Agenda packet — Porterville City Council, March 1, 2022 (part 6 of 7)

29.1 0.0 0.0 34.1 0.0 0.0 42.9 11.8 11.9 52.4 14.3 14.4

C C D B B D B B
314 397 621 403

29.1 34.1 18.7 19.8

C C B B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 8

8.5 51.9 29.6 13.8 46.6 29.6

4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0

8.4 30.4 38.0 16.4 22.4 38.0

5.1 8.9 16.2 9.3 7.1 23.1

0.0 2.9 2.8 0.2 2.7 2.5

24.3 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Newcomb St & Westfield Ave
PM Future+Project
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
19 184 131 64 245 83 179 357 89 52 291 28
19 184 131 64 245 83 179 357 89 52 291 28
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1750 1863 1750 1750 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 21 200 142 70 266 90 195 388 97 57 316 30
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
58 306 206 106 323 102 240 1427 352 81 1345 127

0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.51 0.50 0.05 0.41 0.41 50 996 672 194 1051 334 1634 2798 691 1634 3261 307
363 0 0 426 0 0 195 244 241 57 170 176
1718 0 0 1579 0 0 1634 1770 1719 1634 1770 1798

0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 10.4 7.0 7.2 3.1 5.6 5.7

16.6 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 10.4 7.0 7.2 3.1 5.6 5.7

0.06 0.39 0.16 0.21 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.17
570 0 0 531 0 0 240 902 877 81 730 742

0.64 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.27 0.28 0.70 0.23 0.24 724 0 0 679 0 0 363 902 877 145 730 742

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00

27.4 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 37.2 12.5 12.6 42.1 17.2 17.2

1.2 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.4 0.4 10.4 0.7 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8.1 0.0 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.6 3.5 1.6 2.9 3.0

28.6 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 41.7 12.9 13.1 52.5 17.9 18.0

C C D B B D B B
363 426 680 403

28.6 34.7 21.2 22.8

C C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 8

8.5 49.9 31.6 17.2 41.1 31.6

4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0

7.4 33.4 36.0 19.4 21.4 36.0

5.1 9.2 18.6 12.4 7.7 25.1

0.0 3.0 3.0 0.3 2.6 2.5

26.1 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Newcomb St & Westfield Ave
PM Future+Project with Mitigationï¿½
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
19 184 131 64 245 83 179 357 89 52 291 28
19 184 131 64 245 83 179 357 89 52 291 28
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1750 1863 1750 1750 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 21 200 142 70 266 90 195 388 97 57 316 30
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
80 310 209 132 348 109 130 1214 300 85 1326 125

0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.43 0.42 0.05 0.41 0.40 47 1010 679 194 1135 356 1634 2797 691 1634 3261 307
363 0 0 426 0 0 195 244 241 57 170 176
1737 0 0 1684 0 0 1634 1770 1718 1634 1770 1798

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 5.2 5.4 2.0 3.7 3.7

10.6 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 5.2 5.4 2.0 3.7 3.7

0.06 0.39 0.16 0.21 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.17
599 0 0 589 0 0 130 768 746 85 720 731

0.61 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.32 0.32 0.67 0.24 0.24 707 0 0 731 0 0 130 768 746 130 720 731

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.52 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00

17.6 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 26.7 10.8 10.9 27.0 11.3 11.3

0.6 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0251.4 0.7 0.7 8.9 0.8 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.1 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 11.1 2.7 2.7 1.1 2.0 2.0

18.2 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0278.1 11.5 11.6 36.0 12.1 12.1

B C F B B D B B
363 426 680 403

18.2 21.1 88.0 15.5

B C F B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 8

7.0 29.2 21.8 8.6 27.6 21.8

4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0

4.0 18.0 21.6 4.0 18.0 23.0

4.0 7.4 12.6 6.6 5.7 15.3

0.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 2.5 2.1

43.6 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Newcomb St & Westfield Ave
AM Existing
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
22 177 95 96 112 34 47 163 70 71 266 14
22 177 95 96 112 34 47 163 70 71 266 14
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1750 1863 1750 1750 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 24 192 103 104 122 37 51 177 76 77 289 15
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
83 273 138 198 193 50 80 1168 479 111 1709 88

0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.48 0.47 0.07 0.50 0.49 68 1117 565 456 789 204 1634 2428 996 1634 3419 177
319 0 0 263 0 0 51 127 126 77 149 155
1750 0 0 1450 0 0 1634 1770 1655 1634 1770 1826

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7

9.6 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7

0.08 0.32 0.40 0.14 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.10
494 0 0 441 0 0 80 851 796 111 884 913

0.65 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.15 0.16 0.70 0.17 0.17 710 0 0 656 0 0 130 851 796 130 884 913

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00

20.2 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 27.1 8.4 8.6 26.5 7.9 7.9

1.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.3 0.4 12.5 0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.9 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.4

21.6 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.0 0.0 34.2 8.7 8.9 38.9 8.3 8.4

C C C A A D A A
319 263 304 381

21.6 21.2 13.1 14.5

C C B B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 8

7.9 31.9 18.2 6.8 33.0 18.2

4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0

4.0 18.0 21.6 4.0 18.0 23.0

4.7 4.5 11.6 3.8 4.7 11.6

0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.8

17.4 B
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Newcomb St & Westfield Ave
AM Existing+Project
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
22 200 142 96 120 34 63 163 70 71 266 14
22 200 142 96 120 34 63 163 70 71 266 14
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1750 1863 1750 1750 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 24 217 154 104 130 37 68 177 76 77 289 15
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
81 283 190 197 220 52 99 1075 441 111 1538 79

0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.44 0.43 0.07 0.45 0.44 52 1000 672 393 777 185 1634 2428 996 1634 3419 177
395 0 0 271 0 0 68 127 126 77 149 155
1725 0 0 1355 0 0 1634 1770 1654 1634 1770 1826

2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.0

12.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.0

0.06 0.39 0.38 0.14 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.10
553 0 0 469 0 0 99 784 732 111 796 822

0.71 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.16 0.17 0.70 0.19 0.19 704 0 0 626 0 0 130 784 732 130 796 822

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00

19.3 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 26.7 9.7 9.9 26.5 9.6 9.6

2.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.4 0.4 12.5 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6

21.8 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 35.1 10.1 10.3 38.9 10.1 10.1

C B D B B D B B
395 271 321 381

21.8 19.3 15.5 15.9

C B B B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 8

7.9 29.7 20.4 7.5 30.1 20.4

4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0

4.0 18.0 21.6 4.0 18.0 23.0

4.7 4.7 14.2 4.4 5.0 12.2

0.0 1.6 1.7 0.0 1.6 2.1

18.2 B
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Newcomb St & Westfield Ave
AM Future
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
33 263 141 143 166 51 70 242 104 106 395 21
33 263 141 143 166 51 70 242 104 106 395 21
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1750 1863 1750 1750 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 36 286 153 155 180 55 76 263 113 115 429 23
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
93 400 203 233 238 63 109 853 355 130 1248 67

0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.35 0.34 0.08 0.37 0.36 73 1110 562 407 661 175 1634 2415 1005 1634 3411 182
475 0 0 390 0 0 76 190 186 115 222 230
1745 0 0 1243 0 0 1634 1770 1650 1634 1770 1824

0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 4.5 4.8 4.0 5.3 5.3

13.7 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 4.5 4.8 4.0 5.3 5.3

0.08 0.32 0.40 0.14 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.10
696 0 0 535 0 0 109 625 583 130 647 667

0.68 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.30 0.32 0.89 0.34 0.34 716 0 0 582 0 0 130 625 583 130 647 667

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00

16.3 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 13.6 13.8 26.4 13.3 13.4

2.6 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.8 0.9 46.8 1.4 1.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7.1 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.4 2.3 3.5 2.8 2.9

18.9 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 34.2 14.4 14.7 73.3 14.8 14.8

B C C B B E B B
475 390 452 567

18.9 21.3 17.8 26.6

B C B C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 8

8.6 24.5 24.9 7.9 25.2 24.9

4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0

4.0 18.0 21.6 4.0 18.0 23.0

6.0 6.8 15.7 4.6 7.3 19.3

0.0 2.4 2.0 0.0 2.3 1.5

21.5 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Newcomb St & Westfield Ave
AM Future+Project
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
33 286 188 143 174 51 86 242 104 106 395 21
33 286 188 143 174 51 86 242 104 106 395 21
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1750 1863 1750 1750 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 36 311 204 155 189 55 93 263 113 115 429 23
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
90 394 245 221 239 60 130 804 334 130 1135 61

0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.33 0.32 0.08 0.33 0.32 62 1033 644 353 628 157 1634 2414 1004 1634 3411 182
551 0 0 399 0 0 93 190 186 115 222 230
1739 0 0 1138 0 0 1634 1770 1649 1634 1770 1824

0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 4.7 4.9 4.0 5.5 5.6

16.6 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 3.2 4.7 4.9 4.0 5.5 5.6

0.07 0.37 0.39 0.14 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.10
729 0 0 520 0 0 130 589 549 130 589 607

0.76 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.32 0.34 0.89 0.38 0.38 729 0 0 540 0 0 130 589 549 130 589 607

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00

16.3 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 26.1 14.5 14.7 26.4 14.8 14.8

4.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.9 1.1 46.8 1.8 1.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8.9 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.4 2.4 3.5 3.0 3.1

20.8 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 37.5 15.4 15.7 73.3 16.6 16.6

C C D B B E B B
551 399 469 567

20.8 23.1 19.9 28.1

C C B C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 8

8.6 23.3 26.1 8.6 23.3 26.1

4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0

4.0 18.0 21.6 4.0 18.0 23.0

6.0 6.9 18.6 5.2 7.6 21.8

0.0 2.4 1.4 0.0 2.3 0.2

23.1 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Newcomb St & Westfield Ave
AM Future+Project with Mitigationï¿½
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
33 286 188 143 174 51 86 242 104 106 395 21
33 286 188 143 174 51 86 242 104 106 395 21
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1750 1863 1750 1750 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 36 311 204 155 189 55 93 263 113 115 429 23
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
90 394 245 221 239 60 130 804 334 130 1135 61

0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.33 0.32 0.08 0.33 0.32 62 1033 644 353 628 157 1634 2414 1004 1634 3411 182
551 0 0 399 0 0 93 190 186 115 222 230
1739 0 0 1138 0 0 1634 1770 1649 1634 1770 1824

0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 4.7 4.9 4.0 5.5 5.6

16.6 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 3.2 4.7 4.9 4.0 5.5 5.6

0.07 0.37 0.39 0.14 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.10
729 0 0 520 0 0 130 589 549 130 589 607

0.76 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.32 0.34 0.89 0.38 0.38 729 0 0 540 0 0 130 589 549 130 589 607

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.36 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00

16.3 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 26.1 14.5 14.7 26.4 14.8 14.8

1.7 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 12.9 1.1 1.2 46.8 1.8 1.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.4 2.4 3.5 3.0 3.1

18.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 39.0 15.5 15.9 73.3 16.6 16.6

B C D B B E B B
551 399 469 567

18.0 23.1 20.3 28.1

B C C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 4 5 6 8

8.6 23.3 26.1 8.6 23.3 26.1

4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0

4.0 18.0 21.6 4.0 18.0 23.0

6.0 6.9 18.6 5.2 7.6 21.8

0.0 2.4 1.4 0.0 2.3 0.2

22.4 C
Traffic Study 524-15
Intersection 5
Westwood St & Henderson Ave
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
PM Existing
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
44 133 34 81 120 85 25 197 108 93 191 29
44 133 34 81 120 85 25 197 108 93 191 29
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 48 145 37 88 130 92 27 214 117 101 208 32
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
70 254 190 121 313 239 47 984 750 137 1087 829

0.04 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.53 0.53 0.08 0.58 0.58 1634 1863 1395 1634 1863 1424 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421 48 145 37 88 130 92 27 214 117 101 208 32
1634 1863 1395 1634 1863 1424 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421

2.6 6.6 2.1 4.7 5.6 5.2 1.5 5.5 3.8 5.4 4.7 0.9

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
70 254 190 121 313 239 47 984 750 137 1087 829

0.69 0.57 0.19 0.73 0.42 0.38 0.58 0.22 0.16 0.74 0.19 0.04 131 538 403 200 617 472 109 984 750 236 1087 829

