sources.

The first step in evaluating the potential for impacts to sensitive receptors for TACs from the Project is to perform a screening level analysis. For Type B Projects, one type of screening tool is found in the CARB Handbook: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective. This handbook includes a table (depicted in Table 4 of Appendix C) with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources. The screening level analysis for the Project shows that TACs are not a concern. An evaluation of nearby land uses completed by VRPA showed that the Project would not place sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. Since the Project is located outside the recommended buffer distances associated with the sources found in Appendix C Table 4, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, there would be no impact. 570
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-42 e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The SJVAPCD requires that an analysis of potential odor impacts be conducted for the following two situations:
• Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to be located near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and • Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people located near existing odor sources.

The Project would not generate odorous emissions but would attract people to its site for recreational activities.

The Double D Dairy, LLC is located approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the Project site, which is less than the one (1) mile screening distance provided in Table 3-7. However, analysis pursuant to CEQA must address whether a project would unduly affect existing receptors, not whether existing conditions would affect a project.

As a result, the Project would not be evaluated for its potential to place sensitive receptors near existing odor sources.

The intensity of an odor sources operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. As shown in Table 3-7 the SJVAPCD has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the SJVAB along with a reasonable distance from the source within which the degree of odors could possibly be significant. Regional parks and groundwater recharge basins are not among those listed facilities.

Based on the assessment above, the Project would not generate potential odorous emissions. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.

3.3.6 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. Automobiles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles using hydrocarbon fuels release exhaust products into the air. Each vehicle by itself does not release large quantities; however, when considered as a group, the cumulative effect is significant.

Traffic forecasts for Existing Plus Project (Phase 3 - Full Build) and Cumulative Year 2040 With and Without Project (Phase 3 - Full Build) conditions were used in the CALINE analysis by VRPA Technologies, Inc. to determine CO concentrations under worst case conditions (Appendix C). The Project would not exceed federal or State standards for Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the Project given the assessment of Phase 3 operations; therefore, cumulative impacts of criteria pollutants generated by the Project would be less than significant.

As noted in Impact Analysis c) above, inconsistency with any of the plans would be considered a cumulatively adverse air quality impact. The Project would not obstruct implementation of AQP’s; therefore, the Project is consistent with the assumptions used in the 2013 Ozone Plan, 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan, and 2012 PM2.5 Plan.
571
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-43

3.4 Biological Resources
Table 3-12. Biological Resources
Biological Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
A site-specific biological evaluation was prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., a qualified biological consulting firm. The biological evaluation consisted of field surveys conducted on December 29 and 30, 2014 and a report dated June 6, 2019. On May 13, 2022, Live Oak Associates, Inc. biologist Jeff Gurule performed a new field survey to document current site conditions. A biological evaluation update letter dated June 27, 2022 has been prepared to reflect the May 2022 field survey. The contents of the biological evaluation report and the update letter, attached as Appendix D, are the primary source for the description of the environmental setting and impact assessment.

The area of potential effect (APE) is located in a portion of the central San Joaquin Valley that has, for decades, experienced intensive agricultural and urban disturbances. Current agricultural endeavors in the region include 572
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-44 orchards, row crops, and dairies. The APE lies east and north of the City, and is surrounded by agricultural lands, rangeland, residential and commercial areas.

Like most of California, the central San Joaquin Valley has a Mediterranean climate. Warm dry summers are followed by cool moist winters. Summer temperatures commonly exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely rise much above 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with daytime highs often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation within the Project site is about 10.93 inches, almost 85% of which falls between the months of October and March. Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain. Stormwater readily infiltrates the soils of and surrounding the Project site.

The three water conveyance channels that traverse the site are Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, and Oakes Ditch.

These waterways historically contained large areas of riparian, wetland, and aquatic ecosystems that supported large populations of diverse native plants and animals. An historic aerial photo from 1937 is presented as Figure 4 of the Biological Evaluation Report Appendix D. However, at present these waterways support only a fraction of the riparian habitats they once did, and aquatic habitats have been greatly degraded as a result of agricultural runoff and controlled flows. In essence, these waterways have been reduced to distributary channels of the Kaweah River supplying water to farmland in the region. Tulare Lake has long been drained and converted to farmland and urban uses.

Native plant and animal species once abundant in the region have become locally extirpated or have experienced large reductions in their populations due to conversion of upland, riparian, and aquatic habitats to agricultural and urban uses. Remaining native habitats are particularly valuable to native wildlife species including special status species that still persevere in the region.

3.4.2 Methodology
The analysis of impacts, as discussed in this report, is based on the Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis included: (1) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)California Natural Diversity Database, (2) the Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, and (3) manuals, reports, and references related to plants and animals of the San Joaquin Valley region. Reconnaissancelevel field surveys of the Project site were conducted on December 29 and 30, 2014 by Live Oak Associates ecologists. These surveys consisted of walking or driving through accessible portions of the Project site, scanning non-accessible areas and surrounding lands with binoculars, identifying the principal land uses of each site, identifying constituent plants and animals of each land use type, and mapping habitat suitable for special status species and other sensitive biological resources. (See Appendix D) Comprehensive protocol level surveys for sensitive biological resources were not conducted for this study.

Field surveys conducted for this study were sufficient to assess the significance of potential biological impacts associated with the development of the Project site with water storage, regulation facilities, irrigation infrastructure, active and passive park uses and related amenities, a dog park, and maintenance yards and to assess the need for more detailed studies that could be warranted if potentially sensitive biotic resources were identified in this initial biological evaluation.

3.4.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protects fish and wildlife species and their habitats that have been identified by the USFWS as threatened or endangered. Endangered refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are in danger of 573
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-45 extinction through all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are likely to become endangered in the near future.

Due to the potential for the City to obtain federal grant funding for the Project, Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA may be relevant. Provisions of Sections 7 and 9 are summarized below. • Section 7: Section 7 of the ESA provides a means for authorizing incidental take of threatened and endangered species by federal agencies. “Take” as defined by ESA, means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct”. “Harm” is defined as “any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification.” Under Section 7, the federal agency funding, permitting, or conducting an action [the lead federal agency, such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)] must consult with USFWS to ensure that the proposed action would not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. If a Project “may affect” a listed species or designated critical habitat, the federal lead agency is required to prepare a biological assessment (BA) evaluating the nature and severity of the expected effect. In response, the USFWS issues a biological opinion (BO), with a determination whether the proposed action either:
o Would jeopardize the continued existence of one or more listed species (jeopardy finding) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (adverse modification finding), or
o Would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (no jeopardy finding) or result in adverse modification of critical habitat (no adverse modification finding).

The biological opinion issued by the USFWS may stipulate discretionary “reasonable and prudent” conservation measures. If the project would not therefore jeopardize a listed species, the USFWS issues an incidental take statement to authorize the proposed activity. • Section 9: Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed as endangered under the ESA by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Take of threatened species also is prohibited under Section 9, unless otherwise authorized by federal regulations. In some cases, exceptions may be made for threatened species under ESA Section 4[d]; in such cases, the USFWS issues a “4[d] rule” describing protections for the threatened species and specifying the circumstances under which take is allowed. In addition, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up, cutting, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants on sites under federal jurisdiction.

Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted as an amendment to the federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which outlined the basic structure for regulating discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States (WOTUS). The CWA serves as the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands.

The CWA empowers the EPA to set national water quality standards and effluent limitations and includes programs addressing both point-source and nonpoint-source pollution. Point-source pollution is pollution that originates or enters surface waters at a single, discrete location, such as an outfall structure or an excavation or construction site. Nonpoint-source pollution originates over a broader area and includes urban contaminants in stormwater runoff and sediment loading from upstream areas. The CWA operates on the principle that all discharges into the nations waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit; with permit review being the CWAs primary regulatory tool. The following sections provide additional details on specific sections of the CWA.
• Section 404: CWA Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into WOTUS. In 2020, the EPA and USACE published the Navigable Water Protection Rule defining the jurisdiction 574
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-46 of what is considered WOTUS. WOTUS jurisdiction applies to navigable waters and includes four categories of water: territorial seas and traditional navigable water; tributaries of such waters; certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional waters. The new rule also defines what is not considered WOTUS. The rule provide that groundwater is not a jurisdictional water and explicitly excludes ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, diffuse stormwater runoff, ditches, prior converted cropland, artificially irrigated water or lakes, water-filled depressions constructed or excavated incidental to mining or construction activities, and water filled pits excavated for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel.

As determined by the United States Supreme Court in the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 121 S.CT. 675, 2001, (commonly referred to as the “SWANCC” decision) ” Based on SWANCC, the USACE no longer has jurisdiction or regulates isolated wetlands that have no hypothetical or observed hydrologic connection with a WOTUS).

A June 19, 2006, federal ruling on two consolidated cases (Rapanos v. United States9 and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers10), often referred to as the Rapanos decision, affects whether adjacent waters or wetlands are considered jurisdictional under the CWA. The directive of the court follows the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, which states that the test for waters of the United States should be determined on a case-by-case basis by USACE on the basis of whether a particular water body has “significant nexus” to navigable waters.

Applicants must obtain a permit from the USACE for all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed activity.

The USACE may issue either an individual permit evaluated on a case-by-case basis, or a Nationwide general permit (NWP) evaluated at a program level for a series of related activities. NWP are preauthorized activities that have been determined to cause only minimal adverse environmental effects. Each NWP provides specific conditions that must be met for the NWP to apply to a project.

Potential WOTUS found within the project area would be under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento District of the USACE.

Compliance with CWA Section 404 requires compliance with several other environmental laws and regulations. The USACE cannot issue an individual permit or verify the use of a NWP until the requirements of the NEPA, ESA, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been met.

In addition, the USACE cannot issue or verify any permit until a CWA Section 401 water quality certification or a waiver of certification has been issued. This is discussed further below. • Section 402: CWA Section 402 regulates construction-related stormwater discharges to surface waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, administered by the EPA. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has authority to oversee the NPDES program and is implemented through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) (see further related discussions under “Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act” below). The APE would be under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB.

NPDES permits are required for projects that disturb one (1) acre or more of land. The NPDES permitting process requires the applicant to file a NOI to discharge stormwater and prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP includes a site map and a description of proposed construction activities. In addition, it describes the BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants (e.g., 9 Rapanos v. United States. 04-1034, Rapanos v. United States (supremecourt.gov) 10 Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers. CARABELL v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS | FindLaw 575
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-47 petroleum products, solvents, paints, and cement) that may contaminate nearby water resources.

Permittees are required to conduct annual monitoring and reporting to ensure that BMPs are correctly implemented and effective in controlling the discharge of stormwater-related pollutants. • Section 401: In 2020, California regulations protecting wetland and state waters were approved by the SWRCB and have updated defined procedures for discharges of dredge or fill material to waters of the State. The new procedures consist of four major elements: a wetland definition; framework for determining if a feature meets the wetland definition; delineation procedures; and procedures for the submittal, review and approval of applications for water quality certification and waste discharge requirements (WDRs). Discharges into waters of the State that are also waters of the United States require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB as a prerequisite to obtaining certain federal permits, such as a CWA Section 404 permit. Waters of the State also include wetlands Discharges into all waters of the State, even those that are not also Waters of the United States, may require WDRs, or waivers of WDRs, from the RWQCB.

Executive Order 13186 – Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 USC 703–711, prohibits the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird.11 Under the act, “take” is defined as the action of or attempt to “pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill”. This act applies to all persons and agencies in the United States, including federal agencies.

Executive Order 13186 requires that any project with federal funding, permitting, or action must address the impacts of the project on migratory birds. The order is designed to assist federal agencies in their efforts to comply with the MBTA and does not constitute any legal authorization to take migratory birds. The order also requires federal funding, permitting, or action-taking agencies to work with the USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Protocols developed under the MOU must promote the conservation of migratory bird populations through:
• Avoiding and minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions;
• Restoring and enhancing the habitat of migratory birds, as practicable; and • Preventing or abating the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as practicable.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species
EO 13112, signed February 3, 1999, directs all federal agencies to prevent and control the introduction of invasive species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. The EO requires consideration of invasive species in NEPA analyses, including their identification and distribution, their potential effects, and measures to prevent or eradicate them.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990, signed May 24, 1977, directs all federal agencies to refrain from assisting in or giving financial support to projects that encroach on publicly or privately-owned wetlands. It further requires that federal agencies support a policy to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. 11 Executive Order 13186, 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 11. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-EO13186migratorybirds.pdf Date Accessed:
11/6/2017.
576
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-48 State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA is the regulatory framework by which California public agencies identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. The CEQA statute is set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the Guidelines implementing the Act (State CEQA Guidelines) are set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq. A project normally is considered to result in a significant environmental impact on biological resources if it substantially affects a rare or endangered species or the habitat of that species, substantially interferes with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife, or substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
California implemented the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The Act prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species; however, habitat destruction is not included in the States definition of take.

Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill an individual of a species. Section 2090 of CESA requires State agencies to comply with endangered-species protection and recovery and promote conservation of these species. CDFW administers the act and authorizes take through Section 2081 agreements (except for species designated as fully protected). Regarding rare plant species, CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, which preserves, protects, and enhances rare and endangered plant species and prohibits importing/exporting or the sale of rare and endangered plants. All State plants that have been designed as rare, threatened, endangered, or listed as a candidate or species of special concern are protected. In addition to federal and State protection the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has a ranking system that places native plants into categories or ranks reflecting degrees of concern and which also needs to be addressed during CEQA review.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Water Code Section 13260 requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements)”. Under the Porter-Cologne definition, the term “waters of the State” (as distinguished from Waters of the United States) is defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state”. The SWANCC ruling and Rapanos decision, described above, have no bearing on the Porter-Cologne definition. Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the State, the converse is not true (i.e., in California, waters of the United States represent a subset of waters of the state). Thus, California retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, regardless of whether the USACE has concurrent jurisdiction under CWA 404.

If the USACE determines a wetland is not subject to regulation under CWA 404, CWA 401 water quality certification is not required. However, the RWQCB may impose WDRs if fill material is placed into waters of the state.

California Fish and Game Code
• Section 1602: Under Fish and Game Code Section 1602, public agencies are required to notify CDFW before undertaking any project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow, bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Preliminary notification and project review occur generally during the environmental process. When an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected, CDFW is required to propose reasonable project changes to protect the resources. These modifications are formalized in a streambed-alteration agreement that becomes part of the plans, specifications, and bid documents for the project.
577
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-49 • Sections 3503 and 3503.5: Fish and Game Code Section 3503 prohibits the destruction of bird nests.

Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing of raptor species and the destruction of raptor nests. • Section 3511 (Fully Protected Birds): The Fish and Game Code provides protection from take for a variety of species of birds, referred to as fully protected species. Section 3511 lists fully protected birds and prohibits take of these species. The Fish and Game Code defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”. Except for take related to scientific research, all take of fully protected species of birds is prohibited.

California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
The California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act was enacted in 2001 to protect oak woodland habitats that were being diminished due to development, firewood harvesting, and agricultural conversions.12 The Oak Woodlands Conservation Program was established as a result of the act and is intended to provide project funding opportunities for private landowners, conservation organizations, and cities and counties to conserve and restore oak woodlands. The program authorizes the Wildlife Conservation Board to purchase oak woodland conservation easements and provide grants for land improvements and oak restoration efforts. The Planning Area contains a large stand of California Valley Oak Woodland and also contains scattered oak woodland stands that have been preserved throughout the City.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan Update
• Objective OSC-O-10: Protect and enhance natural vegetation throughout the Planning Area, especially types that are considered sensitive natural communities by the Department of Fish and Game [sic]. • Policy OSC-P-28: Protect significant stands of Valley Oak woodlands from further development by designating them for Conservation, creating habitat management plans, where needed, and undertaking restoration activities as appropriate. • Policy OSC-P-30: Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any discretionary development projects involving riparian habitat, wetlands, or special status species habitat. Early in the development review process, consult with California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies. • Policy OSC-P-31: Protect and enhance habitat for special status species, designated under state and federal law. Require protection of sensitive habitat areas and special status species in new development in the following order: (1) avoidance; (2) on-site mitigation, and (3) off-site mitigation.

City of Visalia Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance
The City has a valley oak (Quercus lobate) tree ordinance that protects valley oak trees with a diameter at breast height of two (2) inches or greater. Under this ordinance, removal or encroachment within the dripline of or damage to valley oak trees is prohibited. Removal requires a permit from the City Manager and mitigation either by replacement in-kind or payment of an in-lieu fee to be used for future oak tree planting.13 12 California Wildlife Conservation Board. https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/Oaks Date Accessed: 11/6/2017. 13 City of Visalia, Valley Oak Ordinance.
http://www.visalia.city/depts/parks_n_recreation/urban_forestry/valley_oak_ordinance_.asp Date Accessed: 11/27/2017 578
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-50

3.4.4 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in Appendix D, several species of plants and animals within California have low populations and/or limited distributions. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the State’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully in Section 3.2, State and federal laws have provided CDFW and USFWS with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the State. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as “threatened” or “endangered” under State and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as candidates for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by CDFW. CNPS has developed its own set of lists of native plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered.

Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species”. (See Appendix D) The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was queried for special status species occurrences in the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing and immediately surrounding the Project Site (Exeter, Visalia, Monson, Ivanhoe, Woodlake, Rocky Hill, Lindsay, Cairns Corner, and Tulare). An official species list was obtained using the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system for federally listed species with the potential to be affected by the Project (USFWS 2016). These species, and their potential to occur on the Project site, are listed in Table 3-13 and Table 3-14 on the following pages and identified in Appendix D.

Sources of information for this table included California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et. al 1988-1990), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USFWS 2016, The Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al 2012), and The California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California . (See Appendix D)
Special status species occurrences within 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) of the Project site are depicted in Figure 6 and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) occurrences within 10 miles of the Project site are depicted in Figure 7 of Appendix D.

The Biological Evaluation Update Letter dated June 27, 2022 noted that the following special status animal species occurring on a current query of the CNDDB and IPaC databases were not addressed in LOA’s 2019 report. • Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Federal Candidate • Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) Federal Threatened • Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) California Endangered • Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) • Winter's sunflower (Helianthus winteri)
• Alkali-sink goldfields (Lasthenia chrysantha)
• Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) • Sanford's arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)
As determined in the Biological Evaluation Update Letter dated June 27, 2022 (Appendix D), all areas of the site have been significantly disturbed from decades of agricultural development and provide unsuitable habitat for all locally occurring special status plant species. Therefore, the Project is expected to have no impact on these special status plant species. Additionally, the Biological Evaluation Update Letter determined that the Project is not expected to have any impacts on the special status animal species that were generated in the current query of the CNDDB and IPaC databases.
579
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-51 Table 3-13. List of Special Status Plant Species that could occur in the Project Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the APE
California Jewel-flower
(Caulanthus californicus)

FE, CE,
CNPS 1B
Occurs in chenopod scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland, and sandy valley and
foothill grassland; blooms February–May;
elevation 250-3,300 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use.

Hoover’s Spurge
(Euphorbia hooveri)
FT
CNPS 1B
Occurs in vernal pools of California’s
Central Valley; blooms July-September;
elevation 80-820 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools does not exist on the APE.

Striped Adobe-lily
(Fritillaria striata)
CT
CNPS 1B
Occurs in cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grassland, primarily in
clay soils; blooms February-April;
elevation 460-4,750 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use.

Kaweah Brodiaea
(Brodiaea insignis)
CE
CNPS 1B
Occurs in cismontane woodlands and
foothill grasslands in granitic soils.

Blooms April-June; elevation 500-4,600 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use.

