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. 655
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-127 Vibration levels from various types of construction equipment are shown in Table 3-31. The primary concern with construction vibration is building damage. Therefore, construction vibration is generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). Using the highest vibration level shown in Table 3-31 (Lv 87), the anticipated vibration levels at 100 feet, 150 feet, and 200 feet are 75, 71, and 69 VdB, respectively.
Table 3-31. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment PPV at 25 ft (in/sec) Approximate Lv* at 25 ft Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: VRPA Technologies, Inc. (Appendix L)
* RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 inch/second. Lv(distance) = Lv(25 ft) – 20 log (distance/25) Construction activities associated with Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Project would likely require the use of various types of equipment including vibratory rollers, bulldozers, and dump trucks. Based on the vibration levels provided in Table 3-31, ground vibration generated by common construction equipment would be 75 VdB and 82 VdB or less at a distance of 100 feet or more. The single-family residences located adjacent to Receiver 6 and Receiver 9 may be subject to vibration levels greater than 75 VdB depending on the location of the construction equipment on the Project site.
In order to reduce potential construction vibration impacts to sensitive receivers to less than significant, all construction phases of the Project shall comply with the following recommended mitigation measures:
• NOI-4 – Vibration Monitoring would be conducted during construction of Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Project when directly adjacent to a sensitive receptor (at Project boundary). Vibration would be monitored along the perimeter of the construction area and at varying distances.
A vibration criterion of 0.5 inches per second (in/sec) PPV is proposed as the applicable action threshold criteria for ground-borne vibration measurement during proposed remedial construction activities. The 0.5 in/sec PPV criterion has been established by the United States Bureau of Mines as the threshold above which damage to interior plaster walls may occur.
This criterion has become recognized by industry as the threshold for the onset of vibration damage to typical residential structures. Collected vibration monitoring results would be compared to the vibration criterion. The results would also be tabulated and reviewed on a weekly basis to assess trends and formulate the basis for mitigation measures, if required. c) Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Traffic Noise
The VRPA 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 less than significant (Appendix L). The Project would result in a maximum increase of eight (8) decibels when comparing Existing 656
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-128 and Existing Plus Project Conditions (Receivers 1 and 2). This increase is primarily due to the construction of Tower Street and the adjustments to existing travel patterns in the study area as a result of Tower Street.
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 as shown in Appendix L. Implementation of the Project would not result in significant adverse impacts from traffic noise levels within the Project study area. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.
Stationary Noise
Stationary Noise impacts were evaluated for Phase 2 in Impact a) above. 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.
In order to reduce potential on-site noise impacts to sensitive receivers to less than significant for Phase 2, the Project shall comply with mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.
Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and 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.
Stationary Noise impacts were also evaluated for Phase 3 in Impact XII-a. 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 of approximately 65 dBA at sensitive receivers directly west of the amphitheater.
In order to reduce potential of Phase 3 on-site noise impacts to sensitive receivers to less than significant, the Project shall comply with mitigation measures NOI-2 or NOI-3.
Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3 would reduce the Project impacts to sensitive receivers to the west of the Project. Utilizing standards from the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement and FHWA Noise Barrier Design and 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. Therefore, any impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities resulting from Project implementation have the potential to result in short-term impacts to ambient noise levels experienced by surrounding land uses. Although most of the 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 construction of each phase, 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 Noise Ordinance. Therefore, noise resulting from short-term, transient construction activity would not result in significant adverse impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. 657
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-129 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? and, No Impact. The Project is not located within five miles of a public airport or public use airport. There would be no impact.
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?
No Impact. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There would be no impact.
3.12.6 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. VRPA Technologies Inc. analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project to the year 2040 (Appendix L). Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 would reduce the cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, this Project and other projects in the vicinity would be subject to compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance; therefore, reducing the cumulative impact to a less than significant level. 658
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-130
3.13 Population and Housing
Table 3-32. Population and Housing
Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3.13.1 Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, the City has an estimated population of 136,246 in 2018. 77 In 2010, there were 43,900 housing units, of which 18 percent were multifamily units and 80 percent were single-family units, with the remaining percent as a residential vacancy rate.78 The demographic projections developed by TCAG in 2009 indicated that Visalia would grow by about 2.5 percent annually between 2010 and 2030 to reach a population of 211,111 in 2030.79 During the same span of time, TCAG projected that the number of households would grow at about the same pace as population. The number of jobs was projected to increase by about 1.7 percent annually between 2010 and 2030, reaching approximately 91,424 in 2030.80 The Project site has scattered rural residences to the north, south, and east with two different urban residential neighborhoods to the west.
3.13.2 Regulatory Setting
There are no federal, State, or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the Project.
77 State of California Department of Finance, 2016. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2018 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/documents/E-5_2018InternetVersion.xls Date Accessed:
7/26/2018.
78 City of Visalia DEIR, 2014. Chapter 1: Introduction. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30489 Page 3.1-4. Date Accessed: 7/6/2016.
79 City of Visalia General Plan Housing Element, 2016. Page 15. 80 City of Visalia DEIR, 2014. Chapter 1: Introduction. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30489 Page 3.1-5. Date Accessed: 7/6/2016.
659
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-131
3.13.3 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. Project components are intended to address and accommodate expected growth rather than induce it. The recreational facilities and road improvements of the Project are addressed within the City’s GP and are intended to accommodate the anticipated future growth of the City. The extension of roads and development of Tower Street are 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. There would be no impact.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. 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. There would be no impact. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As stated in Impact b), there is no housing located on the site; therefore, the Project would in no way displace substantial or insubstantial numbers of people. There would be no impact.
3.13.4 Cumulative Impacts
No Impacts, No cumulative impacts.
660
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-132
3.14 Public Services
Table 3-33. Public Services
Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
3.14.1 Environmental Setting
Visalia Police Department
The Visalia Police Department (VPD) provides police protection in the City and collaborates with other law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney’s office for crime prevention. VPD works with City and County agencies and educational and social service providers on a variety of outreach and youth programs. VPD is engaged in gang prevention efforts ranging from school presentations to intensive management of high-risk probation cases to injunctions against two gangs.81
As of 2016, the VPD had 141 sworn officers working out of two districts, as well as 68 professional staff, 18 hourly staff, and 87 volunteers (including reserves, VIPS, Chaplains, and Explorers).82 Dispatch, records, crime analysis, and other essential law enforcement units are included in the professional and hourly staff.
VPD headquarters is at 303 South Johnson Street in Downtown Visalia, adjacent to City Hall West. In 2007, two substations were opened and shifted to district-based operations. The District 1 substation, serving northern Visalia, is located at 204 Northwest 3rd Avenue, near Lincoln Oval. District 2, at 4100 South County Center Drive, serves the southern part of the City. The Project will be served by the District 1 substation.83 81 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Page 3.9-1. Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 82 City of Visalia, 2015. Visalia Police Department 2016 Annual Report. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=35742 Date Accessed: 11/26/2017 83 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Page 3.9-1. Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 661
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-133 VPD does not establish service standards either in terms of officers per thousand residents or in incident response time. In 2008, VPD reported that its response times were under 15 minutes for 85 percent of all calls and that the average response time for Priority 1 calls was 4.2 minutes.84 The City opened the Visalia Emergency Communication Center (VECC) in 2017. The two-story, 18,872 squarefoot building was designed as an essential services facility. Located near School Avenue and Burke Street, the VECC is the home for the Emergency Communication Center (911 Dispatch), VPD Administration including the Emergency Operation Center, Traffic Management Center and the City’s secure Data Center for Information Services.
Visalia Fire Department
The VFD handles emergency and fire calls within the City. In 2015, the VFD responded to over 14,000 calls for service. There was a 20% increase in calls for service, including vegetation and structural fires, from 2010 to 2015 and a 26% increase in EMS calls in the same time period.85 In total in 2015, 65% of incidents were EMS/rescue related, 21% were fires, 5% were service calls, and 2% were due to hazardous conditions. The remaining 7% were either false calls or miscellaneous, other calls. It is anticipated that the VFD would respond to approximately 18,000 annual calls for service by the end of 2019.86 VFD has 76 uniformed and 7 non-uniformed personnel, with at least 26 on duty at any time. Personnel are trained in fire suppression and certified as Emergency Medical Responders. Organized into six response areas, VFD operates six stations to serve all parts of the City, and has six fire engines and a 105-foot aerial truck as well as five reserve fire engines and two reserve ladder trucks.87 Stations are located in each quadrant of the City plus a fifth station near Mooney Blvd serving south central, as well as the Downtown station adjacent to the police headquarters. The Project area is served by Station 56, located at 1968 S. Lovers Lane, 1.2 miles southwest of the Project site. This station accounted for 11% of service calls in 2015, the second fewest of the six stations.88
The VFD also contains a Type I Hazardous Materials team, including 23 certified Hazardous Materials Specialists managed by one Battalion Chief. This team serves Tulare and Kings County locally and is available for use State-wide in the case of a large-scale incident.89 Fire prevention is an important part of VFD’s work. VFD conducts weed and abandoned vehicle abatement to remove common sources of fire and presents public education programs in schools and other venues.90 VFD follows the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) service ratio standard of one responder per 1,000 residents. VFD does not currently meet that standard; current staffing of 76 uniformed personnel91 translates to 0.56 responders per 1,000 residents. VFD also follows the NFPA response time standard, aiming to respond to 95 percent of calls within 5 minutes, including one minute of “turnout” and four minutes of driving.92 VFD currently has an average fire response time of 5 minutes and 30 seconds, and an average EMS response time of 5 minutes and 11 seconds.93
84 Ibid. Page 3.9-3
85 City of Visalia, 2015. City of Visalia Fire Department 2015 Annual Report. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=32932 Date Accessed: 7/28/2016 86 Ibid.
87 City of Visalia Fire Department, 2016. Visalia Fire Department Information . http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/fire/info/default.asp Date Accessed: 8/2/2016 88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Page 3.9-3.Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 91 Visalia Fire Department Website. http://www.visalia.city/depts/fire/info/default.asp Accessed 7/27/2018. 92 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Page 3.9-3.Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 93 Visalia Fire Department Annual Report 2017. Page 7. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=38459 Accessed 7/27/2018.
662
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-134 VFD has mapped the areas within four-minute driving-time range of each station.. Areas of southwest Visalia and smaller areas in the northwest and northeast cannot reasonably be served within the VFDs target response time. 94
Evacuation Routes and Potential Shelter Sites
The City has designated several evacuation routes through Visalia to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies. The extent and severity of a disaster would determine which routes and which direction people must take in order to escape or avoid the afflicted areas. Kaweah Health Care District provides emergency health care services to residents of the City, including any within or near the Project site. 95 In the event of a natural or man-made disaster, the City would coordinate with the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and State and federal agencies responsible for providing emergency shelter for displaced residents. The sites most commonly used are schools, senior centers, community centers, public buildings, and churches.96 Schools
The Project site is within Visalia Unified School District (VUSD), which provides public education from Kindergarten through 12th Grade. The District includes 26 elementary schools, five middle schools, four traditional high schools, and alternative education programs. A comprehensive campus including Golden Oak Elementary School, Valley Oak Middle School, Golden West High School, and Visalia Adult School is located approximately one-half mile to the northwest. Mineral King Elementary School is located 0.76 miles to the southwest of the Project Site.
Parks, Open Space, and Recreation
Currently, Visalia has 37 parks located throughout the City. Four community parks (Fairview Village Park, Recreation Park, Seven Oaks Park, and Whitendale Park) provide a wider variety of community amenities or are co-located with community centers and range from approximately 9 to 14 acres in area. Three large parks, Mooney Grove, Plaza Park, and Riverway Sports Park, are located at the periphery. The St. John’s Trail (St.
John’s Riverway) forms much of the northern edge of the City. Altogether, there are 678 acres of parkland within the City. Tulare County’s Cutler Park provides an additional 50 acres northeast of the Project site.97 The nearest neighborhood park to the Project Site is Mill Creek Garden Park, less than one mile west of the site.
The Project would increase the City’s park acreage, helping the City to meet its goal of 5 acres of park for every 1,000 people.98 The City currently has approximately 4.74 acres of park per 1,000 people.
3.14.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines that are applicable to the Project. 94 Ibid, Page 3.9-4.
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. City of Visalia DEIR, 2014. Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Page 3.9-14. Date Accessed:
6/22/2016
98 Visalia General Plan. 2014. Page 5-2.
663
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-135 State
State Open Space Standards
GC Section 65560, et seq. provides a structure for the preservation of open space by requiring every city and county in the state to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a “local open-space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open-space land within its jurisdiction.” Local agencies typically meet this requirement via policies and programs contained in the Open Space Elements of their general plans. The State identifies the following open space categories for preservation:
• Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas that require special management or regulation due to hazardous or special conditions. • Open space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to, natural vegetation, fish and wildlife, and water resources.
• Open space for resource management and production, including, but not limited to, agricultural and mineral resources, forests, rangeland, and areas required for the recharge of groundwater basins. • Open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to, parks and recreational facilities, areas that serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations (such as trails, easements, and scenic roadways), and areas of outstanding scenic and cultural value. • Open space for the protection of Native American sites, including, but not limited to, places, features, and objects of historical, cultural, or sacred significance such as Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property (further defined in PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993).
Local
City of Visalia General Plan: Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities The Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities Element (which contains the mandatory criteria of an open space element) of the City’s GP was last comprehensively updated in 2014. Regarding parks and recreation, the Element presents City’s policies and programs for the development and maintenance of parks, schools, and other fundamental building blocks for new neighborhoods to be built over the next two decades.
The Element objectives and goals pertaining to public services are as follows:
Fire:
• Policy S-O-4: Protect Visalia’s residents and businesses from potential fire hazards. • Policy S-P-22: Manage vegetation in areas within and adjacent to public rights-of-way and in close proximity to critical facilities in order to reduce the risk of tree failure and property damage and avoid creation of wind acceleration corridors within vegetated areas. • Policy S-P-27: Implement a fuel modification program, which also includes residential maintenance requirements and enforcement, plan submittal and approval process, guidelines for planting, and a listing of undesirable plant species. Require builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning construction.
• Policy S-P-29: Ensure availability of adequate water supplies to meet public health and safety needs, and for resource protection, by maintaining the following order of priority for water use:
• Potable water supply, fire protection, and domestic use • Resource protection and preservation
664
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-136 • Industrial, irrigation and commercial uses
• Water-oriented or water-enhanced recreation
• Air conditioning.
Police:
• Policy S-O-5: Provide a comprehensive program of safety services including police, fire and medical response in all parts of the Visalia Planning Area.
• Policy S-P-30: Integrate the Tulare County Hazard Mitigation Plan, in particular the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy sections, into the development review process, the emergency operations plan, and capital improvement program, as appropriate.
• Policy PSCU-P-27: Investigate opportunities to locate emergency services substations (police, fire, etc.) adjacent to park sites.
Schools:
• Policy PSCU-O-8 Place elementary schools at the core of neighborhoods and co-locate schools with parks and neighborhood commercial areas.
Parks:
• Policy PSCU-O-1: Design parks and recreation facilities that will enhance community identity and serve the recreation and social needs of Visalians of all ages, economic situations and physical abilities. • Policy PSCU-O-2: Continue to develop and expand special recreation amenities and programs for teens, senior citizens, and ethnic populations.
• Policy PSCU-O-3: Ensure that a wide variety of quality sports and aquatics opportunities, including Sports Tourism, are available to the community.
• Policy PSCU-O-4: Emphasize health and wellness programs in light of childhood obesity and Type II diabetes challenges in the City and County.
• Policy PSCU-O-5: Continue Visalia’s strong volunteer program by expanding meaningful opportunities for community service in Parks and Recreation Department programs. • Policy PSCU-O-6: Maximize opportunities for joint use of public land and facilities involving schools, stormwater ponding basins and other areas under public jurisdiction suitable for recreation. • Policy PSCU-P-25: Encourage cooperative agreements with the City and the Kaweah Water Conservation District, levee districts, irrigation companies, school district, College of the Sequoias, Southern California Edison Company and other public agencies and utilities to explore innovative recreation open space facilities throughout the Visalia planning area. • Policy PSCU-P-1: Prepare a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to implement Park policies in this General Plan. The Plan should include:
• An assessment of existing and future recreational needs, including the needs of specific user groups and the needs of older areas of the community as well as those in new neighborhoods; • An assessment of opportunities for joint-use of City-owned stormwater detention basins on a yearround or seasonal basis, including priorities, access, improvement needs, security and cost-sharing arrangements;
• Involvement of teens in design of teen programs and seniors in programs serving them; • A comprehensive program for providing facilities and recreational activities for identified needs, developed in consultation with VUSD and others involved in recreation programs, including jointuse opportunities with VUSD and other school districts and College of the Sequoias (COS), and joint-use opportunities with City facilities, such as retention basins; 665
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-137 • Proposals for coordinating affordable child care with the City’s recreation programs; • Detailed design, construction and maintenance standards for parks and community centers and aquatic facilities emphasizing universal accessibility and barrier-free design, durability, low maintenance, and low water use;
• A program for retrofitting existing facilities to remove barriers to handicapped users over time; • An action plan to define priorities, responsibilities and scheduling; and • A comprehensive financing strategy for park and recreation facilities, including but not limited to the Park Acquisition and Development Fee, Recreation Program Fee policies, including provisions for fee reductions, scholarships and sponsorships, and marketing, including recreation as part of the City’s overall economic development plan.
• Policy PSCU-P-2: Strive to achieve and maintain a citywide standard of at least five acres of neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents.
• Policy PSCU-P-3: Reserve land and develop parks and public open spaces and recreation facilities consistent with designated Parks and Open Space land on the Land Use Diagram. • Policy PSCU-P-4: Create one large new park at the City’s eastern edge to enhance the City’s eastern gateway along Highway 198, ensure separation between communities, and provide ample recreation space for the larger area.
• Policy SCU-P-5: Create new community parks in the Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast quadrants, consistent with the Parks and Open Space diagram and the following planning guidelines:
• Size: 5-12 acres or more; and
• Facilities to be provided: large children’s play area, reserved picnic facilities, open play fields, community building, bicycle parking, and off-street parking. They also may include tennis courts, outdoor concert areas or other special facilities based on neighborhood needs and community input. • Policy PSCU-P-11: Develop a system of natural corridors and greenways, consistent with the Parks and Open Space diagram (Figure 5-1). These corridors will have biking and walking trails offering recreational opportunities and links between neighborhoods, parks, and Downtown. The system of corridors will include waterway corridors as well as linear landscaped corridors to create natural gateways, parkways or buffer areas. More specifically, this system is envisioned to include:
• Greenway corridor along the St. Johns River, including broader areas to the northwest to accommodate open space areas, large group picnic facilities, a nature center, or other uses; • Greenway corridors along Mill, Packwood and Cameron Creeks, and segments of other waterways, with sufficient width to protect riparian habitat and accommodate a multi-use trail; • A landscaped corridor on both sides of Highway 198 providing a scenic gateway into Visalia from the west; and
• A landscaped buffer zone or parkway along Shirk Road separating industrial from residential areas, and a greenway along Road 148 marking the eastern edge of the City, both accommodating a multiuse trail. • Policy PSCU-P-13: Design parks to enhance neighborhood character and minimize negative impacts. • Locate neighborhood parks with local or collector street frontages on at least three sides, and sidewalks and crossings designed for safe and easy pedestrian access. • Where a neighborhood park is part of a neighborhood node, it should be designed to promote visual connections and pedestrian movement between the park and adjacent uses such as schools and commercial uses.
666
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-138 • Policy PSCU-P-14: Provide lighted facilities for tennis, basketball or other recreational facilities and along pathways in order to extend usable hours. Lighting should be energy-efficient and designed to minimize light pollution.
• Policy PSCU-P-15: Provide at least one community center in each of the City’s four neighborhood quadrants. Use existing and new com-munity center facilities to provide multicultural programs and teen recreation activities and provide space for meetings and classes. Community centers should be designed with community input, including guidance from a cross-section of user groups. • Policy PSCU-P-19: Promote private-sector and joint public-private development of commercial recreation facilities for league softball, indoor swimming, and golf, and other recreation uses that are available to the public for a fee or on a limited basis. Commercial recreation facilities will not be counted toward the City’s parkland acreage standard because they are not publicly accessible for all residents.
• Policy PSCU-P-23: Promote innovative park design that responds to neighborhood needs and user groups.
• Policy PSCU-P-24: Provide shade in parks by using arbors and other landscaping techniques. • Policy PSCU-P-25: Encourage cooperative agreements with the City and the Kaweah Water Conservation District, levee districts, irrigation companies, school district, College of the Sequoias, Southern California Edison Company and other public agencies and utilities to explore innovative recreation open space facilities throughout the Visalia planning area. • Policy PSCU-P-26: Develop standards for recreation use on dual purpose park/pond sites to ensure that slopes and pumping equipment do not preclude recreation use and maintenance. • Policy PSCU-P-28: Offer nature study programs to increase community awareness of open space opportunities and habitat enhancement in City parks and along community waterways. • Policy PSCU-P-29: Incorporate barrier-free design in all new recreation and sports facilities, and renovate existing facilities to remove barriers to handicapped users. • Policy PSCU-P-46: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks, streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance requirements. The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
• Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
• Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool-season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
• Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; • Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weatherbased or other self-adjusting technology; • Promoting the use of recycled water; and
• Minimizing overspray and runoff.