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

42.5 36.4 34.5 40.8 33.5 33.3 43.2 11.3 10.9 40.3 8.8 8.0

11.5 2.0 0.5 8.1 0.9 1.0 10.9 0.5 0.4 7.6 0.4 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.4 3.5 0.8 2.4 3.0 2.1 0.8 2.9 1.6 2.7 2.5 0.4

54.0 38.4 35.0 48.9 34.4 34.3 54.1 11.8 11.4 47.8 9.2 8.1

D D C D C C D B B D A A
230 310 358 341

41.1 38.5 14.9 20.5

D D B C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

11.5 51.5 10.7 16.3 6.6 56.5 7.8 19.1

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

12.4 23.4 10.4 25.4 5.4 30.4 6.6 29.2

7.4 7.5 6.7 8.6 3.5 6.7 4.6 7.6

0.1 1.8 0.1 1.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.4

27.2 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
PM Existing+Project
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
47 133 34 81 120 101 25 221 108 103 205 32
47 133 34 81 120 101 25 221 108 103 205 32
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 51 145 37 88 130 110 27 240 117 112 223 35
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
73 256 191 121 309 237 47 968 738 149 1085 828

0.04 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.52 0.52 0.09 0.58 0.58 1634 1863 1395 1634 1863 1424 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421 51 145 37 88 130 110 27 240 117 112 223 35
1634 1863 1395 1634 1863 1424 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421

2.8 6.6 2.1 4.7 5.6 6.3 1.5 6.4 3.9 6.0 5.1 0.9

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
73 256 191 121 309 237 47 968 738 149 1085 828

0.69 0.57 0.19 0.73 0.42 0.47 0.58 0.25 0.16 0.75 0.21 0.04 133 538 403 200 615 470 109 968 738 240 1085 828

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

42.4 36.3 34.4 40.8 33.6 33.9 43.2 11.9 11.3 39.9 8.9 8.0

11.1 2.0 0.5 8.1 0.9 1.4 10.9 0.6 0.5 7.3 0.4 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.5 3.5 0.8 2.4 3.0 2.6 0.8 3.4 1.6 3.0 2.7 0.4

53.5 38.3 34.9 48.9 34.5 35.3 54.1 12.5 11.8 47.2 9.3 8.1

D D C D C D D B B D A A
233 328 384 370

41.1 38.7 15.2 20.7

D D B C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

12.2 50.8 10.7 16.3 6.6 56.4 8.0 18.9

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

12.6 23.2 10.4 25.4 5.4 30.4 6.7 29.1

8.0 8.4 6.7 8.6 3.5 7.1 4.8 8.3

0.1 2.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.4

27.2 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
PM Future
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
65 198 51 120 178 126 68 537 294 217 445 68
65 198 51 120 178 126 68 537 294 217 445 68
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 71 215 55 130 193 137 74 584 320 236 484 74
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
152 304 229 140 290 222 103 795 605 240 951 725

0.09 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.51 0.51 1634 1863 1401 1634 1863 1423 1634 1863 1418 1634 1863 1420 71 215 55 130 193 137 74 584 320 236 484 74
1634 1863 1401 1634 1863 1423 1634 1863 1418 1634 1863 1420

3.7 9.8 2.5 7.1 8.8 5.7 4.0 23.6 10.1 13.0 15.5 1.5

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
152 304 229 140 290 222 103 795 605 240 951 725

0.47 0.71 0.24 0.93 0.67 0.62 0.72 0.73 0.53 0.98 0.51 0.10 152 536 403 140 555 424 127 795 605 240 951 725

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

38.7 35.6 21.1 40.9 35.8 17.7 41.4 21.5 8.6 38.3 14.6 4.1

2.2 3.0 0.5 55.3 2.6 2.8 14.0 6.0 3.3 53.7 1.9 0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.8 5.3 1.0 5.4 4.7 2.4 2.2 13.3 4.4 9.4 8.4 0.6

40.9 38.6 21.7 96.1 38.4 20.4 55.4 27.5 11.9 92.0 16.5 4.4

D D C F D C E C B F B A
341 460 978 794

36.4 49.4 24.5 37.8

D D C D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

17.2 42.4 11.7 18.7 9.7 49.9 12.4 18.0

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

12.6 26.6 7.1 25.3 6.4 32.8 6.2 26.2

15.0 25.6 9.1 11.8 6.0 17.5 5.7 10.8

0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 5.5 0.0 1.0

34.6 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
PM Future+Project
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
68 198 51 120 178 142 68 561 294 227 459 71
68 198 51 120 178 142 68 561 294 227 459 71
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 74 215 55 130 193 154 74 610 320 247 499 77
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
102 293 220 146 344 263 102 810 617 264 996 759

0.06 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.16 0.53 0.53 1634 1863 1400 1634 1863 1426 1634 1863 1418 1634 1863 1420 74 215 55 130 193 154 74 610 320 247 499 77
1634 1863 1400 1634 1863 1426 1634 1863 1418 1634 1863 1420

4.5 11.2 2.9 8.0 9.6 10.1 4.5 28.1 11.5 15.2 17.4 2.7

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
102 293 220 146 344 263 102 810 617 264 996 759

0.73 0.73 0.25 0.89 0.56 0.59 0.73 0.75 0.52 0.93 0.50 0.10 120 473 355 146 502 384 122 810 617 264 996 759

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

47.0 40.9 25.3 46.0 37.8 38.0 47.0 24.2 9.8 42.2 15.1 11.7

16.7 3.5 0.6 44.3 1.4 2.1 16.2 6.4 3.1 38.0 1.8 0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.5 6.1 1.1 5.4 5.1 4.1 2.5 15.8 5.0 9.7 9.4 1.1

63.7 44.5 25.9 90.2 39.3 40.1 63.2 30.6 12.9 80.3 16.9 12.0

E D C F D D E C B F B B
344 477 1004 823

45.6 53.4 27.4 35.5

D D C D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

20.5 48.4 13.1 20.0 10.3 58.5 10.3 22.8

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

15.9 33.9 8.5 25.3 7.0 42.8 6.9 26.9

17.2 30.1 10.0 13.2 6.5 19.4 6.5 12.1

0.0 2.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 6.6 0.0 1.5

37.0 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
PM Future+Project with Mitigationï¿½
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
68 198 51 120 178 142 68 561 294 227 459 71
68 198 51 120 178 142 68 561 294 227 459 71
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 74 215 55 130 193 154 74 610 320 247 499 77
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
100 292 220 163 364 278 100 1546 620 283 1022 780

0.06 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.17 0.55 0.55 1634 1863 1400 1634 1863 1427 1634 3539 1419 1634 1863 1421 74 215 55 130 193 154 74 610 320 247 499 77
1634 1863 1400 1634 1863 1427 1634 1770 1419 1634 1863 1421

5.3 13.2 4.1 9.3 11.2 11.7 5.3 14.1 19.7 17.7 19.8 3.1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
100 292 220 163 364 278 100 1546 620 283 1022 780

0.74 0.74 0.25 0.80 0.53 0.55 0.74 0.39 0.52 0.87 0.49 0.10 155 404 303 245 506 388 155 1546 620 395 1022 780

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98

55.4 48.2 44.4 52.8 43.4 43.6 55.4 23.0 24.6 48.3 16.7 12.9

10.1 4.4 0.6 10.4 1.2 1.7 10.1 0.8 3.1 14.1 1.6 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7 7.2 1.6 4.7 5.9 4.7 2.7 7.0 8.2 9.1 10.6 1.3

65.5 52.6 45.0 63.2 44.6 45.3 65.5 23.7 27.6 62.4 18.3 13.2

E D D E D D E C C E B B
344 477 1004 823

54.2 49.9 28.1 31.1

D D C C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

24.8 56.4 16.0 22.8 11.4 69.9 11.4 27.4

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

28.4 30.4 17.4 25.4 10.8 48.0 10.8 32.0

19.7 21.7 11.3 15.2 7.3 21.8 7.3 13.7

0.5 4.3 0.2 1.7 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.1

36.3 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
AM Existing
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
38 95 38 101 80 151 38 299 97 110 381 50
38 95 38 101 80 151 38 299 97 110 381 50
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 41 103 41 110 87 164 41 325 105 120 414 54
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
93 207 154 146 268 204 60 978 746 158 1090 831

0.06 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.58 0.58 1634 1863 1387 1634 1863 1421 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421 41 103 41 110 87 164 41 325 105 120 414 54
1634 1863 1387 1634 1863 1421 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421

2.2 4.7 2.4 5.9 3.8 7.7 2.2 9.0 3.4 6.4 10.7 0.9

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
93 207 154 146 268 204 60 978 746 158 1090 831

0.44 0.50 0.27 0.75 0.33 0.80 0.68 0.33 0.14 0.76 0.38 0.06 123 536 399 200 623 475 91 978 746 218 1090 831

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

41.1 37.7 36.7 40.0 34.6 22.0 42.8 12.3 11.0 39.6 10.0 3.1

3.3 1.9 0.9 10.1 0.7 7.2 12.7 0.9 0.4 9.8 1.0 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.1 2.5 1.0 3.1 2.0 3.4 1.2 4.9 1.4 3.3 5.7 0.4

44.3 39.5 37.6 50.1 35.3 29.2 55.5 13.2 11.4 49.4 11.0 3.2

D D D D D C E B B D B A
185 361 471 588

40.1 37.0 16.5 18.1

D D B B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

12.7 51.3 12.1 14.0 7.3 56.6 9.1 16.9

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

11.4 24.5 10.4 25.3 4.4 31.5 6.2 29.5

8.4 11.0 7.9 6.7 4.2 12.7 4.2 9.7

0.1 2.9 0.1 0.5 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.8

24.4 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
AM Existing+Project
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
39 95 38 101 80 156 38 306 97 125 402 55
39 95 38 101 80 156 38 306 97 125 402 55
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 42 103 41 110 87 170 41 333 105 136 437 60
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
62 223 167 146 320 245 60 942 718 175 1073 819

0.04 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.58 0.58 1634 1863 1391 1634 1863 1425 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421 42 103 41 110 87 170 41 333 105 136 437 60
1634 1863 1391 1634 1863 1425 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421

2.3 4.6 2.4 5.9 3.7 10.1 2.2 9.7 3.6 7.3 11.7 1.7

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
62 223 167 146 320 245 60 942 718 175 1073 819

0.68 0.46 0.25 0.75 0.27 0.70 0.68 0.35 0.15 0.78 0.41 0.07 125 536 400 200 621 475 91 942 718 218 1073 819

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

42.8 36.9 35.9 40.0 32.4 35.1 42.8 13.4 11.9 39.1 10.6 8.4

12.5 1.5 0.8 10.1 0.5 3.5 12.7 1.0 0.4 12.9 1.1 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 2.5 1.0 3.1 1.9 4.2 1.2 5.2 1.5 3.9 6.3 0.7

55.2 38.4 36.7 50.1 32.8 38.6 55.5 14.4 12.3 52.1 11.7 8.6

E D D D C D E B B D B A
186 367 479 633

41.8 40.7 17.5 20.1

D D B C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

13.7 49.5 12.1 14.8 7.3 55.8 7.4 19.5

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

11.4 24.5 10.4 25.3 4.4 31.5 6.3 29.4

9.3 11.7 7.9 6.6 4.2 13.7 4.3 12.1

0.1 3.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.3

26.3 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
AM Future
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
56 141 56 150 119 224 104 815 264 256 888 116
56 141 56 150 119 224 104 815 264 256 888 116
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 61 153 61 163 129 243 113 886 287 278 965 126
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
94 230 172 150 294 224 109 950 724 231 1089 831

0.06 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.51 0.51 0.14 0.58 0.58 1634 1863 1392 1634 1863 1423 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421 61 153 61 163 129 243 113 886 287 278 965 126
1634 1863 1392 1634 1863 1423 1634 1863 1420 1634 1863 1421

4.4 9.4 4.8 11.0 7.5 14.0 8.0 53.4 14.9 17.0 53.6 3.3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
94 230 172 150 294 224 109 950 724 231 1089 831

0.65 0.66 0.35 1.09 0.44 1.08 1.04 0.93 0.40 1.20 0.89 0.15 142 402 300 150 411 314 109 950 724 231 1089 831

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

55.4 50.2 48.2 54.5 45.7 27.7 56.0 27.5 18.1 51.5 21.5 5.2

7.3 3.3 1.2 99.1 1.0 72.1 96.6 16.9 1.6124.3 10.6 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.2 5.1 1.9 9.1 4.0 10.0 6.5 31.8 6.1 15.6 30.6 1.4