San JoaquinValley Orcutt Grass
(Orcuttia inaequalis)
FT, CE
CNPS 1B
Occurs in vernal pools of the Central
Valley; requires deep pools with
prolonged periods of inundation; blooms
April-September; elevation 100-2,480 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools does not exist on the APE.

San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst
(Pseudobahia peirsonii)
FT, CE
CNPS 1B
Occurs in grasslands of the Sierra
Nevada foothills in heavy clay soils of the
Porterville and Centerville series. Blooms
March-April; elevation 300-2,625 ft.

Absent. Porterville and Centerville soils
are absent from the APE.

Greene’s Tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE, CR
CNPS 1B
Occurs in vernal pools of the Central
Valley; blooms May- September;
elevation 100-3,510 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools does not exist on the APE.

Earlimart Orache
(Atriplex cordulata var.
erecticaulis)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in valley and foothill grasslands
between 130 and 330 ft. in elevation;
blooms August-September.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use.

Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa) CNPS 1B
Occurs in chenopod scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, and wetland habitats;
blooms April-October; elevations below
1,050 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use. The
CNDDB lists an 1881 occurrence approx. 3
miles west of the site (see Figure 6).

Lesser Saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula) CNPS 1B
Occurs in cismontane woodland and valley
and foothill grasslands of the San Joaquin
Valley; alkaline/sandy soils; blooms MayOctober; elevation 50-660 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use.

Vernal Pool Smallscale
(Atriplex persistens)
CNPS 1B Occurs in alkaline vernal pools; blooms
July-October; elevations below 400 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools does not exist in the APE.

Subtle Orache
(Atriplex subtilis)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in valley and foothill grasslands of
the San Joaquin Valley; blooms AugustOctober; elevation 130-330 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use.
580
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-52 Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the APE
Recurved Larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in cismontane woodland and valley
and foothill grass-lands; blooms MarchJune; alkaline soils; elevations below 2,500 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat for this species is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use.

Spiny-Sepaled Button Celery
(Eryngium spinosepalum) CNPS 1B
Occurs in vernal pools and valley and
foothill grasslands of the San Joaquin
Valley and the Tulare Basin; blooms AprilMay; elevation 330-840 ft.

Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pool wetlands is absent from the
APE. Ruderal areas are too disturbed to
provide suitable habitat for this species.

Calico Monkeyflower
(Mimulus pictus)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in broadleaved upland forest and
cismontane woodland in granitic soils;
may occur in disturbed areas. Blooms
March-May; elevation 330-4,270 ft.

Absent. Suitable woodland habitat is
absent from the APE. Any suitable habitat
that may have once been present has been
modified by intensive human use.

California Alkali-Grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
CNPS 1B
Occurs in saline flats and mineral springs
less than 900 m. in elevation in the
Central valley, San Francisco Bay area
and western Mojave Desert.

Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
saline flats and mineral springs does not
exist in the APE.

Table 3-14. List of Special Status Animal Species that could occur in the Project Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the APE
California Tiger Salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
FT, CT
Found primarily in annual grasslands;
requires vernal pools for breeding and
rodent burrows for aestivation. Although
most CTS aestivate within 0.4 mile of
their breeding pond, outliers may
aestivate up to 1.3 miles away (Orloff
2011).

Absent. Vernal pool or seasonal wetland
habitat suitable for breeding by the CTS
does not exist on or within a 1.3-mile radius
of the APE. The APE is situated in a matrix
of residential, commercial, and intensive
agricultural uses generally not suitable for
CTS. The closest known breeding
occurrences of CTS are approximately 7
miles north of the APE at the CDFW’s Stone
Corral Ecological Reserve.

California Red-Legged Frog
(Rana draytonii)
FT
Occurs in permanent aquatic habitats
such as creeks and ponds with emergent
vegetation. Has been extirpated from
drainages of the Sierra foothills south of
Tuolumne County as a result of habitat
loss, pollution, and the proliferation of
exotic predators.

Absent. The APE lies well outside of the
current known distribution of this species.

There are no documented observations,
historical or otherwise, within 10 miles of the
APE.

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard
(Gambelia sila)

FE, CE,
CFP
Occurs in semiarid grasslands, alkali flats,
and washes. Avoids densely vegetated
areas. Inhabits the San Joaquin Valley
and adjacent valleys and foothills north to
Merced County.

Absent. This species is not known to occur
in Tulare County east of Hwy. 99; the
closest CNDDB occurrence is nearly 15
miles southwest of the APE. Furthermore,
the APE is situated in a matrix of residential,
commercial, and intensive agricultural uses
generally not suitable for this species.

Giant Garter Snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
FT
Occurs in marshes, sloughs, drainage
canals, irrigation ditches, rice fields, and
adjacent uplands. Prefers locations with
emergent vegetation for cover and open
areas for basking. Has been extirpated
from the southern San Joaquin valley.

Absent. The APE lies well outside of the
current known distribution of this species.

The nearest extant population of giant garter
snake recognized by the USFWS occurs in
the Mendota area, more than 60 miles to the
northwest.
581
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-53 Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the APE
Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT
This breeding-season migrant to
California nests in stands with few trees in
riparian areas and juniper-sage flats, and
in oak savannah. Requires adjacent
suitable foraging areas such as
grasslands or alfalfa fields supporting
rodent populations.

Possible. Most of the APE is orchard and
vineyard incompatible with Swainson’s hawk
foraging and nesting strategies. Although
the mature valley oaks of the site are
structurally suitable for nesting by
Swainson’s hawks, the trees are unlikely to
be used because they are all either
surrounded by orchard or located adjacent
to residences and busy roads. Swainson’s
hawks could theoretically forage in ruderal
areas of the site. An active Swainson’s
hawk nest was observed approximately 3
miles east of the APE in 2009 (Hansen
2009), and the CNDDB lists 3 other nests
within 10 miles of the APE.

White-Tailed Kite
(Elanus leucurus)
CFP
Occurs in savanna, open woodlands,
marshes, desert grassland, and cultivated
fields. Prefer lightly grazed or ungrazed
fields for foraging.

Possible. The APE is not typical of open
habitats used by kites; however, kites could
occasionally forage in ruderal areas of the
APE and could theoretically nest in the
APEs mature valley oak trees.

Golden Eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)
CFP Typically frequents rolling foothills,
mountain areas, sage-juniper flats and
desert.

Unlikely. The APE is not typical of habitats
used by golden eagles; however, individuals
may pass over the APE from time to time.

Breeding habitat is absent.

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE
Occurs in valley foothill and desert
riparian habitats in scattered locations in
California Requires extensive gallery
riparian forests for nesting.

Absent. The scattered valley oak trees of
the APE are not extensive enough to fulfill
nesting requirements of this species. The
only known occurrence in the project vicinity
was mapped generally to Visalia in 1919.

Tricolored Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CC
Breeds near fresh water, primarily
emergent wetlands, with tall thickets.

Forages in grassland and cropland
habitats.

Possible. Tricolored blackbirds could forage
in the APEs ruderal areas or agricultural
basins from time to time, but breeding
habitat is absent. The closest known
occurrence of a breeding colony was
documented approximately 9 miles east of
the APE in 2000.

Tipton Kangaroo Rat
(Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides)
FE, CE
Occurs in chenopod scrub and alkali
grasslands in isolated portions of Kings,
Tulare, and Kern Counties.

Unlikely. Habitats of the APE are unsuitable
for Tipton kangaroo rat due to their
disturbed nature and ongoing intensive
human use. The closest known occurrence
of this species was documented
approximately 14 miles south of the APE in
1943.

San Joaquin Kit Fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica)
FE, CT
Found in desert alkali scrub and annual
grasslands; may forage in adjacent
agricultural habitats. Use underground
dens for thermoregulation, cover, and
reproduction. Dens are either self-dug or
modified rodent burrows.

Unlikely. Although ground squirrel burrows
along the seasonal channel banks and
levee roads represent potential denning and
foraging habitat for kit fox, these habitats
are fragmented and disturbed and would, at
best, be considered marginal due to
intensive surrounding agricultural and
residential uses. Kit foxes are not expected
to breed or regularly forage on the site but
may pass through during dispersal
movements. There have been 15
documented occurrences of kit fox within 10
miles of the APE; the most recent of these
was documented approximately 9 miles
west of the APE in 2003 (see Figure 7).
582
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-54 Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the APE
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT
Occurs in vernal pools, clear to teacolored water in grass or mud-bottomed swales, and basalt depression pools.

Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the APE.

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE
Primarily found in vernal pools but may
use other seasonal wetlands in mesic
valley and foothill grasslands.

Absent. Suitable habitat in the form of
vernal pools is absent from the APE.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn
Beetle (VELB)
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT
Lives in mature elderberry shrubs of
California’s Central Valley and Sierra
Foothills.

Absent. The USFWS recently determined
that the range of this species does not
include County. Moreover, elderberry
shrubs are absent from the APE.

Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSC
Frequents open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low- growing vegetation.

Dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably the California ground
squirrel, for nest burrows.

Possible. Burrowing owls could potentially
roost or nest in burrows found in the banks
and levee roads of Mill Creek Ditch and
Packwood Creek, and could forage in
ruderal areas of the site. There are six
CNDDB occurrences of this species within a
10-mile radius of the project site, the closest
of which are located approximately 7 miles
to the north at CDFWs Stone Corral
Ecological Reserve.

Loggerhead Shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus) CSC
Frequents open habitats with sparse
shrubs and trees, other suitable perches,
bare ground, and low herbaceous cover.

Can often be found in cropland.

Possible. Shrikes could nest in trees and
shrubs of the site and could forage in
ruderal areas.

Pallid Bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
CSC
Found in grasslands, chaparral, and
woodlands, where it feeds on ground- and
vegetation-dwelling arthropods. Prefers to
roost in rock crevices, but may also use
tree cavities, caves, bridges, and
buildings.

Possible. Potential foraging habitat occurs
in ruderal areas of the site; potential
roosting habitat occurs in mature trees.

There is a documented occurrence approx.
1 mi northeast of the site (see Figure 6).

Western Mastiff Bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSC
Found in open, arid to semi-arid habitats.

Roosts most commonly in crevices in cliff
faces, but may also use high buildings,
trees, and tunnels.

Possible. Potential foraging habitat occurs
in ruderal areas of the site; potential
roosting habitat occurs in mature trees.

American Badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSC
Uncommon resident statewide; most
abundant in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats.

Possible. Although the majority of the APE
offers only marginal habitat for this species
due to past and ongoing disturbance,
badgers could conceivably den or forage on
site. A single burrow with evidence of
possible badger use (claw marks on the
side walls) was observed along Mill Creek
Ditch. The CNDDB lists a 1994 occurrence
of this species approx. 2.5 mi east of the
site (see Figure 6).

OCCURRENCE TERMINOLOGY

Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FPE Federally Endangered (Proposed) CFP California Fully Protected FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CSC California Species of Special Concern FC Federal Candidate CC California Candidate
CNPS California Native Plant Society Listing.
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California. 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

California and elsewhere.
583
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-55 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Likely or Possible to Occur on the Project Site Potential Impacts. Of the 26 regionally occurring special status animal species identified on the CNDDB and IPac database queries in the APE, and the following nine species were declared possible to occur on-site and therefore, could potentially be impacted by Project activities The species are Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, northern harrier, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, palled bat, western mastiff bat, and American badger. The following mitigation measures identified below would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant level and would ensure compliance with State and federal laws protecting these resources. • BIO-1 (Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training) • Prior to initiating construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with Project construction shall attend mandatory Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in identifying special status resources that may occur in the Project area. • The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and suitable habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area.
• This training will specifically discuss the conservation status of the California condor, in addition to all other special status species, describe the laws and regulations in place to provide protection of these species, identify the penalties for violation of applicable environmental laws and regulations, and a list of required protective measures to avoid “take.” • A fact sheet conveying this information, along with photographs or illustrations of sensitive species with potential to occur on-site, shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employees, and all other personnel involved with construction of the Project. • All employees shall sign a form documenting that they have attended WEAP training and understand the information presented to them.
• BIO-2 (Construction Operational Hours)
• Construction shall be conducted during daylight hours to reduce disturbance to wildlife that could be foraging within work areas.
• BIO-3 (Best Management Practices)
• The Project proponent will ensure that all workers employ the following BMPs in order to avoid and minimize potential impacts to special status species:
▪ BIO-3a
▪ Vehicles shall observe a 15-mph speed limit while on unpaved access routes. ▪ BIO-3b:
▪ Workers shall inspect areas beneath parked vehicles prior to mobilization. If special status species are detected beneath vehicles, the individual will either be allowed to leave of its own volition or will be captured by the qualified biologist (must possess appropriate collecting/handling permits) and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat beyond the influence of the Project work area.
▪ “Take” of listed (rare, threatened, or endangered) is prohibited. If a listed species is observed within the Project area, the biologist will stop work and contact the appropriate regulatory agency (CDFW and/or USFWS) for guidance on how to proceed.
584
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-56 • BIO-3c:
• The presence of any special status species and/or any wildlife mortalities will be reported to the designated biologist and the appropriate regulatory agencies (CDFW, USFWS, etc.). • BIO-4 (Avoidance)
• The Project construction activities shall occur, if feasible, between September 1 and January 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to listed species. • BIO-5 (Pre-construction Survey)
• A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys specific to the following species:

Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, northern harrier, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, palled bat, western mastiff bat, and American badger. • BIO -5a Nesting Birds:
• If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), the survey shall include the proposed work area and surrounding lands within 500 feet.
• If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required. • Raptor nests are considered “active” upon the nest-building stage. • All other nests are considered “active” by the presence of eggs or young. • BIO-5b Animal Species:
• A pre-construction survey of Project areas within 30 days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities.
• Environmentally sensitive areas will be flagged for avoidance. • If suitable habitat for regionally occurring special status species are detected upon pre-construction surveys, construction monitoring will be required. • BIO -6 (Establish Buffers):
• On discovery of any active nests or listed species near work areas, the biologist shall determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question. • Construction buffers shall be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and shall be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged, or construction has finished in that area.
• BIO-7 (Monitor):
• A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-activity clearance survey each day and remain on-site to oversee all vegetation clearing and ground disturbing activities conducted within suitable habitat for special status species that were identified in the pre-construction surveys (BIO 5 ab). • The biological monitor must possess required collecting/handling permits. • If a special status species is observed within Project areas, the biologist will stop work order and the individual will either be allowed to leave of its own volition or will be captured by the qualified biologist and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat beyond the influence of the Project work area.
• “Take” of listed (rare, threatened, or endangered) is prohibited. • If a listed species is observed within the Project area, the biologist will stop work and contact the appropriate regulatory agency (CDFW and/or USFWS) for guidance on how to proceed. 585
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-57 Project Impacts to Special Status Animal Species Absent from, or Unlikely to Occur on the Project Site Potential Impacts. Of the 26 special status animal species that potentially occur in the APE, 17 are considered absent or unlikely to occur on the Project site due to past and ongoing disturbance of the site and surrounding lands, the absence of suitable habitat, and/or the sites being situated outside of the species known distribution.

These species include the vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant garter snake, golden eagle, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western spadefoot, and western pond turtle, monarch butterfly, delta smelt, foothill yellow-legged frog, and the Northern California legless lizard The project does not have the potential to significantly impact these species through construction mortality or loss of habitat because there is little or no likelihood that they are present.

Project impacts to special status animals considered absent or unlikely to occur on the site are less than significant under CEQA and NEPA. Mitigation is not warranted.

Project Impacts to Special Status Plant Species Absent from, or Unlikely to Occur on the Project Site Potential Impacts. There were 20 special status plant species that were identified during the CNDDB and IPaC queries of the APE and surrounding lands. All of the plant species were determined to be absent from the APE. Since there is little to no likelihood of these species occurring on-site, implementation of the Project would have no effect on individual plants or populations of these species. Mitigation measures are not warranted.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. Natural communities of special concern are those that are of limited distribution, distinguished by significant biological diversity, home to special status plant and animal species, of importance in maintaining water quality or sustaining flows, etc. Examples of natural communities of special concern in the eastern San Joaquin Valley in the vicinity of the Project would include vernal pools and various types of riparian forest.
14 Natural communities of special concern are limited to sporadic riparian habitat associated within Packwood Creek and Mill Creek. The value of this riparian habitat as a natural community of special concern has been diminished due to the fragmented nature of the woodland and close proximity of urban and suburban developments. Orchard, vineyard, ruderal, irrigation ditches, and agricultural basins are regionally abundant and/or a result of human manipulation and would not be considered natural communities of special concern.

Disturbance to Riparian Habitat or other Sensitive Habitats Agricultural and disturbed lands occupy the majority of the site and are not considered sensitive habitats. These habitats of the site are not of significant importance to regional wildlife populations. Twenty-six valley oaks were identified on the site along Mill Creek Ditch, Oakes Ditch, Packwood Creek and a few along Road 152.

Although valley oaks are typically considered a riparian species, the sporadic, fragmented nature of these isolated trees has created habitat conditions unlike typical dense riparian habitat with multiple canopy layers. The value of this habitat for wildlife is low. However, there is a City Oak Tree Ordinance and permits are required prior to any oak tree removal and replacement oak trees (in-kind) or payment in-lieu of replacement trees may be required. Oak tree impacts and mitigation are described under impact assessment e) below. On-site agricultural basins and irrigation ditches would not be considered sensitive habitat. Because riparian habitat on site is 14 See Appendix D. Biological Evaluation
586
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-58 extremely marginal and fragmented, and other habitats are not considered sensitive, future project construction will have a less than significant impact on these habitats. Mitigation is not warranted.

Project Impacts to Designated Critical Habitat
As discussed, designated critical habitat is absent from the Project site and immediate vicinity. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to impact critical habitat. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact.

Disturbance to Waters of the United States and Waters of the State Potential Impacts. A Delineation of Aquatic Resources report has been prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc. (Appendix D) for the Project, and would be submitted to USACE for review and verification. A total of approximately 2.17 acres of possible jurisdictional waters including Mill Creek Ditch and Packwood Creek.

Hydrologic features on the site also include three ditches and five basins that appear to fall into categories of waters that are considered exempt according to the CWA These features are also expected to be exempt from CDFW jurisdiction.

The Project would result in significant impacts to potential jurisdictional waters. The anticipated level and duration of impact would vary depending on the phasing and ultimate buildout of the Project. Very minor direct, permanent impacts are anticipated with Phase I of the Project, which would entail tying into Mill Creek and Packwood Creek for the installation of the stormwater basins. During this initial phase, it is anticipated that a few hundred square feet would be affected in each channel from installation of control structures to divert water from Mill Creek and Packwood Creek into the basins under gravity flow at specific locations (see Figure 3a of Appendix B). Any fill, placement of control structures, placement of riprap or other permanent erosion control measures within jurisdictional waters would be considered direct, permanent impact.

In Phase 2, the Project proposes to realign the entire on-site stretch of Mill Creek to its more natural historic meandering channel (Figure 2-4).

Although Mill Creek and Packwood Creek are considered excluded waters, Fleming Ditch would remain inplace untouched, the unnamed ditch would be eliminated, and Oakes Ditch would be reconfigured and would terminate into a new pipeline on the east side of the project near Road 152. This pipeline would deliver irrigation tailwater into the recharge basin located north of Packwood Creek.

Estimated impacts to jurisdictional waters after full project buildout (including Phase 2) are presented in Table 3-15.

Table 3-15. Potential Impacts to Waters of U.S.

Potential Impacts
Type of Water Acres (ac) Square Feet (sf) Linear Feet (lf) Approx.