• Policy PSCU-P-47: Implement a program of irrigation water use analyses, irrigation surveys, irrigation audits or similar techniques using available technology to evaluate water use in existing City parks and landscape areas, and undertake improvements to reduce water use to a level that does not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance as calculated under the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance under Policy CO-P-3.
• Policy PSCU-P-48: Establish a program to reduce water use in municipal buildings and allow use of recycled water (treated wastewater) in buildings and irrigation, as feasible and appropriate. 667
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-139 Other Public Facilities:
• Policy PSCU-P-59: Require new developments to incorporate flood water detention basins into project designs where consistent with the Stormwater Master Plan and the Groundwater Recharge Plan. • Policy PSCU-P-60: Control urban and stormwater runoff, and point and non-point discharge of pollutants. As part of the City’s Stormwater Management Program, adopt and implement a Stormwater Management Ordinance to minimize stormwater runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize groundwater recharge. New development will be required to include Low Impact Development features that reduce impermeable surface areas and increase infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
• Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
• Grading that lengthens flow paths over permeable surfaces and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
• Partially removing curbs and gutters from parking areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
• Use of permeable paving in parking lots and other areas characterized by significant impervious surfaces;
• On-site stormwater detention, use of bioswales and bioretention basins to facilitate infiltration; and • Integrated or subsurface water retention facilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.
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, often times along Visalia’s primary community waterways.
The trail system would link neighborhoods, parks, schools, the 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 runs along Mill Creek would connect to the proposed Class I trail running north/south along the power line easement, west of the Project site.99 These trails are designed to link with the City’s existing bicycle network and the trail system along the St. John’s River along the north edge of the City. 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. Currently in the design phase the Greenway Trail would run alongside the Project, within the Tower Road easement.
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.
Tulare County Fire Department
Tulare County Fire Department provides fire and emergency medical services within the unincorporated areas of County. The City and the County have a mutual aid agreement that encompasses 59 square miles surrounding the City100.
99 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 100 City of Visalia General Plan, Safety and Noise Element. 668
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-140 City of Visalia Fire Department Plan Check and Hydrant Ordinance Visalia’s requirements for new construction include provisions for the fire department to review building and site plans prior to the issuance of any permit. The fire department ensures that the Project would be adequately served by water and accessible to emergency vehicles. The VFD also enforces the City’s Hydrant Ordinance, which states that subdividers are responsible for the installation of water mains and hydrants, and determines the minimum spacing for fire hydrants. Street dimensions are scrutinized to ensure that space would be preserved for ladder trucks to be stabilized and for emergency vehicles to turn around.
Master Mutual Aid Plan
The City actively participates in the California Master Mutual Aid Plan. Formal mutual aid agreements have been written between the City and surrounding jurisdictions. A broad automatic aid agreement encompassing 59 square miles surrounding Visalia exists between Tulare County and the City.
Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazards Mitigation Plan
The MJ-LHMP is a formal document designed to significantly reduce loss of life and injuries resulting from a disaster; minimize damage to structures and property, as well as destruction of essential services and activities; protect the environment; and promote hazard mitigation as an integrated public policy. The most recent version of the MJ-LHMP was adopted in 2011 and updated in March 2018.
3.14.3 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection?
No Impact. The Project is within the service area of VFD Station 56 (Station 56), which is located 1.2 miles southwest of the Project. 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. The Project site is within the VFDs target response time area. The Project would not have a significant impact concerning demand for fire protection.
Police Protection?
No Impact. The northern portion of the Project site is currently served by the Tulare County Sheriff. Following annexation, the VPD would provide service to the entire Project area. The VPDs main headquarters is located in 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.101 There would be no impact to police services.
Schools?
No Impact. 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. 101 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 669
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-141 Parks?
No Impact. 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.
Other Public Facilities?
No Impact. 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. There would be no impact.
3.14.4 Cumulative Impacts
No Impacts. There are a total of four projects that have been proposed or approved within four miles of the Project site. Implementation of this Project in combination with the four projects would result in a more developed urban area, which would utilize more public services. While many of the proposed projects, including this Project would utilize public services, each project is required to pay fees to assist in providing adequate public services to the area as it grows. Public services would increase as development increases. This is addressed in the City and County GPs. As a result of this Project, no cumulative impacts would occur. 670
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-142
3.15 Recreation
Table 3-34. Recreation
Recreation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
3.15.1 Environmental Setting
The City classifies parks and public open space into five general categories. Facilities at each park type vary according to size. Most neighborhood parks have picnic tables, play equipment, and drinking fountains.
Community and regional parks have these amenities as well as a combination of sports fields/courts, barbecue areas, parking, restrooms and facilities for other types of recreation. Parks are classified as follows:
102
• Pocket Park: A park typically between one-half acre and two acres in size intended to serve the needs of a specific neighborhood within a half-mile radius.
• Neighborhood Park: A park typically two to five acres in size that provides basic recreation activities for one or more neighborhoods. The service area ranges from a half-mile to a one-mile radius. These parks may include facilities such as children’s playgrounds, picnic tables, benches, and walkways. Many neighborhood parks are planned adjacent to new schools, and actual neighborhood park sizes may be as large as 10 acres depending on neighborhood size and need. • Community Park: A park typically ranging from 5 to 12 acres in size or larger, depending on the needs of the quadrant. Community parks are intended to serve the recreational needs of a larger area of the city, and particularly those residents living or working within a two-mile radius. These parks may include facilities such as sport fields, exercise courses, recreation buildings, and restrooms. Other facilities may include community centers, swimming pools, tennis courts, and concession stands. • Large City Park: A park generally larger than 40 acres in size intended to serve the recreational needs of all city residents and to create opportunities for contact with the natural environment. These parks may include a concentration of sports fields, golf courses, and areas for picnicking and passive enjoyment of open space. The Project would fall into this category. • Natural Corridors and Greenways: A network of greenways of varying size intended to serve the recreational needs of city residents. These parks may include facilities such as bikeways, walkways, and riding trails, and are primarily developed along the City’s waterways. Mill Creek and Packwood passing through the Project site fall into this category.
102 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Page 3.9-13. Date Accessed: 6/22/2016. 671
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-143 Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities
Currently, Visalia has 37 parks dispersed throughout the City. Four community parks (Fairview Village Park, Recreation Park, Seven Oaks Park, and Whitendale Park) provide a fuller range of community amenities or are co-located with community centers and range from approximately 9 to 14 acres. Three larger facilities, Mooney Grove Park (County), Plaza Park, and Riverway Sports Park are located at the periphery. The St. John’s Trail (St. John’s Riverway) forms much of the northern edge of the City. Altogether, there are 678 acres of parkland within the City. County’s Cutler Park provides another 50 acres northeast of the Project; this acreage is not counted as park acreage for the City.
103 The nearest neighborhood park to the Project site is Mill Creek Garden Park, located less than one mile west of the site. The Project would increase the City’s park acreage, thereby helping the City to meet its goal of 5 acres of park for every 1,000 people. 104
3.15.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to recreation that apply to the Project.
State
State Open Space Standards
Refer to Section 3.14.2 Regulatory Setting.
Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (GC Section 66477) authorizes cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The Act states that the dedication requirement of parkland can be a minimum of three acres per thousand residents or more and up to five acres per thousand residents if the existing ratio is greater than the minimum standard. Revenues generated through in-lieu fees collected and the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. In 1982, the Act was substantially amended. The amendments further defined acceptable uses of, or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/ population standards and formulas for determining the exaction, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (i.e., via nexus) to project impacts as identified through studies required by CEQA.
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
Refer to Section 3.14.2 Regulatory Setting for relevant information regarding the City of Visalia General Plan.
Waterways and Trails Master Plan
As previously discussed in Section 3.10.2, 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.
103 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. City of Visalia DEIR, 2014. Chapter 9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30499 Page 3.9-14. Date Accessed:
6/22/2016
104 Visalia General Plan. 2014. Page 5-2.
672
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-144
3.15.3 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project itself is a recreational facility. The Project includes the construction of park facilities and does not include residential development. Conversely, the Project would increase the number and available acreage of recreational facilities within the City; the City’s GP outlines the need for a regional park in the eastern portion of the City, which the Project would satisfy.105 The GP has a standard of 7.6 acres of park per every 1,000 residents.
The Project would add to the needed recreational facilities, to continue to meet the GP standards for population-park acreage ratio and would increase recreational use in the area. Project activities do not include residential development activities and helps meets the expectations of the City’s GP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project includes the construction of a regional park; thus, recreational facilities would be developed. The Project plan includes the development of recreational facilities as described in Chapter 2, Project Description.
The physical and environmental impacts of this Project are outlined throughout this EIR. The primary source of environmental impacts 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, cultural resource discoveries, noise, traffic, and biological resources. Impacts are discussed in greater detail within their respective Impact Analysis sections and include mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less significant levels.
The Project is a recreational use. The construction and operation of the new facilities would expand the recreational amenities within the City. The Project would not result in any new impacts beyond those evaluated with this DEIR. The overall implementation of the Project would be mitigated to a less than significant level in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Mitigation measures can be found with the in Chapter 6.
3.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant. General growth and specific development proposals in the area would contribute to a cumulative increase in the demand for recreational facilities. The related project list identifies some residential and commercial projects. An increase in the population within the Project area would result in a proportional increase in the demand for recreational facilities. This would marginally affect the existing public recreational facilities in the area. However, this Project would satisfy an additional need for park space generated by the cumulative project list. In addition, any new City development is subject to the City’s Quimby Act and environmental review procedures. Each new development is required to provide recreational land or facilities, pay in-lieu park fees, or otherwise mitigate their potential impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts are less than significant.
105 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update – Chapter 5: Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30477 Page 5-10. Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 673
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-145
3.16 Transportation/Traffic
Table 3-35. Transportation/Traffic
Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
3.16.1 Environmental Setting
Visalia is served by four major regional highways: SR 63, SR 99, SR 198, and SR 216. SR 99 provides access to Fresno and Sacramento in the north and Bakersfield in the south. SR 198 is an east-west corridor, connecting the City to the Sequoia National Park entrance.106 Due to its proximity to the Project site, SR 198 and SR 216 are the most relevant of the State Routes to the Project.
Three Arterials would aid in the circulation of traffic to the Project area: Lovers Lane/SR 216, Houston Avenue/SR 216 and Ivanhoe Drive/SR 216 (Appendix M). Lovers Lane exists as a four-lane, divided, 45 mph 106 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update 2030 – Chapter 4: Circulation. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30476 Pages 4-3 – 4-4. Date Accessed: 6/23/2016 674
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-146 roadway and does not have a bike lane. Although Lovers Lane is not directly within the Project area, its flow patterns impact the connected arterials of Houston Avenue and Ivanhoe Drive.
The GP designates the buildout of the City’s circulation network in two planned time frames: Year 1-10 and Year 11-25. The GP also has a category for a deferred time frame for both arterials and collectors. The study area segment of Houston Avenue is a Year 11-25 Arterial between Lovers Lane and Road 152, as designated by the City GP (Appendix M). Houston Avenue segment from Lover Lane and McAuliff Street contains a bike lane and is a four-lane, 40 mph, divided roadway. The speed limit within this part of the roadway changes to 25 mph within the boundaries of the existing school zone and adjusts back to 40 mph after the school zone has been passed. The portion of the Arterial, extending from McAuliff Street to Road 152, is a two-lane, 55 mph roadway without a bike lane.
Ivanhoe Drive is also designated as a Year 11 to 25 Arterial; however, it is also designated as a minor Arterial by the County GP. Ivanhoe Drive is a two-lane, undivided, 40 mph and 50 mph roadway without bike lanes (Appendix M).
Five different collectors provide for internal traffic movement within communities and connect local roads to arterials: McAuliff Street, Mill Creek Parkway, Mineral King Avenue, Noble Avenue, and Road 152 (Appendix M). McAuliff Street extends from Mineral King and Houston Avenue as a four-lane, 45 mph, undivided roadway and a four-lane, 45 mph, divided roadway north of Houston Avenue. McAuliff Street also served as an arterial roadway. Bike lanes are present along both sides of McAuliff Street with the exception of the west side of the roadway between Willow Avenue and Mineral King Avenue (Appendix M).
Mill Creek Parkway is a 45 mph, two-lane divided roadway without bike lanes within the study area. Mineral King Avenue, Noble Avenue and Road 152 are two-lane, 45 mph, undivided roadways that do not have bike lanes and exist within the study area (Appendix M).
The City evaluates roadway traffic conditions and deficiencies by calculating a respective Level of Service (LOS).107 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines LOS as “a qualitative measure of operating conditions within a Traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and/or passengers. A LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort and convenience, and safety.”108 The City’s Target LOS as identified by the GP for the intersections and road segments associated with the Project are shown in Table 3-36.
3.16.2 Methodology
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc. for the purpose of analyzing traffic conditions related to the Project and is attached as Appendix M. When preparing a TIS, guidelines set by affected agencies are followed. In analyzing street and intersection capacities the LOS methodologies are applied. See Table 3-36 for the GP target LOS by intersection. LOS standards are applied by transportation agencies to quantitatively assess a street and highway system performance. In addition, safety concerns are analyzed to determine the need for appropriate mitigation resulting from increased traffic near sensitive uses, the need for dedicated ingress and egress access lanes to the project, and other evaluations such as the need for signalized intersections or other improvements.
Although analysis of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) is not required, because the NOP predates the requirements of SB743, a VMT analysis has been prepared by VRPA Technologies, Inc. for the Project and is attached as Appendix N.
107 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update – Chapter 4: Circulation. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30476 Page 4-8. Date Accessed: 6/23/2016 108 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/news/brawley/appendix/APPENDIXK.pdf Date Accessed: 6/23/2016 675
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-147 Study Area
The study intersections and street and highway segments included in this TIS are listed below and shown in Figure 3-20. The intersections listed below are listed with the number that corresponds to the intersection number in the TIS. The study area outlined below was developed in consultation with City and Caltrans staff.
The Assumptions and Trip Generation document contained in Appendix A describes in more detail the proposed methodology for the traffic analysis.
Intersections
Existing Intersections
1. Lovers Lane / Houston Avenue (SR 216)
2. Lovers Lane / Mineral King Avenue
3. Lovers Lane / SR 198 EB Ramps
4. Lovers Lane / Noble Avenue
5. SR 198 WB Ramps / Mineral King Avenue
6. McAuliff Street / Houston Avenue (SR 216)
7. McAuliff Street / Mill Creek Parkway
8. McAuliff Street / Murray Avenue
9. McAuliff Street / Mineral King Avenue
10. Mineral King Avenue (North) / Mineral King Avenue
11. Road 152 / Houston Avenue (SR 216)
12. Road 152/ Mineral King Avenue
13. Noble Avenue / SR 198 EB Ramps
14. SR 198 WB On-Ramp / Mineral King Avenue
15. Road 156 / Mineral King Avenue
16. Road 156/ Noble Avenue
17. SR 198 WB Off-Ramp / Mineral King Avenue
Future Intersections
18. Tower Street / Houston Avenue (SR 216)
19. Tower Street / McKinley Avenue-Project Driveway #2 (also shown as A on Figure 3-21)
20. Tower Street / Douglas Avenue
21. Tower Street / Race Avenue
22. Tower Street / Murray Avenue
23. Tower Street / Villoy Avenue-Project Driveway #1 (also shown as A on Figure 3-21)
24. Tower Street / Mineral King Avenue
25. Road 152 / Project Driveway #3 (also shown as A on Figure 3-21)
26. Tower Street / SR 198 WB Ramps
27. Tower Street / SR 198 EB Ramps
Roadway Segments
Existing Roadway Segments
• Houston Avenue (SR 216)
West of Lovers Lane
Lovers Lane to McAuliff Street
McAuliff Street to Road 152
East of Road 152
• Lovers Lane
676
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-148 North of Houston Avenue (SR 216)
Houston Avenue (SR 216) to Mill Creek Parkway
Mill Creek Parkway to Mineral King Avenue
South of Noble Avenue
• McAuliff Street
North of Houston Avenue (SR 216)
Houston Avenue (SR 216) to Murray Avenue
Murray Avenue to Mineral King Avenue
• Road 152
South of Houston Avenue (SR 216)
North of Mineral King Avenue
• Mineral King Avenue
West of Lovers Lane
Lovers Lane to McAuliff Street
McAuliff Street to Road 152
Road 152 to Road 156
East of Road 156
• Road 156
North of Mineral King Avenue
South of Noble Avenue
• Mill Creek Parkway
Lovers Lane to McAuliff Street
• Mineral King Avenue (North)
North of Mineral King Avenue
• Murray Avenue
East of McAuliff Street
• Noble Avenue
West of Lovers Lane
Lovers Lane to McAuliff Street
West of Road 156
East of Road 156
• SR 198
Lovers Lane to Road 156
Future Roadway Segments
• Tower Street
Houston Avenue (SR 216) to Douglas Avenue
Douglas Avenue to Murray Avenue
Murray Avenue to Mineral King Avenue
677
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-149 Figure 3-20. Intersections and Road Segments Studied
678
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-150 Table 3-36. General Plan Target LOS by Intersection
Study Scenarios
The TIS includes LOS analysis for the following traffic scenarios:
1. Existing Conditions (Baseline Condition Without Project / Without Future Interchange / With existing Mineral King Avenue
2. Existing Plus Recharge Basins Only - Trip Generation Analysis Only (Without Future Interchange / With existing Mineral King Avenue)
3. Existing Plus Project (Full Build Out) (as defined, Median Crossover/Directional Left-Turn Bays or "worm" in Tower Street at Villoy Avenue) - Concept B1 (Without Future Interchange / With existing Mineral King Avenue) (Both existing Mineral King intersections at Tower Street)
1. Lovers Lane / Houston Avenue (SR 216) (2) City of Visalia / Caltrans D / C *
2. Lovers Lane / Mineral King Avenue (2) City of Visalia / Caltrans D / C *
3. Lovers Lane / SR 198 EB Ramps (2) Caltrans C *
4. Lovers Lane / Noble Avenue (2) City of Visalia D
5. SR 198 WB Ramps / Mineral King Avenue (3) Caltrans C *
6. McAuliff Street / Houston Avenue (SR 216) (2) City of Visalia / Caltrans D / C *
7. McAuliff Street / Mill Creek Parkway (3) City of Visalia D
8. McAuliff Street / Murray Avenue (3) City of Visalia D
9. McAuliff Street / Mineral King Avenue (4) City of Visalia D
10. Mineral King Avenue (North) / Mineral King Avenue (3) City of Visalia D
11. Road 152 / Houston Avenue (SR 216) (3) Tulare County / Caltrans D / C *
12. Road 152 / Mineral King Avenue (3) Tulare County D
13. Noble Avenue / SR 198 EB Ramps (3) Caltrans C *
14. SR 198 WB On-Ramp / Mineral King Avenue (5) Caltrans C *
15. Road 156 / Mineral King Avenue (2) Tulare County D
16. Road 156 / Noble Avenue (2) Tulare County D
17. SR 198 WB Off-Ramp / Mineral King Avenue (3) Caltrans C * (1) Based on respective jurisdiction General Plan Standards * Caltrans identifies’ a minimum LOS is C, except where the existing LOS is D or below INTERSECTION JURISDICTION TARGET LOS(1)
(2) Signalized Intersection.
(3) One-Way Stop Intersection.
(4) All-Way Stop Intersection.
(5) Uncontrolled Intersection.
679
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-151
4. Near-term Opening Year Projection Without Project (Without Future Interchange / With existing Mineral King Avenue)
5. Near-term Opening Year Projection Plus Phase 1 only of the Project (as defined, Median Crossover/Directional Left-Turn Bays or "worm" in Tower at Villoy), (Without Future Interchange / With existing Mineral King Avenue) (Both existing Mineral King intersections at Tower Street)
6. 2040 Without Project (with the future year land use for the Project Site coded as already identified in the approved 2040 TCAG Traffic Model) (Without Future Interchange / With existing Mineral King Avenue) (Both existing Mineral King intersections at Tower Street)
7. 2040 Without Project (with the future year land use for the Project Site coded in the TCAG Traffic Model as agricultural use) - Analysis would consist of a Qualitative Assessment Only and, if necessary.