62.7 53.5 49.4153.6 46.8 99.9153.2 44.4 19.7175.8 32.1 5.6

E D D F D F F D B F C A
275 535 1286 1369

54.6 103.4 48.5 58.8

D F D E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

21.0 65.2 15.0 18.8 12.0 74.2 10.9 22.9

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

16.4 49.5 10.4 25.3 7.4 58.5 9.8 25.9

19.0 55.4 13.0 11.4 10.0 55.6 6.4 16.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.4 0.3 1.0

61.5 E
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
AM Future+Project
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
57 141 56 150 119 229 104 822 264 271 909 121
57 141 56 150 119 229 104 822 264 271 909 121
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 62 153 61 163 129 249 113 893 287 295 988 132
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
85 228 170 212 372 285 95 866 660 245 1037 791

0.05 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.15 0.56 0.56 1634 1863 1391 1634 1863 1427 1634 1863 1419 1634 1863 1421 62 153 61 163 129 249 113 893 287 295 988 132
1634 1863 1391 1634 1863 1427 1634 1863 1419 1634 1863 1421

4.5 9.4 4.1 11.6 7.1 20.3 7.0 55.8 10.0 18.0 60.1 5.5

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
85 228 170 212 372 285 95 866 660 245 1037 791

0.73 0.67 0.36 0.77 0.35 0.87 1.19 1.03 0.44 1.20 0.95 0.17 101 402 300 212 442 339 95 866 660 245 1037 791

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

56.0 50.4 34.6 50.5 41.3 46.6 56.5 32.1 8.1 51.0 25.1 13.0

19.2 3.4 1.3 15.8 0.6 19.1150.5 38.9 2.1123.8 18.7 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.5 5.1 1.6 6.1 3.7 9.5 7.1 38.0 4.2 16.5 36.1 2.2

75.3 53.8 35.9 66.2 41.8 65.7207.0 71.1 10.2174.8 43.9 13.5

E D D E D E F F B F D B
276 541 1293 1415

54.6 60.2 69.4 68.3

D E E E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

22.0 59.8 19.6 18.7 11.0 70.8 10.3 28.0

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

17.4 49.5 9.4 25.3 6.4 60.5 6.8 27.9

20.0 57.8 13.6 11.4 9.0 62.1 6.5 22.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

66.4 E
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Westwood St & Henderson Ave
AM Future+Project with Mitigationï¿½
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
57 141 56 150 119 229 104 822 264 271 909 121
57 141 56 150 119 229 104 822 264 271 909 121
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 62 153 61 163 129 249 113 893 287 295 988 132
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
85 228 170 212 372 285 95 1645 660 245 1037 791

0.05 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.15 0.56 0.56 1634 1863 1391 1634 1863 1427 1634 3539 1419 1634 1863 1421 62 153 61 163 129 249 113 893 287 295 988 132
1634 1863 1391 1634 1863 1427 1634 1770 1419 1634 1863 1421

4.5 9.4 4.1 11.6 7.1 20.3 7.0 21.7 10.0 18.0 60.1 5.5

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
85 228 170 212 372 285 95 1645 660 245 1037 791

0.73 0.67 0.36 0.77 0.35 0.87 1.19 0.54 0.44 1.20 0.95 0.17 101 402 300 212 442 339 95 1645 660 245 1037 791

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92

56.0 50.4 34.6 50.5 41.3 46.6 56.5 23.0 8.1 51.0 25.1 13.0

19.2 3.4 1.3 15.8 0.6 19.1150.5 1.3 2.1121.7 17.7 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.5 5.1 1.6 6.1 3.7 9.5 7.1 10.8 4.2 16.4 35.8 2.2

75.3 53.8 35.9 66.2 41.8 65.7207.0 24.3 10.2172.7 42.8 13.4

E D D E D E F C B F D B
276 541 1293 1415

54.6 60.2 37.1 67.2

D E D E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

22.0 59.8 19.6 18.7 11.0 70.8 10.3 28.0

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

17.4 49.5 9.4 25.3 6.4 60.5 6.8 27.9

20.0 23.7 13.6 11.4 9.0 62.1 6.5 22.3

0.0 13.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

54.1 D
Traffic Study 524-15
Intersection 6
Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
PM Existing
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
57 328 59 169 352 232 91 209 187 139 162 39
57 328 59 169 352 232 91 209 187 139 162 39
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 62 357 64 184 383 252 99 227 203 151 176 42
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
88 1151 204 218 864 666 134 348 295 182 631 146

0.05 0.38 0.38 0.13 0.46 0.46 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.22 0.22 1634 2996 531 1634 1863 1435 1634 1797 1525 1634 2832 656 62 209 212 184 383 252 99 223 207 151 108 110
1634 1770 1758 1634 1863 1435 1634 1770 1553 1634 1770 1719

3.4 7.4 7.6 9.9 12.5 10.3 5.3 10.5 11.2 8.1 4.5 4.8

1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.38
88 680 675 218 864 666 134 343 301 182 394 383

0.71 0.31 0.31 0.84 0.44 0.38 0.74 0.65 0.69 0.83 0.27 0.29 114 680 675 218 864 666 207 564 495 182 537 521

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99

41.9 19.4 19.5 38.1 16.3 15.7 40.4 33.5 34.0 39.2 29.0 29.1

12.8 1.2 1.2 21.7 1.4 1.4 7.7 2.1 2.8 26.5 0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.8 3.8 3.9 5.8 6.7 4.3 2.7 5.3 5.0 5.0 2.3 2.3

54.7 20.5 20.7 59.8 17.7 17.1 48.1 35.6 36.8 65.7 29.3 29.6

D C C E B B D D D E C C
483 819 529 369

25.0 26.9 38.4 44.3

C C D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

14.0 21.4 16.0 38.6 11.4 24.0 8.8 45.8

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

9.4 28.1 11.4 22.7 10.8 26.7 5.7 28.4

10.1 13.2 11.9 9.6 7.3 6.8 5.4 14.5

0.0 2.1 0.0 3.4 0.1 2.3 0.0 3.5

32.2 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
PM Existing+Project
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
57 344 63 169 378 260 97 235 187 155 177 39
57 344 63 169 378 260 97 235 187 155 177 39
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 62 374 68 184 411 283 105 255 203 168 192 42
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
87 1110 200 223 847 652 140 373 285 207 686 146

0.05 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.20 0.19 0.13 0.24 0.23 1634 2988 538 1634 1863 1435 1634 1894 1445 1634 2884 615 62 220 222 184 411 283 105 238 220 168 116 118
1634 1770 1757 1634 1863 1435 1634 1770 1569 1634 1770 1729

3.5 8.5 8.7 10.4 14.7 12.7 6.0 11.8 12.5 9.5 5.1 5.3

1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.36
87 657 653 223 847 652 140 349 309 207 421 411

0.71 0.33 0.34 0.82 0.49 0.43 0.75 0.68 0.71 0.81 0.28 0.29 112 657 653 241 847 652 225 535 474 224 533 521

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99

44.2 21.4 21.6 39.9 18.1 17.6 42.4 35.4 35.9 40.4 29.5 29.7

13.8 1.4 1.4 17.3 1.8 1.9 7.7 2.3 3.0 18.6 0.3 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.9 4.4 4.5 5.8 7.9 5.4 3.0 6.0 5.7 5.4 2.5 2.6

58.1 22.8 23.0 57.2 19.9 19.5 50.1 37.7 38.9 59.0 29.9 30.1

E C C E B B D D D E C C
504 878 563 402

27.2 27.6 40.5 42.1

C C D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

16.0 22.7 17.0 39.3 12.2 26.6 9.1 47.2

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

12.4 28.1 13.4 22.7 12.5 28.0 5.9 30.2

11.5 14.5 12.4 10.7 8.0 7.3 5.5 16.7

0.0 2.2 0.1 3.6 0.1 2.5 0.0 3.8

33.1 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
PM Future
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
85 442 88 251 474 345 175 402 359 281 328 79
85 442 88 251 474 345 175 402 359 281 328 79
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 92 480 96 273 515 375 190 437 390 305 357 86
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
106 651 129 274 605 465 230 480 421 305 895 213

0.06 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.32 0.32 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.32 0.31 1634 2932 583 1634 1863 1432 1634 1770 1553 1634 2820 670 92 288 288 273 515 375 190 437 390 305 222 221
1634 1770 1745 1634 1863 1432 1634 1770 1553 1634 1770 1720

5.9 15.9 16.1 17.5 27.1 14.9 11.9 25.1 25.7 19.6 10.3 10.6

1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39
106 393 387 274 605 465 230 480 421 305 562 546

0.87 0.73 0.74 1.00 0.85 0.81 0.83 0.91 0.93 1.00 0.40 0.40 106 393 387 274 605 465 338 484 424 305 562 546

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98

48.7 38.0 38.1 43.7 33.1 11.4 43.9 37.0 37.5 42.7 28.0 28.2

49.1 11.6 12.1 36.6 7.3 7.1 10.4 21.1 26.1 51.0 0.4 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 9.0 9.1 10.7 15.1 6.8 6.0 15.1 14.0 13.1 5.1 5.1

97.7 49.5 50.3 80.3 40.4 18.5 54.3 58.2 63.6 93.7 28.4 28.6

F D D F D B D E E F C C
668 1163 1017 748

56.5 42.7 59.5 55.1

E D E E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

23.6 32.5 21.6 27.3 18.8 37.3 10.8 38.1

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

19.0 28.1 17.0 22.5 21.1 26.0 6.2 33.3

21.6 27.7 19.5 18.1 13.9 12.6 7.9 29.1

0.0 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.0 2.4

52.6 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
PM Future+Project
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
85 458 92 251 500 373 181 428 359 297 343 79
85 458 92 251 500 373 181 428 359 297 343 79
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 92 498 100 273 543 405 197 465 390 323 373 86
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
108 588 117 297 589 453 238 500 418 306 904 206

0.07 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.15 0.28 0.27 0.19 0.32 0.31 1634 2929 585 1634 1863 1432 1634 1813 1517 1634 2846 648 92 300 298 273 543 405 197 454 401 323 230 229
1634 1770 1744 1634 1863 1432 1634 1770 1560 1634 1770 1725

5.8 16.9 17.1 17.1 29.2 16.7 12.2 26.0 26.1 19.5 10.6 10.9

1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.38
108 356 350 297 589 453 238 488 430 306 562 548

0.85 0.84 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.05 0.41 0.42 108 393 387 297 589 453 393 488 431 306 562 548

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97

48.0 40.0 40.2 41.8 34.3 12.0 43.1 36.7 37.0 42.3 27.8 28.0

43.4 14.2 15.3 16.5 10.9 10.9 7.2 24.5 27.1 65.7 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 9.6 9.8 9.0 16.7 7.9 5.9 16.0 14.5 14.4 5.2 5.2

91.4 54.2 55.4 58.3 45.2 23.0 50.4 61.1 64.1107.9 28.3 28.5

F D E E D C D E E F C C
690 1221 1052 782

59.7 40.8 60.2 61.3

E D E E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

23.5 32.7 22.9 24.9 19.2 37.0 10.9 36.9

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

18.9 28.1 16.1 22.5 24.4 22.6 6.3 32.3

21.5 28.1 19.1 19.1 14.2 12.9 7.8 31.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 2.2 0.0 0.6

54.0 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
PM Future+Project with Mitigationï¿½
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
85 458 92 251 500 373 181 428 359 297 343 79
85 458 92 251 500 373 181 428 359 297 343 79
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 92 498 100 273 543 405 197 465 390 323 373 86
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
98 1068 213 98 679 522 98 559 468 98 878 200

0.06 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.31 0.30 0.06 0.31 0.30 1634 2931 585 1634 1863 1433 1634 1814 1518 1634 2846 648 92 300 298 273 543 405 197 454 401 323 230 229
1634 1770 1747 1634 1863 1433 1634 1770 1562 1634 1770 1724

4.3 10.0 10.1 4.6 20.1 19.3 4.6 18.4 18.5 4.6 8.0 8.2

1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.38
98 645 637 98 679 522 98 546 481 98 546 532

0.94 0.46 0.47 2.80 0.80 0.78 2.02 0.83 0.83 3.31 0.42 0.43 98 645 637 98 679 522 98 660 582 98 546 532

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.17 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91