Impacts (ac)
Approx. Impacts
(lf)
Mill Creek Ditch 1.18 51,398 2,490 1.18 2,490
Packwood Creek 0.99 43,095 2,847 .007 50
TOTAL 2.17 94,493 5,337 1.2 2,540
587
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-59 Impacts to jurisdictional waters are also subject to the permit requirements of Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA. The placement of fill within any wetlands or other jurisdictional features would require a CWA permit from the USACE, and a Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. These permits cannot be issued without an accepted preliminary jurisdictional determination or a verified wetland delineation by the USACE.

Additionally, impacts to the seasonal channels as proposed would require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. Given the extent of impacts to potential jurisdictional waters these impacts are considered potentially significant under CEQA and NEPA.

Actual permitting requirements for impacts to potentially jurisdictional waters would vary depending on timing of Project phasing and the extent of ultimate Project build-out. Discussion of the nationwide permits (NWP) below is based on current regulatory guidance and is subject to change once the revised permits are released.

Based on the current permits, the NWP that Phase 1 (construction of stormwater basins) would likely qualify for would be NWP 43, Stormwater Management. It is not anticipated that impacts from Phase 1 would exceed the threshold for this NWP [300 linear-feet (LF) and/or ½ acre of channel]. However, the USACE typically would not permit a single phase of a project; they typically permit a project based on total buildout (i.e., all phases).

Eventual realignment of Mill Creek in its entirety (as proposed during Phase II) would likely trigger the need for an individual permit rather than a NWP, primarily due to the fact that final build-out of the Project would far exceed the impact threshold for most of the NWPs (including NWP 43). Acquisition of an individual permit requires informal consultation with USFWS through preparation of a Section 7 Biological Assessment, preparation of an alternatives analysis, Section 106 consultation, and a 15-day public noticing period. Conditions of the 404 and 401 permits would likely require some form of on-site and/or off-site replacement of jurisdictional waters, and/or payment into an in-lieu fund for permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters.

However, the Project would comply with all regulatory permitting requirements and would obtain a 404, 401 and/or Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. These permits would lay out an approved way to work in and around jurisdictional waters and would include appropriate mitigation measures to follow. Therefore, with the required permits, the Project would have a less than significant impact on jurisdictional waters.

Degradation of Water Quality in Seasonal Drainages, Stock Ponds, and Downstream Waters Potential Impacts. Sedimentation and transport of polluted runoff into seasonal drainages has the potential to occur as a result of Project activities. Impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of measures to protect water quality during construction, as described below. The Project would prepare a SWPPP consistent with the requirements of a grading permit and a NPDES General Construction Permit issued by the RWQCB. A SWPPP provides erosion control measures that must be implemented throughout the project schedule and would be monitored weekly to ensure that the erosion control measures are successfully preventing on-site erosion and sediment releases. Elements of this plan would also address both the potential for soil erosion and non-point source pollution.

Therefore, with the application and implantation of a SWPPP, the Project would have a less than significant impact under CEQA and NEPA and ensure that the Project is in compliance with State and federal laws protecting waterways and water quality.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter-population movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, and rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. Certain features of the study area have the potential to function as movement corridors for resident and migratory fish and wildlife species. The largely engineered channels and 588
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-60 ditches would likely not serve as important travel routes for terrestrial wildlife, but could aid passage by aquatic species when inundated. The top of the banks along each of these waterways may facilitate home range and/or dispersal movements of some locally occurring terrestrial wildlife, but the waterways likely do not represent regionally important movement corridors for these species. The Pacific flyway, one of four major bird migration routes in North America, passes over the study area and much of the rest of California. The relatively small Project area and nature of the Project site has minimal potential as a wildlife movement corridor.

Potential Impacts. The site does not contain important movement corridors for native wildlife. Following completion of the Project, the site would function in much the same manner as it does now in that regard.

Birds using the Pacific flyway would continue to do so following Project development. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant effect on regional wildlife movements. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In compliance with CEQA, the lead agency considers conformance with applicable goals and policies of the City General Plan. The City has adopted an Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, codified at VMC Chapter 12.24. Pursuant to the ordinance, the City subsequently developed an Oak Tree Mitigation Policy that established appropriate mitigation for loss of valley oak trees along with policies for administration of the Oak Tree Maintenance Fund.

There are no applicable habitat conservation plans.

Potential Impacts. Twenty-nine valley oaks were identified on the site along Mill Creek Ditch, Oakes Ditch, Packwood Creek and a few along Road 152. Twenty-four of the 29 valley oak trees were greater than 24 inches in diameter at breast height. In determining whether to remove these oaks, the City would be required to comply with the provisions of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and the corresponding Oak Tree City Ordinance.

The applicant shall implement the following measures:
• BIO – 8: (Mitigation Fees or Replacement Planting).

Should avoidance of valley oak trees not be possible, the City will comply with the permitting requirements of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and will mitigate the loss consistent with the provisions of the Oak Tree Mitigation Policy.

Implementation of these measures will reduce potentially significant Project impacts to oak trees to a “less than significant” level under CEQA and NEPA.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There are no habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans that occur in the Project area. Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to conflict with local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans.

3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A total of four projects have been proposed or approved within four miles of the Project site. Implementation of the Project, as well as many of the related projects, would add to the incremental loss of species habitat in the project vicinity. Habitat loss would affect resident species, including special status species, such as the burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger.
589
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-61 The Project and the cumulative projects would be required to implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce biological impacts to less than significant levels. The mitigation measures identified in Section 3.4.4, discuss ways in which the Project can reduce impacts such as avoiding sensitive breeding/nesting periods, performing pre-construction surveys, and if necessary and with approval from CDFW, passive relocation of owls. Currently, there are no Habitat Conservation Plans for sensitive species within the Project area. Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 590
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-62

3.5 Cultural Resources
Table 3-16. Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The following information regarding historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources can be found in the Cultural Resource Inventory and the Paleontological Technical Memorandum prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., (AE). (Appendix I):

3.5.2 Methodology
Cultural Resource Inventory
The Cultural Resource Inventory conducted by AE, contained in Appendix G, consisted of a records search, Native American outreach, a pedestrian survey, and resource documentation. AE requested a California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS) records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) at California State University, Bakersfield on December 18, 2014. Staff at the SSVJIC consulted cultural resource location and survey base maps, results of previous investigations, cultural resource records, the listings of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Historic Property Data File, a listing of California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historic Interest. The Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory was also consulted.

AE contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 18, 2014 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File. To assist in determining whether any Native American cultural resources have been recorded in the Project area, a list of individuals and groups who may have information regarding resources of sacred or special cultural and spiritual significance was requested and received. On January 19, 2015, AE sent a letter describing the project and its location to each of the eight contacts identified by NAHC.

As described in Appendix G Cultural Resource Inventory, “AE archaeologists Katie Asselin, Elizabeth Rapp and Josh Tibbet conducted a pedestrian survey of the 280-acre project area on January 8-9, 2015, and January 13-16, 2015, using parallel and meandering transects spaced no more than 15-20 meters apart. They took photographs of the project area using a digital camera, collected Global Positioning System data using a Trimble GeoXH unit, and documented observations on a survey record form. Copies of photographs and field notes are on file at AEs office in Fresno, California.”
591
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-63 Also, on March 1, 2017, AE historian Randy Baloian conducted an Architectural Evaluation of the two historic water conveyances, the Mill Creek Levee/Evans Ditch and the Oakes Ditch to assess their integrity. These resources are catalogued as P-54-002179/CA-TUL-3053H and P-54-005290/CA-TUL-3101H, respectively, by the NRHP and CRHR.

During the pedestrian survey, whenever newly discovered or previously recorded resources were encountered, they were documented; each resource was photographed using a digital camera, and newly identified resources were recorded on the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms. These forms are provided in Appendix H.

Paleontological Technical Memorandum
In addition to the pedestrian survey and records searches conducted for historical and cultural resources, AE completed a desktop investigation to assess the paleontological sensitivity of geologic units exposed at the ground surface and those likely to occur in the subsurface of the Project area. AE reviewed published geologic maps and paleontological literature, and conducted museum records searches. For the records searches, AE retained the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) to conduct a search of fossil localities recorded in their collections (Bell, 2022). To augment these results, AE also conducted searches of the online Paleobiology Database (PBDB) and the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). The PBDB lists a large collection of museum records and publications of fossil material, while the UCMP is the largest repository of fossils on the West Coast of the United States with an older history of collection than several other regional natural history museums. The full technical memo can be found in Appendix I.

3.5.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The NHPA is the most prominent federal law dealing with historic preservation. The NHPA establishes guidelines to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice.” The NHPA includes regulations specifically for federal land-holding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to the NEPA are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. For federally-involved projects, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) carries out reviews under Section 106 of the NHPA.

The Section 106 review process normally involves a four-step procedure described in detail in the Section 106 Regulations (36 CFR Part 800):
• Identify and evaluate historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and interested parties;
• Assess the effects of the undertaking on properties that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP; • Consult with the SHPO, other agencies, and interested parties to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties and notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and • Proceed with the project according to the conditions of the agreement.

National Register of Historic Places
The NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a NRHP, an inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant on a national, state, or local level in American history, architecture, 592
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-64 archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO, and grants-in-aid programs.

National Environmental Policy Act
Specific projects that are subject to NHPA must also comply with NEPA requirements for the consideration of cultural resources. Compliance with NEPA requirements concerning cultural resources may be addressed through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Reports, agreements, and correspondence documenting compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA are provided to the lead NEPA agency for a specific proposed action that is subject to NEPA.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) strives to ensure that all Indian human remains and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums. It also states the intent for states to provide mechanisms for aiding Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.

State
Office of Historic Preservation
The mission of the OHP and the State Historical Resources Commission is to preserve and enhance California's irreplaceable historic heritage as a matter of public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, recreational, aesthetic, economic, social, and environmental benefits will be maintained and enriched for present and future generations. PRC Section 5024 requires consultation with the SHPO when a project may impact historical resources located on State-owned land.

California Register of Historic Resources
The SHPO maintains the CRHR. Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1). State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The California Register can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historic resource surveys.

For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the California Register, it must be significant at the local, State, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
• It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local and regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; • It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or • It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (California Public Resources Code).

California Environmental Quality Act
PRC Section 21083.2 Archaeological Resources: CEQA directs the lead agency to include in its environmental assessment for the project a determination of the project effects on unique archeological resources; defines unique archeological resource; enables a lead agency to require an applicant to make a reasonable effort to 593
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-65 preserve or mitigate impacts to any affected unique archeological resource; sets requirements for the applicant to provide payment to cover costs of mitigation; and restricts excavation as a mitigation measure.

PRC Section 21084.1 Historic Resources: CEQA establishes that adverse effects on a historic resource qualifies as a significant effect on the environment; and defines historical resource.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5: This section defines three ways that a property can qualify as a significant historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review:
• If the resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources;
• If the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or
• If the lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5)
In addition to determining the significance under CEQA and eligibility of any identified historical resource for the California Register, historic properties must be evaluated under the criteria for the National Register should federal funding or permitting become involved in any undertaking subject to this document.

CEQA Guidelines on Mitigation of Cultural Resources Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 states that “public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resources of an archeological nature.” The Guidelines further state that preservation-in-place is the preferred approach to mitigate impacts on archaeological resources. However, according to Section 15126.4, if data recovery through excavation is “the only feasible mitigation,” then a “data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resources, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken.” Data recovery is not required for a resource of an archaeological nature if “the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource.” The section further states that its provisions apply to those archaeological resources that also qualify as historic resources.

CEQA Guidelines on Mitigation of Paleontological Resources Impacts At the State level, paleontological resources are protected under CEQA, which requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. If a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered. If paleontological resources are identified as being within the proposed project area, the lead agency must take those resources into consideration when evaluating project effects. The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource. (Appendix G)
Native American Heritage Act
Also relevant to the evaluation and mitigation of impacts to cultural resources is the Native American Heritage Act of 1976 which established the NAHC and protects Native American religious values on State property (see PRC Section 5097.9).
594
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-66 California Government Code 65352.3-5: Local Government-Tribal Consultation.

California GC Sections 65092, 65351, 65352, 65352.3, and 65352.4, formally known as SB 18, regulate the consultation with California Native American tribes having traditional lands located within the jurisdiction of applicable cities and counties. The intent of the underlying legislation was to provide all California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission, an opportunity to consult with specific local governments for the purpose of preserving and protecting their sacred places. Such consultations apply to the preparation, adoption and amendment of general plans.

Assembly Bill 52
PRC Section 21080.3.1, AB 52, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, sets forth a proactive approach intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts between Native American and development interests. Projects subject to AB 52 are those that file a notice of preparation for an DEIR or notice of intent to adopt a negative or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 adds TCRs to the specific cultural resources protected under CEQA. Under AB 52, a TCR is defined as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape (must be geographically defined in terms of size and scope), sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either included or eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, or included in a local register of historical resources. A Native American Tribe or the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, may choose at its discretion to treat a resource as a TCR. AB 52 also mandates lead agencies to consult with tribes, if requested by the tribe, and sets the principles for conducting and concluding consultation.

Disposition of Human Remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) When an initial study identifies the existence, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native American groups or individuals as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American burials. Furthermore, HSC Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 HSC Sections 8010-8011 establish a State repatriation policy intent that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of NAGPRA. The Act strives to ensure that all California Indian human remains and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also states the intent for the state to provide mechanisms for aiding California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan Update
• Policy OSC-P-39: Establish requirements to avoid potential impacts to sites suspected of being archaeologically, paleontologically, or historically significant or of concern, by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
o Determining the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources (as required by CEQA);
595
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-67 o Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and o Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, as conditions of project approval.

3.5.4 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less than Significant after Mitigation Incorporated. The Cultural Resources Inventory conducted by AE identified five potential historical resources within the Project area. Two of these resources are historic bridges which have been designated as ineligible for the NRHP; these bridges have not been evaluated for the CRHR, but the report found in Appendix E concluded that neither bridge appears to exhibit any characteristics that would make it significant at a local, State, or federal level.

The inventory also identified an isolated obsidian biface thinning flake, which was found in an area that has been previously impacted by grading and levee construction surrounding the creek and by cultivation of the adjacent orchards. Although AE completed a primary record for this isolate, because it is not associated with an archaeological site it is not considered eligible for the CRHR and does not require further consideration.

The remaining two resources are the Mill Creek Levee and Evans Ditch, and Oakes Ditch. AE conducted an intensive survey of the Mill Creek Levee through the Project area and did not find evidence of a subsurface deposit of historic artifacts. AE evaluated the significance of these resources based on archival research and concluded that the Mill Creek Levees (as a recorded element of the Evans Ditch) and the Oakes Ditch are considered significant under both the NRHP and CRHR Criterion A/1 because of their association with the Kaweah and Mill Creek Water Company (KMCWC). Despite the significance of the resources as part of the KMCWC system, the recorded segments do not possess sufficient integrity to convey such significance. Based on this evaluation, the Project would not have an adverse effect on historical resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.

Native American outreach on the part of AE resulted in an email received from the Santa Rosa Rancheria, recommending cultural monitoring during all ground disturbances due to the Tribe’s assessment of a high-risk potential for encountering cultural resources. Given the potential threat of significant impact if any additional historical resources are uncovered during Project construction, and consideration of the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s recommendation, implementation of the following measure would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
• CR-1: If, in the course of project construction or operation, any archaeological or historical resources are uncovered, discovered, or otherwise detected or observed, activities within one hundred (100) feet of the find shall be ceased and the City of Visalia shall be notified immediately. The project proponent shall retain a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find and make mitigation recommendations, if warranted. The archaeologist shall document the resources using DPR 523 forms and file said forms with the CHRIS. The resources shall be photo-documented and collected by the archaeologist for submittal. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the County for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken.
596
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-68 b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant after Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed under Impact a), impacts to the archeological resources would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation. Mitigation Measure CR-1 would prevent further impacts to previously undiscovered resources. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant after Mitigation Incorporated. The Paleontological Technical Memorandum (Appendix I) used the SVP (2010) sensitivity criteria to determine the paleontological sensitivity of the Project area. Based on AE’s desktop efforts and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and online records searches, the Project area has Low to High Potential for paleontological resources, dependent on depth. Holocene-age recent alluvial fan deposits mapped at the surface have Low Potential. Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits in the subsurface have High Potential, although the depth at which this transition occurs is presently unknown and requires additional investigation. Implementation of the following Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3 would ensure that impacts to unknown paleontological resources are less than significant. • CR-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared by a qualified professional paleontologist. The PRIMP will utilize the results of the paleontological technical memo refined by the results of geotechnical borings to specify the steps to be taken to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. • CR-3 A Paleontological Resources - Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training shall be prepared prior to the start of Project-related ground disturbance and presented in person to all on-site construction personnel to inform them of the types of fossils that may be found and the procedures to follow if any are encountered.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant after Mitigation Incorporated. Although there is no indication that the Project would result in the disturbance of any human remains, in the event that human remains are encountered the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Adherence would ensure that impacts are less than significant. • CR-4: If human remains are uncovered, or in any other case where human remains are discovered, the Tulare County Coroner is to be notified to arrange their proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified – on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits – as those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public Resources Code 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the manner in which the remains are treated.

3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant after Mitigation Incorporated. Neither the Project nor other cumulative development projects are expected to result in significant impacts to cultural, historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, provided that appropriate evaluations are conducted on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the resources are “historical, archaeological, or paleontological,” and appropriate mitigation measures, including but not limited to preservation in place, capping, or data recovery, are implemented prior to development. In addition, because the Project would not impact any known significant resources and potential impacts to unknown buried resources can be reduced to below a level of significance, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to cultural resources. Therefore, implementation of adopted plans and regulations and any 597
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-69 Project-specific mitigation measures would reduce any potential cumulative impacts related to cultural resources to a less-than significant level.
598
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-70

3.6 Geology and Soils
Table 3-17. Geology and Soils
Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Chapter 18 of the most recently adopted California Building Code
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Geological Setting: The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded on the west by the Coast Ranges, on the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the north by the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley. The northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley drains toward the Delta by the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, the Fresno, Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers. The southern portion of the Valley is internally drained by the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers, which flow into the Tulare drainage basin including the beds of the former Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern Lakes.15 15 Department of Water Resources, 2004. California’s Groundwater Update Bulletin 118. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin: Kaweah Subbasin. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/5-22.11.pdf Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 599
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-71 The Kaweah Subbasin lies between the Kings Groundwater Subbasin on the north, the Tule Groundwater Subbasin on the south, crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east, and the Kings River Conservation District on the west. Major rivers and streams in the subbasin include the Kaweah and St. John’s Rivers, with the Kaweah River the primary source of recharge to the Project area. Average annual precipitation is 7 to 13 inches, increasing eastward.16
The natural site soil consists of Holocene age fan deposits. The general earth material profile below the Project site consists of silty sand and sandy silt, underlain by laterally discontinuous alternating layers of poorly graded sand, sandy silt, silty sand, and sandy clay to a depth of at least 81.5 feet below ground surface (bgs).17 Soils Setting: Surface soils at the Project site have been mapped by the NRCS. The three soils types found on the site are Nord fine sandy loam, Grangeville sandy loam, and Nord fine sandy loam.18 Both the Grangeville sandy loam and Nord fine sandy loam soil types are characterized as having low shrink-swell potential. Both have also been characterized as having low corrosivity potential for concrete and high corrosivity potential for steel.19
The topography of the Project site is characterized by low relief and elevations that gently slope toward the southwest at a slope of approximately 0 to 0.2 percent. Surface elevations at the Project site range from approximately 355 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the east to 350 feet amsl in the west. See Figure 2-2 Geologic Hazards: There are no known active earthquake faults in the Visalia area. The closest active faults are Owens Valley fault group and Sierra Nevada Fault Zone (75 miles to the east of Visalia), the San Andreas Fault Zone (60 miles to the west), and an unnamed fault group north of Bakersfield (60 miles to the south). Major earthquakes such as the 1906 San Francisco, 1952 Kern County, and 1983 Coalinga quakes were felt and caused some minor to moderate property damage in Visalia. The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake was the most recent major earthquake felt in Visalia, registered at 7.1 magnitude. It is possible, but unlikely, that previously unknown faults could become active in the area.20
The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act, as summarized in CGS Special Publication 42 (SP 42), is to “prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and to mitigate thereby the hazard of fault-rupture.” As indicated by SP 42, the State Geologist is required to delineate “earthquake fault zones” along known active faults in California. Cities and counties affected by the zones must regulate certain development ‘projects’ within the zones. They must withhold development permits for sites within the zones until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. The State Geologist has not delineated any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within or near the City.
21 Seismic Ground Shaking: The most significant hazard associated with earthquakes for the Visalia area is ground shaking caused by earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault to the west or Owens Valley fault to the east.

Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth's surface resulting from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking results from the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions.

Based on available online Seismic Hazard Zone Maps by the California Geological Survey, the Project is located in an area that has not been mapped for seismic hazards. Based on the California Geological Survey Probabilistic 16 Department of Water Resources, 2004. California’s Groundwater Update Bulletin 118. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin: Kaweah Subbasin. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/5-22.11.pdf Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 17 Technicon Engineering Services, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed East Side Regional Park and Groundwater Recharge Project, Mineral King Ave & Road 152, Visalia, California
18 NRCS, Custom Soil Resource Report for Tulare County, Western Part, California, Eastside Park Project, January 15, 2015 19 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Science, 2003. Soil Survey of Tulare County, California, Western Part . http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/tulare_westCA2003/tulareCAwpart2003.pdf Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 20 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 8: Safety and Noise. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30480 Page 8-2. Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 21 Ibid.
600
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-72 Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page, there is a 10 percent probability of earthquake ground motion exceeding 0.150 g (a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity) at the Project location over a 50-year period.22 According to the California Geological Survey and United States Geological Survey Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis, the hazards due to ground shaking are considered to be low. The analysis is based on historic earthquakes, slip rates on major faults and deformation throughout the region, and the potential for amplification of seismic waves by near-surface geologic materials. The resulting earthquake shaking potential is used in developing building code design values, estimating future earthquake losses and prioritizing earthquake retrofit. In the Visalia area, low levels of shaking, with less frequency, are expected to damage only weaker masonry buildings. However, very infrequent earthquakes could still cause strong shaking.23, 24 Ground Rupture: Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake. The location of surface rupture generally can be assumed to be along an active or potentially active major fault trace. Earthquake-induced ground failures, such as ruptures, lateral spreading, ground lurching, seiches, or mudslides, are unlikely to occur in the Visalia area due to the relatively stable geologic formation and lack of active faults.25 The potential for fault rupture at the Project site is negligible.

Slope Stability: A landslide is a mass of rock, soil, and debris displaced downslope by sliding, flowing, or falling.

Ground failure is dependent on topography and underlying geologic materials, as well as factors such as rainfall, excavation, or seismic activities that can lead to slope instability. The City is in a relatively flat area with relatively small foothills located approximately 8 to 10 miles to the east. Elevations across the Project site vary by less than approximately five feet. The Project site is not in an area susceptible to slope failure or landslides.

Erosion: Erosion is the process by which the soil and rock components of the earth’s crust are worn away and removed from one place to another by natural forces such as weathering, solution, and transportation. Soil erosion can lead to sedimentation of watercourses, eventually having an adverse impact on water quality and aquatic life. Furthermore, once erosion occurs, it may be difficult for natural vegetation to reestablish itself.

The loss of topsoil to erosion is detrimental to agriculture and landscaping. The risk of erosion is greatly increased during grading and construction activities, and agricultural practices, when soils are loosened and are bare of vegetation. Soil erodibility can be identified by a specific soil’s “K-Factor.” Values of K can range from

0.02 to 0.69, with the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to erosion. Soils with K factors above

0.40 are considered to be the most susceptible to erosion.26 Surface soils at the Project site have been mapped as having K factors of 0.15 to 0.24, which are considered low to moderate for soil erosion susceptibility.27, 28 Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a soil condition in which seismically induced ground motion causes an increase in soil water pressure in saturated, loose, sandy soils, resulting in loss of soil shear strength. Liquefaction can lead to near-surface ground failure, which may result in loss of foundation support and/or differential ground settlement. Sandy deposits deeper than 30 feet bgs usually are not prone to causing surface damage. In addition, soils above the groundwater table (soils that are not saturated) would not liquefy.

Technicon Engineering Services, Inc. (Technicon) conducted geotechnical investigations at the Project site in 2014 and 2015 (Appendix J). During those investigations, groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 76 and 71.5 feet bgs, respectively. It is possible that groundwater conditions could vary between 22 California Department of Conservation. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 23 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 8: Safety & Noise. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30480 Page 8-2. Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 24 California Geological Survey & United States Geological Survey, 2008. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California, Map Sheet 48. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/ms/documents/ms48_revised.pdf Date Accessed: 7/6/2016 25 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 8: Safety & Noise. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30480 Page 8-4. Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 26 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30478 Page 6-14. Date Accessed: 7/7/2016. 27 NRCS, Custom Soil Resource Report for Tulare County, Western Part, California, Eastside Park Project, January 15 2015 28 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30478 Page 6-15. Date Accessed: 7/7/2016 601
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-73 boring locations or change sometime in the future due to variations in rainfall, groundwater withdrawal or recharge, agricultural activities, or other factors not apparent at the time of the 2014 and 2015 investigations.

The granular soils encountered in the borings during the investigations had a relative consistency of medium dense to dense.29
Areas most prone to liquefaction are those that are water saturated (e.g., where the water table is less than 30 feet below the surface) and consist of relatively uniform sands that are low to medium density.

Subsidence: Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. The Kaweah Subbasin that underlies the Visalia area is designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as being critically overdrafted. According to the California Water Service (CalWater) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Visalia District, groundwater elevations have declined up to 55 feet between 1990 and 2015.30 While groundwater recharge efforts are in progress, groundwater levels would continue to decline unless recharge is increased.

As part of its 2014 and 2015 investigations, Technicon drilled soil borings to as deep as 81.5 feet bgs. Soil logs from the investigations indicate that soils below the Project site generally consist of silty sands, clayey sands, sandy silts, and poorly graded sands and gravels.31 Soils with high silt or clay content are particularly subject to subsidence. While the soils below the Project site appear to be relatively low in silts and clays to at least approximately 81.5 feet bgs, soil types below that depth are unknown. Subsidence may occur in the Visalia area, particularly in areas with high clay content soils or due to groundwater withdrawal.32 Collapsible Soil Conditions: Alluvial soils in arid and semi-arid environments have the tendency to possess characteristics that make them prone to collapse with an increase in moisture content and without increase in external loads, a condition known as hydro-compaction. The Project is located in a geologic environment where the potential exists for collapsible soils
Expansive Soil: Expansive soil consists of naturally-occurring fine-grained clay. It is generally found in areas that were historically a flood plain or lake area but can occur in hillside areas also. Expansive soil is subject to swelling and shrinkage, varying in proportion to the amount of moisture present in the soil. As water is initially introduced into the soil (by rainfall or watering), expansion takes place. If dried out, the soil would contract, often leaving small fissures or cracks. Excessive drying and wetting of the soil can progressively deteriorate structures over the years by leading to differential settlement within buildings and other improvements.

As discussed, surface soils at the Project site consist primarily of Nord fine sandy loam and Grangeville sandy loam. Both of these soil types are characterized as having low shrink-swell potential.33 Based on information presented in the City General 2030 General Plan Update EIR, there are no expansive soils located at the Project site.34
29 Technicon Engineering Services, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed East Side Regional Park and Groundwater Recharge Project, Mineral King Ave & Road 152, Visalia, California
30 California Water Service, 2015. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan: Visalia District. https://www.calwater.com/conservation/uwmp/vis/ Date Accessed: 7/7/2016 31 Technicon Engineering Services, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed East Side Regional Park and Groundwater Recharge Project, Mineral King Ave & Road 152, Visalia, California
32 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 8: Safety & Noise. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30480 Page 8-1. Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 33 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Science, 2003. Soil Survey of Tulare County, California, Western Part
. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/tulare_westCA2003/tulareCAwpart2003.pdf Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 34 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.7: Geology and Soils. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30497 Date Accessed: 7/7/2016 602
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-74

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to geology and soils that are applicable to the Project.

State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972)
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act) requires the delineation of Fault Rupture Hazard Zones along active faults in California. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to regulate development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazard of fault rupture; however, surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within these Zones. The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the location of most structures for human occupancy across active fault traces. Within these zones, cities and counties must regulate certain development, which includes withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by the potential of future surface displacement. There are no designated Alquist-Priolo zones in the Project area.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a Seismic Hazard Zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted, and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. Geotechnical investigations conducted within Seismic Hazard Zones must incorporate standards specified by California Geologic Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards.35 The purpose of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is to identify where special provisions, beyond those contained in the California Building Code (CBC), are necessary to ensure public safety. This need has not been recognized for the hazard of ground shaking.

Design provisions contained in the CBC are believed to be representative of current knowledge and capability in earthquake-resistant design.36 No portion of County has been mapped under the Seismic Hazards Program.

California Building Standards Code
The CBC, codified in Title 24 Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is administered by the California Building Standards Commission which by law is responsible for coordinating all building standards.

The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The current version took effect January 1, 2020, and contains necessary California amendments based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7-05. ASCE 7-05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions 35 California Geological Society, 1997. Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/webdocs/sp117.pdf Date Accessed: 7/8/2016 36 California Building Code, 2016. Chapter 16: Structural Design. http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/content/2016%20California%20Codes/Building%20Volume%202/Chapter%2016%20Structural%20Design.pd f Date Accessed: 8/29/2016
603
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-75 apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.

The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC.

California Department of Transportation
Caltrans jurisdiction includes State and interstate routes within California. Any work within the right-of-way of a federal or State transportation corridor is subject to Caltrans regulations governing allowable actions and modifications to the right-of-way. Caltrans standards incorporate the CBC and contain numerous rules and regulations to protect the public from seismic hazards such as surface fault rupture and ground shaking. In addition, Caltrans standards require that projects be constructed to minimize potential hazards associated with cut and fill operations, grading, slope instability, and expansive or corrosive soils, as described in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). The southern portion of the Project site abuts SR 198, and Houston Avenue (SR 216) abuts the northern portion of the site; any work that is done within Caltrans right-of-way would be coordinated with Caltrans.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective S-O-1: Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
• Policy OCS-P-25: Require new development to implement measures, as appropriate, to minimize soil erosion related to grading, site preparation, landscaping and construction.

City of Visalia General Plan Seismic Safety Element
The Visalia General Plan incorporates the Seismic Safety Element completed in 1974 by the Five-County Seismic Safety Committee, with participation from the Tulare Council of Governments. The Safety Element determines that ground shaking is the main potential hazard in the southern Central Valley, and the risk of ground shaking in the Visalia area is low. The Element includes a number of policies, calling for the creation of a public relations and education program to build awareness; development of an Earthquake Disaster Plan; consideration of seismic hazards in the environmental impact assessment process; and adoption and enforcement of the Uniform Building Code (since replaced by the CBC), among others.

City of Visalia Building Code
The City has adopted the 2019 CBC as the City’s building code and ordinance (Title 15: Buildings and Construction).

Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan A hazard mitigation plan is a formal document that outlays the plans to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from natural or manmade hazards. Visalia participates in the preparation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-LHMP) which covers the County, the eight cities within the County, the Tulare County Office of Education, and the Tule River Tribe. The latest adopted MJ-LHMP was prepared in 2018. The plan has been designed to meet four goals; (1) significantly reduce life loss and 604
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-76 injuries, (2) minimize damage to structures and property, as well as disruption of essential services and human activities, (3) protect the environment, and (4) promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy.

3.6.3 Impact Assessment
a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a-i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults in the Visalia area; therefore, the Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone. For this reason, it is unlikely that an earthquake would result in surface rupture at the Project location. Impacts would be less than significant. a-ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project location is located within approximately 26 miles of seismically active parts of California and is likely to undergo seismic ground shaking at some point. Based on the California Geological Survey Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page, there is a 10 percent probability of earthquake ground motion exceeding 0.150g at the Project location over a 50-year period.37 All proposed structures must be designed to comply with the CBC, which provides minimum standards to safeguard against major failures and loss of life by requiring that structures: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse. The CBC bases seismic design on minimum lateral seismic forces (“ground shaking”), and operates on the principle that providing appropriate foundations, among other aspects, help to protect buildings from failure during earthquakes. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant. a-iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site has flat topography and is approximately 26 miles northwest of the nearest delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Although no specific liquefaction hazard has been identified, the potential for liquefaction is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and high water tables coincide.38 Geotechnical investigations conducted at the indicated that groundwater at the Project Site was at a depth greater than 70 feet bgs and that generally subsurface soils had a density greater than what is typical for significant liquefaction potential. The potential for liquefaction at the Project Site is considered to be low due to the absence of near‐surface groundwater and the generally dense cohesive nature of the subsurface materials. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant. a-iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The Project Site is not in an area susceptible to slope failure or landslides. Therefore, there would be no impact.
37 California Department of Conservation. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html Date Accessed:
7/5/2016
38 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.7: Geology and Soils. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30497 Date Accessed: 7/7/2016 605
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-77 b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Surface soils at the Project Site have been mapped as having K factors of 0.15 to

0.24, which are considered low to moderate for soil erosion susceptibility.39 40 This combined with the generally flat terrain of the Project setting indicates that potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil is less than significant.

The risk of erosion is greatly increased during grading and construction activities and agricultural practices, when soils are loosened and are bare of vegetation. In general, soil conservation is addressed by the City’s site review and grading plan requirements (e.g., Policy OCS-P-25). Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. As the Project is located on the Valley floor, no geologic landforms exist on or near the site that would result in a landslide event. Excavation, grading, and fill operations associated with construction could alter existing slope profiles making them unstable as a result of over-excavation of slope material, steepening of the slope, or increased loading. However, destabilization of natural or constructed slopes is unlikely to occur as surface topography at the project site is relatively flat. The Project is required to implement erosion prevention measures as part of its SWPPP. Additionally, standard engineering design features and construction procedures would be implemented to maintain stable slopes and excavations during construction, and therefore, impacts associated with destabilized slopes would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Chapter 18 of the most recently adopted California Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. Grangeville sandy loam and Nord fine sandy loam soil types are characterized as having low shrinkswell potential.41 Additionally, based on information presented in the 2030 General Plan Update EIR, there are no expansive soils located at the Project Site.42
The absence of on-site expansive soils would be verified during a comprehensive Geotechnical Investigation Report to address the park design concept, arrangement of basins, pavements, and infrastructure. Appropriate design features to address expansive soils would include excavation of potentially problematic soils during construction and replacement with engineered backfill, ground-treatment processes, direction of surface water and drainage away from foundation soils, and the use of deep foundations such as piers or piles.

Implementation of any of these standard engineering methods would ensure that there are no impacts associated with expansive soils.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. Soil permeability is a consideration for projects that require septic system installation. The Project would tie into the City’s wastewater system. The City has determined that capacity exists to serve the Project. 39 NRCS, Custom Soil Resource Report for Tulare County, Western Part, California, Eastside Park Project, January 15, 2015 40 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 6: Open Space and Conservation. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30478 Page 6-15. Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 41 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Science, 2003. Soil Survey of Tulare County, California, Western Part. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/tulare_westCA2003/tulareCAwpart2003.pdf Date Accessed: 7/5/2016 42 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.7: Geology and Soils. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30497 Date Accessed: 7/7/2016 606
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-78 As planned, the Project would not involve the installation of a septic tank or an alternative wastewater disposal system. There would be no impact.

3.6.4 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. Geotechnical impacts related to future development in the City involve hazards related to site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and ground-shaking during earthquakes. The impacts on each site are specific to that site and its users and would not be in common or contribute to (or shared with, in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site is subject to uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect public safety. Therefore, cumulative geotechnical impacts would be less than significant.
607
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-79

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 3-18. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
“Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases (GHG). Some GHG such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities.

Other GHG (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal GHG that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement, asphalt paving, truck trips). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
• Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.

Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
• Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful GHG that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons).

These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potential GHG, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases ("High GWP gases")”.

3.7.2 Methodology
An Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment was completed by VRPA Technologies, Inc. in March 2019. The Assessment Report includes an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas model completed in September 2017 using CalEEmod 2016.3.1. and is attached as Appendix C. 608
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-80

3.7.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Section 202 GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks This rule was proposed jointly by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to create a national program of GHG emission standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. The standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The standards are designed to achieve a national vehicle fleet whose emissions and fuel economy performance improves year after year. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 960 million metric tons and save

1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016.43 The final rule was signed on April 1, 2010, and became effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Greenhouse Gas Findings (2009)
In the United States Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), 12 states, three cities, and 13 environmental groups filed suit that the EPA should be required to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHG as pollutants under the CAA. In April 2007, the United States Supreme Court found that the EPA has a statutory authority to formulate standards and regulations to address GHG, which it historically had not done.

On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator finalized two findings to be effective January 14, 2010. The findings are related to GHG under section 202(a) of the CAA. These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities.
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these wellmixed GHG from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.44 Executive Order 13154 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13154, which instructs federal agencies to set or achieve various emissions reduction and energy and environmental benchmarks by 2015, 2020, and 2030.

The order requires agencies to set GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 within 90 days and requires Office of Management and Budget to set a federal government target for 2020 within 120 days. The order also sets out required reductions in vehicle fleet petroleum use and requires increases in water and energy efficiency and in recycling and waste diversion rates. The order also mandates adoption of certain contract and procurement practices designed to promote energy and water efficiency and environmentally preferable products.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) Standards The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 declared it to be United States policy to establish a reserve of up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum and established nationwide fuel economy standards in order to conserve oil. Pursuant to this Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, part of the DOT is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle fuel economy standards. 43 EPA, 2010.
44 EPA, 2009.
609
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-81 The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government’s fuel economy standards. Compliance with CAFE standards is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. The CAFE values are a weighted harmonic average of the EPA city and highway fuel economy test results. Based on information generated under the CAFE program, the DOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.

CAFE rules require the average fuel economy of all vehicles of a given class that a manufacturer sells in each model year to be equal or greater than the standard. CAFE standards apply to passenger cars and light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less). Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e. gross vehicle weight over 8,500 pounds) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. The EPCA was reauthorized in 2000 (49 CFR 533). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 revised CAFE standards for the first time in 30 years, followed quickly by Section 202 GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks, which calls for further revision of the CAFE standards. Both of those regulations are described above.

Energy Policy Acts of 1992, 2005, etc. (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions would be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. The Act also requires states to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes updated provisions for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Global Change Research Act (1990)
The purpose of the legislation was: “…to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions towards international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes.” To that end, the Global Change Research Information Office was established in 1991 (it began formal operation in 1993) to serve as a clearinghouse of information. The Act requires a report to Congress every four years on the environmental, economic, health and safety consequences of climate change; however, the first and only one of these reports to-date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility for Global Change Research Program shifted to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

State
There are a variety of statewide rules and regulations which have been implemented or are in development in California and which mandate the quantification or reduction of GHGs. Under CEQA, an analysis and mitigation of emissions of GHGs and climate change in relation to a Project is required where it has been determined that a project would result in a significant addition of GHGs. Certain APCDs have proposed their own levels of significance. The SJVAPCD, which has regulatory authority over the air emissions from this project, has not established a significance threshold.
610
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-82 California Air Resources Board
Refer to Section 3.3.4 Regulatory Setting.