If the Project Site is already coded in the 2040 Traffic Model as agricultural use, then this scenario would not be qualitatively assessed (Without Future Interchange / With existing Mineral King Avenue) (Both existing Mineral King intersections at Tower Street)
8. 2040 Plus Full Project (as defined, Median Crossover/Directional Left-Turn Bays or "worm" in Tower Street at Villoy Avenue) - Concept B1 (Without Future Interchange / With existing Mineral King Avenue) (Both existing Mineral King intersections at Tower Street)
9. 2040 Without Project (With Future Interchange; abandoning the Mineral King Avenue frontage east of McAuliff Avenue and west of Road 152)
10. 2040 Plus Full Project (as defined, Median Crossover/Directional Left-Turn Bays or "worm" in Tower Street at Villoy Avenue) With Future Interchange and with realigned Mineral King Avenue intersection (both legs of realigned Mineral King remain) at Tower Street (solid median)
11. 2040 Plus Full Project (as defined, Median Crossover/Directional Left-Turn Bays or "worm" in Tower Street at Villoy Avenue) With Future Interchange and with realigned Mineral King Avenue intersection (west leg of realigned Mineral King remains, east leg eliminated to Road 152) at Tower Street (solid median)
12. 2040 Plus Full Project (With Future Interchange; abandoning the Mineral King Avenue frontage east of McAuliff Avenue and west of Road 152 / With Tower Street as a full access intersection at the Park entrance but with a cul-de-sac at east end of Villoy Avenue) Phasing
It is anticipated that the Project would be developed in three phases. Phase 1 includes development of the groundwater recharge basins and storm-water layoff facilities.. Phase 2 would include the adult softball fields, youth baseball fields, soccer fields, and ancillary facilities (maintenance yard, cricket field, basketball court, children’s play area, and picnic area). Tower Street would be developed in concert with Phase 2 of the Project.
Phase 3 would include the remaining development of the site which includes the community center, amphitheater, disc golf course, and recreational trails.
Trip Generation
To assess the impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding street and highway segments and intersections, an assessment of trip generation resulting from the Project was completed. Project trips are generally determined using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition). The 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual includes trip generation rates for a “Regional Park”; however, after reviewing descriptions of the various park-related categories in the Manual, it was considered more accurate to include separate trip generation calculations for the main components of the Project that were listed in the Manual and would be expected to be large trip generators. As such, trip generation analysis was provided for the project with the following individual land uses:
• Recharge Basin
• Adult Softball Fields, Youth Baseball Fields, and Soccer Fields • Community Center
680
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-152 • Regional Park
• Special Event Traffic
Each land use analyzed under the TIS was considered based on the size of area that the use contributed to the overall Project. Special Event Traffic was separated out from the rest of the land uses and added to a separate analysis of trip generation for the site.
Trip generation is analyzed using the triAppendix Mps generated by a particular use and site by utilizing Peak Hour traffic volumes generated by the subject site. Peak Hour traffic is the busiest two hour time period that experiences the most trips to a site. Peak Hour is considered for both morning (AM) trips and afternoon (PM) trips. For this Project, the TIS defined the AM Peak Hour time as 7-9 in the morning and PM Peak Hour as 4- 6 at night. In addition, the Peak Hour trip generation analysis was studied both on a weekday and on Saturday, which is considered Weekday Peak Hour and Saturday Peak Hour. The trip generation analyzed for the Project during peak hour periods allows for the evaluation of LOS on affected intersections. The evaluation of LOS at each affected intersection would indicate any potential environmental impacts result from traffic as a result of the Project. For a full discussion of the trip generation levels produced by the Project, see Appendix A of Appendix M.
Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution is shown in Figure 3-21 and Figure 3-22 and is based upon a select zone model run prepared by TCAG staff. The regional travel model was used to determine how Project trips are distributed to the surrounding roadway network. The Project trips distribution along Tower Street was manually adjusted considering the proposed lane geometry and roadway configuration.
Currently, access to the Project site is via its frontages on Mineral King Avenue, Road 152 and Houston Avenue (SR216). Primary access to the Project would be provided through the construction of Tower Street along the western border of the Project Site, together with two entrance/exits aligning with the proposed extension of Villoy Avenue and the extension of McKinley Avenue. A secondary (3rd) entrance/exit would be provided to Road 152 approximately one-half mile north of its intersection with Mineral King Avenue.
Separate from this Project, Caltrans is considering an interchange at Tower Street and SR 198, although the project is only in the planning stage and has not been officially authorized nor funding allocated for it. The interchange at Tower Street and SR 198 is not anticipated to be a constrained project in TCAG 2018 RTP.
Nevertheless, this traffic analysis includes assessment of traffic impacts both with and without the interchange.
Figure 3-21 reflects the Project trip distribution without the development of an interchange at Tower Street, while Figure 3-22 reflects the Project trip distribution with an interchange at Tower Street and SR 198. 681
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-153 Figure 3-21. Project Peak Hour Trip Distribution without Tower Street Interchange 682
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-154 Figure 3-22. Project Peak Trip Distribution with Tower Street Interchange 683
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-155
3.16.3 Regulatory Setting
An important goal is to maintain acceptable levels of service along the highway, street, and road network. To accomplish this, affected agencies adopt minimum levels of service in an attempt to control congestion that may result as new development occurs. The affected LOS standards applicable to the traffic analysis are described below.
Federal
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the possible environmental consequences of projects that they propose to undertake, fund, or approve. It is unknown if federal funding would be used during the Project; any federally funded transportation portion of the Project requiring federal approval would be subject to a NEPA evaluation.
State
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans is responsible for planning, design, construction, and maintenance of all State highways. Caltrans jurisdictional interest extends to improvements to these roadways at the interchange ramps serving area freeways. Any federally funded transportation improvements are subject to review by Caltrans staff and the California Transportation Commission.
Rather than establish regulations regarding traffic LOS on State Highway facilities, Caltrans instead uses a series of guidelines. Caltrans recommends a target LOS at the threshold between LOS C and LOS D. If the location under existing conditions operates worse than the appropriate target LOS, then the existing LOS should be maintained. On the portion of SR 198 within the Planning Area, the Caltrans concept LOS for the 20-year planning horizon (as identified in the 2012 District 6 SR 198 Corridor System Management Plan) is LOS “D”.
The concept facility identified to meet the year 2035 horizon concept LOS “D” for SR 198 within the Planning Area is four-lane freeway, with the ultimate design (beyond 2035) being a six-lane freeway.
For the portion of SR 99 within the Planning Area, the Caltrans concept LOS for the 20-year planning horizon (as identified in the 2003 District 6 SR 99 Transportation Concept Report) is LOS “D” (“C” north of Goshen).
The concept facility identified to meet the year 2025 horizon concept LOS “D” and “C” for SR 99 within the Planning Area is six-lane freeway, with the ultimate design (beyond 2025) being an eight-lane freeway.
Local
Tulare County Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2011 The 2011 RTP for Tulare County was adopted in 2010. The plan sets priorities for funding and implementation of transportation-related projects throughout the County. This 2011 RTP update was prepared by TCAG with the assistance of its member jurisdictions. The RTP identifies performance measures and indicators for transportation projects and improvements, including transit trips, peak hour travel speed, cost of deferred street maintenance, and VMT.
The 2011 RTP identifies financially constrained projects, which are short- and long-range projects fully fundable from anticipated revenue sources. They would likely be programmed during the time horizon of the RTP (25 years). Financially unconstrained projects do not have identified funding sources but are included as desired long-term projects for the region for informational purposes. Both tiers of projects include roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and aviation modes. Locally funded roadway projects in Visalia for which funding has been identified amount to $275,975,000 in improvements and include widening of existing roadways, creation of 684
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-156 new roadways in growth areas, and installation of new traffic signals. Major RTP/Measure R funded projects to be undertaken by Caltrans in the Planning Area include widening of SR 99 from four to six lanes, interchange improvements along SR 99 and SR 198, and building/improving bridges over SR 198 at McAuliff and Ben Maddox.
City of Visalia General Plan
The Circulation Element of the existing GP outlines the City’s standards for roadway design, improvements, and levels of service. The Circulation Element also calls for consistency and coordination of local transportation actions with State and County agencies and plans. It also considers other modes of travel and includes policies pertaining to aviation, rail, transit, and non-motorized transportation (bicycles and pedestrian).
The City GP states the City would plan for LOS “D” for street segments and intersections. • Policy T-P-33: Work with transit operators to establish transit stops adjacent to community and regional parks, senior housing facilities, areas with a high concentration of medical facilities, major employment centers, and major retail and commercial centers.
• Policy T-P-9: Maintain acceptable levels of service for all modes and facilities, as established in General Plan Tables 4-1, Intersection Level of Service Definitions and 4-2, Level of Service Criteria for Roadway Segments.
Tulare County General Plan
The County GP states the minimum LOS is “D” for street segments and intersections.
3.16.4 Impact Assessment
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Potentially Significant Impact. 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, as identified in Appendix M. The Project would be inconsistent with what the City’s GP identifies in TP-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. In certain scenarios, recommended mitigation would not fully mitigate significant impacts to less than significant but would reduce impacts to the extent feasible; these impacts are thus described as Significant and Unavoidable. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093, if the City wishes to approve the Project despite significant and unavoidable impacts, it would need to make findings and adopt a SOC.
Mitigation measures can be implemented to ease many of the impacts of the Project and projected future traffic through the year 2040. The Project would be required to contribute a fair-share towards the costs of improvements that are identified for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project, Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project with Tower Street Interchange, Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project with Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1, and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios. The intent of determining the equitable responsibility for the improvements identified below for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project, Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange, Cumulative Year 2040 Plus 685
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-157 Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1, and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios, is to provide a starting point for early discussions between the City and Caltrans to address traffic mitigation equitability and to calculate the equitable share for mitigating traffic impacts, in particular, for those that come about if/when Caltrans constructs the Tower Street Interchange.
Project Traffic
The TIS determined that the Project would cause or contribute to the rise of LOS to an unacceptable level at 2 of the 25 intersections analyzed within the study under the proposed Project. Tower Street would be constructed as a part of Phase 2 of the Project. Implementation of the Project without the Tower Street Interchange would result in unacceptable levels of LOS at intersections 2 and 5 during both AM and PM Peak Hours (see Appendix M). Inbound and outbound special event traffic from the site is not expected to have a significant impact on traffic. In addition, Saturday Peak Hour traffic is not expected to have a significant impact.
The TIS also determined that the Project would cause or contribute to unacceptable LOS levels at 10 of the 25 intersections analyzed under the study through the cumulative year 2040, with construction of the Tower Street Interchange. The 10 intersections that would experience unacceptable LOS at the cumulative year 2040, with construction of the Tower Street Interchange are intersections 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 24. Without the Tower Street Interchange, the Project would contribute to or cause unacceptable LOS levels at 8 of 27 intersections considered under this scenario. The 8 intersections that would experience unacceptable LOS at the cumulative year 2040, without construction of the Tower Street Interchange would be intersections 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18. AM and Peak hour traffic impacts and the data behind the LOS findings are discussed in further detail within the TIS, found within Appendix M.
Near-Term Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions without the Project on Project Opening Day were estimated by applying a growth rate of 2% per year to the existing traffic volumes. The 2% growth rate was derived from model plots provided by TCAG staff and the Transportation Concept Reports (TCR) for SR 198 and SR 216. The 2% growth rate is consistent with the TCAG model plots in the study area and TCRs. The resulting traffic is shown in Figures 3- 15a, 3-15b, 3-16a, 3-16b, and 3-17 of Appendix M. Of the 17 intersections considered under this scenario, intersection 5 was the only intersection which experienced unacceptable LOS levels.
Phase 2 Project trips were added to the forecasted Near-Term Opening Year Without Project traffic volumes to obtain Near-Term Opening Year Plus Phase 2 Project conditions. The resulting traffic is shown in Figures 3-18a, 3-18b, 3-19a, 3-19b, 3-20, and 3-21 of Appendix M. In this scenario, 25 intersections were analyzed and intersection 5 was the only one which experienced unacceptable LOS levels.
Near-Term Intersection Capacity Analysis
Table 3-16 of Appendix M shows intersections that are expected to fall short of desirable operating conditions for the Existing Plus Project scenario. Potential mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.
Results of the analysis show that the Project would cause or contribute to an unacceptable LOS at 2 of the 25 study intersections (Lovers Lane and Mineral King Avenue and SR 198 WB Ramps and Mineral King Avenue) for this scenario when comparing the Near-Term Opening Year Without Project and Near-Term Opening Year Plus Project scenarios.
Table 3-17 of Appendix M shows the intersection levels of service for study intersections along Tower Street.
Results of the analysis show that all study intersections along Tower Street would meet acceptable levels of service.
Table 3-18 of Appendix M shows the intersection levels of service for study intersections at the Project driveways along Tower Street during the Saturday peak hour. Results of the analysis show that the Project driveways would meet acceptable levels of service.
686
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-158 Near-Term Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis
Table 3-19 of Appendix M shows roadway segment volumes and levels of service pertaining to the Near-Term scenarios. Results of the analysis show that all of the study roadway segments would meet acceptable levels of service. Table 3-20 of Appendix M provides the roadway segment levels of service for Tower Street, which shows that roadway segments along Tower Street would meet acceptable levels of service.
Near-Term Queuing Analysis
Tables 3-21 and 3-22 of Appendix M provides a queue length summary for left and right turn lanes at the study intersections for the Near-Term Opening Year Without Project and Near-Term Opening Year Plus Project scenarios. The queues shown for signalized intersections in Tables 3-21 and 3-22 of Appendix M represent the 95th percentile queue lengths for the respective lane movements. Queuing analysis for unsignalized intersections was completed using Section 400 of Caltrans HDM.
Near-Term Merge/Diverge Analysis
The ramp merge/diverge analysis for the SR 198 at Lovers Lane and Road 156 interchanges were based on the Highway Capacity Manual. Results of the AM and PM peak hour ramp merge/diverge analysis at the SR 198 interchanges for the Near-Term Opening Year Without Project and Near-Term Opening Year Plus Project scenarios are reflected in Tables 3-23 and 3-24 of Appendix M and indicate the interchanges would operate at acceptable levels of service.
3.16.5 Mitigation Measures
Existing Plus Project Mitigation Measures
Intersections
• TR-1 – Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue
• Widen the northbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
• Widen the southbound approach to 2 left turn lanes and 2 through lanes with a shared right (adding 1 left turn lane)
The improvements identified above for the Existing Plus Project (Full Build Out) scenario is sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-1.
• TR-2 –SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue
• Widen the northbound approach to 1 left turn lane and 1 right turn lanes (adding 1 right turn lane)
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 through lane and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
• Widen the westbound approach to 1 left turn lane and 1 through lane (adding 1 left turn lane) The intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable levels of service under the Existing Plus Project scenario despite the improvements recommended above. However, this intersection does not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant because the minor approach does not carry enough traffic to justify signalization. It should be noted that the intersection operates at LOS ‘F’ conditions under Existing conditions. Project impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable despite the improvements identified for Mitigation Measure TR-2.
687
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-159 Near-Term Mitigation Measures
Intersections
• Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-1
The improvements identified above for the Near-Term Opening Year Without Project, and Near-Term Opening Year Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans’ acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-1. • SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-2
The intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable levels of service under the Near-Term Opening Year Without Project and Near-Term Opening Year Plus Project scenarios despite the improvements recommended above. However, this intersection does not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant because the minor approach does not carry enough traffic to justify signalization. It should be noted that the intersection operates at LOS ‘F’ conditions under Existing conditions. Project impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable despite the improvements identified for Mitigation Measure TR-2.
Cumulative Year 2040 Mitigation Measures
Intersections
• TR-3 – Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Widen the northbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
o Widen the southbound approach to 2 left turn lanes and 2 through lanes with a shared right (adding 1 left turn lane)
o Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
o Widen the westbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-3. • TR-4 – Lovers Lane at SR 198 EB Ramps
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Widen the northbound approach to 2 through lanes and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
o Widen the eastbound approach to 2 left turn lanes and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 left turn lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’ in the AM peak hour.
However, the intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS ‘D’ in the PM peak hour, which exceeds Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. No additional improvements are recommended given the close proximity of the existing SR-198 overpass.
688
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-160 Project impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable despite the improvements identified for Mitigation Measure TR-4.
• TR-5 – SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Install Traffic Signal
o Widen the northbound approach to 1 left turn lane and 1 right turn lanes (adding 1 right turn lane)
o Widen the eastbound approach to 1 through lane and 1 right turn lane with overlap phasing (adding 1 right turn lane)
o Widen the westbound approach to 1 left turn lane and 1 through lane (adding 1 left turn lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. It should be noted that the SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue intersection is located approximately 450 feet east of the signalized Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue intersection. The intersection would continue to operate at LOS ‘F’ conditions should Caltrans determine that this intersection cannot be signalized due to inadequate spacing. The Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-5.
• TR-6 – McAuliff Street and Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Widen the westbound approach to 1 through and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. The Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-6. • TR-7 – Road 152 and Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Widen the southbound approach to 1 left turn and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
o Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane and 1 through lane (adding 1 left turn lane)
o Widen the westbound approach to 1 through lane and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
The intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS ‘E’ in the AM peak hour under the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios despite the improvements recommended above. However, this intersection does not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant because the minor approach does not carry enough traffic to justify signalization. The Project impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable despite the improvements identified for Mitigation Measure TR-7. • TR-8 – Noble Avenue and SR 198 EB Ramps
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Install Traffic Signal
o Widen the westbound approach to 1 through lane and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
689
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-161 The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. The Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-8. • TR-9 – Road 156 and Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Widen the northbound approach to 2 left turn lanes and 1 through lane with a shared right (adding 1 left turn lane)
o Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right turn lane with overlap phasing (adding 1 right turn lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. The Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-9. • TR-10 – Road 156 and Noble Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Widen the northbound approach to 2 left turn lanes and 1 through lane with a shared right (adding 1 left turn lane)
o Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right turn lane with overlap phasing (adding 1 right turn lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. The Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TR-10. • TR-11 – SR 198 WB Off Ramp and Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Widen the westbound approach to 2 through lanes (adding 1 through lane) The intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS ‘D’ in the AM peak hour under the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios despite the improvements recommended above. The projected volumes at the intersection satisfy peak hour signal warrants and a traffic signal would alleviate LOS deficiencies. However, this intersection is less than 200 feet from the Road 156 and Mineral King Avenue intersection and is not recommended for signalization. Project impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable despite the improvements identified for Mitigation Measure TR-11.
Roadway Segments
• TR-12 – Road 156
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
South of Noble Avenue
o Widen the segment from 2 to 4 travel lanes (adding 1 travel lane in each direction) The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. The Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-12.
SR 198 Ramp Junctions
• TR-13 - SR 198 EB Off Ramp to Lovers Lane
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
690
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-162 o Widen the SR 198 mainline from 2 to 3 travel lanes in the eastbound movement (adding 1 travel lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-13. • TR-14 - SR 198 WB On Ramp from Lovers Lane
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
o Widen the SR 198 mainline from 2 to 3 travel lanes in the westbound movement (adding 1 travel lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-14.
Queuing
• TR-15 - Lovers Lane and Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• In the southbound left‐turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 225 feet to 300 feet.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-15. • TR-16 - Lovers Lane and Mineral King Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 100 feet to 325 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.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-16. • TR-17 - Lovers Lane and SR 198 EB Ramps
• In the eastbound left-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 225 feet to 375 feet.
Project impacts are considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-17. • TR-18 - Lovers Lane and Noble Avenue
• In the eastbound left-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 125 feet to 275 feet.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-18. • TR-19 - McAuliff Street and Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• In the northbound left-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 150 feet to 300 feet.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-19. • TR-20 - McAuliff Street and Mineral King Avenue
• In the southbound right-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 250 feet to 300 feet. • In the eastbound left-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 200 feet to 275 feet. • In the westbound right-turn lane, provide 300-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be is considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-20. • TR-21 - Road 152 and Mineral King Avenue
691
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-163 • In the southbound right-turn lane, provide 125-foot storage pocket. • In the eastbound left-turn lane, provide 100-foot storage pocket. • In the westbound right-turn lane, provide 125-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-21. • TR-22 - SR 198 EB Ramps and Noble Avenue
• In the westbound right-turn lane, provide 125-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-22. • TR-23 - Road 156 and Noble Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, lengthen the storage pocket from 175 feet to 225 feet. • In the eastbound right-turn lane, provide 150-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-23. • TR-24 - Tower Street and Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• In the northbound left-turn lane, provide 200-foot storage pocket. • In the northbound right-turn lane, provide 100-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-24. • TR-25 - Tower Street and McKinley Avenue-Project Driveway #2 • In the southbound left-turn lane, provide 100-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-25. • TR-26 - Tower Street and Race Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, provide 100-foot storage pocket. • In the southbound left-turn lane, provide 100-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-26. • TR-27 - Tower Street and Murray Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, provide 250-foot storage pocket. • In the southbound right-turn lane, provide 100-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-27. • TR-28 - Tower Street and Villoy Avenue-Project Driveway #1 • In the northbound left-turn lane, provide 150-foot storage pocket. • In the southbound left-turn lane, provide 100-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-28. • TR-29 - Tower Street and Villoy Avenue-Project Driveway #1 • In the southbound left-turn lane, provide 250-foot storage pocket. • In the eastbound left-turn lane, provide 175-foot storage pocket.
Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-29. 692
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-164 Cumulative Year 2040 With Tower Street Interchange Mitigation Measures
INTERSECTIONS
• Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-5
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-5.
• Lovers Lane at SR 198 EB Ramps
• Mitigation Measure TR-6
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’ in the AM peak hour. However, the intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS ‘D’ in the PM peak hour, which exceeds Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’.
No additional improvements are recommended given the close proximity of the existing SR-198 overpass.