36.1 18.7 18.8 36.2 22.0 21.7 36.2 24.8 25.1 36.2 21.2 21.3

72.4 2.4 2.5813.4 1.8 2.0492.2 7.6 8.61062.5 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 5.3 5.3 24.1 10.6 7.8 15.4 10.1 9.1 30.9 4.0 4.0
108.5 21.1 21.3849.6 23.7 23.7528.4 32.3 33.71098.7 21.6 21.8

F C C F C C F C C F C C
690 1221 1052 782

32.8 208.3 125.7 466.6

C F F F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8.6 27.7 8.6 32.1 8.6 27.7 8.6 32.1

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

4.0 28.1 4.0 22.4 4.0 21.0 4.0 21.0

6.6 20.5 6.6 12.1 6.6 10.2 6.3 22.1

0.0 2.2 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0
206.7
F
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
AM Existing
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
91 315 83 84 185 144 86 255 93 151 264 55
91 315 83 84 185 144 86 255 93 151 264 55
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 99 342 90 91 201 157 93 277 101 164 287 60
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
133 1228 318 124 814 627 127 453 161 205 657 135

0.08 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.23 0.22 1634 2773 719 1634 1863 1434 1634 2544 904 1634 2905 597 99 216 216 91 201 157 93 190 188 164 173 174
1634 1770 1722 1634 1863 1434 1634 1770 1678 1634 1770 1732

5.3 7.0 7.2 4.9 6.1 6.2 5.0 8.9 9.3 8.8 7.5 7.8

1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.34
133 784 763 124 814 627 127 315 299 205 400 391

0.74 0.28 0.28 0.74 0.25 0.25 0.73 0.60 0.63 0.80 0.43 0.45 163 784 763 145 814 627 202 564 535 236 602 589

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99

40.4 15.9 16.0 40.7 16.0 16.0 40.6 34.1 34.4 38.3 29.9 30.1

13.4 0.9 0.9 14.4 0.7 0.9 7.9 1.9 2.2 15.6 0.7 0.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.9 3.6 3.6 2.7 3.3 2.6 2.6 4.5 4.5 4.8 3.8 3.8

53.8 16.8 17.0 55.1 16.7 16.9 48.5 35.9 36.5 53.8 30.6 30.9

D B B E B B D D D D C C
531 449 471 511

23.8 24.5 38.6 38.1

C C D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

15.3 20.0 10.8 43.9 11.0 24.3 11.3 43.3

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

12.4 28.1 7.4 23.7 10.5 30.0 8.4 22.7

10.8 11.3 6.9 9.2 7.0 9.8 7.3 8.2

0.1 2.4 0.0 2.6 0.1 2.5 0.0 2.6

31.3 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
AM Existing+Project
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
91 339 89 84 193 152 88 263 93 175 287 55
91 339 89 84 193 152 88 263 93 175 287 55
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 99 368 97 91 210 165 96 286 101 190 312 60
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
133 1174 305 124 779 599 130 465 160 232 718 136

0.08 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.24 0.24 1634 2770 721 1634 1863 1434 1634 2567 885 1634 2952 559 99 233 232 91 210 165 96 195 192 190 185 187
1634 1770 1721 1634 1863 1434 1634 1770 1682 1634 1770 1741

5.3 7.9 8.1 4.9 6.7 6.8 5.2 9.1 9.5 10.2 8.0 8.2

1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.32
133 750 729 124 779 599 130 321 305 232 430 423

0.74 0.31 0.32 0.74 0.27 0.28 0.74 0.61 0.63 0.82 0.43 0.44 151 750 729 143 779 599 205 564 536 261 625 615

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99

40.4 17.2 17.4 40.7 17.2 17.2 40.5 33.9 34.2 37.5 28.8 29.0

16.0 1.1 1.1 14.9 0.8 1.1 7.8 1.9 2.1 16.7 0.7 0.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.0 4.0 4.0 2.7 3.6 2.9 2.6 4.6 4.6 5.7 4.0 4.0

56.4 18.3 18.5 55.6 18.0 18.3 48.3 35.8 36.4 54.2 29.5 29.7

E B B E B B D D D D C C
564 466 483 562

25.1 25.5 38.5 37.9

C C D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

16.8 20.3 10.8 42.1 11.2 25.9 11.3 41.6

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

13.8 28.1 7.3 22.4 10.7 31.2 7.7 22.0

12.2 11.5 6.9 10.1 7.2 10.2 7.3 8.8

0.1 2.5 0.0 2.6 0.1 2.6 0.0 2.7

31.8 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
AM Future
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
135 424 123 125 249 214 165 490 179 306 535 111
135 424 123 125 249 214 165 490 179 306 535 111
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 147 461 134 136 271 233 179 533 195 333 582 121
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
163 751 216 152 505 388 378 629 229 359 688 143

0.10 0.28 0.27 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.23 1634 2699 778 1634 1863 1431 1634 2527 921 1634 2901 601 147 301 294 136 271 233 179 372 356 333 354 349
1634 1770 1708 1634 1863 1431 1634 1770 1678 1634 1770 1732

8.9 14.8 15.0 8.3 13.9 15.7 9.5 20.0 20.2 20.0 19.1 19.2

1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.35
163 492 475 152 505 388 378 440 418 359 420 411

0.90 0.61 0.62 0.89 0.54 0.60 0.47 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.84 0.85 163 492 475 152 505 388 378 508 482 359 547 535

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92

44.5 31.4 31.6 48.0 39.5 40.3 33.2 35.7 36.0 38.2 36.4 36.5

42.7 5.6 6.0 41.1 3.7 6.1 0.9 11.2 12.3 27.9 8.5 9.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.9 8.0 7.9 5.5 7.7 6.9 4.4 11.1 10.8 11.8 10.3 10.2

87.3 37.0 37.6 89.1 43.2 46.5 34.1 47.0 48.2 66.1 44.9 45.6

F D D F D D C D D E D D
742 640 907 1036

47.2 54.1 44.9 51.9

D D D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

26.0 28.9 13.3 31.8 27.2 27.7 14.0 31.1

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

21.4 28.1 8.7 23.4 19.2 30.3 9.4 22.7

22.0 22.2 10.3 17.0 11.5 21.2 10.9 17.7

0.0 1.6 0.0 2.4 2.3 1.9 0.0 2.1

49.4 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
AM Future+Project
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
135 448 129 125 257 222 167 498 179 330 558 111
135 448 129 125 257 222 167 498 179 330 558 111
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 147 487 140 136 279 241 182 541 195 359 607 121
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
138 787 225 120 522 401 223 678 243 327 968 192

0.08 0.29 0.28 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.27 0.26 0.20 0.33 0.32 1634 2706 773 1634 1863 1431 1634 2539 911 1634 2927 582 147 317 310 136 279 241 182 376 360 359 366 362
1634 1770 1709 1634 1863 1431 1634 1770 1681 1634 1770 1739

8.0 14.7 14.9 7.0 12.0 13.8 10.3 18.8 19.0 19.0 16.6 16.7

1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.33
138 515 497 120 522 401 223 473 449 327 585 575

1.07 0.62 0.62 1.13 0.53 0.60 0.82 0.80 0.80 1.10 0.63 0.63 138 515 497 120 522 401 282 535 508 327 585 575

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89

43.5 29.1 29.3 44.0 28.9 29.6 39.9 32.4 32.6 38.0 26.8 27.0

96.2 5.4 5.8118.0 3.6 6.0 13.7 7.4 8.0 76.2 1.9 2.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7.3 7.9 7.9 7.1 6.7 6.1 5.5 10.2 9.8 15.5 8.3 8.4
139.7 34.6 35.1162.0 32.5 35.6 53.5 39.8 40.7114.2 28.7 28.9

F C D F C D D D D F C C
774 656 918 1087

54.7 60.5 42.9 57.0

D E D E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

23.0 29.4 11.0 31.6 17.0 35.4 12.0 30.6

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

18.4 28.1 6.4 23.7 15.8 30.7 7.4 22.7

21.0 21.0 9.0 16.9 12.3 18.7 10.0 15.8

0.0 3.3 0.0 2.6 0.2 4.7 0.0 2.7

53.4 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Newcomb St & Henderson Ave
AM Future+Project with Mitigationï¿½
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
135 448 129 125 257 222 167 498 179 330 558 111
135 448 129 125 257 222 167 498 179 330 558 111
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1750 147 487 140 136 279 241 182 541 195 359 607 121
1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
98 1042 297 98 717 552 98 731 263 98 843 168

0.06 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.29 0.28 0.06 0.29 0.28 1634 2707 773 1634 1863 1434 1634 2539 912 1634 2926 582 147 317 310 136 279 241 182 376 360 359 367 361
1634 1770 1711 1634 1863 1434 1634 1770 1681 1634 1770 1738

4.6 10.3 10.5 4.6 8.3 9.6 4.6 14.8 14.9 4.6 14.3 14.4

1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.33
98 681 658 98 717 552 98 510 484 98 510 501

1.51 0.47 0.47 1.39 0.39 0.44 1.86 0.74 0.74 3.68 0.72 0.72 98 681 658 98 717 552 98 660 627 98 510 501

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89

36.2 17.8 17.9 36.2 17.1 17.5 36.2 24.8 25.0 36.2 24.6 24.7 273.4 2.3 2.4214.8 1.1 1.8425.4 3.2 3.51227.2 4.4 4.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

9.5 5.5 5.4 7.9 4.5 4.0 13.6 7.7 7.4 35.3 7.5 7.6
309.6 20.0 20.3251.0 18.3 19.3461.6 28.0 28.41263.4 29.0 29.3

F C C F B B F C C F C C
774 656 918 1087

75.1 66.9 114.1 436.8

E E F F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8.6 26.2 8.6 33.6 8.6 26.2 8.6 33.6

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

4.0 28.1 4.0 22.4 4.0 21.0 4.0 21.0

6.6 16.9 6.6 12.5 6.6 16.4 6.6 11.6

0.0 3.9 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 3.2
198.4
F
Traffic Study 524-15
Intersection 7
Prospect St & Henderson Ave
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
PM Existing
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
188 514 90 188 525 226 123 192 117 252 188 100
188 514 90 188 525 226 123 192 117 252 188 100
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 204 559 98 204 571 246 134 209 127 274 204 109
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
180 1546 627 242 1681 682 114 353 204 294 344 260

0.11 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.18 1634 3539 1434 1634 3539 1435 1634 2140 1238 3268 1863 1404 204 559 98 204 571 246 134 171 165 274 204 109
1634 1770 1434 1634 1770 1435 1634 1770 1609 1634 1863 1404

11.0 10.6 4.1 12.2 10.1 10.9 7.0 8.9 9.6 8.3 10.0 6.9

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00
180 1546 627 242 1681 682 114 292 265 294 344 260

1.13 0.36 0.16 0.84 0.34 0.36 1.17 0.59 0.62 0.93 0.59 0.42 180 1546 627 273 1681 682 114 549 499 294 615 463

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

44.5 18.8 17.0 41.4 16.4 16.6 46.5 38.6 39.1 45.2 37.3 36.0 104.3 0.6 0.5 18.9 0.5 1.5137.5 1.9 2.4 34.9 1.6 1.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.2 5.2 1.7 6.8 5.0 4.6 7.5 4.5 4.4 5.2 5.3 2.7
148.8 19.4 17.5 60.4 17.0 18.1184.0 40.5 41.5 80.1 38.9 37.1

F B B E B B F D D F D D
861 1021 470 587

49.9 25.9 81.7 57.8

D C F E
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

13.0 20.5 18.8 47.7 11.0 22.5 15.0 51.5

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

8.4 30.4 16.1 26.7 6.4 32.4 10.4 32.4

10.3 11.6 14.2 12.6 9.0 12.0 13.0 12.9

0.0 2.2 0.1 5.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 6.4

48.2 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
PM Existing+Project
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
191 530 98 188 552 226 137 192 117 252 188 104
191 530 98 188 552 226 137 192 117 252 188 104
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 208 576 107 204 600 246 149 209 127 274 204 113
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
445 1525 618 241 1082 438 157 347 201 351 323 243

0.27 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.17 0.17 1634 3539 1434 1634 3539 1432 1634 2140 1238 3268 1863 1402 208 576 107 204 600 246 149 171 165 274 204 113
1634 1770 1434 1634 1770 1432 1634 1770 1608 1634 1863 1402

11.1 11.6 4.8 12.8 14.9 10.9 9.5 9.4 10.1 8.6 10.7 4.3

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00
445 1525 618 241 1082 438 157 287 261 351 323 243