California Attorney General
The Attorney General has a special role in protecting the environment and public health in California. By law, the Attorney General has independent authority, acting directly in the name of the People, "to act to protect the natural resources of the State of California from pollution, impairment, or destruction." The Attorney General plays a leading role in the oversight and enforcement of CEQA and the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). The Attorney General also prosecutes civil and criminal violations of environmental laws in the name of the People of the State of California and on behalf of client agencies.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix F: Energy Conservation
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines describes the types of information and analyses related to energy conservation that are to be included in the EIR process. Energy conservation is described in terms of decreasing per capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. To assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, EIRs must include a discussion of the potentially significant energy impacts of Projects (to the extent relevant and applicable to the Project), with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Executive Order S-3-05: Executive Order S-3-05 was established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006.

Executive Order S-3-05 establishes statewide emission reduction targets through the year 2050:
• by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

This Executive Order does not include any specific requirements that pertain to the Project. However, actions taken by the State to implement these goals may affect the Project, depending on the specific implementation measures that are developed.

Senate Bill 1368: Senate Bill 1368 (SB 1368) was enacted in 2006 and required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a CO2 emissions standard for base load generation owned by or under longterm contract with publicly owned utilities. The CPUC established a GHG Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. SB 1368 also requires the posting of notices of public deliberations by publicly owned companies on the CPUC website and establishes a process to determine compliance with the EPS. The Project, as a renewable energy generation facility, is determined by rule to comply with the GHG Emission Performance Standard requirements of SB 1368.

Assembly Bill 32: California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, codified at HSC Sections 38500-38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction would be accomplished by enforcing a statewide cap on GHG emissions that would be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations 611
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-83 cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrived at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state reduces GHG emissions enough to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance on instituting emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner, along with conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. Using these criteria to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 would represent an approximate 25 to 30 percent reduction in current emissions levels. However, CARB has discretionary authority to seek greater reductions in more significant and growing GHG sectors, such as transportation, as compared to other sectors that are not anticipated to significantly increase emissions. Under AB 32, CARB was required to adopt regulations by January 1, 2011, to achieve reductions in GHGs to meet the 1990 emission cap by 2020. In 2019, CARB disclosed that emissions in 2017 were 7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e) below the State 2020 limit.

Senate Bill 375: SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires MPOs to adopt a sustainable community strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that would prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, would provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets would be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPOs SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets.

This law also extends the minimum time period for the regional housing needs allocation cycle from five years to eight years for local governments located within an MPO that meets certain requirements. City or county land use policies (including general plans) are not required to be consistent with the regional transportation plan (and associated SCS or APS). However, new provisions of CEQA would incentivize (through streamlining and other provisions) qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS, categorized as "transit priority projects."
Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory: Consistent with SB 97, on June 19, 2008 the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released its Technical Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change, which was developed in cooperation with the Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and CARB. The Technical Advisory offers the informal interim guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents, until CEQA guidelines are developed pursuant to SB 97 on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary, mitigate GHG.

According to OPR, lead agencies should determine whether GHG may be generated by a Project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source. Second, the lead agency must assess whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. When assessing whether a project’s effects on climate change are “cumulatively significant” even though project specific GHG contribution may be individually limited, the lead agency must consider the impact of the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Finally, if the lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from the project as proposed are potentially significant, it must investigate and implement ways to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of those emissions.

On April 13, 2009 OPR sent proposed amendments of the CEQA Guidelines to the Secretary of the Resources Agency for promulgation. The proposed amendments contain Model Policies for GHGs in General Plan. OPR recommended changes to fourteen sections of the existing guidelines, including: the determination of 612
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-84 significance as well as thresholds; statements of overriding consideration; mitigation; cumulative impacts; and specific streamlining approaches. The proposed Guidelines also include an explicit requirement that EIRs analyze GHG emissions resulting from a project when the incremental contribution of those emissions may be significant. OPR adopted new amendments in 2018; however, these amendments to the CEQA Guidelines apply prospectively only.

California Energy Code: Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, called the California Energy Code, includes standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction, as well as retrofitting existing buildings. Since its establishment in 1977, the building efficiency standards (along with standards for energy efficiency in appliances), which regulate energy consumed in buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting, have contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas consumption in California.

The standards are updated every three years to allow new energy efficiency technologies to be considered. The latest update to Title 24 standards became effective January 1, 2020.

California Green Code: CalGreen, the nation’s first Green Building Standards Code, became effective in August 2009 for voluntary compliance and local adoption, and became effective for mandatory compliance on January 1, 2011. This Code establishes minimum standards for new construction that are intended to help the State achieve the AB 32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In addition to energy efficiency standards, CalGreen includes mandatory measures for water conservation, storm water drainage and retention, material conservation, and construction waste reduction. The requirements for nonresidential construction also include parking, landscaping, and other standards. Local jurisdictions have the option of adopting procedures by ordinance to improve the level of construction beyond the CalGreen minimum standard.

Local
Visalia Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Refer to Section 3.3.4 Regulatory Setting.

Visalia’s Climate Change Initiatives
In January 2007, City’s mayor signed the “Cool Cities” pledge, part of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. By entering into this agreement, the City originally adopted the goal of reducing citywide GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. As detailed in the CAP, this goal was subsequently expanded in response to CARBs recommended reduction target of 15% below the 2005 baseline, and the City added a 2030 mitigation target to correlate with the 2030 GP Update and the goal of achieving an 80% reduction by 2050.

In 2008, the City also became a partner with the San Joaquin Valley Clean Energy Organization (SJVCEO), which is a non-profit serving the eight-county region. This partnership led to the development of the Valley Innovative Energy Watch, which is a partnership with SCE, Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Pacific Gas & Electric, SJVCEO, and other public jurisdictions in Tulare and Kings Counties. One major task in this initiative was assisting each of the local government partners to develop comprehensive clean energy/GHG reduction plans, including the identification of baseline GHG emissions and energy use.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan in August 2008. While the plan does not have regulatory powers, it directs SJVAPCD to develop guidance to assist District staff, Valley businesses, land-use agencies, and other permitting agencies in addressing GHG emissions as part of the CEQA process. The CCAP also directs District staff to investigate and develop a greenhouse gas banking program, enhance the existing emissions inventory process to include greenhouse gas emissions reporting consistent with new State requirements, and administer voluntary greenhouse gas emission reduction agreements. The CCAP Final Draft Staff Report concludes that while existing science is inadequate to support characterization of impacts that 613
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-85 project specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change, the cumulative impact of all the projects is best addressed by requiring all projects subject to CEQA to reduce their GHG emissions through project design elements.

Since the adoption of the CCAP, SJVAPCD has published Best Performance Standards (BPS) for stationary sources and development projects, and guidance for valley land-use agencies in addressing GHG emissions for new projects under CEQA. However, the District has not published guidance related to large-scale, long-range planning projects such as general plans.

3.7.4 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. As shown in Table 3-19, the Project would generate 2,187.47 MTCO2e/yr. The City has not adopted a greenhouse gas threshold, however CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) allows lead agencies to consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts.

On December 5, 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. The SCAQMD guidance identifies a threshold of 7,000 MTCO2e/yr for GHG emissions. Though the Project is not within the SCAQMD jurisdiction, the SCAQMD GHG threshold was used to analyze the GHG emissions generated by the Project. Table 3-20 shows the yearly GHG emissions generated by each Phase of the Project, which are approximately 98% (Phase 1), 81% (Phase 2), and 64% (Phase 3) less than the threshold identified by the SCAQMD.

Based on the assessment above, the Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3-19. Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2005/2020 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary Report CO2e
Operational Emissions Per Year (2020) 2,187.47 MT/yr
SCAQMD Level of Significance 7,000 MT/yr
Does the Project Meet the Standard? No
Source: CalEEmod 2016.3.1.

Table 3-20. Phase 1, 2, and 3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 1, 2, and 3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary Report CO2e
Phase 1 Operational Emissions Per Year 172.84 MT/yr
Phase 2 Operational Emissions Per Year 1,296.05 MT/yr
Phase 3 Operational Emissions Per Year 2,552.30 MT/yr
Source: CalEEmod 2016.3.1.
614
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-86 b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact.

The City’s CAP was created as one of the first key steps to guiding the development and enhancement of actions designed to reduce Visalia’s GHG emissions. The CAP represents the results of a GHG emissions inventory effort which serves as a starting point for the development of a comprehensive municipal and community strategy for addressing GHG emission reduction goals. The CAP identifies existing and proposed community measures designed to reduce GHG emissions. The Project incorporates the following identified existing and proposed community measures assisting the City achieve its 2020 15% and 2030 30% reduction goals:

Expansion of bicycle paths, lanes, and trails: Based on the assessment above, the Project would further the achievement of the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals and would not conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.

3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. State action on climate change is mandated by AB 32 and SB 375. TCAG, along with other regional planning agencies throughout the state, would be monitoring the progress of State agencies in developing approaches to address GHG emissions. As agreed-upon approaches for project-level CEQA analysis and for transportation planning are established, TCAG expects that climate change would be a key environmental consideration in future regional transportation planning. TCAG, the City, and other agencies would be required to adhere to any future applicable mandatory regulations regarding global warming resulting from the passage of AB 32 and SB 375, but the exact character of such future implementing strategies is not known at this time.

While the cumulative significance of climate change has been established, in absence of established projectlevel significance thresholds, it is speculative at this time to determine whether the GHG emissions related to the Project represent a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. 615
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-87

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Table 3-21. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
616
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-88

3.8.1 Environmental Setting
A listing of contaminated sites within the City and the Project vicinity are available through the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database. According to this listing, there are no hazardous waste sites listed within the vicinity of the Project.45 The Project is located 7.2 miles northwest of the Exeter Airport and 7.6 miles east of the Visalia Municipal Airport. The Project site is not within either airport’s designated safety zone or airport influence area.

CAL FIRE designates both local and State Responsibility Areas for fire hazards throughout the State.

Development of the Project would take place in an Unzoned Local Responsibility Area, which has a low fire hazard risk.46

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) published standard 1910.120, addressing dangers that hazardous materials pose in the workplace. The standard requires that employers evaluate the potential health hazard that hazardous materials pose in the workplace and communicate information concerning hazards and appropriate protective measures to employees.

State
Department of Toxic Substances Control
The EPA has delegated much of its regulatory authority to the individual states. The DTSC of CalEPA enforces hazardous materials and waste regulations in California in conjunction with the EPA. The DTSC is responsible for regulating the management of hazardous substances, including remediation of sites contaminated by hazardous substances. California hazardous materials laws incorporate federal standards but are often more strict than federal laws.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The RWQCB is authorized by the SWRCB to enforce provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This act gives the RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened and to remediate the site, if necessary. 45 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database: Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?page=10&cmd=search&business_name=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&sta tus=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&branch=&site_type=CSITES%2COPEN%2CFUDS%2CCLOSE&npl=&funding=&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND +SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST&reporttype=CORTESE&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&p ost_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&as sembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_type=&ocieerp=False&hwmp=False&permitte d=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&complaints=&orderby=county. Date Accessed: 6/17/2016 46 CalCAL FIRE, 2007. Tulare County Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/tulare/fhszl06_1_map.54.pdf. Date Accessed: 6/17/2016 617
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-89 State Underground Storage Tank Program
State laws also regulate Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) containing hazardous substances. These laws are primarily found in the Health and Safety Code, and, combined with CCR Title 23, establish the requirements of the State UST program. The laws contain requirements for UST permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, repairs and corrective actions and closures. In accordance with State laws, the County Department of Health Services Environmental Health Division implements UST and AST regulations in County.

Hazardous Materials Worker Safety Requirements
OSHA and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) are the agencies responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pertaining to worker safety are contained in 29 CFR as authorized in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. They provide standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to hazardous materials handling. In California, Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations; Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations.

The State regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace are included in Title 8 of the CCR, and contain requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain worker safety training and hazard information requirements, such as procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites.

Local
Tulare County Environmental Health Division
In Visalia, the Tulare County Environmental Health Services Division (TCEHSD) is the local agency responsible for the implementation of the State-mandated Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program or Multi-Jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP). The County has prepared a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and the aforementioned MJLHMP, which serves as the County’s emergency response plan for hazardous materials emergency incidents. In addition, the TCEHSD acts as lead agency to ensure proper remediation of leaking underground petroleum storage tank sites and certain other contaminated sites. TCEHSD provides three permanent Household Hazardous Waste drop-off facilities in the County including one in Visalia and operates mobile collection events throughout the year.

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

City of Visalia and Tulare County Fire Departments
The Visalia Fire Department (VFD) provides fire and life safety services for residents located within the city limits while the County Fire Department provides additional services for unincorporated areas of County. VFD maintains a daily staff of five paramedic engine companies, one truck company, and a Battalion Chief across six fire station locations. The engines and truck companies are staffed with three personnel, giving the VFD a daily minimum staffing of 19.47 All stations are staffed with a paramedic at all times. The City requires all new development and subdivisions to meet or exceed California Fire Code provisions, and the City’s Fire Department reviews development applications during the plan check process. 47 http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30502 Page 3.11-13. Accessed: August 8, 2016. 618
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-90 The VFD also provides oversight of hazardous materials. Itis responsible for conducting inspections for code compliance and fire-safe practices and for scene management and investigation of fire and hazardous materials incidents. According to VMC Chapter 8.32 (Hazardous Materials), an emergency situation created by a hazardous material release which poses an imminent risk to the life, health or safety of persons, property, or to the environment shall be mitigated in the manner prescribed and pursuant to the direction of the VFD. The VFD regulates explosive and hazardous materials under the California Fire Code, and permits the handling, storage and use of any explosive or other hazardous material. The City hosts “Dump-On-Us” events four times a year for city residents to drop off residential hazardous waste. Accepted items include small appliances, cell phones, fencing material, air conditioning/ heating units, tires, scrap metal, mattresses, yard waste, and other types of waste.

Waste Disposal Regulations
The disposal of contaminated soil is regulated by the RWQCB, in this case the Central Valley Region, and is regulated based on the concentrations of chemical constituents that are present. Soils having concentrations of contaminants higher than certain acceptable levels must be handled and disposed as hazardous waste when excavated. CCR Title 22, Section 66261.20-24 contains technical descriptions of characteristics that would cause a soil to be classified as a hazardous waste.

3.8.3 Impact Assessment
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? and;
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project components would necessitate the transport and use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, diesel, and oil. These materials would be used in excavation equipment, generators, and other typical construction equipment and would be contained in vessels designed for safe storage. Although appropriate handling and disposal practices would result in low potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during the construction phases, there is the potential for small leaks or spills. Standard construction and operational SWPPP BMPs, including the installation of regulated spill containment at each tank, would minimize the potential for the release of construction-related fuels and other hazardous materials. These BMPs would also help control storm water contamination from spills or leaks, control the amount of runoff from the site, and require proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials.

Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The Project site is located approximately 0.5 mile southeast of Golden West High School. There are no schools either existing or proposed within a one-quarter mile radius. There would be no impact. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project site is not located on any designated hazardous materials site; therefore, no significant hazards would be created.
619
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-91 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?; and, No Impact. The Project is located within Tulare County and therefore is subject to the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, adopted in 2012 by the Tulare County Airport Land Use Commission.

Given that the Project site is not located within the safety zones or airport influence areas of any public or public use airport, no safety hazards are present.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no safety hazards would be posed.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not currently contain any public accessed routes that would be needed for an emergency response or emergency evacuation. Completion of the Project would actually increase emergency accessibility via construction of Tower Street as a new arterial roadway, which would include new local street connections to the existing stub-streets in the residential subdivisions to the west of Project site. The Project would also provide three points of ingress and egress from the Project site. The impact would be less than significant.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. The Project is located in an area designated as “Unzoned” by CAL FIRE; therefore, the area is not subject to significant risk involving wildland fire. Further, the Project does not involve residences; therefore, it would not result in the exposure of housing to risk of fires.

3.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials could occur where regional development patterns place structures and/or people in proximity to significant sources of safety hazards or hazardous materials emissions, or where regional patterns develop new cumulatively hazardous sources near sensitive receptors.

The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan in fact the Project would actually increase emergency accessibility via construction of the Tower Street extension, which would connect to stub-streets that currently have no outlet.

Accordingly, the Project would have less-than-cumulatively-considerable impacts regarding exposure of the public to hazards or hazardous materials.
620
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-92

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 3-22. Hydrology and Water Quality
Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
621
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-93

3.9.1 Environmental Setting
The following environmental setting was largely gathered from information found in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City’s 2030 General Plan Update.48 Precipitation
The City has an average annual precipitation rate of 10.93 inches of rain per year. The summers are dry, with less than 0.1 inch of rain falling per month. The rainy season begins in October, with a monthly mean precipitation rate of 0.6 inches. Rains increase in December to a mean precipitation rate of 1.73 inches per month and maintain a similar range through March. In April, precipitation begins to slow again to 1 inch per month. The dry summer season begins in May.

Groundwater
The Project site is located in the heart of the Kaweah River alluvial fan that spreads out over the San Joaquin Valley floor. Groundwater in County is present in deposits of alluvium that are several thousand feet thick and occurs in both confined and unconfined conditions. The creeks and ditches on the Project site, like other surface water bodies in the area, are tied to the regional groundwater system. Seepage from the creek ultimately recharges groundwater.

The depth to groundwater varies significantly throughout the Valley floor area of County. In the area around Visalia, depth to groundwater varies from about 120 feet bgs along the western portion of the City to approximately 100 feet bgs to the east, as measured in spring 2010. Groundwater levels measured in the City have declined since the 1940s, from approximately 30 feet bgs in 1940 to 120 feet bgs in 2010. The Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Technicon stated that groundwater was encountered within in test borings B-13 and B-14 at depths of 76 and 71.5 feet bgs, respectively. It is possible that groundwater conditions at the site could vary between boring locations or could change at some time in the future due to variations in the rainfall, groundwater withdrawal or recharge, agricultural activities, or other factors not apparent at the time of our field reconnaissance.49
The Project site is up-gradient of much of the City, including the wells throughout the City that supply water to its residents and businesses; therefore, the Project would recharge the City’s groundwater supply.

Surface Water
Visalia rests in the heart of the Kaweah River alluvial fan distributary waterway system, which results in many rivers and creeks that flow through the City. Major surface water resources in the area include the St. John’s River, Modoc Ditch, Mill Creek, North Mill Creek, TID Canal, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, Deep Creek, Oakes Ditch, Evans Ditch, Persian Ditch, Watson Ditch and several other local ditches. Prior to the agricultural development that occurred in the Central Valley in the mid-to-late 1800s, most of the creeks and rivers were intermittent drainages that receive a significant portion of flow from storm water runoff during the rainy season.

Currently this intermittent flow is supplemented from water released from Terminus Dam (Lake Kaweah), which was constructed in 1962 and is operated by the USACE. This supplemental water is used for surface water delivery to water rights holders on the Kaweah and St. John’s River systems.