Project impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable despite the improvements identified for MM TR-6.
• SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-7
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange, and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. It should be noted that the SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue intersection is located approximately 450 feet east of the signalized Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue intersection. Should Caltrans determine that this intersection cannot be signalized due to inadequate spacing, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS ‘F’ conditions. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-7.
• Road 152 and Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-9
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-9.
• Noble Avenue and SR 198 EB Ramps
• Mitigation Measure TR-10
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-10.
• Road 156 and Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-11
693
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-165 The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-11.
• Road 156 and Noble Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-12
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-12.
• TR-30 - Tower Street at Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios:
o Install Traffic Signal
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-30.
Special Event Traffic Impacts
The Project includes a large number of specialized land uses, each with their own individualized travel patterns and trip generation characteristics. Some of the activity associated with the individual uses at the Project site would be represented in the typical weekday and Saturday trip generation, while other activities could be considered special events. It is not practical to analyze traffic conditions for all of the various activities that could occur as a special event (e.g. concerts, tournaments, weddings). Instead, one design event condition was selected that would occur often enough to justify analysis of traffic conditions and consideration of impacts and mitigation, and representative of a “worst case” example. The following scenario was agreed upon to represent special event traffic for worst-case analysis purposes:
1. Amphitheater weekday evening event at full capacity (all 1,500 seats filled)
2. Typical weekday evening activity for all other park uses The Project Driveway #1 at Tower Street would exceed acceptable levels of service for outbound traffic in the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project with Tower Street Interchange scenario. Traffic desiring to make the westbound right out of the Project site is anticipated to experience LOS E conditions. • TR-31 - Tower Street at Villoy Avenue-Project Driveway #1 • Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenario:
o Install Traffic Signal
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenario are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-31.
Roadway Segments
• Road 156 – South of Noble Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-14
694
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-166 The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-14.
SR 198 Ramp Junctions
• SR 198 EB Off Ramp to Lovers Lane
• Mitigation Measure TR-15
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-15.
• SR 198 WB On Ramp from Lovers Lane
• Mitigation Measure TR-16
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-16.
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange Alternatives 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures
INTERSECTIONS
• Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-5
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1, and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts is considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-5.
• Lovers Lane at SR 198 EB Ramps
• Mitigation Measure TR-6
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’ in the AM peak hour. However, the intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS ‘D’ in the PM peak hour, which exceeds Caltrans’ acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. No additional improvements are recommended given the close proximity of the existing SR198 overpass. Project impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable despite the improvements identified for MM TR-6.
• SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-7
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios 695
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-167 are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. It should be noted that the SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue intersection is located approximately 450 feet east of the signalized Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue intersection. The intersection would continue to operate at LOS ‘F’ conditions should Caltrans determine that this intersection cannot be signalized due to inadequate spacing. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-7.
McAuliff Street and Murray Avenue
No improvements are recommended to achieve acceptable levels of service.
This intersection is forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS ‘E’ in the PM peak hour under Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 conditions; however, this intersection does not meet the peak hour traffic signal warrant because the minor approach does not carry enough traffic to justify signalization. Therefore, no improvements are recommended for the Project traffic contributions at the intersection.
The Project’s impact is considered significant and unavoidable. • Road 152 and Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-9
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenario are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-9. • Noble Avenue and SR 198 EB Ramps
• Mitigation Measure TR-10
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-10.
• Road 156 and Mineral King Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-11
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-49.
• Road 156 and Noble Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-12
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-12.
• Tower Street at Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• Mitigation Measure TR-31
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-31.
696
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-168 Special Event Traffic Impacts
As noted in Section 3.1, the Project includes a large number of specialized land uses, each with their own individualized travel patterns and trip generation characteristics. Some of the activity associated with the individual uses at the Project site would be represented in the typical weekday and Saturday trip generation, while other activities could be considered special events. It is not practical to analyze traffic conditions for all of the various activities. Instead, one design event condition was selected that would occur often enough to justify analysis of traffic conditions and consideration of impacts and mitigation. The Project Driveway #1 at Tower Street would exceed acceptable levels of service for outbound traffic in the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 scenario considering the traffic volumes shown in Figure 3-38b. Traffic desiring to make the westbound right out of the Project site is anticipated to experience LOS E conditions.
• Tower Street at Villoy Avenue-Project Driveway #1
• Mitigation Measure TR-31
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 scenario are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-31.
Roadway Segments
• Road 156 – South of Noble Avenue
• Mitigation Measure TR-14
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet the City’s acceptable LOS standard of ‘D’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-14.
SR 198 Ramp Junctions
• SR 198 EB Off Ramp to Lovers Lane
• Mitigation Measure TR-15
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-15.
• SR 198 WB On Ramp from Lovers Lane
• Mitigation Measure TR-16
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-55.
• TR-32 - SR 198 EB On Ramp from Tower Street
• Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 scenario:
697
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-169 o Widen the SR 198 mainline from 2 to 3 travel lanes in the eastbound movement (adding 1 travel lane)
The improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1 scenario are sufficient to meet Caltrans acceptable LOS standard of ‘C’. Project impacts would be considered less than significant with incorporation of MM TR-32.
Equitable Fair-Share Responsibility
The Project would be required to build MM TR-1, TR-2, TR-3 and TR-4 improvements that are identified for the ‘Existing Plus Project’ and ‘Near-Term Opening Year Plus Project’ conditions to improve identified LOS deficiencies.
In addition to MM TR-1, TR-2, TR-3 and TR-4 discussed above, the Project would also be required to contribute its calculated “fair-share” towards the costs of improvements that are identified for the Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project, Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange, Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1, and Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 2 scenarios. The intent of determining the equitable responsibility for the improvements identified above for the Cumulative Year 2040 scenarios, is to provide a starting point for early discussions between the City and Caltrans to address traffic mitigation equitability and to calculate the equitable share for mitigating traffic impacts, in particular, for those that come about if/when the Tower Street Interchange is built by Caltrans. The equitable share responsibility for improvements to the City and Caltrans facilities are identified in Appendix M.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts are identified in Impact a. Mitigation measures MM TR-1 through MM TR-32 would be implemented to minimize all feasibly mitigated impacts due to exceedances of LOS standards, travel demand measures and other standards developed by the County’s Congestion Process Steering Committee Congestion Management Program. Any impacts that cannot be avoided would be included in the statement of overriding consideration.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. 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. The Project does not entail commercial, residential or generate significant out-of-town tourism; therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation measures MM TR-1 through MM TR-11 would be implemented to minimize impacts to intersections, including safety impacts considering anticipated exceedances of service standard. Any impacts that cannot be avoided would be included in the statement of overriding consideration. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant. The Project proposes multiple vehicular access points to the Project location. The Project would not conflict with Public Works Standards regarding street widths and turning movements. 698
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-170 The Project does not create new publicly-accessible rights-of-way that restrict emergency service operator access. The Project proposes to remove existing barriers, located at stub streets found at the subdivisions to the west of the Project. The Project does not propose to add a substantial number of vehicular trips located within close proximity of an emergency service operator facility which could preclude emergency service operators from entering the right-of-way. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would be providing additional trails for pedestrian and bicycle traffic and is isolated from a public transportation route. The City GP 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 GP and the City GP Environmental Impact Report,109 the City would be required to work with transit operators on establishing a public transportation stop within a reasonable vicinity of the regional park. Due to the lack of public transportation to the site, the City would complete a SOC.
3.16.6 Cumulative Impacts
The TIS completed by VRPA Technologies, Inc. analyzed cumulative year 2040 impacts and determined that the Project would cause or contribute to unacceptable LOS at 10 of the 25 study intersections when considering long-term impacts and would contribute to an unacceptable LOS at 8 of the 27 study intersections when analyzing long-term impacts with the Tower Street Interchange. MM TR-3 through MM TR-32 would be implemented to minimize cumulative impacts; however, as noted in impact a) above, any impacts that would not be fully mitigated to a less than significant level would require a SOC. 109 City of Visalia Draft Environmental Impact Report. Transportation. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30492 Accessed 12/5/2017 699
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-171
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Table 3-37. Utilities and Service Systems
Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
3.17.1 Environmental Setting
Potable Water
The City relies solely on groundwater for its potable water supply, which is replenished by Sierra Nevada snowmelt. This potable water supply is distributed by Cal Water through 75 operational groundwater wells, 519 miles of main pipeline, and associated appurtenances to extract, distribute, and store potable water within Cal Water’s Visalia district.110 It is anticipated that Cal Water would have sufficient pumping capacity to meet the expected increase in demand; however, the Kaweah Subbasin is considered to be in an overdraft condition on an average long-term basis and it is likely that groundwater management practices and surface water transfers or exchanges would be necessary on a long-term basis for the foreseeable future.111 110 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 111 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 700
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-172 The 2010 Cal Water UWMP also indicates that the sole source of water supply for the foreseeable future would be groundwater unless a reliable surface supply can be identified. The 2010 UWMP analyzed the full buildout of the City’s GP and determined that there are sufficient groundwater quantities to support the buildout.112 Wastewater
The City owns and operates a Water Conservation Plant (WCP) that treats wastewater from the City’s existing wastewater collection (i.e., sewer) system. The plant was recently upgraded to provide a treatment capacity of 22 million gallons per day (mgd), with provisions to expand to 26 mgd. The upgraded plant included conversion from secondary level treatment to advanced tertiary treatment, enabling the City to produce recycled water in conformance with Title 22 disinfected tertiary treatment standards. 113
In 2013, this upgrade of the WCP enabled the City to enter into an agreement with TID for a long-term exchange of water supplies. The City would deliver to TID tertiary-treated recycled water from its upgraded WCP and in exchange TID would provide a portion of its CVP water supplies in certain higher-flow year types marked by what is called “Uncontrolled Season.”
The City’s sewer collection system facilities consist of gravity sewer pipelines ranging in size from 6” to 42”, as well as 13 sewage lift stations and associated force mains. All of the pipelines within the City limits convey wastewater to the WCP.
114
Stormwater Drainage
Historically, the City has experienced flooding from two sources. The first is major flooding resulting from runoff from within the 500-square-mile watershed of the Kaweah River. This flooding is currently controlled by Terminus Dam, which can accommodate flood events of a magnitude expected to occur on average once in fifty years. The second source of flooding, which is far less severe, occurs when local rainfall exceeds the level of protection that existing drainage facilities provide. Street and lot stormwater drainage flows, generally by gravity, through a storm drain pipeline system to the main drain system, which consists primarily of St.
John’s River, Modoc Ditch, Goshen Drain, Mill Creek, Evans Ditch, Packwood Creek, Cameron Creek, and Persian/Watson ditches. These creeks and ditches are used for irrigation flow conveyance as well as stormwater conveyance. In addition to the creeks and ditches, the City’s stormwater is handled by a pipeline conveyance system that leads to retention and detention basins. These basins have been strategically placed and planned throughout the City to have the ability to generally handle the runoff that would be generated by the 10-year/2- day storm event, respectively.115 It is anticipated that the City would continue to have an increased need for stormwater infrastructure for the foreseeable future.116 Solid Waste
Solid waste disposal is provided by the Tulare County Resource Management Agency, which operates the Visalia Landfill approximately 8 miles northwest of the Project. The facility is located at 8614 Avenue 328 and serves the cities of Visalia, Farmersville, Dinuba, Exeter, Tulare, Woodlake, Fresno, and unincorporated areas of northern Tulare County and southern Fresno County. As of 2014, the 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 2024.117 This landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, a maximum 112 Ibid.
113 City of Visalia Water Conservation Plant, Antidegradation Analysis. Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. June 21, 2012 114 City of Visalia. Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). August 2012. https://www.visalia.city/sirepub/cache/3/intunpvbpi4554dbgl2fcgip/1062904212014115928968.PDF Date Accessed: 7/30/2018 115 City of Visalia. Storm Water Master Plan. Final Report. September 1994. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=32394 Date Accessed: 7/30/18 116 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 117 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 701
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-173 permitted capacity of 18,630,666 cubic yards, and a remaining capacity of 16,145,591 cubic yards. The Visalia Landfill is not expected to reach capacity until 2024.118 Solid waste collection is provided by the City and recyclable material processing is provided by Sunset Waste Systems.
Electricity
Power is provided by SCE. SCE is a subsidiary of Edison International and provides electricity to over 15 million Californians. Edison International is one of the largest electric utilities in the nation, and the nation’s single largest purchaser of renewable power. The electrical facilities network includes both overhead and underground lines, with new development required to install underground service lines.119 Natural Gas
Natural gas service in the City is provided by the SoCalGas.
Communications
There are three major companies that provide communications services in Visalia: AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon.
Comcast is the primary cable television and internet provider. 120
3.17.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
Refer to Section 3.4.3 Regulatory Setting.
Municipal Urban (Area-wide) Storm-Water Discharges
A MS4 system as defined by the EPA must obtain an NPDES permit by a certain date according to the population served by the system. Operators the stormwater system must submit an NPDES permit application and supporting information to the respective RWQCB. The CWA provides for delegating certain responsibilities for water-quality control and planning to the states. California has been authorized by the EPA to administer and enforce portions of the CWA, including the NPDES program. Section 208 of the CWA is designated to provide a comprehensive planning framework for both point- and non-point-source water pollution. Specific planning requirements include, but are not limited, to the following:
• Identification of needed treatment works to meet anticipated requirements over a 20-year period; • Identification of construction priorities for the region; and Procedures and methods to control non-point-source pollution emanating from agriculture, mining, and other sources. Most owners or operators of facilities that discharge waste into a municipal sanitary sewer system need to obtain an NPDES permit. The EPA, the SWRCB, and the respective RWQCB or the local wastewater management agency might require some industries to treat industrial hazardous wastes before such wastes are discharged to a municipal sanitary sewer system. The local wastewater management agency advises industries of those requirements.
118 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 119 Ibid.
120 City of Visalia General Plan. Page. 5-34. https://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30477. Site Accessed 7/31/2018. 702
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-174 State
State Water Resources Control Board – Waste Discharge Requirements Program State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Section 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27). In general, the WDR Program (sometimes also referred to as the “Non Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program”) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g. sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDR Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 27. 121 Several programs are administered under
the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track wastes generated in California. In 2015, statewide disposal was 33.2 million tons of solid waste. CalRecycle develops laws and regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40000, et seq.) or AB 939, administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
As authorized by the CWA, the NPDES Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States. In California, it is the responsibility of SWRCB and RWQCBs to preserve and enhance the quality of the States waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of WDR. WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.
122 NPDES permits also regulate the requirements of the MS4 discharges to surface waters.
California Department of Water Resources
DWR is responsible for the management and regulation of water usage in California.
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7)
This State legislative package mandates a 20 percent statewide reduction of urban per capita water use by the year 2020. Its provisions require urban water suppliers to adopt reduction targets according to baseline water use determinations, and agricultural water suppliers to prepare agricultural water management plans. Following SB X7-7, urban water management plans must include baseline water use and reduction targets, and report on target compliance. In addition to adopting agricultural water management plans, agricultural water suppliers must measure the volume of water delivered according to methodology adopted by DWR and adopt specified 121 California State Water Resources Control Board. Land Disposal Program, General Information, Waste Discharge Requirements Program. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/land_disposal/waste_discharge_requirements.shtml Date Accessed: 7/6/2016 122 California State Water Resources Control Board. NPDES. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/ Date Accessed:
7/6/2016
703
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-175 efficient water management practices. Non-compliance would be penalized by disqualification for State water grants and loans. Failure to meet targets after the 2020 deadline would be considered a violation of the law.
State Water Quality Certification Program
The RWQCBs also facilitates the State Water Quality Certification Program or Section 401 Certification of the CWA. Under Section 401, states have the authority to review any permit or license that would result in a discharge or disruption to wetlands and other waters under state jurisdiction, to ensure that the actions would be consistent with the state water quality requirements. This program is most often associated with the CWA Section 404, which obligates the USACE to issue permits for the movement of dredge and fill material into and from the “waters of the United States.” Additionally, Section 404 requires permits for activities affecting wetlands. Prospective alterations of hydrologic features such as wetlands, rivers, and ephemeral creek beds resulting from construction require Section 404 NWP.
Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit
Refer to Section 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting.
Phase II MS4 Permit
Refer to Section 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the SWRCB and nine RWQCB. The SWRCB sets statewide policy for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations.
The RWQCBs adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities.
The City is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB in an area identified as the Tulare Lake Basin, which comprises the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley south of the San Joaquin River. This basin consists of approximately 10.5 million acres, and includes the metropolitan areas of Bakersfield, Fresno, Porterville, Hanford, Tulare, and Visalia.123 The Regional Board has set water quality objectives for both surface and ground water, which it achieves through an implementation plan. The RWQCB efforts emphasize the importance of controlling toxic discharges and address ground water salinity, which is identified as the greatest long-term problem facing the basin.124
The Regional Board identifies the elimination of groundwater overdraft as an important tool to use to combat the increasing salinity of the basin, as continued overdraft would deplete good quality water supplies and introduce salts from poorer quality aquifers. Groundwater recharge is recommended as a major mechanism to prevent further groundwater overdraft.125
Local
City of Visalia General Plan
• Objective PSCU-O-14: Provide for long-range community water needs by adopting best management practices for water use, conservation, groundwater recharge and wastewater and stormwater management.
123 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2015. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin: Second Edition. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/tlbp.pdf Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 124 Ibid.
125 Ibid.
704
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-176 • Objective PSCU-O-15: Preserve groundwater resources.
• Policy PSCU-P-47: Adopt and implement a Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance for new and/or refurbished development that exceeds mandated sizes, and ensure that all new City parks streetscapes, and landscaped areas conform to the Ordinance’s requirements. The Ordinance should include provisions to optimize outdoor water use by:
o Promoting appropriate use of plants and landscaping;
o Establishing limitations on use of turf including size of turf areas and use of cool-season turf such as Fescue grasses, with exceptions for specified uses (e.g., recreation playing fields, golf courses, and parks);
o Establishing water budgets and penalties for exceeding them; o Requiring automatic irrigation systems and schedules, including controllers that incorporate weather-based or other self-adjusting technology;
o Promoting the use of recycled water; and
o Minimizing overspray and runoff.
City of Visalia Municipal Code
• City of Visalia Water Conservation Ordinance
The City’s Water Conservation Ordinance was adopted in 1989 and can be found in Chapter 13.20 of the Municipal Code. The Ordinance sets regulations to minimize outdoor water use and reduce unnecessary consumption of potable water. It defines and places restriction on wasteful uses of water and establishes water conservation alert stages to be enacted during periods of water shortage. • The Visalia Municipal Code contains regulations related to solid waste and recycling in Chapter 8.28. The City, in order to promote and protect the public and refuse worker health and safety and to reduce the danger and hazards of fires and conflagrations, reserves unto itself the exclusive right and power to collect, transport, and dispose of, or to authorize, regulate, permit and control said collections, transportation and disposition of all refuse and rubble produced or found within the corporate limits of said city.
• The Visalia Municipal Code contains regulations related to solid waste and recycling in Chapter 8.29. The purpose of this chapter is to increase the recycling and reuse of construction and demolition debris, consistent with the goals of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
3.17.3 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Less than Significant Impact. The WCP, located about one mile southwest of the intersection of SR99 and SR 198, recently underwent extensive upgrades. Prior to the upgrades, the WCP was discharging approximately 13 million gallons per day (mgd) of effluent under WDRs from the RWQCB 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 RWQCB waste discharge requirements. This resulted in the issuance of an updated WDR Order for the WCP. The tertiary-treated recycled water 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 705
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-177 to 26 mgd.
126 These upgrades to the WCP can accommodate the anticipated wastewater discharge from the full buildout of the City’s recently adopted GP land uses and the Project changes to those land uses, and therefore, the Project would not exceed the parameters of the existing WDR. The impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not currently served by a municipal water or wastewater infrastructure. The Project would require the extension of water and wastewater service lines from adjacent streets and is not anticipated to place any significant demand on the City’s wastewater treatment facilities or Cal Water’s domestic water system; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would involve the realignment of existing storm water drainage facilities in street adjacent to the Project and other minor improvements to Mill Creek and Packwood Creek, which are identified as main drains within the City’s stormwater drainage system. Currently the site drains via runoff into Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, and Oakes Ditch. The Project would maintain the runoff to these waterways and the proposed groundwater recharge basins. The basins would serve a dual function as stormwater layoff basins, which would control and limit potential impacts from seasonal floods; therefore the impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact. The recreational facilities, including splash pads and areas that require irrigation, would require the use of water throughout construction and operation. This potable water would be provided by Cal Water or through the drilling of a new well. Water consumption would vary between 588 and 622 acre-feet per year, depending on the amount of rainfall received in a given year. 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 TID 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 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 and the impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated under Impact b, 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 126 City of Visalia, Water Conservation Plant Upgrades Project, Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report. October 2012. Page vii – Executive Summary of the Antidegradation Analysis prepared by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, June 21, 2012. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=15729 Date Accessed: 12/4/2017 706
Chapter 3: Impact Analysis
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 3-178 treatment continues to exceed the growth in supply that would occur in conjunction with the City’s anticipated growth.