0.47 0.38 0.17 0.85 0.55 0.56 0.95 0.60 0.63 0.78 0.63 0.46 445 1525 618 269 1082 438 157 524 476 373 585 441

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

31.8 20.3 18.4 43.6 30.5 15.8 47.2 40.8 41.3 45.7 40.3 12.4

0.7 0.6 0.5 20.0 2.0 5.1 56.3 2.0 2.5 9.7 2.0 1.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.1 5.8 2.0 7.1 7.6 4.9 6.8 4.8 4.6 4.4 5.7 1.8

32.5 20.9 18.9 63.7 32.5 20.9103.5 42.8 43.8 55.4 42.3 13.8

C C B E C C F D D E D B
891 1050 485 591

23.4 35.9 61.8 42.9

C D E D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

15.3 21.0 19.5 49.2 14.1 22.2 32.6 36.1

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

11.4 30.5 16.7 28.0 9.5 32.4 13.2 31.5

10.6 12.1 14.8 13.6 11.5 12.7 13.1 16.9

0.1 2.3 0.1 3.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.2

37.7 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
PM Future
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
279 764 134 279 780 336 183 285 174 374 279 149
279 764 134 279 780 336 183 285 174 374 279 149
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 303 830 146 303 848 365 199 310 189 407 303 162
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
294 1184 479 308 1213 491 207 419 249 477 404 306

0.18 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.20 0.19 0.15 0.22 0.22 1634 3539 1433 1634 3539 1433 1634 2120 1257 3268 1863 1408 303 830 146 303 848 365 199 257 242 407 303 162
1634 1770 1433 1634 1770 1433 1634 1770 1608 1634 1863 1408

21.6 24.5 9.1 22.2 24.8 27.0 14.5 16.4 17.1 14.6 18.2 12.2

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00
294 1184 479 308 1213 491 207 350 318 477 404 306

1.03 0.70 0.30 0.98 0.70 0.74 0.96 0.74 0.76 0.85 0.75 0.53 294 1184 479 308 1213 491 207 448 407 520 532 402

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

49.2 34.7 29.6 48.5 34.1 34.8 52.1 45.2 45.7 50.0 43.9 41.6

45.0 1.8 0.8 46.9 3.4 9.8 51.4 4.6 6.2 12.1 4.2 1.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

13.4 12.3 3.7 14.0 12.7 12.0 9.5 8.5 8.1 7.4 9.9 4.9

94.2 36.5 30.4 95.5 37.4 44.5103.5 49.8 51.8 62.1 48.1 43.0

F D C F D D F D D E D D
1279 1516 698 872

49.5 50.7 65.8 53.7

D D E D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

21.5 27.7 26.6 44.1 19.2 30.1 25.6 45.1

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

18.5 29.8 22.0 31.3 14.6 33.7 21.0 32.3

16.6 19.1 24.2 26.5 16.5 20.2 23.6 29.0

0.4 2.9 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.2 0.0 2.6

53.4 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
PM Future+Project
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
282 780 142 279 807 336 197 285 174 374 279 153
282 780 142 279 807 336 197 285 174 374 279 153
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 307 848 154 303 877 365 214 310 189 407 303 166
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
300 1183 479 308 1201 486 212 419 249 477 399 301

0.18 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.20 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.21 1634 3539 1432 1634 3539 1433 1634 2120 1257 3268 1863 1407 307 848 154 303 877 365 214 257 242 407 303 166
1634 1770 1432 1634 1770 1433 1634 1770 1608 1634 1863 1407

22.0 25.2 9.6 22.2 26.1 27.1 15.6 16.4 17.1 14.6 18.3 12.6

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00
300 1183 479 308 1201 486 212 350 318 477 399 301

1.02 0.72 0.32 0.98 0.73 0.75 1.01 0.73 0.76 0.85 0.76 0.55 300 1183 479 308 1201 486 212 450 409 520 528 399

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.38 0.38 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

49.0 35.0 29.8 48.5 34.8 35.1 52.2 45.2 45.7 50.0 44.3 42.0

38.6 1.5 0.7 46.9 3.9 10.2 63.7 4.5 6.1 12.1 4.6 1.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

13.1 12.5 3.9 14.0 13.4 12.1 10.8 8.4 8.1 7.4 9.9 5.0

87.6 36.4 30.5 95.5 38.7 45.4115.9 49.7 51.7 62.1 48.8 43.6

F D C F D D F D D E D D
1309 1545 713 876

47.7 51.4 70.3 54.0

D D E D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

21.5 27.7 26.6 44.1 19.6 29.7 26.0 44.7

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

18.5 29.9 22.0 31.2 15.0 33.4 21.4 31.8

16.6 19.1 24.2 27.2 17.6 20.3 24.0 29.1

0.4 2.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 2.2

53.9 D
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
PM Future+Project with Mitigationï¿½
2041
524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report
HCM 2010 Computation does not support turning movement with Shared and Exclusive lanes.

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
AM Existing
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
50 372 57 90 301 116 90 144 73 204 149 51
50 372 57 90 301 116 90 144 73 204 149 51
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 54 404 62 98 327 126 98 157 79 222 162 55
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
77 1851 751 132 1971 799 135 306 146 310 270 203

0.05 0.52 0.52 0.08 0.56 0.56 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.15 1634 3539 1436 1634 3539 1436 1634 2306 1097 3268 1863 1397 54 404 62 98 327 126 98 118 118 222 162 55
1634 1770 1436 1634 1770 1436 1634 1770 1633 1634 1863 1397

3.1 5.8 1.3 5.6 4.3 4.1 5.6 5.9 6.4 6.3 7.7 2.8

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00
77 1851 751 132 1971 799 135 235 217 310 270 203

0.70 0.22 0.08 0.74 0.17 0.16 0.73 0.50 0.54 0.72 0.60 0.27 86 1851 751 218 1971 799 138 563 519 378 651 488

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

44.6 12.2 4.4 42.7 10.3 10.2 42.5 38.3 38.7 41.7 38.0 25.0

18.5 0.2 0.2 7.9 0.2 0.4 17.1 1.7 2.1 5.0 2.1 0.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.8 2.9 0.5 2.8 2.1 1.7 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 4.1 1.1

63.1 12.4 4.6 50.6 10.5 10.6 59.6 39.9 40.8 46.7 40.1 25.7

E B A D B B E D D D D C
520 551 334 439

16.8 17.6 46.0 41.6

B B D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

13.0 16.6 11.7 53.7 11.8 17.8 8.5 56.9

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

10.4 29.6 12.1 24.5 7.4 32.6 4.4 32.2

8.3 8.4 7.6 7.8 7.6 9.7 5.1 6.3

0.2 1.1 0.1 3.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.9

28.3 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
AM Existing+Project
2021
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
55 396 69 90 309 116 94 144 73 204 149 52
55 396 69 90 309 116 94 144 73 204 149 52
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 60 430 75 98 336 126 102 157 79 222 162 57
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
85 1824 740 132 1927 782 135 326 155 308 284 213

0.05 0.52 0.52 0.08 0.54 0.54 0.08 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.15 1634 3539 1435 1634 3539 1436 1634 2306 1098 3268 1863 1399 60 430 75 98 336 126 102 118 118 222 162 57
1634 1770 1435 1634 1770 1436 1634 1770 1634 1634 1863 1399

3.4 6.4 2.5 5.6 4.5 4.2 5.8 5.8 6.3 6.3 7.7 3.4

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00
85 1824 740 132 1927 782 135 250 231 308 284 213

0.71 0.24 0.10 0.74 0.17 0.16 0.75 0.47 0.51 0.72 0.57 0.27 86 1824 740 218 1927 782 138 577 533 344 647 486

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

44.3 12.7 11.8 42.7 10.9 10.8 42.6 37.5 37.9 41.8 37.4 35.6

20.9 0.3 0.2 7.9 0.2 0.4 20.4 1.4 1.7 6.4 1.8 0.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.0 3.2 1.1 2.8 2.2 1.8 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.1 4.1 1.4

65.2 13.0 12.0 50.6 11.1 11.2 63.0 38.9 39.7 48.2 39.2 36.2

E B B D B B E D D D D D
565 560 338 441

18.4 18.0 46.5 43.3

B B D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

12.9 17.4 11.7 53.0 11.9 18.5 8.9 55.7

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

9.4 30.4 12.1 24.7 7.4 32.4 4.4 32.4

8.3 8.3 7.6 8.4 7.8 9.7 5.4 6.5

0.1 1.5 0.1 3.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.1

29.0 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
AM Future
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
74 553 85 134 447 172 134 214 108 303 221 76
74 553 85 134 447 172 134 214 108 303 221 76
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 80 601 92 146 486 187 146 233 117 329 240 83
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
98 1515 614 183 1698 689 180 400 193 412 354 267

0.08 0.57 0.57 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.19 1634 3539 1434 1634 3539 1435 1634 2297 1109 3268 1863 1405 80 601 92 146 486 187 146 177 173 329 240 83
1634 1770 1434 1634 1770 1435 1634 1770 1636 1634 1863 1405

4.8 9.4 3.0 8.7 8.3 7.8 8.7 9.2 9.8 9.8 12.0 5.1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00
98 1515 614 183 1698 689 180 308 285 412 354 267

0.82 0.40 0.15 0.80 0.29 0.27 0.81 0.58 0.61 0.80 0.68 0.31 98 1515 614 206 1698 689 180 534 494 458 618 466

1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.56 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

45.5 14.4 13.0 43.3 15.7 15.6 43.5 37.9 38.3 42.5 37.6 34.9

24.9 0.4 0.3 17.8 0.4 1.0 23.8 1.7 2.1 8.8 2.3 0.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.8 4.7 1.2 4.8 4.2 3.3 5.1 4.6 4.6 4.9 6.4 2.0

70.4 14.8 13.3 61.1 16.1 16.5 67.3 39.6 40.4 51.3 39.9 35.5

E B B E B B E D D D D D
773 819 496 652

20.4 24.2 48.1 45.1

C C D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

16.6 21.4 15.2 46.8 15.0 23.0 10.0 52.0

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

13.4 29.6 12.0 26.6 10.4 32.6 5.4 33.2

11.8 11.8 10.7 11.4 10.7 14.0 6.8 10.3

0.2 2.3 0.1 5.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 6.1

32.4 C
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Prospect St & Henderson Ave
AM Future+Project
2041
Movement
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Adj No. of Lanes
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer
Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
HCM 2010 LOS
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 524-15
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
Synchro 9 Report

EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
79 577 97 134 455 172 138 214 108 303 221 77
79 577 97 134 455 172 138 214 108 303 221 77
7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1716 1716 1863 1750 1716 1863 1716 86 627 105 146 495 187 150 233 117 329 240 84
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
116 1542 625 181 1685 683 185 398 192 417 349 263

0.07 0.44 0.44 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.19 1634 3539 1434 1634 3539 1435 1634 2297 1109 3268 1863 1404 86 627 105 146 495 187 150 177 173 329 240 84
1634 1770 1434 1634 1770 1435 1634 1770 1636 1634 1863 1404

5.4 12.8 4.7 9.2 8.9 8.2 9.4 9.7 10.3 10.3 12.6 5.4

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00
116 1542 625 181 1685 683 185 307 284 417 349 263

0.74 0.41 0.17 0.81 0.29 0.27 0.81 0.58 0.61 0.79 0.69 0.32 135 1542 625 202 1685 683 205 509 470 535 607 457

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.42 0.42 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

47.9 20.3 18.0 45.6 16.8 16.6 45.4 39.9 40.3 44.4 39.8 36.9

7.7 0.3 0.2 19.0 0.4 1.0 19.4 1.7 2.1 6.0 2.4 0.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7 6.3 1.9 5.1 4.4 3.5 5.2 4.9 4.8 5.0 6.7 2.2

55.5 20.6 18.3 64.6 17.2 17.6 64.8 41.6 42.4 50.5 42.2 37.6

E C B E B B E D D D D D
818 828 500 653

24.0 25.6 48.8 45.8

C C D D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

17.4 22.2 15.7 49.8 15.9 23.7 11.4 54.0

4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

16.6 29.6 12.4 28.0 12.6 33.6 8.1 32.3

12.3 12.3 11.2 14.8 11.4 14.6 7.4 10.9

0.5 2.3 0.0 5.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 6.3

34.0 C
Traffic Study 524-15
TCAG Model Runs

Traffic Study 524-15
Vehicle Turn Movements
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 1800 30th St, Ste 260
www.metrotrafficdata.com Bakersfield, CA 93301