The Kaweah and St. John’s Rivers Association (KSJRA) was formed in March 1974 by a group of water companies, irrigation districts, conservation districts, corporations, and individuals that had established water rights on the Kaweah and St. John’s Rivers prior to the construction of the Terminus Dam. 48 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.6: Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30496 Date Accessed: 7/12/2016 49 Technicon. Geotechnical Investigation Report. Page 6. Prepared 9/29/15, Revised 3/10/16. 622
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-94 There are a number of irrigation entities, mostly privately held water companies, that own pre-1914 appropriative and riparian rights to the Kaweah River and that divert this water to beneficial use along the Kaweah and St. John’s Rivers. Again, some of the water for these entities passes through portions of the lower Kaweah River distributaries which travel through or close to the Project.

The Persian Ditch Company, the Watson Ditch Company, and the Evans Ditch Company, all members of the KSJRA, receive irrigation water through Mill Creek and take delivery of these waters downstream of the Project.

Records of flow through Mill Creek through the years of 1981-2012 show that there are significant amounts of time when Mill Creek has not historically flowed,50 and that the normal condition for Mill Creek is to have more than 200 days per year when there is no irrigation flow.

The Oakes Ditch Company receives irrigation waters through the Oakes Ditch. This ditch terminates near the western boundary corner of the Project site and then travels south through an underground pipeline to a tailwater/recharge basin located in the southwest corner of the site. The recorded irrigation flow volumes delivered and days of flow through Oakes Ditch through the years of 1981- 2012 show that there are significant amounts of time when Oakes Ditch has not historically flowed51 and that on the average, Oakes Ditch has more than 225 days per year when there is no irrigation flow.

TID receives irrigation water via Packwood Creek and takes delivery of these waters downstream of the Project.

In more recent times, agreements between the City and TID have required TID to use Packwood Creek for the delivery of water to its growers for which the City purchases the seepage loss along Packwood Creek as recharge water to benefit the City’s groundwater. The recorded irrigation flow volumes delivered and days of flow through Packwood Creek through the years of 1981-2012 show that there are significant amounts of time when Packwood Creek has not historically flowed and that the channel had no irrigation flow an average of 225 days per year over the period of 1981 through 2012.52 The canal companies on the Kaweah system generally call for early season water (February to March) in response to calls for flood release and then are forced to wait until their entitlement accrues behind Terminus Dam before its released during the hottest months of the summer (June to August). Little water is typically run in the fall months.

Conveyance in Local Streams and Ditches
The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD) operates and maintains the local waterways not under specific control of another local water agency or ditch company in the area. Water deliveries from either the Friant-Kern Canal or the Kaweah River system must be coordinated through KDWCD. Deliveries from the Friant-Kern Canal would most likely be released into the Kaweah River channel via the Kaweah River Waterway Turnout on the Friant-Kern Canal. From there it would be diverted into Mill Creek or Oakes Ditch for delivery to the Project site. Similarly, water originating from Kaweah Lake releases would be diverted into the Lower Kaweah River at McKay’s Point and subsequently diverted into Mill Creek or Oakes Ditch for delivery to the Project site. Deliveries made to the Project property via Oakes Ditch would also need to be coordinated through the Oakes Ditch Company.

Storm Water Layoff
Visalia experienced major floods in 1950, 1955, 1966, and 1969. The waterways described in the surface water section above have historically been used for flood control, storm water conveyance, riparian, and recreational uses. In addition, the City maintains parks with detention ponds that serve to detain localized storm water runoff from nearby or adjacent developed lands when significant storm events occur. 50 Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. 2015
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
623
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-95 The City currently maintains storm water conveyance and diversion/layoff agreements with various ditch companies whose channels traverse the City. These agreements provide for the transportation of storm water out of the City for safe use or disposal. The agreements also allow for the temporary diversion of water rights entitlement water from the ditches into detention basins while storm water is being managed downstream. The City then returns this water to the channels and water rights holders once high storm flows have subsided.

Similar agreements and in some cases amendments to existing agreements would be needed in order to allow for the diversion and temporary holding of water rights entitlement water as storm water from Oakes Ditch and Mill Creek into the Project basins and then return of that water to the respective channels once it is safe once high storm flows have subsided.

Water Quality
Groundwater Quality
Water quality of the groundwater that underlies the Project Site is excellent for domestic and agricultural uses.

This is most likely due to the abundant snowmelt that originates in the Sierra Nevada. The primary constituents of concern are high total dissolved solids, nitrate, arsenic, and organic compounds resulting from both naturally occurring geologic processes and from man-made activities. Water quality typically deteriorates west of SR 99. 53 Surface Water Quality
The surface water quality of the Kaweah River alluvial fan distributary waterway system is considered to be excellent and typical of Sierra Nevada snowmelt runoff. 54 There are no known water quality impairments in the
area according to the CWA Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters.55 The City is proactively involved in protecting water quality. In November 2005, the City adopted a Storm Water Management Program that includes a detailed analysis to handle storm water runoff from increased amounts of impervious surfaces. Plans include retention/detention facilities, street sweeping, establishment of a water quality hotline, and an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination System which would allow the City to determine if there is a serious water quality problem from illegal discharges.

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
Refer to Section 3.4.3 Regulatory Setting.

Section 401 – Water Quality Certification
CWA Section 401 requires that an applicant pursuing a federal permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant obtain a water quality certification (or waiver). Water quality certifications are issued by RWQCBs in California. Under CWA, the State (as implemented by the relevant board) must issue or waive CWA 401 water quality certification for the Project to be permitted under CWA 404. Water quality certification requires the evaluation of water quality considerations associated with dredging or the placement of fill materials into waters of the United States. Construction of individual projects within the City would require CWA 401 certification for the Project if CWA 404 were triggered. 53 Groundwater Quality Assessment Report. 2015.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/water_quality/coalitions_submittals/kaweah/ground_water/201 5_0204_kaweah_gar.pdf
54 City of Visalia General Plan. 2014. Open Space and Conservation Element. 55 United State Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act Section 303(d). https://www.epa.gov/tmdl 624
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-96 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Regulations The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act established the NPDES permit program to control discharges of pollutants from point sources (CWA 402), as discussed in Section 3.4. The 1987 amendments to CWA created a new section of CWA devoted to stormwater permitting (CWA 402[p]). The EPA has granted California primacy in administering and enforcing the provisions of CWA and the NPDES permit program, which is the primary federal program that regulates point-source and nonpoint-source discharges to WOTUS. SWRCB issues both general and individual permits for certain activities. Relevant general and individual NPDES permits are discussed below.

Phase II MS4 Permit
The SWRCB, in response to the EPA, issued Water Quality Order No. 2013-001-DWQ NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004, Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Systems (MS4s) in February 2013 which went into effect July 2013. The MS4 Permit requires urban municipalities with predetermined inclusion reequipments to file an application and comply with prescriptive tasks over the 5-year permit term. The prescriptive tasks include, but are not limited to, public outreach and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE), construction site runoff control, post-construction storm water management, municipality facility and operation good housekeeping, water quality monitoring, and municipality assessment and reporting.

Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit
A Construction NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit (CGP), Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) is required for dischargers or projects who disturb one acre or more of soil or whose project disturbs less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one acre or more. This CGP was adopted in September 2009 and went into effect July 2010.

The CGP requires the development of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) which include the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list/describe BMPs the discharger would use to prevent polluted stormwater runoff and show the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Attachment B of the CGP describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP. Additional PRD requirements are described in Attachments C-E in the CGP.

General Dewatering Permit
Small amounts of construction-related dewatering are covered under the CGP. Large amounts of dewatering, particularly over lengthy periods of time would be required to comply with the General Dewatering Permit.

Project-related dewatering is likely to be limited in nature and scope and would likely be covered under the CGP. However, some projects may result in larger amounts of dewatering than covered under the CGP and a Low Threat Discharge and Dewatering Permit would need to be obtained from the Central Valley RWQCB.

Section 404
CWA Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into WOTUS, which include oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Project proponents must obtain a permit from the USACE for all discharges of dredged or fill material into WOTUS, including wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed activity. Before any actions that may impact surface waters are carried out, a delineation of jurisdictional waters must be completed following USACE protocols (Environmental Laboratory 1987) to 625
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-97 determine whether a particular project area encompasses wetlands or other waters that qualify for CWA protection. These include any or all of the following:
• Areas within the ordinary high-water mark of a stream, including nonperennial streams with a defined bed and bank, and any stream channel that conveys natural runoff, even if it has been realigned; or • Seasonal and perennial wetlands, including coastal wetlands.

Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as areas “inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3; 40 CFR 230.3).

Under the CWA 404 permit program, general permits (known as nationwide permits) have been adopted, and coverage under nationwide permits is possible when the amount of fill is relatively small (usually less than 0.5 acre). Individual projects within the City that do not qualify for a nationwide permit must obtain an individual permit.

National Flood Insurance Program
Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.

The intent of these acts was to reduce the need for large, publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains.

FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FEMA issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for communities participating in the NFIP.

Executive Order 11988
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) addresses floodplain issues related to public safety, conservation, and economics. It generally requires federal agencies constructing, permitting, or funding to 1) avoid incompatible floodplain development; 2) be consistent with the standards and criteria of the NFIP; and 3) restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values.

State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969
Refer to Section 3.4.3 Regulatory Setting.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region – Basin Plan Water quality in streams and aquifers of the region is guided and regulated by the Central Valley RWQCB Tulare Lake Basin Plan.56 State policy for water quality control is directed at achieving the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state. To develop water quality standards consistent with the uses of a water body, the Central Valley RWQCB classifies historical, present, and potential future beneficial uses as part of its basin plan. The Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan identifies the beneficial uses of the Tulare Lake basin.

Although the St. John’s River is not specifically listed on the Tulare Lake Basin Plan, the Valley Floor Creeks are listed for agriculture, industrial, process water, recreation, warm water habitat, wild habitat, rare species habitat, and groundwater recharge. A detailed discussion of beneficial uses and water quality objectives can be found in the Basin Plan.
56 California Water Boards, Central Valley. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ 626
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-98 The Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan has also established the water quality objectives for dissolved oxygen in various habitats. The objective for warm water beneficial use habitats is 5mg/L minimum; and for cold water habitats is 7mg/L minimum.57
The Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan also states that turbidity shall not be increased by more than 1 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) when ambient turbidity is between 0 and 5 NTU. Turbidity shall not be increased by more than 20 percent when ambient turbidity is between 5 and 50 NTU. Finally, when ambient turbidity is greater than 100 NTU, turbidity shall not be increased by more than 10 percent.58 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, the California Legislature enacted a three-bill law (AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319), known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA was created to provide a framework for the sustainable management of groundwater supplies and intended to empower local agencies to adopt groundwater management plans that are tailored to the resources and needs of their communities, such that sustainable management would provide a buffer against drought and climate change, and ensure reliable water supplies regardless of weather patterns. SGMA is considered part of the statewide, comprehensive California Water Action Plan that includes water conservation, water recycling, expanded water storage, safe drinking water, and wetlands and watershed restoration. It protects existing surface water and groundwater rights and does not affect current drought response measures.59
SGMA requires that local agencies form a local groundwater sustainability agency within 2 years (i.e., by 2017).

This process is not subject to LAFCo oversight. Agencies located within high- or medium-priority basins must adopt groundwater sustainability plans within 5 to 7 years. The time frame for basins determined by DWR to be in a condition of “critical overdraft” is 5 years (i.e., by 2020). Local agencies would have 20 years to fully implement groundwater sustainability plans after the plans have been adopted. Intervention by the SWRCB would occur if a groundwater sustainability agency is not formed by the local agencies, and/or if a groundwater sustainability plan is not adopted or implemented.60
Streambed Alteration Agreement
The CDFW regulates streambed alterations in accordance with Fish and Game Code Sections 1601–1616: Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements. Whenever a project proposes to alter a streambed, channel, or bank, an agreement with CDFW is required. The agreement is a legally binding document that describes measures agreed to by both parties to reduce risks to fish and wildlife in the stream system during the project. This is a process outside of CEQA but is usually coordinated with CEQA compliance. Agreements typically have fewer procedural and legal requirements than CEQA in order to work with small-scale projects that are important to fish. Timeframes for agreements are 30 days for CDFW to determine the completeness of an application and an additional 60 days to provide a draft agreement to the applicant.

Local
Phase II MS4 Permit
The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program established under NPDES regulates storm water discharges from MS4s. In the first phase, the SWRCB issued permits to medium and large municipalities, typically grouped as co-permittees in a metropolitan region. In the second phase, the SWRCB adopted a General Permit for the 57 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin. Second Edition.

Revised January 2004.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/tlbp_200401.pdf 58 Ibid.
59 California Department of Water Resources. https://water.ca.gov/sgma 60 Ibid.
627
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-99 Discharge of Storm Water from Small MS4s. In 2013, SWRCB, in response to the EPA, issued Water Quality Order No. 2013-001-DWQ NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004, Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small MS4s in February 2013, which went into effect July 2013. The MS4 Permit requires urban municipalities with predetermined inclusion reequipments to file an application and comply with prescriptive tasks over the 5-year permit term. The prescriptive tasks include, but are not limited to, public outreach and involvement, IDDE, construction site runoff control, post-construction storm water management, municipality facility and operation good housekeeping, water quality monitoring, and municipality assessment and reporting.

The City applied with the SWRCB under the Phase II MS4 Permit in July 2013, covering the City itself, and the Storm Water Management Program for Tulare County, which covers all unincorporated parts of the County, including the Project site. The City, under previous permit issuances, developed and adopted Stormwater Management Plans in 2005 and 2008, respectively.

Visalia Urban Water Management Plan
California Water Service Company61 Visalia District 2015 UWMP evaluates water demand and potential supply based on projected population and urban area growth. Water Code Section 10644(a) requires urban water suppliers to file UWMPs with the DWR, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies. The UWMP describes the water system, system demands, system supplies, water supply reliability and water shortage contingency planning, and demand management measures.

City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective OSC-O-6: Protect water resources vital to the health of the community residents and important to the Planning Area’s ecological and economic stability. • Objective OSC-O-7: Preserve and enhance Planning Area waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources which serve as plant and wildlife habitats, as groundwater recharge facilities, as flood control and irrigation components, and as connections between open space areas. • Objective OSC-O-8: Continue to participate in a waterway program involving the Tulare Irrigation District, irrigation companies, private water companies and state agencies. • Policy OSC-P-18: Establish a liability agreement between the City, Tulare Irrigation District, water conservation districts and ditch companies related to public access and trail use and riparian corridor enhancement programs.

City of Visalia Municipal Code: Chapter 15.60, Flood Plain Management Ordinance VMC Chapter 15.60, the Flood Plain Management Ordinance, is intended to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to:
• Protect human life and health;
• Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; • Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding events and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;
• Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
61 California Water Service Company is an investor-owned corporate purveyor of water to the City of Visalia. 628
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-100 • Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in special flood hazard areas; • Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of special flood hazard areas so as to minimize future blighted areas caused by flood damage; • Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is located in a special flood hazard area; and • Ensure that those who occupy properties located in special flood hazard areas assume responsibility for their actions.

Methods to reduce flood losses through this chapter involve regulations pertaining to the following:
• Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to water or erosion hazards;
• Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
• Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters;
• Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and • Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.

3.9.3 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project could result in violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements as a result of proposed changes in existing drainage patterns, both in the shortterm due to erosion and sedimentation during construction activities and in the long term based upon necessary recontouring of the site to establish recharge basins, external and internal roadways and parking areas and other sports fields and activity areas. Construction activities undertaken to implement subsequent development projects associated with build-out of the Project could include excavation, soil stockpiling, boring, and/or grading activities that strip existing vegetation. Soil erosion is probable during construction which may result in water quality impairments if it is not sufficiently retained from reaching receiving waters. Water quality impairments may include turbidity, increased algal growth, oxygen depletion, or sediment buildup, thereby degrading aquatic habitats. Sediment from Project-induced erosion could also ultimately accumulate in downstream drainage facilities and interfere with stream flow, thereby aggravating downstream flooding conditions.

Since the Project site would exceed the one-acre disturbance area threshold, RWQCB would require a SWPPP.

The SWPPP would include the BMPs such as those listed below, as necessary and appropriate:
• Limiting excavation and grading activities to the dry season only (April 15 to October 15), to the extent possible. This would reduce the chance of severe erosion from intense rainfall and surface runoff, as well as the potential for soil saturation in swale areas. • If excavation does occur during the rainy season, storm-water runoff from the construction area can be regulated through a storm-water management/erosion control plan that may include temporary onsite silt traps and/or basins with multiple discharge points to natural drainages and energy dissipaters.

Stockpiles of loose material are generally covered, and runoff diverted away from exposed soil material.

Sediment basin/traps would be located and operated to minimize the amount of off-site sediment transport. Any trapped sediment would be removed from the basin or trap and placed at a suitable location on-site, away from concentrated flows, or removed to an approved disposal site. • Temporary erosion control measures would be provided until perennial re-vegetation or landscaping is established that can minimize discharge of sediment into receiving waterways. 629
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-101 • After completion of grading, erosion protection would be provided on all exposed soils either by revegetation or placement of impervious surfaces. Re-vegetation would be facilitated by mulching, hydro-seeding, or other methods and initiated as soon as possible after completion of grading and prior to the onset of the rainy season (by October 15).
• Permanent re-vegetation/landscaping shall emphasize drought-tolerant perennial ground coverings, shrubs, and trees.
• BMPs selected and implemented for the project shall be in place and operational prior to the onset of major earthwork on the site. The construction phase facilities shall be maintained regularly and cleared of accumulated sediment, as necessary.
• Hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents used on the construction sites shall be stored in covered containers and protected from rainfall, runoff, and vandalism. A stockpile of spill cleanup materials shall be readily available at all construction sites. Employees shall be trained in spill prevention and cleanup, and individuals should be designated as responsible for prevention and cleanup activities.

Incorporation of these or equivalent practices in accordance with the requirements of the SWRCBs General Construction Permit process would reduce this potentially significant impact on water resources during construction to a less-than-significant level.

In addition, the project includes facilities and features designed to capture and retain all run-off that would be generated by site development on-site for infiltration or controlled release to the City’s storm drain collection system. As such, the impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less than Significant Impact. The City plans to construct a groundwater recharge/storm water layoff basin complex with associated control structures. The intent of the Project is to recharge water that is available from any of the three surface water conveyances that traverse the Project site (Mill Creek, Oakes Ditch, and Packwood Creek) when water is available. When available, agreements between the City and TID would allow for the Project to take an average of approximately 5,500 acre-feet per year.

Based on the geotechnical investigation prepared by Technicon, infiltration rates based on a double ring infiltration test show a range between 5 and 129 gallons (gal)/square-feet (sf)/day. With the 129 gal/sf/day outlier removed, the average is more in the range of 21 gal/sf/day. This rate would vary depending on location and is expected to slow down with time after the basins have had time to fill. Given that the Project would contribute to improving groundwater supplies and lead to a net increase in aquifer volume, there would be no negative effects and impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. Mill Creek is planned to be re-aligned to accommodate park amenities while maintaining the creeks current capacity. The channel boundaries, bed surface, irregularities, obstructions, vegetation and channel meandering are to be considered in hydraulic computations to allow the creek to convey the current capacity without restriction. The restoration of Mill Creek to more closely resemble the riparian corridor that existed in the 1937 photo, shown in Figure 2-4. This substantial alteration could result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site however, as described in Section 3.4.4, the Project would obtain and comply with any necessary permits and conditions to reduce impacts to less than significant. 630
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-102 The Mill Creek channel restoration design aims at reconstructing the creek channel to a stable geometric configuration that is self-sustaining and in balance with imposed flow and sediment regimes and the character of the catchment landscape. This design would prioritize the minimization of erosion or siltation on or off-site.