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project is anticipated to generate approximately 125 tons [or 832 cubic yards] of solid waste per year as a result of participants in recreational activities and events. 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 2024.127 g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. 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.
3.17.4 Cumulative Impacts
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is adjacent to the City’s eastern boundary. Utility and service providers include the City for wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater drainage, and solid waste collection; Tulare County for solid waste disposal; Cal Water for domestic water service; SCE for electricity, SoCalGas for natural gas, and a variety of communications companies. The expansion of these utilities would occur in a methodical manner to serve each phase of the Project. Future projects would be required to assess their individual project impacts to ensure that each service provider has the sufficient supply to meet the demand. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts. 127 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update DEIR – Chapter 3.9: Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.ci.visalia.ca.us/depts/community_development/planning/gp.asp Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 707
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-1 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
4.1 Introduction
CEQA mandates that this EIR identifies and analyzes a range of alternatives to the proposed East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to foster informed decisionmaking and public participation; therefore, each alternative is included on the basis of its ability to help decisionmakers make a reasoned choice. To this end, the range of alternatives considered in this document needs only include “those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)(2)) of the Project, and which are held to a “rule of reason.” CEQA defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). The discussion must also include an evaluation of the No Project Alternative to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project against the effects of not approving it.
CEQA Guidelines do not specify what constitutes an adequate level of detail, but they do require that the EIR provides sufficient information to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison of each alternative.
The EIR must therefore describe the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of the Project as proposed. Quantified information on the alternatives is presented where available; however, in some cases only partial quantification can be provided because of data or analytical limitations.
Finally, the CEQA Guidelines require each EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must select another alternative from among the alternatives analyzed.
4.2 Alternatives to be Analyzed
The alternatives considered here were developed through and rejected as a result of public scoping meetings and neighborhood comments. Alternatives 1 was proposed as a cost-saving measure, whereas Alternative 2 was proposed due to the potential nighttime illumination caused by the proposed sports lighting. This chapter describes and evaluates three alternatives to the proposed East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project. The alternatives are referred to as:
• Alternative 1 – This Alternative was rejected but warrants consideration regardless. • Alternative 2 – This Alternative was rejected but warrants consideration regardless. • No Project Alternative, which represents the impacts that would result from the continuation of existing conditions.
4.2.1 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is largely similar to the Project. It would include the extension of Tower Street, improvements to Houston Avenue and Road 152, a GP amendment to change the planned land use to Park/Recreation, rezoning to QP, and annexation of the northern portion to the City. Additionally, the main components would still be a regional park and groundwater recharge basins covering the same footprint as the Project. Notable differences consist mainly of the location of park facilities within the Project site . While the recharge basins would remain in the same location, the main street and parking within the park would be located adjacent to Tower Street, rather than running within the park’s center. An additional access point from Tower Street and additional 708
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-2 parking would be constructed. There would also be changes in the location of fields, the amphitheater, the community center, and other facilities.
709
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-3 Figure 4-1. Alternative 1 Conceptual Site Plan
710
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-4
4.2.2 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is identical to the Project except for the removal of the sports lighting. Accordingly, the following recreational activity fields described in the Project Description under Section 2.3.2, Regional Park Amenities, would not be lighted:
• Four (4) fenced adult softball fields
• Four (4) fences youth baseball fields
• Five (5) full-size soccer fields
• Tennis courts
• Pickleball courts
• Full basketball court
• Amphitheater
• Outdoor swimming pools
Park hours would be limited to 7 am to 6 pm. Consequently, the amenities listed above would not be available for rent for activities after 6 pm.
4.2.3 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative represents the continuation of current conditions. The City would not construct a new regional park in the northeast quadrant, nor would it develop the proposed groundwater recharge and stormwater layoff basins. The extension of Tower Street would not take place, no improvements would be made to Road 152, no GP amendment would be passed, the land would not be annexed from the County, and it would not be subject to rezoning.
4.2.4 Project
The Project emerged from a series of Community Workshops, as well as from input from City staff. A full description of the Project can be found in Chapter Two.
4.3 Comparative Impact Analysis of Alternatives
The comparative impact analysis evaluates the impacts that each alternative would have on the environmental issue areas discussed in Chapter Three. Alternatives are compared to one another and to the proposed East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project, and impacts are assessed relative to baseline conditions.
The assessment uses the same significance criteria applied to the Project in Chapter Three.
4.3.1 Aesthetics
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Aesthetics under Alternative 1 would be largely similar to the Project, given that the regional park would retain the same visual character and would still require the removal of the mature pecan and walnut orchards. Scenic vistas would not be adversely affected, and scenic resources would not be damaged.
A notable difference would be an increased proximity of the main road and parking lots to the residences to the west of the proposed park. This would result in increased visibility of parking facilities that are less visually attractive than the vegetation that would be visible under the Project. While this would not necessarily result in a significant impact to the visual character of the site, it would be slightly greater than the impacts posed by the Project.
711
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-5 This alternative would also lead to a slight increase in nighttime lighting from the west, which would be necessary for the parking lot and road. Again, while this would not constitute a significant impact it would still exceed the impacts associated with the Project.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to aesthetics under Alternative 2 would be less than the Project, due to the lack of sports lighting, resulting in less glare and nighttime lighting. The remaining lighting proposed would be along Tower road and would pose a less than significant impact.
The regional park would retain the same visual character as the Project and would still require the removal of the mature pecan and walnut orchards. Scenic vistas would not be adversely affected and scenic resources would not be damaged.
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would continue to be used primarily for agriculture. The existing scenic vistas and resources, which are predominantly agricultural, would persist. The visual character of the site would not be altered. No new lighting or glare would result, as the No Project Alternative would not involve the installation of any facilities that require lighting. There would be no impacts to aesthetic resources.
4.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to agriculture and forestry resources under Alternative 1 would be equivalent to the Project. The same amount of farmland would be converted. Additionally, Alternative 1 would involve an equivalent level of groundwater recharge, similarly leading to an increased sustainability of agricultural efforts.
Alternative 1 would be located within the QP zone; therefore, it would not conflict with existing zoning for an agricultural or forest uses. There are no Williamson Act contracted parcels or forest lands within the site.
Although farmland would be converted, Alternative 1 would not result in any further conversion of agricultural lands in comparison to the proposed Project.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to agriculture and forestry resources under Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the Project. The same amount of farmland would be converted. Additionally, Alternative 2 would involve an equivalent level of groundwater recharge, similarly leading to an increased sustainability of agricultural efforts.
Alternative 2 would be located within the QP zone; therefore, it would not conflict with existing zoning for an agricultural or forest uses. There are no Williamson Act contracted parcels or forest lands within the proposed site. Although farmland would be converted, Alternative 2 would not result in any further conversion of agricultural lands in comparison to the proposed Project.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not have a significant impact on agriculture and forestry resources as it would not involve the conversion and rezoning of farmland to recreational uses. No forests are present within the boundaries of the Project area to result in forest conversion impacts. 712
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-6
4.3.3 Air Quality
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Air Quality Impacts under Alternative 1 would be largely similar to the Project, given that the regional park would retain the same features and uses. The uses and features would just be placed in different locations on the site. This place of features and uses would not result in a significant impact and would be phased similarly to not exceed air quality thresholds.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Air Quality Impacts under Alternative 2 would be slightly less than the Project, given the smaller amount of equipment to install, fewer hours of daily activity at the Project site, and the electricity needed to power the sports lighting. Alternative 2 would not result in a significant impact and would be phased similarly as to not exceed air quality thresholds.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in no impact. The Project site would not undergo construction, which is the primary source of air quality concern for the Project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable AQPs, violate any air quality standards, expose sensitive receptors to air pollution, create objectionable odors or result in a cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant.
4.3.4 Biological Resources
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to biological resources under Alternative 1 would be equivalent to the Project. The same amount of land would be utilized for the construction of Alternative 1, converting marginal habitat for resident species, including special status species, such as the burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger.
Although habitat would be converted, Alternative 1 would not result in any further loss of potential habitat.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to biological resources under Alternative 2 would be equivalent to the Project. The same amount of land would be utilized for the construction of Alternative 2, converting marginal habitat for resident species, including special status species, such as the burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger.
Although habitat would be converted, Alternative 2 would not result in any further loss of potential habitat.
No Project Alternative
No biological resources would be impacted by the implementation of the No Project Alternative. With a lack of land conversion and construction at the Project site, no biological resources currently available would be compromised. As a result of no land conversion taking place, no habitats, jurisdictional waters, native or migratory wildlife would be impacted. Therefore, there would be no conflicts with any local, regional, State, or federal policies.
713
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-7
4.3.5 Cultural Resources
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 1 would be equivalent to the Project. The same amount of land would be utilized to construct Alternative 1. Like the Project, Alternative 1 would have to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to cultural resources. Construction and operation of the rejected alternative would result in equivalent impacts to cultural resources.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to cultural resources would be equivalent to the Project under Alternative 2. The same amount of land would be utilized to construct Alternative 2. Like the Project, Alternative 2 would have to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations. Construction and operation of the rejected alternative would result in equivalent impacts to cultural resources.
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, cultural resources currently available within the Project site would not be removed, altered, or compromised. The lack of construction would also prevent the opportunity to disturb human remains.
4.3.6 Geology and Soils
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 1 would be equivalent to those posed by the Project given that construction of Alternative 1 would occur in the same footprint and include the same components as the Project, it is subject to the same minimal risks of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and landslides.
Construction and operation of the rejected alternative would result in equivalent risk of erosion; the generally flat terrain of the location indicates that this risk is less than significant. Implementation of the City’s required site review and grading plan requirements, as can be seen in Policy OSC-P-25, 128 would ensure that impacts
remain less than significant.
Like the Project, there are no geologic landforms that could create a risk of landslide, and destabilization of natural or constructed slopes is unlikely to occur. As there are no expansive soils located under the proposed site, no risks to life or property are posed. Alternative 1 does not involve a septic tank or alternative sewer system; therefore, no impacts would be posed by any soil incapability of supporting such components.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 2 would be the same as those posed by the Project given that construction of Alternative 2 would occur in the same footprint, but with fewer above-ground appurtenances as the Project, it is subject to the same minimal risks of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and landslides.
Construction and operation of the rejected alternative would result in equivalent risk of erosion; the generally flat terrain of the location indicates that this risk is less than significant. Implementation of the City’s required 128 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 Date Accessed: 7/15/2016 714
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-8 site review and grading plan requirements, as can be seen in Policy OSC-P-25129, would ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
Like the Project, there are no geologic landforms that could create a risk of landslide, and destabilization of natural or constructed slopes is unlikely to occur. As there are no expansive soils located under the proposed site, no risks to life or property are posed. Alternative 2 does not involve a septic tank or alternative sewer system; therefore, no impacts would be posed by any soil incapability of supporting such components.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in no construction; therefore, no ground disturbance would take place that could provide opportunities for structural damage or soil erosion. The No Project Alternative would not result in impacts related to geology and soils.
4.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Since it contains the same project components as the Project, Alternative 1 would generate an equivalent amount of GHG emissions from short-term construction and long-term operations, but those emissions fall short of resulting in a significant effect on the environment.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Alternative 2 would result in no sports lighting and thus less construction activity and less electricity usage.
Fewer GHG emissions from short-term construction and long-term operations would be generated than the Project. Accordingly, this alternative would not generate a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly that may have a significant effect on the environment.
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no construction or operations that would result in any GHG emissions. There would be no impact.
4.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Similarly to the Project, construction of Alternative 1 would involve the transport and use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuel. Implementation of required BMPs would reduce any impacts to a less than a significant level. The site is not located on a hazardous materials site, is not located within any airport safety zones or influence areas and is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Construction and operation would not obstruct any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, nor would it result in exposure to risk related to wildland fires.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Similarly to the Project, construction of Alternative 2 would involve the transport and use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuel. Implementation of required BMPs would reduce any impacts to a less than a significant level. The site is not located on a hazardous materials site, is not located within any airport safety zones or influence areas and is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Construction and operation 129 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 Date Accessed: 7/15/2016 715
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-9 would not obstruct any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, nor would it result in exposure to risk related to wildland fires. The absence of sports lighting would not lessen nor exacerbate impacts.
No Project Alternative
The Project No Project Alternative would result in no significant contribution of hazards or hazardous materials. The land is currently being used for agriculture and residential use; therefore, the wastes produced by both are endemic to their respective activities. Diesel fuel would be present within the agricultural boundaries, considering the farm equipment present. The current conditions of the Project site do not create significant hazards to the public or environment or expose individuals to a significant risk of wildland fires. The area is not located within a hazardous materials site or located within a significantly close distance to an airstrip or airport land. The current layout of the Project area does not impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in hazardous materials or hazard impacts.
4.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in similar 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 the ultimate build-out of the Alternative could include excavation, soil stockpiling, boring, and/or grading activities that strip existing vegetation. Water quality impairments could also include turbidity, increased algal growth, oxygen depletion, or sediment buildup, thereby degrading aquatic habitats. Alternative 1 could also give a slight beneficial impact to the flood risk in the area.
As with the Project the impact to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the same 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 the ultimate build-out of the Alternative could include excavation, soil stockpiling, boring, and/or grading activities that strip existing vegetation. Water quality impairments could also include turbidity, increased algal growth, oxygen depletion, or sediment buildup, thereby degrading aquatic habitats. As with the Project, the impact to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the hydrology of the Project area would not be altered. However, the lack of development of recharge facilities under the No Project Alternative would result in no additional groundwater recharge. Considering the No Project Alternative would not require any construction or additional development, no water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be violated. Although a current segment of the Project area is being utilized for agriculture, thus depleting groundwater, the impacts are not on a large enough scale to be significant. No rechanneling or alteration of the existing drainage would occur under the No Project Alternative. The lack of modification to the land under the No Project Alternative provides that no significant runoff would occur as a result of its implementation. No structures would be developed; thus, there would be no significant risk for the No Project Alternative to create houses and structures that could lead to flood damage. Overall, the lack of action under the No Project Alternative would not expose people or 716
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-10 structures to risk, result in potential inundation, or negatively impact the water quality or hydrology of the Project area and surrounding environment.
4.3.10 Land Use and Planning
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve the same components relevant to land use and planning as the Project. The location would be identical, therefore avoiding the division of an existing community. The GP Amendment included in both the Project and the rejected alternative would ensure that the planned land use for the site is Parks/Recreation, under which the Project is allowed. The proposed QP zoning of the site is consistent with the proposed use, avoiding conflict with the City’s zoning ordinance. There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community plans within the vicinity of the site, therefore there would not be an impact.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Implementation of Alternative 2 would involve the same components relevant to land use and planning as the Project. The location would be identical, therefore avoiding the division of an existing community. The GP Amendment included in both the Project and the rejected alternative would ensure that the planned land use for the site is Parks/Recreation, under which the Project is allowed. The proposed QP zoning of the site is consistent with the proposed use, avoiding conflict with the City’s zoning ordinance. There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community plans within the vicinity of the site, therefore there would not be an impact.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not result in changes in land use and planning. No physical divide would occur within the established community and there would not be a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation intending to uphold environmental stewardship or with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts related to land use and planning.
4.3.11 Mineral Resources
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
As with the Project, construction of Alternative 1 would involve the placement of park facilities within an MRZ-3a zone. However, no component of construction or operation of the alternative would result in the removal of the resource from the site, and resource mining would remain feasible in the future through compliance with local, State, and federal legislation and permitting. Therefore, resource availability would not be reduced as a result of Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
As with the Project, construction of Alternative 2 would involve the placement of park facilities within an MRZ-3a zone. However, no component of construction or operation of the alternative would result in the removal of the resource from the site, and resource mining would remain feasible in the future through compliance with local, State, and federal legislation and permitting. Therefore, resource availability would not be reduced as a result of Alternative 2.
717
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-11 No Project Alternative
Considering the lack of excavation currently within the Project site, the No Project Alternative would not result in the loss of a known mineral, despite the presence of an MRZ-3a zone within the Project area. Any important mineral resources would not be removed; thus, they would not be made unavailable. The No Project Alternative would not result in any significant impacts regarding mineral resources.
4.3.12 Noise
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Alternative 1 would place the internal access road on the west side of the park. This could potentially increase the traffic noise to the residential properties located on the west side of the proposed Tower Street alignment.
Implementation of this alternative would require similar construction activities as the Project. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 77 to 85 dB 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.
As with the Project, without mitigation, the expected noise levels of the park would exceed the City’s noise standards. Implementation of mitigation measures MM Noise 2, MM Noise 3, and MM Noise 4 would reduce potential noise impacts to a less than significant level.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Alternative 2 would be developed in a similar manner to the Project, with the only difference being the removal of field and court lighting. Construction and transportation noise impacts would be minimally lower. Traffic noise would be similar to the Project, although it would be limited to daylight hours. Stationary noise impacts would be less than significant with similar mitigation that matches the Alternative 2 operating schedule.
No Project Alternative
The current sources of noise within the Project area are related to agricultural equipment and any noises particular to residential settings. The No Action Alternative would not involve construction of operation of recreational facilities, resulting in a static level of noise pollution. The No Project Alternative would not result in any noise impacts.
4.3.13 Population and Housing
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Given that Alternative 1 contains the same components as the Project, it would have the same level of impact on population and housing concerns. The facilities constructed under Alternative 1 are intended to address expected growth rather than induce it. No housing or people would be displaced.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Given that Alternative 2 contains the same components as the Project, it would have the same level of impact on population and housing concerns. The facilities constructed under Alternative 2 are intended to address expected growth rather than induce it. No housing or people would be displaced.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not result in the further development or population growth directly or indirectly within the Project area. No new businesses, homes, or extended infrastructure would be constructed 718
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-12 and no displacement of existing housing or individuals would occur. There would be no impacts associated with population and housing.
4.3.14 Public Services
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Alternative 1, like the Project, would not affect service ratios for public services. It would provide different access points for police and fire; however, the impacts would be similar compared to the Project.
Alternative 1 would not pose an impact to either schools, parks, or other public facilities. As is the case in the Project, Alternative 1 would reduce dependence on existing parks, thereby improving the City’s recreational facilities.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Alternative 2, like the Project, would not affect service ratios for fire and police protection, nor to schools or other public facilities. Alternative 2 would not fulfill GP Policy PSCU-P-15 because it does not include lighted facilities. While this does not itself constitute an impact, as the City’s population grows, additional opportunity for evening recreation would be needed, thus requiring additional parks which may have a significant impact on the environment.
No Project Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would not be a need for new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain adequate service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for public services.
No road or structural construction would occur under; therefore, there would be no effects to of fire and police protection routes. There would be no additional need for schools, parks or other public facilities. Therefore, there are no impacts to public services.
4.3.15 Recreation
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Implementation of Alternative 1 would decrease the use of existing parks and recreational facilities throughout the City. By nature of the project it would include the construction of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As described in this Section 4.3, the impacts are similar to those of the Project. Impacts to recreational facilities would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Implementation of Alternative 2 would decrease the use of existing parks and recreational facilities throughout the City, although to a lesser degree due to the lack of opportunity to use the sports fields in the evening. While this does not itself constitute an impact, as the City’s population grows, additional opportunity for evening recreation would be needed, thus requiring additional parks which may have a significant impact on the environment.
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, no regional park would be developed. Therefore, with the increased population growth that the City GP expects, the need for recreational space would increase. The existing regional parks would experience increased usage without the East Side Park developments, consequently promoting physical deterioration of the facilities. The No Project Alternative would require the expansion or 719
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-13 construction of recreational facilities elsewhere to fulfill the needs of the growing population. The No Project Alternative would result in potentially significant impacts regarding recreation.
4.3.16 Transportation
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Given that Alternative 1 contains the same components and would facilitate the same activities as the Project, it would result in the same increase in traffic. Although this alternative would still be required to mitigate traffic impacts to the extent feasible, impacts at some intersections and road segments would remain significant and unavoidable.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Given that Alternative 2 contains the same components as the Project but activities would be limited to daylight hours only, impacts to transportation are expected to be somewhat less traffic. Although this alternative would still be required to mitigate traffic impacts to the extent feasible, impacts at some intersections and road segments would remain significant and unavoidable.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in no construction of transportation routes or facilities that would alter current traffic circulation. Accordingly, the No Project Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy intended to protect the effectiveness of traffic circulation; no changes in transportation routes would occur; emergency access points and routes would not be affected; and there would be no conflict with any pedestrian, public transport, or bicycle policies, plans, or programs.
4.3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 1 – Considered but Rejected
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have identical impacts to utilities and service systems as the Project.
Regardless of the layout of the park, identical sewer facilities would be constructed, and the same amount of waste would be generated. Given that the City has recently upgraded its WCP, any waste that would be created by Alternative 1 would be accommodated by the upgraded WCP consistent with the current WDR. Therefore, wastewater treatment requirements would not be exceeded and it would not be necessary to construct any new water or wastewater treatment facilities or storm water drainage facilities aside from the inclusion of stormwater runoff basins as a project component, which would manage storm water runoff from the Project site.
Alternative 2 – Considered but Rejected
Implementation of Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to utilities and service systems as the Project.