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 1 29 12 1 3 23 2 1 1 0 2 1 7 1 9 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 4 47 7 2 3 26 10 1 5 3 7 0 8 11 13 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 9 39 14 2 12 51 18 0 7 11 7 2 15 29 12 3 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 42 41 28 0 28 58 19 5 11 24 33 1 21 45 17 2 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 14 51 20 0 15 32 11 0 4 43 32 1 26 26 19 1 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 5 33 7 1 4 30 3 1 1 3 8 0 10 7 9 2
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 5 20 5 0 4 25 1 1 4 5 3 1 4 2 8 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 9 29 4 0 4 36 1 1 0 2 14 0 5 2 3 0
TOTAL 89 289 97 6 73 281 65 10 33 91 106 6 96 123 90 8
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 5 39 7 2 15 51 1 0 8 7 2 0 6 5 10 2
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 8 45 10 0 20 51 3 1 4 1 3 0 8 2 8 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 4 42 13 0 17 31 1 1 1 6 5 0 7 2 12 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 8 40 10 2 19 45 1 0 3 4 3 0 6 1 7 1
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 4 46 17 1 10 43 4 2 2 4 5 0 12 3 9 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 38 19 0 18 44 4 2 1 3 0 0 7 3 8 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 6 36 18 1 8 42 1 0 1 2 5 0 11 7 15 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 5 36 18 0 13 48 2 0 2 1 5 0 19 7 10 0 TOTAL 40 322 112 6 120 355 17 6 22 28 28 0 76 30 79 3
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 69 178 69 4 58 167 58 6 27 81 79 4 70 111 61 6 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 15 156 72 2 49 177 11 4 6 10 15 0 49 20 42 0 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.700 1.9%
PM 11 177 49 0.898
PM 0.937 1.0%
AM 58 167 58 0.674
PHF 0.705 0.592
AM PM
6 27 61 42
10 81 111 20
15 79 70 49
PM AM
PHF

0.729 0.771 PHF

0.712 69 178 69 AM

0.907 15 156 72 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Westwood St @ Westfield Ave
Tulare
Thursday, May 13, 2021 Clear
Eastbound

36.0876
-119.0709

Page 1 of 3 ends

Westwood St
Westfield Ave Westfield Ave
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 1800 30th St, Ste 260
www.metrotrafficdata.com Bakersfield, CA 93301

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 7 30 6 2 13 23 7 2 7 12 7 0 14 10 10 0 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 14 39 11 2 10 41 11 0 6 12 10 0 15 21 24 1 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 6 76 17 2 21 86 9 3 9 22 12 1 18 19 25 1 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 5 100 28 0 33 137 14 4 11 30 12 2 42 24 77 1 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 13 84 41 2 46 117 16 2 12 31 4 0 26 16 25 1 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 1 32 14 3 15 44 11 2 3 12 2 0 7 13 19 1 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 6 26 12 0 20 24 6 3 2 21 3 0 11 13 23 1 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 3 34 19 1 17 47 8 1 5 23 3 1 14 17 14 2 TOTAL 55 421 148 12 175 519 82 17 55 163 53 4 147 133 217 8 Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 6 56 24 0 26 44 5 0 7 31 14 2 16 19 21 2 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 11 44 31 1 25 41 8 1 10 39 6 0 16 25 31 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 16 40 28 0 25 32 6 0 12 32 7 0 20 28 25 1 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 14 39 40 3 13 43 5 0 8 26 8 0 18 30 27 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 6 59 26 0 17 46 6 1 16 32 13 1 30 31 19 1 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 7 41 30 1 24 46 6 1 9 38 4 0 13 37 22 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 6 45 27 1 24 40 9 0 11 35 7 0 22 27 24 1 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 6 52 25 0 28 59 8 0 8 28 10 0 16 25 20 0 TOTAL 72 376 231 6 182 351 53 3 81 261 69 3 151 222 189 6 PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 38 299 97 6 110 381 50 9 38 95 38 3 101 80 151 4 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 25 197 108 2 93 191 29 2 44 133 34 1 81 120 85 2 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.720 1.5%
PM 29 191 93 0.824
PM 0.947 0.6%
AM 50 381 110 0.735
PHF 0.865 0.807
AM PM
44 38 151 85
133 95 80 120
34 38 101 81
PM AM
PHF

0.58 0.894 PHF

0.786 38 299 97 AM

0.907 25 197 108 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound

Page 1 of 3 ends

Westwood St
Henderson Ave Henderson Ave
Northbound Westbound
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Westwood St @ Henderson Ave
Tulare
Thursday, May 13, 2021 Clear
Eastbound

36.0803
-119.0708
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 1800 30th St, Ste 260
www.metrotrafficdata.com Bakersfield, CA 93301

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 11 0 0 1 15 8 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 4 26 0 2 0 23 8 1
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 5 0 9 2 15 32 0 2 0 51 22 2
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 18 0 24 0 34 52 0 1 0 78 45 4 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 26 0 22 0 19 72 0 1 0 38 32 0 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 2 2 21 0 1 0 26 3 2
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 13 0 0 0 13 2 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 16 0 0 0 13 2 0
TOTAL 1 0 7 0 55 0 68 4 81 243 0 7 1 257 122 9
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 29 0 1 0 20 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 32 0 0 0 19 8 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 2 37 0 1 1 22 4 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 33 0 1 0 24 4 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 9 30 0 2 0 29 9 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 38 0 0 0 22 18 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 26 0 12 0 11 23 0 1 0 32 22 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 21 0 18 0 13 22 0 0 0 33 20 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 59 0 44 0 52 244 0 6 1 201 85 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 50 0 62 2 72 182 0 6 0 190 107 7 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 50 0 35 0 44 113 0 3 0 116 69 0 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.660 2.3%
PM 35 0 50 0.545
PM 0.841 0.7%
AM 62 0 50 0.583
PHF 0.801 0.698
AM PM
44 72 107 69
113 182 190 116
0 0 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.604 0.856 PHF
##### 0 0 0 AM
##### 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Westfield Ave @ Lombardi St
Tulare
Thursday, May 13, 2021 Clear
Eastbound

36.0876
-119.0664

Page 1 of 3 ends

Lombardi St
Westfield Ave Westfield Ave
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 1800 30th St, Ste 260
www.metrotrafficdata.com Bakersfield, CA 93301

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 12 1 2 0 0 5 5 0 1 7 2 0 2 5 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 14 9 1 1 1 5 8 1 7 20 4 1 0 9 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 24 4 4 5 3 22 17 2 17 23 3 2 5 31 2 1 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 41 6 7 2 7 28 19 2 6 55 32 1 12 63 1 1 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 29 14 10 0 6 22 4 0 10 68 27 0 8 33 1 0 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 10 5 0 1 3 3 8 1 6 17 9 3 1 9 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 10 4 1 0 1 2 6 0 9 3 6 5 4 7 2 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 4 3 1 0 1 6 3 0 3 10 9 2 1 9 1 0
TOTAL 144 46 26 9 22 93 70 6 59 203 92 14 33 166 7 2
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 8 5 4 0 1 9 2 0 5 23 7 1 3 17 1 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 12 10 3 1 2 8 5 0 6 21 10 0 2 16 5 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 14 9 1 1 1 7 7 0 10 23 14 1 2 17 4 1
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 12 4 3 0 2 6 2 0 6 23 7 1 5 21 2 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 10 13 6 0 1 3 6 0 7 18 9 1 3 20 5 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 15 8 0 0 2 1 10 0 7 20 10 0 6 21 4 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 18 8 0 0 5 8 2 0 5 39 12 1 5 42 2 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 14 9 1 0 4 9 8 0 2 34 11 0 2 35 2 0
TOTAL 103 66 18 2 18 51 42 0 48 201 80 5 28 189 25 1
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 108 33 22 8 17 77 48 5 40 166 66 4 25 136 4 2 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 57 38 7 0 12 21 26 0 21 111 42 2 16 118 13 0 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.670 2.6%
PM 26 21 12 0.702
PM 0.825 0.4%
AM 48 77 17 0.657
PHF 0.777 0.648
AM PM
21 40 4 13
111 166 136 118
42 66 25 16
PM AM
PHF

0.543 0.75 PHF

0.755 108 33 22 AM

0.879 57 38 7 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Westfield Ave @ Mathew St
Tulare
Thursday, May 13, 2021 Clear
Eastbound

36.0876
-119.0619

Page 1 of 3 ends

Mathew St
Westfield Ave Westfield Ave
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 1800 30th St, Ste 260
www.metrotrafficdata.com Bakersfield, CA 93301

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 1 16 6 2 7 17 1 0 3 8 4 0 7 5 1 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 4 26 8 0 13 35 1 2 2 26 12 0 10 9 9 1 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 9 31 13 0 7 62 2 5 6 36 14 0 23 31 4 2 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 20 48 24 0 30 100 3 0 9 55 41 0 33 45 11 1 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 14 58 25 1 21 69 8 1 5 60 28 0 30 27 10 1 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 6 23 9 0 8 31 0 0 3 15 10 1 5 9 9 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 6 23 10 0 5 24 2 0 2 13 8 1 7 10 2 1
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 5 19 6 0 14 27 1 0 2 14 11 0 8 12 8 0 TOTAL 65 244 101 3 105 365 18 8 32 227 128 2 123 148 54 6 Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 22 56 14 0 12 54 5 1 5 17 15 2 12 31 12 0 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 11 40 7 0 14 54 4 0 4 29 10 1 11 25 12 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 11 56 14 0 13 52 5 0 3 29 6 0 9 19 16 0 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 14 49 13 0 12 33 8 1 7 26 17 1 18 38 17 0 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 18 57 12 0 7 44 4 0 2 22 14 0 15 42 22 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 25 54 16 0 12 43 6 1 7 25 14 0 6 28 13 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 25 70 20 0 7 53 4 0 1 35 22 2 14 43 14 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 16 59 12 0 9 56 5 0 3 32 17 0 8 34 7 0 TOTAL 142 441 108 0 86 389 41 3 32 215 115 6 93 260 113 0 PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 47 163 70 1 71 266 14 8 22 177 95 0 96 112 34 5 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 84 240 60 0 35 196 19 1 13 114 67 2 43 147 56 0 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.696 1.2%
PM 19 196 35 0.893
PM 0.872 0.3%
AM 14 266 71 0.66
PHF 0.836 0.7
AM PM
13 22 34 56
114 177 112 147
67 95 96 43
PM AM
PHF

0.68 0.778 PHF

0.722 47 163 70 AM

0.835 84 240 60 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Westfield Ave @ Newcomb St
Tulare
Thursday, May 13, 2021 Clear
Eastbound

36.0876
-119.0528

Page 1 of 3 ends

Newcomb St
Westfield Ave Westfield Ave
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 1800 30th St, Ste 260
www.metrotrafficdata.com Bakersfield, CA 93301

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 6 18 16 1 17 23 2 0 7 39 4 3 7 26 11 1 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 10 36 12 0 18 33 9 2 3 41 7 0 11 38 19 1 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 21 52 23 1 38 54 18 6 9 70 23 1 16 41 28 1 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 43 88 29 0 47 82 13 1 45 105 29 2 25 71 55 3 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 12 79 29 3 48 95 15 1 34 99 24 0 32 35 42 3 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 8 25 30 0 19 34 5 2 9 61 17 3 14 41 26 2 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 13 23 21 0 19 23 7 1 5 57 10 1 29 39 23 1 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 13 19 26 0 23 25 7 0 7 47 18 0 19 33 17 2 TOTAL 126 340 186 5 229 369 76 13 119 519 132 10 153 324 221 14 Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 19 49 49 1 50 43 7 1 17 84 18 1 36 75 71 0 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 17 36 33 0 34 31 13 0 7 75 13 1 37 80 54 1 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 28 60 40 1 31 51 6 1 5 86 8 11 34 77 39 0 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 20 45 45 1 29 31 7 0 11 84 7 2 47 90 56 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 24 56 53 0 40 35 7 0 16 75 19 1 40 101 59 2 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 29 52 50 0 30 46 9 1 17 85 20 0 43 85 65 1 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 18 56 39 0 40 50 16 2 13 84 13 2 39 76 52 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 25 39 40 0 64 42 10 0 15 73 13 1 36 76 44 1 TOTAL 180 393 349 3 318 329 75 5 101 646 111 19 312 660 440 6 PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 84 244 111 4 152 265 51 10 97 335 93 6 87 188 151 9 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 96 203 182 0 174 173 42 3 61 317 65 4 158 338 220 4 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.735 1.6%
PM 42 173 174 0.838
PM 0.955 0.5%
AM 51 265 152 0.741
PHF 0.908 0.733
AM PM
61 97 151 220
317 335 188 338
65 93 87 158
PM AM
PHF