Any impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. As part of the Project, an evaluation of the floodway status of all the channels must be made. If the channels are not designated floodways on the local FIRM, no FEMA applications would be required. If, however, any of them are designated as floodways by FEMA (not as 100-year Special Flood Hazard Areas) then the City would be required to work with FEMA to authorize changes in the floodway. This would take the form of a flood study demonstrating that the proposed changes would not result in an increase in flood surface elevations alongside of, upstream of or downstream of the project. The City would then apply for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. Once that is approved, the work can be done. At that point, as-built plans would be submitted to FEMA demonstrating that the work conforms to the approved CLOMR and a Letter of Map Revision would be issued.

As part of the Project, Mill Creek would be realigned, returning it to a more natural meandering channel alignment and riparian character that more closely resembles how it existed in 1937 (Figure 2-4). This realignment would not change the creeks flow or capacity. The site storm water runoff would be accommodated by strategically located drainage facilities that would direct storm water runoff from the Project site into the basins. The storm water runoff basins are located along the west side adjacent to Tower Street and along the east side adjacent to Road 152.

The Project would utilize the three existing waterways flowing through the property (Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, and Oakes Ditch) for the groundwater recharge and storm water layoff functions. It is anticipated that water would be available for groundwater recharge year-round during a wet year, and from December through July for an average precipitation year. The dual-function design would therefore include new control structures to divert recharge and layoff waters from these waterways into the basins, move water between basins, and return water to Mill or Packwood Creek as needed. During the storm season, the Project would have the ability to take water from Mill Creek, Oakes Ditch, and Packwood Creek. The current design layout allows for flexible on-site water management between eight basins so that water can be moved around the site from any one system or all. With two feet of freeboard on the basin tops, the Project could provide approximately 300 acrefeet of layoff during a storm event and possibly more if the basins infiltrate.

Each basin would include a low-flow channel that allows for small volumes of water to be conveyed through the basins without filling up the entire basin and also allows more flexibility in moving water via gravity from the ditches or creeks. In an effort to minimize depth and maintain bi-directional flow, the channels are only one-to-two feet in depth and approximately 20 feet wide.

Therefore, while the Project would alter the course of a stream, it would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off of the Project site. Any impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? And
f) Otherwise substantially degrades water quality?
Less than Significant Impacts. Water quality in storm water runoff is regulated locally by the Central Valley RWQCB and the MS4 requirements set by the SWRCB. Adherence to these requirements results in 631
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-103 incorporating treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design features that reduce pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practical. Many of these requirements result in the construction of Low Impact Development techniques such as use of on-site infiltration through landscaping or vegetated swales that reduce pollutant loading in off-site discharges. Incorporation of these types of source control design measures can even potentially improve upon existing conditions.

Analysis of future Tower Street has been limited to south of the future Mineral King/Tower Street intersection, approximately 1,300 feet north of the centerline intersection of SR 198 and Tower Street. At Race Avenue, preliminary plans show water from the west half of Tower Street would be routed into the subdivision to the west. In all other cases, Tower Street runoff is captured and routed to depressed basins at McKinley Avenue or to on-site underground and depressed storage facilities. On-site, the park site was divided into three areas to determine capacity needs. The park area south of Mill Creek is one separate drainage area and the area north of Mill Creek is divided into to two drainage areas generally split on a north south line through the softball complex that reaches the center northernmost baseball complex then turns east to the west edge of Basins A, B, and C. Due to the proposed top of bank elevations for the recharge basins and the low flow line elevations of drop inlets it is not practical to gravity flow storm water runoff into the basins. A pump system would be designed to take water generated from the site and from Tower Street that would be deposited into one or more of the proposed recharge basins.

Capacity of the Dog Park Basin and the McKinley Avenue Basins are based on the City’s Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP) retention design with gentle side slopes (generally 6:1 (horizontal distance to vertical distance)) and one foot of freeboard. The basin capacities can be increased by deepening the basins. Criteria for preliminary sizing of the basins are based on the City’s SWMP using Table 3-6, Rational Method Runoff Coefficients and Design Criteria for Storm-water Basins. A Storage Volume value of 0.191 for Residential – High Density Land Use was selected based on the combination of open space and developed space including roads and parking lots shown on the Park Master Plan layout.

Capacity of the underground basins are calculated from Storm-Tech MC-3500 Chambers and based on a nineinch stone foundation depth. Each of the proposed parking lots would contain a system of underground chambers to allow for efficient routing of storm lines. If needed, it is possible to locate the chambers under designed play areas if the parking lots do not develop as proposed on the Park Master Plan. g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? And,
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. Portions of the Project area fall within FEMA Flood Zones AE and X (Panel 06107C0954; see Figure 3-16). For Zone AE, elevations have been established that would need to be respected when designing buildings, support structures, and critical equipment. The Project would apply for a Development Permit from the City in compliance with Municipal Code Sections 15.60.040 and 15.60.050.A.3.b.

In general, the site elevations within Zone AE range from a low of 352 feet amsl on the west side to a high of 355 feet amsl on the east side. Additionally, the Park Master Plan areas that are not intended for recreation facilities/uses are primarily located along Tower Street and are scheduled to be raised mounds. No housing is proposed as a part of this Project and no structures, including the proposed sound wall included in Mitigation Measure NOI-2, would impede or redirect flood flows. Any impacts would be less than significant. 632
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-104 Figure 3-16. FEMA Flood Zones
633
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-105 i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less than Significant Impact. Lake Kaweah is located upstream of the Project area and was formed upon the construction of Terminus Dam in 1962. In 2004, the USACE undertook a project to raise the lake 21 feet. The project included the construction of six 21-foot fuse-gates in the Terminus Spillway. The likelihood of failure of Terminus Dam, according to the 2017 MJLHMP, is less than 1% in next 100 years. However, if a significant seismic event were to occur that was at a magnitude the dam could not sustain, the existing urbanized area of Visalia and most of the Project site would be inundated. The dam inundation area covers the entirety of the City. This would expose people and structures to flooding risk damages could be catastrophic, including substantial loss of property and life.

This impact was considered significant and unavoidable by the City’s GP Update EIR. A SOC was adopted, stating that because the Terminus Dam is owned and operated by the USACE, there are no feasible mitigation measures that the City could adopt that could reduce potential impacts. Since adoption of the GP Update, the MJLHMP identifies the following specific and potential mitigation actions:

1. Acquire land upstream and develop storm water layoff basins for Packwood Creek, Mill Creek, and Evans Ditch to reduce flooding from the 1% annual chance flood.

2. Designate areas with a potential for significant hazardous conditions for open space, agriculture, and other appropriate low intensity uses.

In the context of the Project, the significant and unavoidable risk identified in the GP Update EIR can be considered a baseline condition. The risks of dam failure as a result of a seismic event are preexisting and would not be increased in any way due to Project implementation. Conversely, the basins proposed by the Project would serve to minimally reduce risk of flooding due to dam failure, as they could capture a portion of the flood flows. Given this slight beneficial impact, and that flood risk due to dam failure is a baseline environmental condition, impacts would be less than significant.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The Project area is located sufficiently inland to be out of what would be considered a potential hazard area for seiches, tsunamis, and sea level rise. In addition, the location of the park area makes the potential for mudflows remote. Therefore, there would be no impact related to these hazards.

3.9.4 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. Concurrent construction of the Project with other planned projects in the vicinity could result in temporary impacts to hydrology and water quality in the Project area. The concurrent construction activities could result in increased runoff, erosion, and subsequent sedimentation with impacts to water quality in downstream water bodies and/or storm drain capacity. Additionally, surface water quality could be affected by concurrent construction activities that result in the release of fuels or other hazardous materials to stream channels or storm drains, or discharge from excavation dewatering activities.

Adherence to the requirements of the City development regulations and RWQCB CGP requirements would reduce the above-mentioned concurrent project-related construction impacts to hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level. Each of the related projects would be evaluated to determine the degree to which these developments would increase or decrease runoff from the sites and the need for additional storm drain capacity. As such, the contribution of the Project to hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to water quality and flooding.
634
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-106

3.10 Land Use and Planning
Table 3-23. Land Use and Planning
Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located partially within the City and partially within unincorporated County. The City is located in northwestern portion of the County, north of the City of Tulare and west of the City of Farmersville, in California’s Central Valley. The City of Hanford, in Kings County, lies 12 miles to the west. Most of the land uses surrounding the City are agricultural in nature. In 2010, the population of Visalia was 124,440, making it the largest city in County. According to the California Department of Finance, the City has an estimated population of 130,231 in 2016.62 The City covers an area of approximately 36 square miles.63 The Project comprises approximately 286 acres. The southern portion of the site, from SR 198 to Mill Creek, is located within the City limits. This portion is zoned QP by the Visalia Zoning Ordinance and designated Parks/Recreation and Conservation by the Visalia GP. The northernmost portion, north of Mill Creek and extending from the Cecil Court alignment to Houston Avenue, is located within unincorporated Tulare County.

The City’s GP designates this area for Parks and Recreation and Low, Medium, and High Density Residential uses, while the County’s GP indicates it as Agriculture. The current County zoning of the northernmost area is AE-20 (Agricultural zone).

The majorIty of the site is currently occupied by pecan orchards for the southern portion within the City and by walnut orchards for the northern portion within the County.

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal land use regulations that apply to the Project. 62 State of California Department of Finance, 2016. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/documents/E-5_2016_InternetVersion.xls Date Accessed:
7/28/2016.
63 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan DEIR – Chapter 3.1: Land Use and Planning. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30491 Date Accessed: 7/6/2016 635
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-107 State
There are no State land use regulations that apply to the Project.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective LU-O-7: Preserve and enhance qualities that make Visalia an ideal place to do business and promote a positive image of Visalia as a desirable place to live, visit, and do business. • Policy LU-P-20: Allow annexation and development of residential, commercial, and industrial land to occur within the “Tier I” Urban Development Boundary at any time, consistent with the City’s Land Use Diagram.
• Policy LU-P-29: Use regional and community parks and open space to enhance gateways to the City and as a buffer between adjacent communities.
• Policy LU-P-37: Adopt specific development standards for scenic entryways (gateways) and roadway corridors into the City, including special setback and landscape standards, open space and park development, and/or land use designations.
• Objective OSC-O-7: Preserve and enhance Planning Area waterways and adjacent corridors as valuable community resources which serve as plant and wildlife habitats, as groundwater recharge facilities, as flood control and irrigation components, and as connections between open spaces. • Policy OSC-P-8: Protect, restore, and enhance a continuous corridor of native riparian vegetation along Planning Area waterways, including the St. John’s River; Mill, Packwood, and Cameron Creeks; and segments of other creeks and ditches where feasible, in conformance with the Parks and Open Space diagram of this General Plan.

Waterway corridors provide irrigation water for agriculture, recreational opportunities, habitat, and storm drainage. They will provide new links between neighborhoods, parks, and Downtown, and provide a new way of experiencing the City and understanding its natural setting. • Policy OSC-P-10: Ensure that building and vehicle service areas, loading docks, trash enclosures and storage areas are setback from waterways and/or screened from view from the creek corridor to minimize environmental and visual impacts.
• Policy OSC-P-14: Establish design and development standards for new development in waterway corridors to preserve and enhance irrigation capabilities, if provided, and the natural riparian environment along these corridors. In certain locations or where conditions require it, alternative designs such as terraced seating or a planted wall system may be appropriate.

As part of Plan implementation, examples of waterway bank treatments should be developed to facilitate adoption of these standards.
• Policy OSC-P-17: Require that new development along waterways maintain a visual orientation and active interface with waterways. Develop design guidelines to be used for review and approval of subdivision and development proposals to illustrate how this can be accomplished for different land uses in various geographic settings.
• Policy OSC-P-23: Where no urban development exists, maintain a minimum riparian habitat development setback from the discernible top of the bank – 50 feet for both sides of the Mill, Packwood and Cameron Creek corridors and 25 feet for both sides of Modoc, Persian and Mill Creek Ditches – provided that where riparian trees are located within 100 feet of the discernible top of the 636
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-108 banks of the Creek corridors and 50 from the banks of the ditches, the setback shall be wide enough to include five feet outside the drip line of such trees. Restore and enhance the area within the setback with native vegetation.
o Where existing development or land committed to development prohibits the 50 foot setback on Mill, Packwood and Cameron Creek corridors, provide the maximum amount of land available for a development setback
o Where existing development or land committed to development prohibits the 25 foot setback along Modoc, Persian, and Mill Creek Ditches, provide the maximum amount of land available for a development setback.

An exception to these setback requirements also may be allowed to permit piping of the ditch where necessary to meet City standards, and where no riparian trees will be lost.

City of Visalia Municipal Code
The City proposes to pre-zone the portion of the site that is within unincorporated Tulare County to the QP zone; that zoning would take effect upon completion of the annexation. The purpose and intent of this zone is to allow for the location of institutional, academic, community service, governmental, and nonprofit uses.

According to VMC section 17.52.020, “Permitted uses in this zone include public uses of an administrative, recreational, public service or cultural type including city, county, state or federal administrative centers and courts, libraries, museums, art galleries, police and fire stations and other public building, structures and facilities; public playgrounds, parks and community centers.”64 Waterways and Trails Master Plan
The Waterways and Trails Master Plan, outlines goals, policies, design standards, and implementation strategies for the development of a multi-purpose trail system along Visalia’s primary community waterways. The trail systems would link neighborhoods, parks, schools, Downtown, and other activity centers. The plan focuses on developing trails along three waterways: Packwood Creek, Mill Creek, and Cameron Creek. The Master Plan also identifies that the Class I trail that would run along Mill Creek and connect to the proposed Class I trail running north/south along the power line easement, west of the Project site.65 These trails are designed to link with the City’s existing trail system along the St. Johns River and the bike network. Mill Creek is proposed to be fully daylighted through Downtown. Ultimately, the completed system would form a “ring recreational trail” around the City’s periphery, several cross-town routes along waterways and other primary corridors, and a major north/south route along Santa Fe Avenue. Along each waterway, a preferred trail alignment is identified, and recommendations and policies are made for landscaping improvements and habitat restoration within the waterway setback.66

3.10.3 Impact Assessment
a) Impact Assessment Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project is located on the far eastern edge of the City, at the outer boundary of existing development and therefore would not divide the community. There would be no impact. 64 City of Visalia Zoning Ordinance, 15.52.020.
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/visalia_ca/cityofvisaliacaliforniamunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=aml egal:visalia_ca Date Accessed: 7/14/2016
65 City of Visalia, February 2010. Waterways and Trails Master Plan. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31825 Date Accessed: 7/30/2018
66 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan DEIR – Chapter 3.9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Date Accessed: 7/6/2016 637
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-109 b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. Prior to pursuing the development of the Project, several steps would need to be taken. Since a portion of the Project site is located within Tulare County, the City must request annexation. As part of the annexation, the City would need to perfect a General Plan Amendment for approximately 42 acres of the annexation area currently designated for Low, Medium, and High Density Residential located in the northern third of the Project site. The change in land use would affect approximately 0.4 percent of land within the City’s Sphere of Influence planned for Residential uses. These lands would be designated for Parks/Recreation consistent with the land use designation for the portion of the Project site already within the City limits and lying south of Mill Creek.

At this time, the City would need to obtain approval from LAFCo for annexation of the approximately 129 acres lying north of Mill Creek to Houston Avenue. Approval and recordation of the annexation would bring the property into the City limits. The new QP zone would take effect upon LAFCo’s filing of a Certificate of Completion.

The majority of the southern two-thirds of the Project Site is located within Tier I of the City’s Urban Development Boundary, while the remainder (which is currently planned for residential use) is within Tier III, the Urban Growth Boundary. The GP contains criteria to determine whether land within Tier III can be developed, however it applies only to residential, commercial, and industrial development. Therefore, once these lands are annexed into the City and designated as QP zone, the tier distinctions would no longer apply for the development of the Project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community plans in the vicinity of the Project site. There would be no impact.

3.10.4 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. The City’s GP designates future land uses for the build out of vacant land within the city limits and sphere of influence. The City proposes to amend its GP, rezone the site, and annex the land into the City. The Project would be consistent with the GP and zoning of the site as amended. Additionally, the City has sufficient capacity to meet the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate income units. The total capacity identified in the sites inventory of the 2014 Housing Element Background Report is 9,571 units for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income units and 768 moderate-income units. At the time of the background report being written the City capacity exceeded the overall RHNA needs by 7,907 units.67 Although the Project would re-zone 42 acres from a residential land uses to the parks/recreation land use, as shown in b), above, the change in land use would affect 0.4 percent of land within the City’s Sphere of Influence planned for Residential. Thus, cumulative impacts to land use and planning resulting from the development of the Project would be less than significant. 67 General Plan Housing Element, Amendment 2016-06, Background Report, Page 76. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34534 638
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-110

3.11 Mineral Resources
Table 3-24. Mineral Resources
Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
“The most economically significant mineral resources in County are sand, gravel, and crushed stone, used as sources for aggregate used in road materials, concrete and other construction. The two major sources of aggregate are alluvial deposits (riverbeds, and floodplains), and hard rock quarries. Consequently, most County mines are located along rivers at the base of the Sierra foothills.”68 The nearest oil or gas well to the Project is the W.J. “Carter-Chedester” 1 oil well. It is located 1.25 miles northwest of the Project Site and was abandoned in 1948. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources Well Finder interactive map, no active wells occur within the Project area.69
According to the County of Tulare’s Mineral Resource Zone designation, the Project sites easternmost portion intersects with Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-3a (see Figure 3-17). MRZ-3a areas are characterized by the State Department of Conservation (DOC) (see additional discussion below) as areas with moderate potential for mineral deposits of economic value. However, the County TMR Zone designations explain that further exploration within the MRZ-3a area would be needed to determine if a higher classification could be justified.

3.11.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the Project. 68 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030, Background Report. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp Date Accessed: 7/6/2016
69 California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources Well Finder. 2016. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr Date Accessed: 7/6/2016
639
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-111 State
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
Enacted by the State Legislature in 1975, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Public Resources Code Section 2710, et seq., ensures a continuing supply of mineral resources for California. The Act creates surface mining and reclamation policy to ensure that:
• Production and conservation of minerals is encouraged; • Environmental effects are prevented or minimized;
• Consideration is given to recreational activities, watersheds, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment;
• Mined lands are reclaimed to a useable condition once mining is completed; and • Hazards to public safety both now and in the future are eliminated.

Areas in the State (i.e., a city or county) that do not have their own regulations for mining and reclamation activities rely on the Department of Conservation Division of Mine Reclamation to enforce this law. SMARA contains provisions for the inventory of mineral lands in the State of California. The State Geologist, in accordance with the SWRCB Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, must classify Mineral Resource Zones as designated below:
• MRZ-1. Areas where available geologic information indicates that there is minimal likelihood of significant resources.
• MRZ-2. Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant mineral deposits are located or likely to be located.
o MRZ-2a. Areas containing mineral deposits that have geologic data to confirm that significant measured or indicated resources are present.
o MRZ-2b. Areas containing mineral deposits where geologic information indicates that inferred resources are present.
• MRZ-3. Areas where mineral deposits are found but the significance of the deposits cannot be evaluated without further exploration.
o MRZ-3a. Areas considered having a moderate potential for mineral deposits of economic value.
o MRZ-3b. Areas that include inferred mineral deposits that could possibly qualify as mineral resources.
• MRZ-4. Areas where there is not enough information to assess the zone. These are areas that have unknown mineral resource significance.

SMARA only covers mining activities that impact or disturb the surface of the land. Deep mining (tunnel) or petroleum and gas production is not covered by SMARA.