Regardless of the installation of sports lighting, identical sewer facilities would be constructed, but less amount of waste would be generated. Given that the City has recently upgraded its WCP, any waste that would be created by Alternative 2 would be accommodated by the upgraded WCP consistent with the current WDR.
Therefore, wastewater treatment requirements would not be exceeded and it would not be necessary to construct any new water or wastewater treatment facilities or storm water drainage facilities aside from the inclusion of stormwater runoff basins as a project component, which would manage storm water runoff from the Project site.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not result in construction of infrastructure or facilities. Therefore, no additional wastewater would be generated and no water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage facilities 720
Chapter 4 Analysis of the Alternatives
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 4-14 would need to be developed or expanded. No additional waste that would impact landfill capacity would be generated. The No Project Alternative would ultimately result in no impacts to utilities and service systems.
4.4 Alternative Determination
CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. The Guidelines also require that if the No Project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then another environmentally superior alternative must be identified.
Table 4-1 provides, in summary format, a comparison of the level of impacts for each alternative to the Project.
The Project has the least impact to the environment because it would result in fewer impacts to public services and recreation standards.
Table 4-1. Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Project and the Project Alternatives Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Project and the Project Alternatives Environmental Topic Project Level of Impact
After Mitigation
Alternative 1:
Edge-Located
Access Road
Alternative 2:
No Sports
Lighting
No Project
Alternative
Aesthetics Less than Significant Similar + Similar - Fewer Agriculture and Forestry Resources Significant and Unavoidable Similar Similar Fewer Air Quality Less than Significant Similar Similar - Fewer Biological Resources Less than Significant Similar Similar Fewer Cultural Resources Less than Significant Similar Similar Fewer Geology and Soils Less than Significant Similar Similar Fewer Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant Similar Fewer Fewer Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant Similar Similar Fewer Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Similar Similar Fewer Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Similar Similar Fewer Mineral Resources Less than Significant Similar Similar Fewer Noise Less than Significant Similar + Similar - Fewer
Population and Housing No Impact Similar Similar Similar Public Services No Impact Greater Greater Similar
Recreation Less than Significant Similar Greater Fewer
Transportation Significant and Unavoidable Similar Similar - Fewer Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Similar Similar Fewer Attainment of Project Objectives Meets all of the Project Objectives
Meets all Project
Objectives, but to
a lesser level
Meets all Project
Objectives, but
to a lesser level
Does Not
Meet Project
Objectives
Greater = Greater Impacts than the Project
Fewer = Fewer Impacts than the Project
Similar = Similar Impacts than the Project
Similar ‐ = Similar, although incrementally fewer impacts as compared to the Project Similar + = Similar, although incrementally greater impacts as compared to the Project 721
Chapter 5 Other Mandatory CEQA Sections
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 5-1 5 Other Mandatory CEQA Sections
This section discusses additional topics required by CEQA to be discussed in an EIR. The topics discussed include significant and unavoidable environmental impacts and growth-inducing impacts.
5.1 Organizations and Persons Consulted
5.1.1 Agencies
See Appendix A.
5.1.2 Other Persons
The City noticed all residents within 300 feet of the Project. See Appendix A.
5.1.3 List of Preparers
Rick Darnley, Project Manager
Dawn E. Marple, Principal Planner
Amy Wilson, Associate Planner
Kaitlin Palys, Assistant Environmental Specialist
Mary E. Beatie, Senior Planner Emeritus
Randy Hopkins, PE, Recharge Basin Engineer
Richard Moss, PE, Water Rights Specialist
Matt Klinchuch, PE, Project Engineer
Jason Thomas, GIS Specialist
Jackie Lancaster, Project Administrator
Jarred Olsen, AICP, Associate Planner
Jeffrey O’Neal, AICP, Senior Planner
Ryan McKelvey, Assistant Planner
Dena Giacomini, Senior Planner/Biologist
5.1.4 Subconsultants
VRPA Technologies, Inc., Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise, and Transportation Live Oak Associates, Inc., Biological Resources
Applied Earthworks, Inc., Cultural Resources
Technicon Engineering Services, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation Report 722
Chapter 5 Other Mandatory CEQA Sections
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 5-2
5.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires that an EIR discusses unavoidable significant environmental effects, including those that can be mitigated but not to a level of less than significance.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) allows the decision-making agency to determine if the benefits of a Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of implementing the project. The City can approve a project with unavoidable adverse impacts if it prepares a “SOC” setting forth the specific reasons for making such a judgment. A list of unavoidable adverse impacts identified in this EIR is provided below. 723
Chapter 5 Other Mandatory CEQA Sections
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 5-1 Table 5-1. List of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Impact II-a. The City of Visalia 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 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 Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted, no further analysis is required (Guidelines Section 15152(d)(1)).
Potentially Significant Impact None feasible. Significant and Unavoidable
724
Chapter 5 Other Mandatory CEQA Sections
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 5-2 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 will be inconsistent with City of Visalia 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, TR-4, 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 MM TR-56 will be
implemented to minimize all feasibly mitigated impacts due to exceedances of level of service standards, travel demand measures and other standards developed by the County
Congestion Process Steering Committee’s Congestion
Management Program
Potentially Significant Impact
TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, 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-f. The Project will be providing additional trails for pedestrian and bicycle traffic and is isolated from a public transportation route. The City of Visalia General Plans 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 of Visalia General Plan and the City of Visalia General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, the City will be required to work with transit operators on establishing a public
transportation stop within a reasonable vicinity of the regional park.
Potentially Significant Impact
TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, 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
725
Chapter 5 Other Mandatory CEQA Sections
East Side Regional Park DEIR
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 5-1
5.3 Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) states the following regarding evaluation in the EIR of growth-inducing impact of the Project.
Growth-Inducing Impact of the Project. Discuss the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
5.3.1 Growth Inducement Potential
The City proposes to design and construct the East Side Regional Park and Groundwater Recharge Project (Project). The intent of the Project is to co-locate city-wide/regional park amenities (for both passive and active recreational uses) amongst functional groundwater recharge and storm water layoff basins. It is anticipated that the Project will allocate acreage fairly equally for park and recharge/storm water facility purposes. As discussed in impact XV-a, the construction of park facilities will not result in residential development or induce growth.
The Project would increase the number and available acreage of recreational facilities, thus lessening the need for additional recreational facilities elsewhere that could lead to potential environmental impacts. The City of Visalia General Plan outlines the need for a regional park in the eastern portion of the City, which the Project will satisfy.130
The Project will reduce the need for additional recreational facilities, will not result in residential development, and meets the expectations of the City’s General Plan. The Project is intended to accommodate the anticipated increase in need for recreational facilities that is appurtenant to population growth, but it will not itself include growth . Impacts would be less than significant.
130 City of Visalia, 2014. General Plan Update – Chapter 5: Parks, Schools, Community Facilities, and Utilities. http://www.visalia.city/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30477 Page 5-10. Date Accessed: 6/22/2016 726
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-1 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings in Chapter 3 – Impact Analysis of this EIR. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements and responsible parties.
Table 6-1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, BIO-1 would be the first mitigation measure identified in the Biological Resources analysis of the EIR.
The first column of Table 6-1 identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of which the monitoring of the mitigation measure should occur. The fourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is properly implemented. The last columns will be used by the City of Visalia (City) as a check-off tool to ensure that and when individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.
727
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-2 Table 6-1. Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
Biological Resources
BIO – 1a: (WEAP 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.
Prior to initiating
construction activities Once City of Visalia
Submittal of
WEAP training
attendance
form
728
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
• 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.
During construction
activities Continuously City of Visalia Permit condition BIO – 3: Best Management Practices (BMPs)
• The Project proponent will ensure that all workers
employ the following best management practices
(BMPs) in order to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to special status species:
City of Visalia
BIO – 3a: Best Management Practices (BMPs)
• Vehicles shall observe a 15-mph speed limit while
on unpaved access routes.
During construction
activities Continuously City of Visalia Signs posted
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
During construction
activities Continuously City of Visalia Permit condition 729
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
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.
BIO – 3c: Best Management Practices (BMPs)
• The presence of any special status species
and/or any wildlife mortalities will be reported
to the Project’s designated biologist and the
appropriate regulatory agencies (CDFW,
USFWS, etc.).
When special status
species and/or any
wildlife mortalities are
present
Continuously City of Visalia
Submittal of
report to City of
Visalia
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.
During construction
planning Once City of Visalia Issuance of Building Permit BIO – 5: Pre-Construction Survey
• A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction 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.
City of Visalia
730
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
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.
If construction activities
occur between February
1 and August 31
Once City of Visalia
Submittal of
preconstruction
survey report
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 preconstruction surveys, construction monitoring will be required.
Within 30 days prior to
vegetation clearing or
ground disturbing
activities
Once, when construction
commences and
recommences
City of Visalia
Submittal of
preconstruction
survey report
731
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
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.
On discovery of any
active nests or listed
species near work areas
Continuously, until
construction is complete City of Visalia
Submittal of
preconstruction
survey report
BIO – 7: Monitor
• A qualified biologist will conduct a pre-activity
clearance survey each day and remain onsite 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 a-b).
• 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.
During construction
activities
Continuously, until
construction is complete City of Visalia
Submittal of
preconstruction
survey report
732
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
• “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.
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.
If avoidance of valley
oak trees is not possible
Continuously, until
construction is complete City of Visalia
Permit
conditions of
Oak Tree
Preservation
Ordinance
CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS). The resources
During project
construction or
operation
Continuously City of Visalia Submittal of
DPR 523 form
733
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
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.
CR-2
• Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a
Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation
Program (PRIMP) will be prepared by a
qualified professional paleontologist who
meets the SVP (2010) standards for Project
Paleontologist because of the likelihood of
vertebrate fossils. 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.
If human remains are
uncovered or
discovered
Continuously City of Visalia
734
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
CR-3
• A Paleontological Resources - Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training will 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.
Prior to any ground
disturbance/construction
activity
Continuously City of Visalia
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.
If human remains are
uncovered or
discovered
Continuously City of Visalia
Notification of
County
Coroner and
NAHC
735
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
NOISE
NOI-1
• Use of softball, baseball, and soccer fields
shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am – 7:00
pm.
Once Phase 2 is
operational Continuously City of Visalia Permit condition 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 in. x 8 in. x 16 in.), dense
concrete (4 in. thick), or light concrete (4 in. to
6 in. thick).
• The wall shall provide breaks to allow for flood
waters to pass through.
Prior to construction of
Phase 2
Prior to construction of
Phase 3 if NOI-3 is not
selected.
Once City of Visalia Issuance of
final inspection
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.
Prior to construction of
Phase 3 and NOI-2 is
not selected
Once City of Visalia
Approval of
site plan
modification
NOI-4
• Vibration Monitoring will be conducted during
construction of Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the
Project when directly adjacent to a sensitive
receptor (at Project boundary).
• Vibration will be monitored along the
perimeter of the construction area and at
varying distances.
During project
construction when
adjacent to sensitive
receptor
Continuously City of Visalia
Submittal of
tabulated
analysis
736
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
• A vibration criterion of 0.5 inches per second
(in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is
proposed as the applicable action threshold
criteria for ground-borne vibration
measurement during proposed remedial
construction activities.
• The 0.5 in/sec PPV criterion has been
established by the United States Bureau of
Mines as the threshold above which damage
to interior plaster walls may occur.
• This criterion has become recognized by
industry as the threshold for the onset of
vibration damage to typical residential
structures. Collected vibration monitoring
results will be compared to the vibration
criterion.
• The results will also be tabulated and
reviewed on a weekly basis to assess trends
and formulate the basis for mitigation
measures, if required.
Traffic
TR-1 – Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue
• Widen the northbound approach to 1 left turn
lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right turn lane
(adding 1 right turn lane)
• Widen the southbound approach to 2 left turn
lanes and 2 through lanes with a shared right
(adding 1 left turn lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 2 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-2 –SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue
737
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
• Widen the northbound approach to 1 left turn
lane and 1 right turn lanes (adding 1 right turn
lane)
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 through
lane and 1 right turn lane (adding 1 right turn
lane)
• Widen the westbound approach to 1 left turn
lane and 1 through lane (adding 1 left turn
lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 2 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
Cumulative Year 2040 Mitigation Measures
TR – 3 – Lovers Lane at Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
• Widen the northbound approach to 1 left
turn lane, 2 through lanes, and 1 right
turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
• Widen the southbound approach to 2
left turn lanes and 2 through lanes with
a shared right (adding 1 left turn lane)
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left
turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right
turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
• Widen the westbound approach to 1 left
turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right
turn lane (adding 1 right turn lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR – 4 – Lovers Lane at SR 198 EB Ramps
738
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project scenarios:
• Widen the northbound approach to 2
through lanes and 1 right turn lane
(adding 1 right turn lane)
• Widen the eastbound approach to 2 left
turn lanes and 1 right turn lane (adding
1 left turn lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-5 – SR 198 WB Ramps at Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
• Install Traffic Signal
• Widen the northbound approach to 1 left
turn lane and 1 right turn lanes (adding
1 right turn lane)
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1
through lane and 1 right turn lane with
overlap phasing (adding 1 right turn
lane)
• Widen the westbound approach to 1 left
turn lane and 1 through lane (adding 1
left turn lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR -6 – McAuliff Street and Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
• Widen the westbound approach to 1
through and 1 right turn lane (adding 1
right turn lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
739
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
TR-7 – Road 152 and Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
• Widen the southbound approach to 1
left turn and 1 right turn lane (adding 1
right turn lane)
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left
turn lane and 1 through lane (adding 1
left turn lane)
• Widen the westbound approach to 1
through lane and 1 right turn lane
(adding 1 right turn lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR -8 – Noble Avenue and SR 198 EB Ramps
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
• Install Traffic Signal
• Widen the westbound approach to 1
through lane and 1 right turn lane
(adding 1 right turn lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-9 – Road 156 and Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
• Widen the northbound approach to 2 left
turn lanes and 1 through lane with a
shared right (adding 1 left turn lane)
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left
turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
740
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
turn lane with overlap phasing (adding 1
right turn lane)
TR-10 – Road 156 and Noble Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
• Widen the northbound approach to 2 left
turn lanes and 1 through lane with a
shared right (adding 1 left turn lane)
• Widen the eastbound approach to 1 left
turn lane, 1 through lane, and 1 right
turn lane with overlap phasing (adding 1
right turn lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-11 – SR 198 WB Off Ramp and Mineral King Avenue
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
• Widen the westbound approach to 2
through lanes (adding 1 through lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-12 – Road 156
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
South of Noble Avenue
• Widen the segment from 2 to 4 travel
lanes (adding 1 travel lane in each
direction)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
741
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
SR 198 Ramp Junctions
TR-13 - SR 198 EB Off Ramp to Lovers Lane
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
o Widen the SR 198 mainline from 2 to 3
travel lanes in the eastbound movement
(adding 1 travel lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-14 - SR 198 WB On Ramp from Lovers Lane
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project and
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project
scenarios:
o Widen the SR 198 mainline from 2 to 3
travel lanes in the westbound
movement (adding 1 travel lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
Queuing
TR-15 - Lovers Lane and Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• In the southbound left‐turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 225 feet to 300 feet.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-16 - Lovers Lane and Mineral King Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 100 feet to 325 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.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-17 - Lovers Lane and SR 198 EB Ramps
742
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
• In the eastbound left-turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 225 feet to 375 feet.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-18 - Lovers Lane and Noble Avenue
• In the eastbound left-turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 125 feet to 275 feet.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-19 - McAuliff Street and Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• In the northbound left-turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 150 feet to 300 feet.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-20 - McAuliff Street and Mineral King Avenue
• In the southbound right-turn lane, lengthen
the storage pocket from 250 feet to 300 feet.
• In the eastbound left-turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 200 feet to 275 feet.
• In the westbound right-turn lane, provide
300-foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-21 - Road 152 and Mineral King Avenue
• In the southbound right-turn lane, provide
125-foot storage pocket.
• In the eastbound left-turn lane, provide 100-
foot storage pocket.
• In the westbound right-turn lane, provide
125-foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-22 - SR 198 EB Ramps and Noble Avenue
743
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
• In the westbound right-turn lane, provide
125-foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-23 - Road 156 and Noble Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, lengthen the
storage pocket from 175 feet to 225 feet.
• In the eastbound right-turn lane, provide
150-foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-24 - Tower Street and Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• In the northbound left-turn lane, provide 200-
foot storage pocket.
• In the northbound right-turn lane, provide
100-foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-25 - Tower Street and McKinley Avenue-Project Driveway #2 • In the southbound left-turn lane, provide 100-
foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-26 - Tower Street and Race Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, provide 100-
foot storage pocket.
• In the southbound left-turn lane, provide 100-
foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-27 - Tower Street and Murray Avenue
• In the northbound left-turn lane, provided
250-foot storage pocket
• In the southbound right-turn lane, provide
100-foot storage pocket
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
744
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
TR-28 - Tower Street and Villoy Avenue-Project Driveway #1 • In the northbound left-turn lane, provide 150-
foot storage pocket.
• In the southbound left-turn lane, provide 100-
foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-29 - Tower Street and Villoy Avenue-Project Driveway #1 • In the southbound left-turn lane, provide 250-
foot storage pocket.
• In the eastbound left-turn lane, provide 175-
foot storage pocket.
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
Cumulative Year 2040 With Tower Street Interchange Mitigation Measures
INTERSECTIONS
TR-30 - Tower Street at Houston Avenue (SR 216)
• Cumulative Year 2040 Without Project With
Tower Street Interchange and Cumulative
Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street
Interchange scenarios:
o Install Traffic Signal
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
TR-31 - Tower Street at Villoy Avenue-Project Driveway #1 • Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With
Tower Street Interchange scenario:
o Install Traffic Signal
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With Tower Street Interchange Alternatives 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures SR 198 Ramp Junctions
745
Chapter 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project DEIR Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 6-20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification
of
Compliance
TR-32 - SR 198 EB On Ramp from Tower Street
• Cumulative Year 2040 Plus Project With
Tower Street Interchange – Alternative 1
scenario:
o Widen the SR 198 mainline from 2 to 3
travel lanes in the eastbound movement
(adding 1 travel lane)
Prior to operation of
Phase 3 Once City of Visalia
Completion of
mitigation
measure
746
747
748
749
750
CITY OF VISALIA
CITY COUNCIL
November 20, 2023
751
East Side
Regional
Park Project
North
Nearest Streets:
Mineral King Ave.,
Houston Ave.,
Road 148,
Road 152 752
Overview
Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for East Side Regional Park & Groundwater Recharge Project Related Entitlements
• General Plan Amendment (Land use designations & Tier boundary) • Annexation (128 acres out of 286 acres)
753
Recommendation
That the City Council
Certify the Final EIR
Approve General Plan Amendment No. 2021-16
Initiate Proceedings for Annexation No. 2021-02
754
Adopted Concept Plan B1
Future Tower St.
North
Hwy.
198
Road 152
755
Project Overview
Groundwater Recharge Project
City has been proactively acquiring land in area since 2001. Developed to help region’s receding groundwater table. Water Exchange Agreement with other water organizations to help in the effort of groundwater recharge.
7 groundwater recharge basins planned.
Future ESRP
148-acres allocated for future regional park
Council voted to adopt Concept B1 as the ESRP master plan. 756 Project Overview Future ESRP 139-ac. of recreational space .
Park programs include:
Lighted adult softball fields Lighted youth baseball fields Soccer fields Tennis courts & Pickleball courts Dog park Multi-use trails 757
Project Overview
Annexation
128 acres of overall 286 acres.
Zoning will be zoned Quasi-Public (Q-P).
Consistent with General Plan Amendment.
General Plan Amendment
42 acres of overall 286 acres.
Low, Medium & High Density Residential to Parks/Recreation. Adjust area from Tier 3 to Tier 1.
758
General Plan Amendment
Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan 759
Project Overview
Completion of EIR
Professional services with Provost & Pritchard began in 2014 Addresses development of entire park & recharge basins Public Comment period Feb. 2 thru March 20, 2023
City Council Work Session held March 6, 2023
General Plan Consistency
Policy PSCU-P-4: “Create one large new park at the City’s eastern edge. . .”
Ground water recharge opportunities. 760
Project Overview
Consistency with State Law (Housing Crisis Act 2019)
Project was initiated prior to 2019 law.
Consistency with No Net Loss Law
No “Net Loss” law ensures jurisdictions have adequate land supply for their RHNA obligation.
Land in Tier 3 has not been assigned units affiliated with city’s RHNA or sites inventory.
Land to be moved into Tier 1; properties will be zoned Q-P. 761
Staff Recommended Motion
Move to certify EIR.
Move to approve.
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-16
Move to initiate
Annexation No. 2021-02
East Side Regional Park
762
North763
Visalia City Council
Staff Report
Visalia City Council
707 W. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
Agenda Item Wording:
Public Hearing to consider a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District for the following entitlements:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01: A request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 14 parcels totaling 3.17 acres from Residential Low Density to Public Institutional, and to change the land use designation of one parcel totaling 0.24 acres from Residential Medium Density to Public Institutional. The project sites are located at 919 West Allen Avenue, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 North Rinaldi Street, 1410, 1420, 1430 West Sady Avenue, and 816 North Turner Street (APNs: 093-062-006, 007, 015, 016, 026, 027, 093-073-002, 010, 093-083-013, 014, 015, 016, 025, 093-102-001, 002).