0.705 0.895 PHF

0.686 84 244 111 AM

0.904 96 203 182 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Henderson Ave @ Newcomb St
Tulare
Thursday, May 13, 2021 Clear
Eastbound

36.0803
-119.0529

Page 1 of 3 ends

Newcomb St
Henderson Ave Henderson Ave
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 1800 30th St, Ste 260
www.metrotrafficdata.com Bakersfield, CA 93301

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 12 15 13 0 23 8 4 2 6 49 9 2 7 32 15 7 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 21 20 12 5 31 22 4 4 8 53 4 0 12 42 22 3 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 14 26 19 3 52 36 11 2 9 85 12 1 20 69 26 2 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 30 51 20 6 57 47 21 6 16 122 20 2 30 107 29 6 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 25 47 22 2 64 44 15 5 17 112 21 3 28 83 39 7 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 18 27 22 4 39 22 15 0 18 101 13 3 28 64 39 7 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 31 24 11 0 43 34 16 0 12 72 13 4 28 56 30 5 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 16 24 10 2 38 39 16 2 25 68 20 0 31 53 36 9 TOTAL 167 234 129 22 347 252 102 21 111 662 112 15 184 506 236 46 Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 42 38 25 0 65 55 29 1 39 132 30 3 44 121 57 1 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 34 45 27 0 66 51 26 1 44 133 21 2 45 146 63 1 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 34 55 28 1 53 56 25 0 36 132 25 1 42 116 43 1 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 38 52 25 1 71 55 33 0 51 125 25 2 53 132 61 2 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 46 56 33 0 51 48 22 1 48 116 30 0 58 147 66 2 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 26 51 26 1 68 41 22 2 52 133 25 0 39 123 47 1 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 27 44 35 1 66 39 27 0 46 139 16 2 49 128 69 1 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 24 41 23 0 67 60 29 1 42 126 19 1 42 127 44 1 TOTAL 271 382 222 4 507 405 213 6 358 1036 191 11 372 1040 450 10 PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 87 151 83 15 212 149 62 13 60 420 66 9 106 323 133 22 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 152 208 113 2 241 210 106 2 179 506 101 5 198 541 233 6 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.842 3.2%
PM 106 210 241 0.876
PM 0.967 0.5%
AM 62 149 212 0.846
PHF 0.978 0.864
AM PM
179 60 133 233
506 420 323 541
101 66 106 198
PM AM
PHF

0.846 0.897 PHF

0.795 87 151 83 AM

0.876 152 208 113 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Henderson Ave @ Prospect St
Tulare
Thursday, May 13, 2021 Clear
Eastbound

36.0804
-119.0440

Page 1 of 3 ends

Prospect St
Henderson Ave Henderson Ave
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
RESOLUTION NO. -2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021070158) FOR THE BROOKSIDE-LAURELWOOD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PRC 2020-044) WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Porterville at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 1, 2022 conducted a public hearing to consider certification of the Environmental Impact Report that evaluates the environmental impacts of a Tentative Subdivision Map and related entitlements to accommodate the subdivision of approximately 56.06 acres into 229 lots located at the northwest corner of Lombardi Street and Westfield Avenue, referred to as the “BrooksideLaurelwood Development Project” (Project); and WHEREAS: On July 9, 2021 the City issued a notice of preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report indicating a comment period starting on July 10, 2021 and ending on August 9, 2021; and
WHEREAS: a duly noticed scoping meeting was conducted on July 27, 2021; and WHEREAS: the Draft EIR was circulated for a period of 45 days starting on November 6, 2021 and ending on December 21, 2021; and
WHEREAS: the Draft EIR indicated the potential for significant effects in the resource areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation; and
WHEREAS: with implementation of mitigation measures, all potentially significant effects resulting from the Project can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS: comments received on the Draft EIR, along with responses thereto, have been incorporated into a Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, comments received resulted in clarifications and minor revisions to the Draft EIR, said clarifications and revisions also being incorporated into the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the Final EIR and has reviewed and considered the information contained therein; and
WHEREAS, the determinations in the Final EIR consist of the City Council’s independent judgement and analysis; and
WHEREAS, based upon the initial study and environmental impact report and the record, with incorporation of mitigation the Project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse impact on environmental resources; and
WHEREAS, the City of Porterville is the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings on which these determinations are based, and Porterville City Hall, 291 North Main Street, Porterville, CA is the location of this record.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville does hereby certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Brookside-Laurelwood Development Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto shall be implemented as noted therein as part of project implementation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Manager shall cause a notice of determination to be filed in accordance with CEQA within five business days following project approval.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1
st of March, 2022.

By: ______________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: ________________________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
Lombardi Development Project
February 2022
PREPARED BY:

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

City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lombardi Development Project
Prepared for:
291 North Main Street
Porterville, California 93257
(559) 782-7460
Contact: Jason Ridenour, Community Development Director Prepared by:
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 840-4414
Contact: Emily Bowen
February 2022
State Clearinghouse Number: 2021070158

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE - Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description......................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................... 3 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 CEQA Requirements ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Use of the Final EIR ....................................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER TWO – Comments and Responses .............................................................................................. 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Written Comment Letters ............................................................................................................................. 8 Oral Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 43 CHAPTER THREE – Text Changes to the Draft EIR .................................................................................. 47 CHAPTER FOUR – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................... 49 Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 1 CHAPTER ONE - Introduction
Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains the public and agency comments received during the public review period for the Lombardi Development Project (proposed Project) and responses to each of those comments.

This EIR is an informational document intended to disclose to the decision makers of the City of Porterville (City) and the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Lombardi Development Project or one of the alternatives to the proposed Project, which are described in the Draft EIR. All written comments received during the public review period (November 6, 2021, through December 21, 2021) of the Draft EIR along with transcriptions of oral comments received at the December 7, 2021 City Council meeting are addressed in this Final EIR.

The responses in the Final EIR clarify, correct, and/or amplify text in the Draft EIR. Also included in the Final EIR are minor text changes made at the initiative of the City (the Lead Agency) and in response to comments. The Final EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.).

Project Description
The proposed Project consists of an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Rezone and a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for the construction of up to 230 single-family residential units. Parcels to be annexed include 245-010-087, -092, -037 and -041 for a total of approximately

69.65 acres. The 56-acre subdivision would be developed on Assessor Parcel Number 245-010- 087. The Project site is located between N. Westwood Street and N. Lombardi Street, bounded to the south by W. Westfield Avenue. Specifically, Project components include:

Construction of up to 230 single family residential units.

Development of a 130,244 square foot park in the center of the residential development.

Construction of local roads with five points of ingress/egress; one on the southern boundary of the property off W. Westfield Avenue, one on the western boundary off N.

Westwood Street, one on the northern boundary off an unnamed street adjacent to the Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 2 Summit Charter Academy, Lombardi Campus, and two on the eastern boundary off N.

Lombardi Street.

Improvement of all streets in or adjacent to the subdivision, in accordance with the approved improvements plan, per Section 407.02(h) of the Porterville Development Ordinance.

Development of a subdivision tree and landscaping design that will be approved by the City. At least one tree will be planted on each residential lot and street trees will be planted at 35 feet on center along all parkways within and/or bordering the subdivision.

Development of a Landscape plan, in accordance with Chapter 303 of the Porterville Development Ordinance.

Change the zone on APN 245-010-087 from the prezoned RS-1 to RS-2 (Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential).

Annexation of APNs 245-010-087 (56.32 acres), -041 (1.00 acre), -037 (1.06 acres) and -092 (11.27 acres). Summit Charter Academy, Lombardi Campus, is on APN 245-010-087, and rural houses are on -037 and -041. Aside from construction of public improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements) within existing and proposed rights-of-way, the only physical changes proposed with this Project will occur on APN 245-010-087.

Cancellation of Williamson Act contract Number 05126 and disestablishment of Ag Preserve 2034
Upon Annexation, General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation, and Rezone, the proposed Project would be in be within city limits and compliant with land use requirements.

Water, sewage disposal, and refuse collection services will be provided by the City of Portville and the applicant will be required to connect to the City’s existing facilities. The proposed Project would require gas, telephone, cable, and electrical improvements. Natural gas would be provided by The Gas Company; telephone services would be provided by AT&T; electric power would be provided by Southern California Edison Company; and cable television would be provided by Charter Communication. The extent of work required for utilities and gas would be determined during final project design.

Project Location
The City of Porterville is located in Tulare County in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley.

The approximately 69.65-acre Project site is located in northwest Porterville, bounded to the west by N. Westwood Street, to the south by W. Westfield Avenue, and to the east by N. Lombardi Street. Residential subdivisions lie to the west, east, and south. Summit Charter Academy, Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 3 Lombardi Campus lies directly north, with a diagonal of the Friant-Kern Canal along the northwest corner. See Figure 1. Porterville is bisected north-south by State Route (SR) 65 and SR 190 runs east-west in the southern portion of the City.

The proposed Project site is currently in use with primarily agricultural activities. Two rural residences associated with the agricultural activities reside in the Project area; one along W.

Westfield Avenue and one along N. Lombardi Street. Both residences are adjacent to vacant areas utilized for storage and staging heavy equipment.

Project Objectives
The following are the primary goals of the City of Porterville’s Lombardi Development Project (Project):

To provide housing opportunities with a range of densities, styles, sizes and values that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area.

To provide a sense of community and walkability within the development through the use of street patterns, a park, landscaping and other project amenities.

To provide a residential development that is compatible with surrounding land uses and is near major services.

To provide an economically feasible residential development that assists the City in meeting its General Plan and Housing Element requirements and objectives.

Summary of Environmental Impacts
As described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, it was determined that all impacts were either less than significant or could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures are listed in Chapter Four – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of this Final EIR.

Background
Notice of Preparation
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on July 10, 2021 for a review period that closed on August 9, 2021. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the proposed Project was being prepared and to solicit Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 4 guidance on the scope and content of the document. In addition to the recipients prescribed by Section 15082, subdivision (a), the City provided notice to property owners within 500 feet of the Project site. The City received seven written comment letters during the NOP review period and several oral comments during the Scoping Meeting. NOP letters were received from:

Edward McKervy – inquiring about traffic flow at the intersection of Henderson and Westwood.

Ben Ennis – expressing concerns regarding Lombardi Street traffic issues, specifically, congestion.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife – providing recommendations for Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, and nesting bird mitigation.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control – providing guidance for hazards and hazardous materials analysis in the draft EIR.

California Department of Conservation – providing recommendations regarding potential agricultural land conversion analysis, feasible alternatives and feasible mitigation measures.

California Native American Heritage Commission – providing guidance on consultation with locally affiliated California Native American tribes, in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18.

California Department of Transportation – providing comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals to support a vibrant economy and sustainable community.

Draft EIR
The Draft EIR was properly noticed and circulated for public review and comment for 45 days, from November 6, 2021, through December 21, 2021. The Notice of Availability was published in the Porterville Recorder on November 6, 2021. The Draft EIR and Appendices were uploaded to the State Clearinghouse website for distribution and notices were mailed to local agencies, property owners within 500 feet of the Project site, and other interested individuals. The City received five comment letters on the Draft EIR. These letters are reproduced in their entirety in Chapter Two of this Final EIR and responses are provided after each letter.

These comments and responses that make up the Final EIR, in combination with the Draft EIR, constitute the EIR that will be considered for certification by the of Porterville City Council.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 5 CEQA Requirements
Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must prepare and certify a Final EIR prior to a proposed project being approved. The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Guidelines Section 15132, which states that a Final EIR must consist of the following:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR.
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The Lead Agency must provide each agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agency’s response to such comments a minimum of 10 days before certifying the Final EIR.

Use of the Final EIR
The Final EIR allows the public and the City an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR and the responses to comments received during the Draft EIR public review period. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to inform the City of the environmental consequences of the proposed project, either in whole or in part, or one of the alternatives to the project discussed in the Draft EIR.