Local
There are no local regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the Project. 640
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-112 Figure 3-17. Mineral Resource Zone Designation
641
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-113

3.11.3 Impact Assessment
a) Impact Assessment Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than Significant Impact. Mineral resources located within Tulare County, including within the City, are predominantly sand and gravel resources resulting from alluvial deposits. As demonstrated in Figure 3-17, the easternmost portion of the Project site, lies within an MRZ-3a zone, an area of moderate potential for mineral deposits of economic value.

Although the MRZ-3a zone extends within the Project boundaries, the Project would not exploit the untapped potential of the known mineral resource present. The mineral resource would not be removed from the site and development of the site with recharge basins and predominantly open recreational areas would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource through compliance with local, State, and federal legislation and permitting.

The Project would not devalue the mineral resource integrity of the site or result in the removal or alteration of the known mineral resources present. Therefore, the impact to the mineral resource potential of the Project area and adjacent areas would be less than significant. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less than Significant Impact. See discussion under Impact a) above. Considering that the Project would not remove or significantly alter the MRZ-3a geologic reserve, the Project would result in a less than significant impact to the availability of the known mineral resource for future recovery.

3.11.4 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. No cumulative impacts are anticipated because the Project area would be used as a regional park and recharge facility and no mining activities are present. Accordingly, the Project would have less-than-cumulatively-considerable impacts regarding impacts to mineral resources. 642
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-114

3.12 Noise
Table 3-25. Noise
Noise
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located within orchard, natural stream, and low-density residential lands. SR 198 abuts the Project site to the south, contributing traffic noise to the existing conditions. Single-family residential development is west of the Project site, with a 150-foot wide high-voltage powerline easement located between the Project and the neighborhood.

Table 3-26 characterizes the results of the existing noise conditions at the seven (7) receiver locations evaluated in the study area. The results shown in Table 3 of Appendix L were used to develop the traffic noise exposure levels at various setbacks to achieve 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80 sound pressure level (Leq(h)) A-weighted decibels (dBA) for the major roadways within the study area. Table 4 of Appendix L shows the anticipated noise levels for each roadway evaluated within the study area. Figures 6, 7, and 8 of Appendix L graphically display the results included in Table 4.
643
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-115 Table 3-26. Noise Receiver Locations
Source: VRPA Technologies, 2017 (Appendix L)
Table 3-27. Existing Traffic Noise Contours
Source: VRPA Technologies, 2017 (Appendix L)
Receiver ID No. Location
Distance from
Noise SourceRoadway
Centerline (feet)
Existing Noise
Level
Leq(h) dBA
1 Residential area located along Arroyo Street, south
of Murray Avenue -- 46.0
2 Residential area located Race Avenue, east of
Comstock Street -- 49.0
3 Residential Area along Houston Avenue (SR 216),
east of Comstock Street 50 58.0
4 Residence located north of Houston Avenue (SR
216), west of Road 152 25 61.0
5 Residence located along Road 152, south of
Houston Avenue (SR 216) 25 47.0
6 Residence located along Road 152, north of
Mineral King Avenue (Agricultural area) 25 59.0
7 Residence located along Mineral King Avenue, west
of Road 152 (Agricultural Area) 20 78.0
Source: VRPA Technologies, 2017
80 Leq (h)
dBA
75 Leq (h)
dBA
70 Leq (h)
dBA
65 Leq (h)
dBA
60 Leq (h)
dBA
Source: VRPA Technologies, 2017
70 115
Mineral King Avenue
West of Road 152 2 lanes
Undivided
16 26 42
Road 152
Houston Avenue (SR 216) to
Mineral King Avenue
2 lanes
Undivided
-- 5 14 23
Houston Avenue (SR 216)
8 40
Comstock Street to
Road 152
2 lanes
Undivided
5 9 15 24

STREET SEGMENT

SEGMENT

DESCRIPTION
DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (feet)
644
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-116 Traffic noise exposure is mainly a function of the number of vehicles on a given roadway per day, the speed of those vehicles, the percentage of medium and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, and the receiver’s proximity to the roadway. Every vehicle passage on every roadway in the City radiates noise.

Existing high noise levels along major streets and highways are generally caused by traffic and congestion.

Potential impacts along these facilities are generally classified as follows:
• Low – day-night average sound level (Ldn) 59 decibel units (dB) or below • Moderate–- Ldn 60 dB to 65 dB
• High–- Ldn 66 dB or greater
The potential for adverse noise impacts is generally moderate to high along most segments of State highways and is generally low to moderate along most segments of City streets and highways.

3.12.2 Methodology
VRPA Technologies, Inc. prepared a Noise Study Report in March 2019 for the purpose of identifying potential noise impacts that may result from the Project. The Report is included as Appendix L.

Site Selection
Developed and undeveloped land uses in the project vicinity were identified through land use maps, aerial photography, and site inspection. Within each land use category, sensitive receptors were then identified. Land uses in the Project vicinity include agricultural, single-family residences, and industrial uses. The generalized land use data and location of particular sensitive receptors were the basis for the selection of the noise monitoring and analysis sites.

Noise Level Measurement Program
Existing noise levels in the Project vicinity were sampled during the PM peak hour because traffic counts conducted in the study area show a greater volume of traffic in the PM peak hour than the AM peak hour. All measurements were made using an Extech Type 2 sound level meter datalogger.

The following measurement procedure was utilized:

1. Calibrate sound level meter.

2. Set up sound level meter at a height of 1.5 m (5 ft).

3. Commence noise monitoring.

4. Collect site-specific data such as date, time, direction of traffic, and distance from sound level meter to the center of the roadway.

5. Stop measurement after 15 minutes.

6. Proceed to next monitoring site and repeat.

3.12.3 Noise Fundamentals
Sound and Noise
Sound is a process that consists of three components: the sound source, the sound path, and the sound receiver.

All three components must be present for sound to exist. Without a source to produce sound or a medium to transmit sound-pressure waves, there is no sound. Sound also must be received; a hearing organ, sensor, or object must be present to perceive, register, or be affected by sound or noise. In most situations, there are many 645
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-117 different sound sources, paths and receivers, not only one of each. Noise is defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound.70
Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness. Loudness of sound increases and decreases with increasing and decreasing amplitude. Sound pressure level (SPL) is used to describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels, named after Alexander Graham Bell. To provide finer resolution, a bel is divided into 10 dB.71 Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB; rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. When two sounds of equal SPL are combined, they produce a combined SPL 3 dB greater than the original individual SPL. In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3 dB increase. If two sound levels differ by 10 dB or more, the combined SPL is equal to the higher SPL; the lower sound level would not increase the higher sound level.72
A-Weighted Decibels
Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency, or pitch, of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans would respond. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only in the range of audible frequencies but also in the way it perceives the SPL in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound of higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. To approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of SPL adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments (referred to as a weighting network) are frequency dependent. The A-scale weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Other weighting networks have been devised to address high noise levels or other special problems (e.g., B-scale, C-scale, D-scale), but these scales are rarely, if ever, used in conjunction with highway traffic noise. Noise levels for traffic reports are typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibels (dBA). In environmental noise studies, A-weighted SPLs are commonly referred to as “noise levels” (Appendix L).

Unfortunately, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance, and habituation to noise over differing individual experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way to determine a person subjective reactions to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment, referred to as the “ambient” environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise would be judged by the hearers (Appendix L). Regarding increases in A-weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships would be helpful in understanding this report:

1. Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived by humans.
70 City of Visalia General Plan DEIR, 2014. Chapter 3.10: Noise. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30500 Page 3.10-1. Date Accessed: 7/6/2016. 71 City of Visalia General Plan DEIR, 2014. Chapter 3.10: Noise. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30500 Page 3.10-1. Date Accessed: 7/6/2016. 72 Ibid.
646
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-118

2. Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference.

3. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.

4. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness.

Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive 3 dB noise level changes. A 5-dB change is readily perceptible, and a 10 dB change is perceived as being twice (or half) as loud. As discussed above, doubling sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound; therefore, doubling sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.73 Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time-varying noise levels. The following are the noise descriptors most commonly used in traffic noise analysis.74
• Equivalent sound level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level that in a stated period would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that actually occurs during the same period. The 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level (Leq[h]) is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period.
• Percentile-exceeded sound level (Lx): Lx represents the sound level exceeded for a given percentage of a specified period (e.g., L10 is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time, L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time).
• Maximum sound level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period.
• Day-night level (Ldn): Ldn is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24- hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. • Community noise equivalent level: Community noise equivalent level is the energy average of the Aweighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and 5 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations.

Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced or drops off) at a rate between 3.0 and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3.0 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance (Appendix L).

Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6.0 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Sound levels can be reduced by placing barriers between the noise source and the receiver (commonly called the “receptor”). In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks 73 Ibid. Page 3.10-3.
74 Ibid.
647
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-119 the “line of sight” between the source and the receiver. Buildings, concrete walls, and berms can all act as effective noise barriers. Wooden fences or broad areas of dense foliage can also reduce noise but are less effective than solid barriers (Appendix L).

When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.75 Geometric Spreading: Sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. Highway noise is unique in that the movement of vehicles makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (i.e., a line source) rather than a point. The drop off rate for line sources is 3 dB per doubling of distance.

Ground Absorption: The noise path between the highway and the observer is usually very close to the ground.

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., those sites with a reflective surface, such as a parking lot or a smooth body of water, between the source and the receiver), no excess ground attenuation is assumed.

For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees, between the source and the receiver), an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance for a line source and

7.5 dBA per doubling of distance for a point source.

Atmospheric Effects: Atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise propagation. Wind has been shown to be the most important meteorological factor within about 500 feet of the source, whereas vertical airtemperature gradients are more important for greater distances. Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lower noise levels. Increased sound levels can also occur as a result of temperature inversion conditions (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation).

Shielding by Natural or Human-Made Features: A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by this shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receiver specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver would typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction. A taller barrier may provide as much as 20 dB of noise reduction.

Ground-borne Vibration
Annoyance to humans and damage to buildings are the two ground-borne vibration impacts of general concern.

The two measurements corresponding to human annoyance and building damage for evaluating ground-borne vibration are peak particle velocity (PPV) and root-mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, measured as a distance per time (such as millimeters or inches per second). This measurement has been used historically to evaluate shock-wave type vibrations from actions like blasting, pile driving, and mining activities, and their relationship to building damage. RMS is an average, or smoothed, vibration amplitude, commonly measured over 1-second intervals.

It is expressed on a log scale in decibels (VdB) referenced to 0.000001 x 10-6 inch per second and is not to be confused with noise decibels. It is more suitable for addressing human annoyance and characterizing background vibration conditions because it better represents the response time of humans to ground vibration signals.
75 City of Visalia General Plan DEIR, 2014. Chapter 3.10: Noise . http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30500 Date Accessed: 7/6/2016 648
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-120

3.12.4 Regulatory Setting
Federal
EPA’s Noise Control Program (40 CFR 204).

The EPA regulates noise sources, such as rail and motor carriers, low noise emission products, construction equipment, transport equipment, trucks, motorcycles, and the labeling of hearing protection devices.

State
State of California General Plan Guidelines
The State of California General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2003) identify guidelines for the noise elements of local GPs, including a sound level/land use compatibility chart that categorizes, by land use, outdoor Ldn ranges in up to four categories (normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable). For many land uses, the chart shows overlapping Ldn ranges for two or more compatibility categories. The noise element guideline chart identifies the normally acceptable range of Ldn values for lowdensity residential uses as less than 60 dB and the conditionally acceptable range as 55–70 dB. The normally acceptable range for high-density residential uses is identified as Ldn values below 65 dB, and the conditionally acceptable range is identified as 60–70 dB. For educational and medical facilities, Ldn values below 70 dB are considered normally acceptable, and Ldn values of 60–70 dB is considered conditionally acceptable. For office and commercial land uses, Ldn values below 70 dB are considered normally acceptable, and Ldn values of 67.5–

77.5 are categorized as conditionally acceptable. When noise levels are in the conditionally acceptable range new construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation requirements are included in the design. These overlapping Ldn ranges are intended to indicate that local conditions (existing sound levels and community attitudes toward dominant sound sources) should be considered in evaluating land use compatibility at specific locations.

Local
City of Visalia General Plan
The Noise Element of the City’s GP establishes goals and policies intended to limit community exposure to excessive noise levels. The GP identifies noise sources such as roadways, rails, and airports within the city and includes land use compatibility guidelines. In addition, Implementation Policy 2.2 states that an acoustical analysis may be required if existing or projected future noise exposure at the exterior of buildings which would contain noise sensitive uses or within proposed outdoor activity areas exceeds 65 dB, Ldn, or I interior noise levels resulting from off-site noise are estimated to exceed 45 dBA.

Noise Ordinance
VMC Section 8.36 contains the City’s Noise Ordinance, which establishes exterior and interior noise level standards. Exterior and interior noise levels may not exceed any of the categorical noise level standards shown in Table 3-28:
649
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-121 Table 3-28. City of Visalia - Noise Level Standards
City of Visalia’s Noise Level Standards
Categories
Cumulative
number of minutes
in any one-hour
time period
Evening and daytime
(6:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m.)
Nighttime
(7:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m.)
Exterior Levels
1 30 50 45
2 15 55 50
3 5 60 55
4 1 65 60
5 0 70 65
Interior Levels
1 5 45 35
2 1 50 40
3 0 55 45

3.12.5 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Short-Term Impacts
Implementation of the Project has the potential to result in short-term construction noise impacts to surrounding land uses, representing a short-term impact to ambient noise levels. Although most types of exterior construction activities associated with the Project would not generate continually high noise levels, occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction activities are possible. Table 3-29 depicts typical construction equipment noise. Construction equipment noise is controlled by the EPA’s Noise Control Program (40 CFR 204).

During the construction phase of the Project, noise from construction activities would add to the ambient noise environment in the immediate area. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 3-29, ranging from 77 to 85dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are expected to occur during normal daytime working hours in compliance with the City Noise Ordinance. Therefore, noise resulting from short-term, transient construction activity would not result in significant adverse impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, depicted as the blue, yellow, and green areas in Figure 3-18.
650
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-122 Table 3-29. Typical Construction Equipment Noise
Construction Equipment Noise
Type of Equipment Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Rock Drills 85
Jack Hammers 85
Pneumatic Tools 85
Pumps 77
Dozers 85
Tractor 84
Front-End Loaders 80
Hydraulic Backhoe 80
Hydraulic Excavators 85
Graders 85
Air Compressors 80
Trucks 84
Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1987)76.

Long-Term Impacts
Traffic Noise
Future development analyzed within the 2030 GP Planning Area of the would result in increased traffic volumes, thus increasing noise levels in some areas. Tables 13, 14, 15, and 16 and Figures 22 through 51 of Appendix L show the predicted noise levels at the modeled receivers evaluated in the study area for the Cumulative Year 2040 With and Without Project conditions. Results of the analysis show that noise at sensitive receptors would not exceed the City’s Transportation Noise Source criteria for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios. There would be minimal changes in the traffic noise exposure levels with the Project at various setbacks of 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80 Leq(h) dBA for the major streets and roads within the study area.

Implementation of the Project would not result in significant adverse impacts from traffic noise levels generated as a result of the Project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

Stationary Noise
The VRPA Noise Study Report demonstrated that Phase 2 on-site operations would impact sensitive receptors directly to the west of the Project and would exceed the City’s Stationary Noise Source criteria for the hourly equivalent and maximum sound level. Noise levels on-site are anticipated to peak during games while spectators are present. Noise is generated from cheering spectators and players, as well as referee whistles. Results of the analysis shows that the sensitive receptors directly to the west of the Project Site would be impacted by the ball fields in a worst-case scenario that assumes games are being played on all 13 ball fields at the same time. Table 3-30 demonstrates that Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3 as shown on Figure 3-18 below would experience hourly noise levels of 58 dBA, 61 dBA, and 58 dBA respectively, which exceeds the City’s Stationary Noise Source Criteria of 50 dBA. Noise reductions of 8 to 11 dBA would be needed to meet City’s noise criteria. 76 Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, 1987. 651
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-123 Table 3-30 also shows that Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3 could experience a maximum sound level of 68 dBA, 71 dBA, and 68 dBA respectively. The estimated maximum noise levels estimated for Areas 1 and 3 do not exceed the City’s Stationary Noise Source Criteria of 70 dBA, while Area 2 does.

Table 3-30. On-Site Noise Source Impacts
On-Site Noise Source Impacts
Area
Hourly Equivalent
Sound Level Leq
dBA
Maximum Sound
Level, dBA
City of Visalia’s
Transportation Noise
Source Criterion
Impact
1 58.0 68.0 50 Leq (h) / 70 Lmax Yes / No
2 61.0 71.0 50 Leq (h) / 70 Lmax Yes / Yes
3 58.0 68.0 50 Leq (h) / 70 Lmax Yes / No
Source: VRPA Technologies, 2017 (Appendix L)
652
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-124 Source: VRPA Technologies, 2017 (Appendix L)
Figure 3-18. Sensitive Receiver Boundary vs. On-Site Noise Sources 653
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-125 Source: VRPA Technologies, 2017 (Appendix L)
Figure 3-19. Sound Wall Location
654
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-126 In order to reduce potential on-site noise impacts to sensitive receivers to a less than significant level, the Project shall comply with the following recommended mitigation measures:
• NOI-1 – Use of softball, baseball, and soccer fields shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am – 7:00 pm.
• NOI-2 – Construction of an 8-foot sound wall along residential boundary of homes directly to the west of Project site (see Figure 3-19 for approximate location). The sound wall material should consist of concrete block (8” x 8” x 16”), dense concrete (4” thick), or light concrete (4-6” thick). The wall shall provide breaks to allow for flood waters to pass through.

Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce the Project impacts to sensitive receivers to the west of the Project. Assuming that the height of the sound source and receiver are the same, the 8-foot sound wall would reduce noise levels at sensitive receivers by approximately 20 dBA considering data provided in Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement and FHWA Noise Barrier Design.

Phase 3 of the Project would impact sensitive receivers directly to the west of the Project and exceed the City’s Stationary Noise Source criteria for the hourly equivalent sound level. The stage for the amphitheater is located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor adjacent to the Project. Noise levels from an amplified event could reach levels of 85 – 90 dBA at 100 feet from speaker equipment, which would generate noise levels between 65-70 dBA at sensitive receivers directly west of the amphitheater.

In order to reduce potential on-site noise impacts to sensitive receivers to less than significant, the Project shall comply with the Mitigation Measure NOI-2 and the following recommended mitigation measures:
• NOI-3 – Reorient the amphitheater to the northeast. Grade the amphitheater stage to be at same grade or level than the sensitive receptors to the west.

Mitigation Measures NOI-2 would reduce Phase 2 of the Project impacts to sensitive receivers to the west of the Project. Assuming that the height of the sound source and receiver are the same, the 8-foot sound wall would reduce noise levels at sensitive receivers by approximately 20 dBA considering data provided in Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement and FHWA Noise Barrier Design. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would eliminate Phase 3 of the Project impacts to sensitive receivers to the west of the Project site to a less than significant level. b) Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Ambient vibration levels in residential areas are typically 50 VdB, which is well below human perception. The operation of heating/air conditioning systems and slamming of doors produce typical indoor vibrations that are noticeable to humans but not considered adverse or significant.

Construction activity can result in ground vibration, depending upon the types of equipment used and proximity to receptors. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations, which spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance from the source generating the vibration. Building structures that are founded on the soil in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations, with varied results.