2. Change of Zone No. 2022-02: A request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to change the zoning designation of 14 parcels totaling 3.17 acres from R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum site area) to Q-P (Quasi-Public), and to change the zoning designation of one parcel totaling 0.24 acres from R-M-2 (Multi-Family Residential, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum site area per dwelling unit) to Q-P (Quasi-Public). The project sites are located at 919 West Allen Avenue, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 North Rinaldi Street, 1410, 1420, 1430 West Sady Avenue, and 816 North Turner Street (APNs: 093-062-006, 007, 015, 016, 026, 027, 093 -073-002, 010, 093-083-013, 014, 015, 016, 025, 093-102-001, 002).
The requested actions are considered exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption No. 2022-42 has been prepared for the project.
Deadline for Action: 11/20/2023
Submitting Department: Community Development
Contact Name and Phone Number:
Cristobal Carrillo, Associate Planner, (559) 713-4443, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Paul Bernal, Community Development Director, 713-4025 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Department Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Visalia City Council hold a public hearing, receive a presentation and staff report, and take the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-10, approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01, a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 14 parcels totaling 3.17 acres from Residential Low Density to Public Institutional, and to change the land use designation of one parcel totaling 0.24 acres from Residential Medium Density to Public Institutional. The project sites are located at 919 West Visalia City Council Page 1 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™764
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
Residential Medium Density to Public Institutional. The project sites are located at 919 West Allen Avenue, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 North Rinaldi Street, 1410, 1420, 1430 West Sady Avenue, and 816 North Turner Street (APNs: 093-062-006, 007, 015, 016, 026, 027, 093-073- 002, 010, 093-083-013, 014, 015, 016, 025, 093-102-001, 002), based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
2. Introduce the first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-04, approving Change of Zone No. 2022-02, a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to change the zoning designation of 14 parcels totaling 3.17 acres from R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum site area) to QP (Quasi-Public), and to change the zoning designation of one parcel totaling 0.24 acres from R -M-2 (Multi-Family Residential, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum site area per dwelling unit) to Q-P (QuasiPublic). The project sites are located at 919 West Allen Avenue, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 North Rinaldi Street, 1410, 1420, 1430 West Sady Avenue, and 816 North Turner Street (APNs:
093-062-006, 007, 015, 016, 026, 027, 093-073-002, 010, 093-083-013, 014, 015, 016, 025, 093-102-001, 002), based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Note that the above action updates the previous request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District, which included a Conditional Use Permit to expand its master plan boundary, and rezone one property located within the expansion area. The Conditional Use Permit request, and the proposal to rezone one property within the expansion area have since been removed at the request of the Visalia Public Cemetery District.
Summary:
On May 1, 2023 the Visalia City Council held a public hearing to consider a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District (VPCD) to change the zoning classification of 16 cemetery owned properties within the boundaries of its 2005 cemetery district master plan, and to expand the master plan boundaries to encompass 13 additional properties. At the public hearing, the City Council received lengthy public comment critical of the cemetery district’s request. As a result, the City Council remanded the project back to Planning Division staff so that additional research and outreach could be conducted by City and VPCD staff. The staff report before the City Council today provides analysis on the revised request from the VPCD, which reduces the scope of its original proposal, removing the request to expand the cemetery district master plan area and decreasing the number of reclassified properties from 16 to 15. The staff report also provides an update on the community meeting held by the VPCD with concerned residents of properties adjacent to the cemetery.
Project Description:
General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 and Change of Zone No. 2022-02 together are a request by the VPCD to change the general plan land use and zoning designations of 15 parcels as described below:
· 14 properties totaling 3.17 acres from Low Density Residential / R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 square foot minimum site area) to Public Institutional / QP (Quasi-Public). · One property totaling 0.24 acres from Residential Medium Density / R-M-2 (Multi-Family Residential, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum site area per dwelling unit) to Public Institutional / QP (Quasi-Public).
Properties to be reclassified are identified in the Site Plans in Exhibit “A”. Per the Operational Statement in Exhibit “B”, the land use reclassification to Public Institutional / Q-P is requested to Visalia City Council Page 2 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™765
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
Statement in Exhibit “B”, the land use reclassification to Public Institutional / Q-P is requested to permit usage of the parcels for cemetery operations and burial sites, activities which are prohibited in residential zones but are conditionally permitted in the Q-P zone. All 15 sites proposed for reclassification are owned by the VPCD and located within its existing master plan boundary. Of the 15 sites proposed for rezone, eight are vacant. The remaining sites contain residential uses.
As depicted in the Phasing Plan in Exhibit “A”, if the project is approved, the Cemetery District will begin utilizing rezoned properties under its ownership and within the “2023 - 2030 Vacant Lots” area immediately. The “2023 - 2030 Vacant Lots” area consists of nine vacant properties at the southwest quadrant of the cemetery, east of North Rinaldi Street, between West Goshen Avenue and West Grove Street. The remaining sites under Cemetery District ownership would generally be developed after 2030 and depending on factors such as funding, acquisition of properties, and meeting master plan conditions for usage of sites.
Eight of the properties to be reclassified are vacant, including the sole R-M-2 zoned site, located at the northeast corner of West Goshen Avenue and North Rinaldi Street. The remaining seven parcels contain existing single or multi-family development, encompassing a total of 14 residential units.
Existing residential units owned by the Cemetery District are all located outside of the “2023 - 2030 Vacant Lots” area identified in the phasing plan and would not be removed at this time. Per the applicant, there is no set date for when existing residential units on Cemetery District owned properties will be removed, as it is dependent on burial trends and compliance with conditions of the master plan. The applicant notes that demolition of residential structures would occur over a long period of time, and at staggered intervals, so as to prevent the sudden loss of all 14 residential units.
Per the revised operational statement in Exhibit “B”, the applicant also notes that the VPCD recently adopted Policy No. 2023-2 (Rental Policy Regarding a 90-Day Notice), to assist renters of VPCD owned residential units. Per the policy, renters of a VPCD unit will be given advance notice of a residences removal and will be provided with 90-days rent free to vacate the premises. VPCD also adopted a second policy (Policy No. 2023-3 - Property Acquisition and Purchase Policy) never obtaining any property located within the existing master plan boundary by eminent domain.
Public Hearings (Chronological Order):
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 27, 2023, to consider the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, and Conditional Use Permit request to expand the master plan boundary of the Visalia Public Cemetery that was established in 2005 via Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-08. Public comment in favor of the proposal was received from project applicant/consultant Walter Deissler, Visalia Public Cemetery District Board of Trustees Chair Tom Johnson and Secretary George Ouzounian. All noted the necessity of the project for the Cemetery District to be able to utilize properties already under its ownership, and to retain sufficient capacity to serve the public for a longer period of time. It was noted by the representatives that the Cemetery District only acquires properties when owners wish to sell, and that such purchases are always at market rate. It was further noted that the Cemetery District had previously acquired property outside of the Visalia urban area for development of a new cemetery, but that the land had been sold after it was determined that expansion of the existing cemetery grounds would be more cost effective than establishing a second cemetery.
Public comments in opposition to the proposal were provided by Vanessa Gonzalez, Bill Houtt, David Visalia City Council Page 3 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™766
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
Public comments in opposition to the proposal were provided by Vanessa Gonzalez, Bill Houtt, David Dye, Jill Ramirez, and Armando Murrieta. All of these individuals shared concerns about the effects of the project on the availability of affordable housing in the area, its effects on the character and ongoing viability of the Rinaldi/Turner Street neighborhoods, and the sustainability of the Cemetery Districts plans for expansion. The general consensus among opponents of the project was that the Cemetery District should forego expansion around the existing cemetery and instead acquire property outside of Visalia’s urban core to accommodate the future needs of the public.
At the conclusion of public testimony, the Planning Commission directed additional questions to staff and the applicant. Among discussion were questions about the applicability of Government Code Section 66300 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), a State law intended to preserve residential land by limiting land use changes that result in a net loss of residential capacity (i.e., a sites ability to support housing). In response, staff stated that Cemetery District actions to enact rezone and growth goals identified in its 2005 master plan and boundary map were established prior to the 2019 ratification of Government Code Section 66300. As such, the areas identified by the 2005 master plan are not subject to its provisions.
Following discussion, the Planning Commission took the following actions:
· Voted 4-0 (Vice-Chair Peck absent) to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 to the City Council; and
· Voted 4-0 (Peck absent) to recommend approval of Change of Zone No. 2022-02 to the City Council.
· Voted 3-1 (Commissioner Chris Gomez opposed, Peck absent) to approve the master plan boundary expansion proposed by Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-02.
City Council
The City Council held a public hearing on the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, and Conditional Use Permit request at its May 1, 2023 meeting. Public comment in favor of the proposal was received from project applicant/consultant Walter Deissler, Visalia Public Cemetery District Board of Trustees Chair Tom Johnson and Secretary George Ouzounian. All spoke to concerns noted by the public at the March 27, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, specifically that the Lone Oak and Elbow Creek cemeteries could not be used for current burials due to their designations as “pioneer cemeteries”, and that a new cemetery could not be built at this time due to lack of funds.
Public comments in opposition to the proposal were provided by Gwen Shrank, Erica Rivera, Davie Dye, Dr. Randy Villegas (Trustee, Visalia Unified School District Board of Trustees), Adrian Leal, Maria Guillen, Randy Evans (former member, City of Visalia Citizens Advisory Committee), Vanessa Gonzalez, Reyna Rodriguez, Hollis Elliott Fernandez, Calisha Feliz, Resident of Rinaldi Street (no name given), Alberto Aguilar (Trustee, Tulare Public Cemetery District), Susanne Gundy, Jamie Huerta, Raymond Macareno (Vice-President, College of the Sequoias Board of Trustees), Lucia Vasquez, Dale Simmons, Rosie Huerta, and Eddie Valero (Supervisor, Tulare County Board of Supervisors). All individuals shared concerns about the effects of the project on the availability of affordable housing in the area, its effects on the viability of the Rinaldi/Turner Street neighborhoods, and the sustainability and relevancy of the Cemetery Districts master plans for expansion. It was also alleged during public comment that the VPCD was not a good steward of its housing stock, allowing residences to deteriorate and conducting demolitions of residences without issuance of building permits for removal. Demolitions are discussed in further detail in the “Building Permit Activity” Visalia City Council Page 4 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™767
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
permits for removal. Demolitions are discussed in further detail in the “Building Permit Activity” section of this report.
At the conclusion of public testimony, the City Council directed additional questions to staff and the applicant. Among discussion were questions about the cemeteries existing capacity, timeframes for expansion, and whether the VPCD would use eminent domain to acquire properties. The City Council also encouraged the VPCD to reach out to the Tulare County Board of Supervisors to discuss future growth, and to conduct public outreach to obtain additional public comment on expansion plans.
Following discussion, a motion was made to remand the project back to Planning Division staff, so that staff could conduct additional work with the VPCD on the project, as well provide the public with an opportunity to attend a future public outreach meeting with VPCD staff. The motion passed 3-2 (Vice-Mayor Taylor and Councilmember Nelson voting against the motion).
VPCD Public Outreach Meeting:
The VPCD held a public outreach meeting on June 15, 2023, to discuss the project and address comments from the public. The VPCD publicly noticed the meeting, including hand delivering notices to residents of both Rinaldi and Turner Streets. City staff was also in attendance.
At the meeting the VPCD unveiled its revised proposal and new adopted policies (see Exhibit “C”), listed below as follows:
1. That the VPCD would continue to pursue rezoning of cemetery owned properties within the existing 2005 master plan boundary, but would no longer seek to expand the master plan boundary;
2. That the VPCD had enacted a policy to not use eminent domain to acquire properties located within the 2005 master plan boundary area; and
3. That the VPCD would provide residents of cemetery owned residences 90-days to vacate a property, rent free, prior to removing a residence from a property.
Attendance at the public forum was low, though some residents of Rinaldi and Turner Streets did attend. Public comment received at the meeting was generally in favor of the revised proposal and policies. No other actions occurred at the meeting.
Building Permit Activity:
Following the May 1, 2023 City Council meeting, VPCD staff reached out to the City of Visalia and requested a review of its Building Permit activity as it relates to removal of structures on cemetery owned properties. Staff completed its initial review on June 13, 2023 and found that three structures (two residences and an “out building”) had been removed without the benefit of a Building Permit or, in the case of the out building, without completing the Building Permit process. All other building removals identified were determined to have been conducted properly.
Following the review by City staff, the VPCD paid fees and obtained Building Permits to complete the processes for removal of the three identified structures. A subsequent review conducted September 29, 2023 by City staff (see Exhibit “D”) showed that final inspections for removal of the structures were completed in August and September of 2023. No other building issues have been identified at this time.
Visalia City Council Page 5 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™768
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
General Plan Consistency and Land Use Compatibility:
Land Use Element/General Plan/Zoning
The Land Use Element of the 2014 Visalia General Plan does not include specific objectives or policies related to the cemetery. Section 2.13 (Institutional & Civic) of the Land Use Element only refers to cemeteries as “…important elements of community-building.” Visalia Municipal Code Chapter 17.52 (Quasi-Public Zone) notes that the QP zone is appropriate “…to allow for the location of institutional, academic, community service, governmental, and nonprofit uses.” The Public Institutional land use designation and QP zoning classification are seen as appropriate classifications for the project sites as they will be employed for burials and as a place of mourning and remembrance, services which are of universal public utility and import.
Housing Element
The proposal will result in the reclassification of 15 cemetery owned properties from residential zonings to Q-P zoning. There are 14 active residential units on the project sites to be rezoned, which will eventually be removed by the Cemetery District at future dates, should the proposal be approved.
The 2020-2023 City of Visalia Housing Element was adopted by the Visalia City Council on December 3, 2019. The Housing Element provides policies encouraging housing affordability and identifies sites for the development of affordable housing. None of the sites listed in the project proposal are identified in the Housing Element site inventory list, nor are they deed restricted for affordability. As such, the Housing Element does not contain policies that would restrict demolition of housing on the project sites. As it stands, VMC regulations would not prohibit the demolition of residential units, even on multi-family properties, if a property owner chose to remove them. So, while the proposal would represent a reduction in the housing stock of the area, existing regulations and policies do not prohibit its removal. Furthermore, the resulting reduction in housing would not cause a significant change to the City’s housing stock.
Government Code Section 66300
As noted previously in this report, Government Code Section 66300 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), is a State law tailored to preserve residential land by limiting land use changes that result in a net loss of residential capacity. Per staff and City Attorney analysis of the State law, the project is not subject to its provisions. Plans for rezone and growth approved by the City for the Cemetery District in 2005 are not subject to Government Code Section 66300 as they were implemented prior to the 2019 ratification of the law.
As it stands, the proposed land use changes from residential to Q-P/Public Institutional would still allow for some conditional residential uses to be established, such as senior housing. Given the above, staff maintains that the proposal does not impact “residential capacity” and is in conformance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66300.
2005 Visalia Public Cemetery District Land Use Plan
Land Use Plan Consistency
The land use plan and boundary maps (i.e., master plan) previously approved in 2005 are included as Exhibits “E” and “F”. The land use changes proposed are largely in conformance with the 2005 master plan. The 2005 master plan encourages the reclassification of sites acquired by the Cemetery District to Q-P / Public Institutional. All 15 sites proposed for reclassification are located within the 2005 master plan boundaries. Four of the 15 properties proposed for reclassification (919 West Allen Avenue, 706 and 808 North Rinaldi Street, and 816 North Turner Street) were also identified in the Visalia City Council Page 6 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™769
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
Avenue, 706 and 808 North Rinaldi Street, and 816 North Turner Street) were also identified in the original land use plan as “highest priority for acquisition”.
No changes to the policies in the original master plan were proposed. As such, the overall land use reclassification and boundary expansion request is considered appropriate as it is largely consistent with the land use plan, directs growth in a concentric fashion, and facilitates increased services to the public over a longer period of time. The proposal also brings existing Cemetery District owned properties into conformance with the overall cemetery complex and will assist in removing instances of spot zoning around the cemetery perimeter.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Prior Council Action:
· July 18, 2005 - The Visalia City Council approved a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to conduct the following projects:
o General Plan Amendment No. 2005-04: A request to change the general plan land use designations on approximately two acres from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Shopping Office Commercial to Public Institutional.
o Change of Zone No. 2005-03: A request to change the zoning on approximately 2 acres from R-1-6, R-M-2, R-M-3 and C-SO to QP (Quasi Public). o Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-08: A request to allow the expansion of the existing cemetery, allow the relocation of an existing maintenance facility, and adopt a Master Plan for a cemetery in the QP Zone.
· May 1, 2023 - The Visalia City Council considered a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to conduct the following projects:
o General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01: A request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 15 parcels totaling 3.33 acres from Residential Low Density to Public Institutional, and to change the land use designation of one parcel totaling 0.24 acres from Residential Medium Density to Public Institutional. The project sites are located at 919 West Allen Avenue, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 North Rinaldi Street, 1410, 1420, 1430 West Sady Avenue, 816, 1004 North Turner Street.
o Change of Zone No. 2022-02: A request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to change the zoning designation of 15 parcels totaling 3.33 acres from R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum site area) to QP (Quasi-Public), and to change the zoning designation of one parcel totaling 0.24 acres from R-M-2 (MultiFamily Residential, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum site area per dwelling unit) to QP (QuasiPublic) to QP (Quasi-Public). The project sites are located at 919 West Allen Avenue, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 North Rinaldi Street, 1410, 1420, 1430 West Sady Avenue, 816, 1004 North Turner Street.
o A review of a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-08, permitting the expansion of the Visalia Public Cemetery District master planned area, encompassing 13 parcels totaling 2.8 acres. The project sites are Visalia City Council Page 7 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™770
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
master planned area, encompassing 13 parcels totaling 2.8 acres. The project sites are located at 914 and 920 W. Allen Avenue, 1304 W. Goshen Avenue, 916, 920, 1000, 1002, 1004, 1006, 1010, 1012, 1014, 1016, and 1020 N. Turner Street.
At the meeting the City Council did not issue a formal decision on the matter. The City Council instead voted to remand the project back to Planning Division staff, to conduct additional work on the project, and provide the public with an opportunity to attend a future public outreach meeting with Visalia Public Cemetery District staff.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
• I move to adopt Resolution No. 2023-10 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01; and • I move to introduce the first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-04, approving Change of Zone No. 2023-02.
CEQA Review:
The requested action is considered exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Exemption has been prepared for the project because Section 15061(b)(3) states that the project is exempted from CEQA if the activity is covered by the common-sense exemption, which means that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
The proposed master plan boundary expansion, change in land use designation, and change in zoning classification will not in and of themselves have any effect on the environment. All proposals represent changes in administrative categorization with no physical effects.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 2023-10 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01
2. Ordinance No. 2023-04 approving the first reading of Change of Zone No. 2022-02.
3. Exhibit "A" - Site Plan, Phasing Plan, Infrastructure Plan, and Elevations
4. Exhibit “B” - Operational Statement
5. Exhibit “C” -VPCD Policies and Supporting Documentation
6. Exhibit “D” - Visalia Public Cemetery District - Demolition Building Permit Activity, Created June 13, 2023, updated September 29, 2023.
7. Exhibit “E” - 2005 Visalia Public Cemetery District Land Use Plan
8. Exhibit “F” - 2005 Visalia Public Cemetery District Master Plan Boundaries Visalia City Council Page 8 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™771
File #: 23-0448 Agenda Date: 11/20/2023 Agenda #: 2.
9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 27, 2023
10.City Council Staff Report dated May 1, 2023
Visalia City Council Page 9 of 9 Printed on 11/17/2023
powered by Legistar™772
Resolution No. 2023-10
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-01,
A REQUEST BY THE VISALIA PUBLIC CEMETERY DISTRICT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 15 PARCELS TOTALING 3.17 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONAL, AND TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ONE PARCEL TOTALING 0.24 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL. THE PROJECT SITES ARE LOCATED AT 919 WEST ALLEN AVENUE, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 NORTH RINALDI STREET, 1410, 1420, 1430 WEST SADY AVENUE, AND 816 NORTH TURNER STREET (APNS: 093- 062-006, 007, 015, 016, 026, 027, 093-073-002, 010, 093-083-013, 014, 015, 016, 025, 093-102-001, 002)
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 is a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 14 parcels totaling 3.17 acres from Residential Low Density to Public Institutional, and to change the land use designation of one parcel totaling 0.24 acres from Residential Medium Density to Public Institutional. The project sites are located at 919 West Allen Avenue, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 North Rinaldi Street, 1410, 1420, 1430 West Sady Avenue, and 816 North Turner Street (APNs: 093-062-006, 007, 015, 016, 026, 027, 093-073-002, 010, 093-083-013, 014, 015, 016, 025, 093-102-001, 002); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on February 27, 2023; and WHEREAS, at the February 27, 2023 Planning Commission meeting the item was removed from the meeting agenda due to project description errors discovered in the public hearing notice published in the Visalia Times-Delta newspaper. The Planning Commission continued the project to the March 13, 2023 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on March 13, 2023; and WHEREAS, at the March 13, 2023 Planning Commission meeting the item was continued due errors in the processing and mailing of public hearing notices. The Planning Commission continued the project to the March 27, 2023 Planning Commission meeting at the request of staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on March 27, 2023; and 773
Resolution No. 2023-10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the General Plan Amendment in accordance with Section 17.54.060 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing, and recommended approval of said General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia adopted Resolution No. 2022-43 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten days published notice, held a public hearing for General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 on May 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia considered the General Plan Amendment in accordance with Section 17.54.080 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing, and voted to remand the project back to City of Visalia staff for additional analysis and to provide the public with an opportunity to attend a future public outreach meeting with Visalia Public Cemetery District staff; and WHEREAS, the Visalia Public Cemetery District held a public outreach meeting on June 15, 2023, and collected comment from members of the public, including residents of properties along North Turner Street and North Rinaldi Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten days published notice, held a public hearing for General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 on November 20, 2023.
WHEREAS, the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council concurs that the project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Visalia approves General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01, as shown on Attachment “A” of this Resolution, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.54.080 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:
1. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
774
Resolution No. 2023-10
2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density and Residential Medium Density to Public Institutional is compatible with adjacent land uses and is consistent with the goals and policies of the 2005 Visalia Public Cemetery District Land Use Plan.
3. The reclassification of residential property to public institutional will not have a negative impact on the City’s housing stock or Regional Housing Need Allocation as none of the sites proposed for reclassification are listed on the City’s sites inventory list for Visalia’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
4. The potential loss of Low Density Residential/R-1-5 Zone land use capacity is less than 1% and will not significantly affect the overall availability of low-density residential land for development within the City.
5. The potential loss of fourteen residential units because of potential expansion of the public cemetery is considered less than significant to the residential capacity within the City.
6. That the project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption), as the proposed master plan boundary expansion, change in land use designation, and change in zoning classification will not in and of themselves have an effect on the environment.
775
Resolution No. 2023-10
EXHIBIT “A”
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-01
City Council – Resolution No. 2023-10
Existing General Plan Land
Use Designation
776
Resolution No. 2023-10
Proposed General Plan Land
Use Designation
777
Ordinance No. 2023-04
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2022-02, A REQUEST BY THE VISALIA PUBLIC CEMETERY DISTRICT TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 14 PARCELS TOTALING 3.17 ACRES FROM R-1-5 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 5,000 SQ. FT.
MINIMUM SITE AREA) TO QP (QUASI-PUBLIC), AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF ONE PARCEL TOTALING 0.24 ACRES FROM R-M-2 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 3,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM SITE AREA PER DWELLING UNIT) TO QP (QUASIPUBLIC). THE PROJECT SITES ARE LOCATED AT 919 WEST ALLEN AVENUE, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 NORTH RINALDI STREET, 1410, 1420, 1430 WEST SADY AVENUE, AND 816 NORTH TURNER STREET (APNS: 093-062-006, 007, 015, 016, 026, 027, 093-073- 002, 010, 093-083-013, 014, 015, 016, 025, 093-102-001, 002) WHEREAS, Change of Zone No. 2022-02 is a request by the Visalia Public Cemetery District to change the zoning designation of 14 parcels totaling 3.17 acres from R-1-5 (Single Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum site area) to QP (Quasi-Public), and to change the zoning designation of one parcel totaling 0.24 acres from R-M-2 (Multi-Family Residential, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum site area per dwelling unit) to QP (Quasi-Public). The project sites are located at 919 West Allen Avenue, 618, 700, 706, 808, 918, 1010 North Rinaldi Street, 1410, 1420, 1430 West Sady Avenue, and 816 North Turner Street (APNs: 093-062-006, 007, 015, 016, 026, 027, 093-073-002, 010, 093-083-013, 014, 015, 016, 025, 093-102-001, 002); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on February 27, 2023; and WHEREAS, at the February 27, 2023 Planning Commission meeting the item was removed from the meeting agenda due to project description errors discovered in the public hearing notice published in the Visalia Times-Delta newspaper. The Planning Commission continued the project to the March 13, 2023 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on March 13, 2023; and WHEREAS, at the March 13, 2023 Planning Commission meeting the item was continued due errors in the processing and mailing of public hearing notices. The Planning Commission continued the project to the March 27, 2023 Planning Commission meeting at the request of staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia, after duly published notice, held a public hearing before said Commission on March 27, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia considered the Change of Zone in accordance with Section 17.44.070 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing, and recommended approval of said Change of Zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Visalia adopted Resolution No. 2022- 44 recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 2022-02; and 778
Ordinance No. 2023-04
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten days published notice, held a public hearing for Change of Zone No. 2022-02 on May 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia considered the Change of Zone in accordance with Section 17.44.090 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Visalia based on evidence contained in the staff report and testimony presented at the public hearing, and voted to remand the project back to City of Visalia staff for additional analysis and to provide the public with an opportunity to attend a future public outreach meeting with Visalia Public Cemetery District staff; and
WHEREAS, the Visalia Public Cemetery District held a public outreach meeting on June 15, 2023, and collected comment from members of the public, including residents of properties along North Turner Street and North Rinaldi Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Visalia, after ten days published notice, held a public hearing for Change of Zone No. 2022-02 on November 20, 2023.
WHEREAS, the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council concurs that the project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Visalia approves Change of Zone No. 2022-02, as shown on Attachment “A” of this Ordinance, on the real property described herein, in accordance with the terms of this resolution and under the provisions of Section 17.44.090 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Visalia, based on the following specific findings and evidence presented:
1. That the Change of Zone is consistent with the intent of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and 2005 Visalia Public Cemetery District Land Use Plan, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements Citywide.
2. That the proposed QP (Quasi Public) zoning is consistent with the Public Institutional land use designation and compatible with adjacent land uses.
3. The reclassification of residential property to Quasi-Public will not have a negative impact on the City’s housing stock as none of the sites proposed for reclassification are listed on the City’s sites inventory list for Visalia’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
4. The potential loss of Low Density Residential/R-1-5 Zone land use capacity is less than 1% and will not significantly affect the overall availability of low-density residential land for development within the City.
5. The potential loss of fourteen residential units because of potential expansion of the public cemetery is considered less than significant to the residential capacity within the City.
6. That the project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption), as the proposed master plan boundary expansion, change in land use designation, and change in zoning classification will not in and of themselves have an effect on the environment. 779
Ordinance No. 2023-04
ZONING MAP
Existing Zoning
Designation
ATTACHMENT “A”
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AS FOLLOWS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISALIA:
Section 1: The Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:
780
Ordinance No. 2023-04
ZONING MAP
Proposed Zoning
Designation
781
Ordinance No. 2023-04
Section 2: This property and Zoning Map of the City of Visalia is hereby amended to show said property changes.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after passage hereof. 782
093-062-009
LEGEND
CEMETERY OWNED
AND CURRENT ZONEQUASI PUBLIC
PROPERTIES
ZONE CHANGE TO
QUASI PUBLIC
W G O S H E N A V E
N D U D L E Y S T
N G I D D I N G S S T
W G R O V E S T
W A L L E N A VE
W R O O S E V E L T A V E
W S A D Y C T
N R I N A L D I S T
W G R O V E S T
W R O O S E V E L T N P A R K S T N G I D D I N G S S T
N T U R N E R S T
H O U S T O N
E L E M E N T A R Y
S C H O O L
NORTH
N J A C O B S T
BOUNDARY LINE
DEPICTS CEMETERY
MASTER PLAN
MILLERS
CHAPEL
093-062-007
093-062-006
093-062-026 093-062-027
093-073-002
093-073-018
093-073-015
093-073-006
093-073-010
093-073-009
093-073-008
093-073-011
093-073-012
093-083-001
093-083-002
093-083-003
093-083-027
093-083-025
093-083-016
093-083-015
093-083-014
093-083-013
093-083-032
093-083-033
093-062-012 093-111-002
093-101-001
093-091-030
093-083-028
093-083-030
093-083-029
093-091-031
093-091
-004
093-091
-003
093-091
-006
093-091
-007
093-103-002
093-103-014
093-103-001
EXISTING MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY
093-062-016
093-062-015
ZONE CHANGE TO QP
1 DATE Description No.
AB
C
23 DRAFT RELEASE
Project Number
Checked By
Drawn By
Carlos
Walter PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT
VISALIA CEMETERY
1300 W GOSHEN AVE
VISALIA, CA 93292
2139.2
11/23/2021
PRELIMINARY SPR RELEASE 05/13/2022
WALTER DEISSLER
ARCHITECT
WALTER DEISSLER
No. C14829
N S E
D
E C I
L
I T E C
H C R
A
T
E
O F
T A T S
I F
L A C
O R N I A
REN. 02.23
PRELIM SPR REVIEW 10/4/2022SPR SUBMITTAL 10/21/2022DRAFT RELEASE 08/11/2023
EXHIBIT A A
1" = 160'-0" 1
EXHIBIT A
783
093-062-009
LEGEND
CEMETERY OWNED
AND CURRENT ZONEQUASI PUBLIC
PROPERTIES
ZONE CHANGE TO
QUASI PUBLIC
W G O S H E N A V E
N D U D L E Y S T
N G I D D I N G S S T
W G R O V E S T
W A L L E N A VE
W R O O S E V E L T A V E
W S A D Y C T
N R I N A L D I S T
W G R O V E S T
W R O O S E V E L T N P A R K S T
N G I D D I N G S S T
N T U R N E R S T
H O U S T O N
E L E M E N T A R Y
S C H O O L
NORTH
N J A C O B S T
BOUNDARY LINE
DEPICTS CEMETERY
MASTER PLAN
MILLERS
CHAPEL
093-062-007
093-062-006
093-062-026 093-062-027
093-073-002
093-073-018
093-073-015
093-073-006
093-073-010
093-073-009
093-073-008
093-073-011
093-073-012
093-083-001
093-083-002
093-083-003
093-083-027
093-083-025
093-083-016
093-083-015
093-083-014
093-083-013
093-083-032
093-083-033
093-062-012 093-111-002
093-101-001
093-091-030
093-083-028
093-083-030
093-083-029
093-091-031
093-091
-004
093-091
-003
093-091
-006
093-091
-007
093-103-002
093-103-014
093-103-001
EXISTING MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY
093-062-016
093-062-015
ZONE CHANGE TO QP
VACANT
PROPERTIES
VACANT LOTS HOMES
EXPANSION DETERMINED BY PURCHASING
ADDITIONAL PROPERTY AND HAVING MIN.
300 CONTIGUOUS FEET
EXPANSION DETERMINED BY
PURCHASING ADDITIONAL
PROPERTY AND HAVING MIN.
300 CONTIGUOUS FEET
VACANT LOT
HOUSES (E) 300
CONTIGUOUS
FEET
(E) SHOP /
MAINTENECE
YARD TO REMAIN
2023
- 2030 2030 - 2035
2033
-2035
1 DATE Description No.
AB
C
23 DRAFT RELEASE
Project Number
Checked By
Drawn By
Carlos
Walter PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT
VISALIA CEMETERY
1300 W GOSHEN AVE
VISALIA, CA 93292
2139.2
11/23/2021
PRELIMINARY SPR RELEASE 05/13/2022
WALTER DEISSLER
ARCHITECT
WALTER DEISSLER
No. C14829
N S E
D
E C I
L
I T E C
H C R
A
T
E
O F
T A T S
I F
L A C
O R N I A
REN. 02.23
PRELIM SPR REVIEW 10/4/2022SPR SUBMITTAL 10/21/2022DRAFT RELEASE 08/11/2023
EXHIBIT B B
1" = 160'-0" 1
EXHIBIT C
784
NORTH
604 618 700 704 706 808
916 918
1410
1420
1430
N R I N A L D I S T
W S A D Y C T
W G O S H E N A V E
816
919
N T U R N E R S T
W A L L E N A V E
PROPOSED ENTRANCE/
EXIT DRIVEWAY CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK 10' - 0"
20' WIDE DRIVE LANE
LEGEND
CEMETERY OWNED
AND ZONED QP
PROPERTIES
ZONE CHANGE TO
QUASI PUBLIC
N G I D D I N G S S T
N P A R K S T
W R O O S E V E L T A V E
N G I D D I N G S S T
ENTRANCE
EXISTING OFFICE
EXISTING
MAUSOLEUM
EXISTING CHAPEL
EXISTING
MAUSOLEUM
PROPOSED INTERNAL
DRIVE LANES
1010
1421 1000
BOUNDARY LINE
DEPICTS CEMETERY
MASTER PLAN
VACANT
PROPERTIES
20' - 0" 10' - 0"
SITE
IMPROVEMENT
N RINALDI ST
CEMETERY
DRIVE LANE
DRIVE LANE
CONCRETE CURB
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PLANTER
PRIVACY FENCE
1 DATE Description No.
AB
C
23 DRAFT RELEASE
Project Number
Checked By
Drawn By
Carlos
Walter PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT
VISALIA CEMETERY
1300 W GOSHEN AVE
VISALIA, CA 93292
2139.2
11/23/2021
PRELIMINARY SPR RELEASE 05/13/2022
WALTER DEISSLER
ARCHITECT
WALTER DEISSLER
No. C14829
N S E
D
E C I
L
I T E C
H C R
A
T
E
O F
T A T S
I F
L A C
O R N I A
REN. 02.23
PRELIM SPR REVIEW 10/4/2022SPR SUBMITTAL 10/21/2022DRAFT RELEASE 08/11/2023
EXHIBIT C C
1" = 10'-0"
1 CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT
785
1 DATE Description No.
AB
C
23 DRAFT RELEASE
Project Number
Checked By
Drawn By
Carlos
Walter PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT
VISALIA CEMETERY
1300 W GOSHEN AVE
VISALIA, CA 93292
2139.2
11/23/2021
PRELIMINARY SPR RELEASE 05/13/2022
WALTER DEISSLER
ARCHITECT
WALTER DEISSLER
No. C14829 N S
E
D
E
C
I
L
I
T
E
C
H
C
R
A
T
E
O
F
T
A
T S
I
F
L
A C
O
R
N
I A
REN. 02.23
PRELIM SPR REVIEW 10/4/2022SPR SUBMITTAL 10/21/2022DRAFT RELEASE 08/11/2023
EXHIBITS D&E D&E
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
786
Operations Statement
The Visalia Public Cemetery District’s Mission is to provide burial services to families in a respectful and dignified manner. To achieve this goal, as noted on the site plan exhibit A. Several of these properties are currently zoned QP and our request is to rezone the other lots to conform with the 2005 Visalia Public Cemetery District Land Use Plan . This will allow usage of the parcels for cemetery operations and burial sites. This use is prohibited in residential zones but is permitted in the QP zone. All 15 sites proposed for reclassification are owned by the Cemetery District. Of these properties 8 are vacant sites. Please see Exhibit C for vacant properties. These properties shall serve as new burial sites and will adhere to the 300 lineal feet of lot frontage which is a condition of approval for the 2005 Master Plan.
Currently the Cemetery district has 1298 full body spaces and 468 ash spaces. This current inventory will allow for approximately 7 years of sales at 250 per year. As The Visalia Cemetery District increases their burial sites it will most likely occur at a slower pace since the burials are trending toward cremation which takes up less space. Therefore, the Cemetery District Board of Trustees has decided not to increase the Master Plan area along Turner and has withdrawn that portion of their application.
Also, as the Cemetery adheres to the 2005 Master Plan, they need to enhance the internal circulation.
The Cemetery District would install 1 driveway to Rinaldi which would be in the middle of the 3 streets shown on Exhibit D. This would offer new direct access to the West. The other 2 street extensions would T into a frontage road paralleling Rinaldi inside the Cemetery. This would allow funeral processions to arrive on site without all of them entering the main gate to the South (Giddings). The Cemetery already has South and East entrances. Additionally, along the Rinaldi frontage the Cemetery District would install a new fence as shown in exhibits D & E, similar in style to the fence along Goshen Avenue.
We would like to address several Items that were of concern at the May 1,2023 City Council Meeting.
1. Rental/Ownership Terms:
The Visalia Public Cemetery Districts Board of Trustees, at its May 14 Board Meeting voted unanimously that they will not impose eminent domain when purchasing new properties for Cemetery use. Additionally, Tenants in existing properties which the Cemetery District owns will be given 90 days’ notice along with 90 days free rent. Please refer to the attached Rental Policy #2023-2.
2. Community Meeting:
As requested by the City Council the Visalia Public Cemetery District held a Community Meeting on _June 15,2023 @ 6pm in the Pavilion at the Visalia Public Cemetery. The meeting was posted, and Cemetery District staff hand delivered notices to residents on both Turner and Rinaldi streets. A very small representation of the neighborhood attended the meeting. One resident on Turner St who owns her home was concerned with the Cemetery expanding into her neighborhood. Upon hearing that the Turner St expansion was being removed from the application, it appeared she was relieved.
Only one resident from Rinaldi St attended. There were 3 individuals from outside the Rinaldi St neighborhood one of whom spoke to the importance of having your family together for 787
generations in one Cemetery. Currently, she has 22 relatives buried in the Visalia Cemetery dating back to the early 1900’s.
3. Affordable Housing and Purchasing of homes along Rinaldi:
According to the Housing Element Adopted by the City of Visalia none of the sites listed in the project proposal are identified in the Housing Element site inventory list.
The Government Code Section 66300 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) is a state law tailored to preserve residential land by limiting land use changes that result in a net loss of residential capacity. Per staff and the City Attorney analysis of the State Law, the project is not subject to its provisions. Plans for rezone and growth approved by the city for the Cemetery District in 2005 are not subject to Government Code Section 66300 as they were implemented prior to the 2019 ratification of the law.
The Cemetery District has been purchasing properties along Rinaldi as far back as the 1980’s The sellers have been paid at fair market value and as shown on attached letters have solicited the Cemetery District to purchase their homes. Additionally the Visalia Unified School District sold a southern piece of their property to Visalia Public Cemetery District . Please see attached newspaper clipping that describes the sale of property.
4. Demo Permits along Rinaldi
During the City Council meeting, it was noted by a member of the public that demo permits along Rinaldi St may have not been pulled. We just want to confirm that we have worked closely with the City of Visalia Planning Department to confirm all permits have been pulled for all recent demolition projects along Rinaldi St. Attached is the permit documentation for the demo permits at The Visalia Cemetery District.
788
5. Pioneer Cemeteries
During the City Council meeting members of the public requested the Visalia Cemetery expand the existing Pioneer Cemeteries. We have worked closely with Tulare County Board of Supervisors, the Tulare County assessor’s office, and the Tulare County recorder’s office to search for old records. We have researched through all channels to find if ownership was given to the Visalia Cemetery. The recorder’s office has no information for Elbow Creek Cemetery.
The only document found for Lone Oak is an affidavit. The document reads Thelma P Findley declares that she is the legal successor to the appointed trustees J.M. Tout and Frank Brundage.
This document was signed in 1970. Chicago Title has the Visalia Cemetery District as the owner.
The question remains when and where did ownership change from Thelma P. Findley. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have clear evidence about these other two cemeteries. It is a difficult situation and unfortunately when these cemeteries were started there was no mechanism for maintenance. Historical information indicates that these cemeteries started as family cemeteries as records indicate most grave sites with the same family name. A list of names has been compiled of those buried at each site, but no documentation or records are known for locations of any burials. The two Cemeteries are minimal in size, Lone Oak is .29 of an acre and Elbow Creek is 3.12 acres. They were cared for by families with loved ones who are buried there. What complicates it further is no water on site to maintain any type of vegetation. The Visalia Cemetery will continue to help and support with the maintenance of both properties.
6. Second Site
A second site with the appropriate acreage, fencing, water, landscaping, equipment, facilities, and workforce was deemed to be fiscally prohibitive and administratively burdensome. The land use plan, approved by the City Council in 2005, for the current cemetery site is considered adequate for the foreseeable future. During public comments, the issue of continuity of families interred was raised as another overarching theme supporting a single site for Visalia Public Cemetery District.
As the Visalia Public Cemetery District, we continue to serve the entire District (see attached map) and request this area to be rezoned so we can continue this tradition. 789
Visalia Public Cemetery District
1300 W. Goshen Avenue, Visalia, CA 932921
SUBJECT: RENTAL POLICY REGARDING A 90-DAY NOTICE
POLICY NO.: 2023-2
Effec�ve Date: August 30, 2023
Revised Date:
If the Visalia Public Cemetery’s Board of Trustees finds the need to expand Visalia Public Cemetery District owned property to be used for burial space, a tenant who resides in a Visalia Public Cemetery District owned home will be given a 90-day no�ce to vacate. The no�ce will be given to the tenant by the current management company on behalf of the Visalia Public Cemetery District’s Board of Trustees. A�er the 90-day no�ce is given to the tenant, the tenant will be given free rent for ninety days, prior to vaca�ng the premises.
The 90-day no�ce to vacate will not apply if a tenant is being evicted for non-payment of rent, damages to the Cemetery owned property, or non-compliance with the rules and regula�ons of the current property management company.