As required by Guidelines Section 15090, subdivisions (a)(1)-(3), a lead agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations:
1) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 2) The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency (i.e., the City Council), and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project.
3) The Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency cannot approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 6 rationale to reach findings supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are as follows:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Additionally, pursuant to Guidelines Section 15093 subdivision (b), when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons supporting the approval. The Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the Lead Agency’s administrative record.

For this proposed Project, because it would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts (assuming the City finds all mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR to be feasible), the City is not required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the proposed project (see also Public Resources Code Section 21081).

If as part of certifying the EIR the City requires inclusion of mitigation measures, it will also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 7 CHAPTER TWO – Comments and Responses
Introduction
This chapter of the Final EIR contains a copy of each of the written comments received from the public and other agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed Project, followed by responses to each comment. A total of five written comment letters were received from the following groups and agencies:

Comment Letter 1
Ben Ennis
1540 North Lombardi Street
Porterville, CA 93257
November 12, 2021
Comment Letter 2
Ben Ennis
1540 North Lombardi Street
Porterville, CA 93257
December 17, 2021
Comment Letter 3
Jason Pommier
Public Information Officer
Porterville Unified School District
600 West Grand Avenue
Porterville, CA 93257
November 8, 2021
Comment Letter 4
Ed McKervey
2154 W. San Lucia Ct
Porterville, CA 93257
November 18, 2021 and December 14, 2021
Comment Letter 5
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District
1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue,
Fresno, CA 93726 – 0244
December 20, 2021
In addition to the written comments, four residents of Porterville provided oral communication at the City Council meeting on December 7, 2021. Oral comments were received from the following residents and have been transcribed and will be addressed below:

Renee Kirtley
Brock Neeley
Jenny Cox
David Cox
Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page |47 Written Comment Letters
Comment Letter 1:

Comment 1-A: The traffic study was done while Burton School Lombardi Campus was closed due to Covid restrictions and cannot possible be correct. For instance, 3 times a day, traffic is backed up from the school to Westfield and even around the corner onto Westfield at times and they have it designated as a Level B – short delays – intersection when I have spent 35 minutes in the traffic trying to get to my house.

Response to Comment 1-A: As stated on page 5 of the Traffic Study, provided as Appendix C of the Draft EIR, the AM and PM traffic peak hours were taken in May of 2021. At that time, the Summit Charter Academy, Lombardi Campus was operating with approximately 30% of the students on campus, with the remaining students attending class remotely. Accordingly, an Addendum to the traffic study was prepared, and is included as Appendix A of this Final EIR.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 9 Traffic studies base the peak hour of analysis on the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. These peak hours generally coincide with the AM and PM commute hours. As described in the study, 2- hour counts were taken in the AM and PM hours (in 15-minute increments) and the peak hour was determined to be within the 2-hour window. The school AM peak hour corresponds with the peak hour of adjacent street traffic and is therefore reflected in the analysis. The PM peak hour for schools is typically earlier than the PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic, which is the case for the Summit Charter Academy. Therefore, the PM peak hour analysis was not adjusted.

An investigation was made to better represent the existing (pre-pandemic) traffic volumes on Lombardi Street in the AM peak hour. Although the campus is now operational with most students on campus, there still may be remote attendees. Therefore, a trip generation calculation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual was made for the school using a 600-student population. The trip generation was added to the existing counts taken in May of 2021 with a reduction to account for the student population that was attending inperson at the time. It is also assumed that once the project is built out, there will be students that will attend Summit Charter Academy. The adjusted 2021 traffic is shown on the attached revised Figure 4 of Appendix A. Figures 5 through 8 of Appendix A show the adjusted volumes with and without project traffic in the existing and future conditions.

Level of service (LOS) analysis was performed using the revised volumes. The LOS analysis indicates a LOS F for the existing condition. With the project added the delay increases by 13.3 seconds in the existing condition. The future scenario with anticipated background growth indicates that the delay is outside of the range of the analysis and is at an unstable condition and therefore the project traffic impact on the intersection is not definable.

Intersection Control
Type
2021
2021 +
Project 2041
2041 +
Project
2041+ Project
with
Mitigation
Lombardi St
& Westfield
Ave
SB F (119.0) F (132.3) F (>300) F (>300) C
A project cannot be made to mitigate, offset, or otherwise correct an existing condition; it can only be made to address its own impacts. The mitigation and recommendations contained in the Traffic Study reflect appropriate mitigation for the intersection of Lombardi Street and Westfield Avenue and other affected intersections and segments and are still valid for the adjusted analysis.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 10 Comment 1-B: Neil Ward’s house is such that it does not allow 2 lanes of traffic going south. And yet the Circulation Element shows Lombardi Street as being a future collector from an extension of Castle coming through our property and then back south on Lombardi. The collector street should come through our property and through the proposed annexation and connect to Westwood at the Nancy Lane intersection with a street other than Lombardi going to the school.

Response 1-B: This comment appears to propose that the Project should be responsible for construction of a new collector street not currently identified within the General Plan Circulation Element and concomitantly should not construct N. Lombardi Street, itself a collector street identified in the General Plan Circulation Element. Short of processing an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element to add and remove (respectively) the two collector streets as suggested, the City cannot simply require a project to 1) ignore policy-driven improvements to an existing major street right-of-way and 2) dedicate and improve another. Such an amendment is neither proposed as part of the Project nor identified as an option or requirement within the traffic analysis prepared for the Project. Additionally, the comment incorrectly asserts that there is insufficient distance between the existing N. Lombardi Street right-of-way and the existing dwelling on APN 245-010-037 to accommodate dedication of right-of-way for, and construction of, southbound street improvements. Those dedications and improvements are a required part of the Project contained within the conditions of approval for the tentative map. Following dedication, the western right-of-way of N. Lombardi Street would be approximately 50 feet from the existing home, and approximately 35 feet from the existing septic tank in front of the home.

Construction of street improvements may require relocation of an existing wood fence.

Comment 1-C: Also, I have some concerns about this annexation creating county islands with the 2 residences being left out of the annexation.

Response to Comment 1-C: This comment incorrectly asserts that two residential parcels within the overall Project area (to wit: APNs 245-010-037 and -041) would not be included in the proposed annexation. To the contrary, those parcels will be annexed into the City as described on Pages 1-2 and 2-5 of the Draft EIR and illustrated in Figure 2 – Site Aerial on page 2-4 of the Draft EIR.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 11 Comment Letter 2:

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 12 Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 13 Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 14 Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 15 Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 16 Comment 2-A: Having paid for numerous Environmental Impact Reports and Traffic Studies in my career as a developer, I am rather shocked at the deficiencies in the one for the Lombardi Project and how it would affect the surrounding neighborhoods with traffic, especially on Westfield and Lombardi Streets. I might also make known that I live on Lombardi Street so I am very aware of the traffic issues that now exist and will be much greater if this project should be approved as now proposed.

Response to Comment 2-A: Comment noted, no response necessary.

Comment 2-B: An EIR is explained as being the process of evaluation the likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or development, taking into account inter-related socio-economic, cultural and human-health impact, both beneficial and adverse.

Very little of the benefits of the project, other than helping the city meet their housing quota, and none of the adverse were addressed in this EIR, as well as any steps of mitigation other that TRA-1 and TRA-2. The social aspects are painfully missing completely.

Response to Comment 2-B: The comment purports to explain the purpose of an EIR; however, the statement within the comment appears to be copied and pasted from one of several websites that provide general information about the environmental review process (specifically, the “Environmental Impact Assessment”) used in the Republic of India, the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, and other foreign states or from the website of the Convention on Biological Diversity (to which the United States is not a party and which would be irrelevant in the context of CEQA, regardless). As is relevant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21002.1, subdivision (a) states: “The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” The EIR does identify the potential for significant effects to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and transportation/traffic and includes appropriate, Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 17 feasible mitigation measures that will reduce those effects to a less than significant level. Further, while the comment asserts that “social aspects are painfully missing,” it fails to illustrate any example of such missing aspects. In any event, Guidelines Section 15131 subdivision (a) states, “Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.” While an EIR may consider economic or social effects of a project as they may relate to physical changes, no such effects are identified in the EIR or by the commenter.

Importantly, PRC Section 21082.2, subdivision (c) notes, “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence.” That clause of the statute is further elaborated upon in Guidelines Section 15064, subdivisions (f)(4)-(f)(6). As presented in the Initial Study and associated EIR, all potential impacts resulting from the Lombardi Development Project are either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation measures are presented in the Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Traffic and Transportation sections of the EIR. The alternatives analysis is contained in Chapter 4 of the EIR.

Comment 2-C: Since my concern is the traffic issues, I will concentrate on the traffic study.

Basically, there was no traffic study. Just figures compiled from existing data. To address the traffic issues, one would have to do a study during the time that Burton School Lombardi Campus was in session (The traffic study consists of an existing peak hour turning movement counts that was taken in May of 2021, when Burton School was not in session) and when traffic is backed up on Lombardi Street up to 3 times a day when students were being dropped off or picked up, this being a Charter School where students are driven from other points in the County by automobile, which is the main source of transportation to the school. It is impossible for the intersection at Lombardi and Westfield to have a Level of Service rating a “B” as per the traffic study. This traffic to the school is as much or more that the proposed project and yet was not even taken into consideration. I would suggest that the traffic on Lombardi by itself would exceed the estimated figures for the Lombardi-Westfield intersection. Of the students that attend the Lombardi campus, I realize a small number walk and some are transported by the 3 busloads (total of 65 kids according to staff), so if 50 kids walked or rode bikes (they don't at that age, kindergarten through 5th grade, and I have counted them numerous days) that means that 490 kids are brought to school by automobile. Other than one side street, they all have to come down Westfield to Lombardi. Consequently, there is a daily traffic jam.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 18 Response to Comment 2-C: This comment asserts inadequacy of the traffic analysis prepared for the Project, although it provides no evidence to substantiate that claim.

Additionally, under the provisions of Senate Bill 743 (2013), CEQA and (ultimately) the CEQA Guidelines were amended to reflect a paradigm change in how California public agencies are required to analyze transportation impacts for projects. Historically, level of service (LOS), which assesses transportation impacts as measured by traffic congestion and delay, had been used as the primary threshold for determining project traffic impacts. In response to concerns about air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, the State determined that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was a more suitable method than LOS for assessing project effects. Accordingly, since July 1, 2020, lead agencies have been required to utilize VMT as the primary consideration in their analyses and project review; CEQA is essentially no longer concerned with congestion and traffic delay.

However, because the General Plan still uses LOS as a method for determining infrastructure needs and the City must examine whether a project would “conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,” LOS analysis is still completed. As noted in the traffic study and its addendum and with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, no such policy would be violated. Also, see Response to Comment 1-A.

Comment 2-D: As a point of reference, show me where the traffic study even considered the traffic generated by the school with the 605 current enrollment of students, with being delivered to the school each day traveling on Westfield and Lombardi Streets when in session and also for all of the extra-curricular activities when cars are parked up to ½ mile away.

Response to Comment 2-D: Please see Response to Comment 1-A and Response to Comment 2- C. Also, note that the Project cannot be made to mitigate or alleviate existing circumstances.

Comment 2-E: The traffic report part of the study on page 127 says “As such, cumulative impacts are also considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation”. That is with the incorporation of TRA-1 mitigation and TRA-2 mitigation. Are you kidding me? TRA-1 is the standard fees for capital improvements to the infrastructure based on a level of Service in 2041 to existing intersections and there is no assurance that any of it will end up addressing traffic issues with this project, Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 19 or if it should, when. TRA-2 is for the improvement of the bus stop that is very seldom used and if it was, it would have no bearing on traffic issues on the adjacent streets.

Response to Comment 2-E: This comment misrepresents the provisions of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 and demonstrates an apparent misunderstanding of Mitigation Measure TRA-2. The location-specific fair-share costs identified in TRA-1 are required irrespective of any fees that the Project may be responsible for under the City’s Development Impact Fee program. Projects for which a traffic study are not prepared would generally simply be responsible for payment of such fees. Since a traffic study was prepared for this Project and that study identified impacts to specific components of the City’s infrastructure, fair-share costs for improving those components were assigned. If those fair-share costs are less than the impact fees that would otherwise be due, the project will be responsible for both the specified costs and the difference between those costs and its fee responsibility. If the fair-share costs exceed the impact fees, the project is responsible for paying the higher amount. The City is precluded both from making a project mitigate an existing condition (as noted in Response to Comment 2-D) and from requiring a project to fully fund capital improvements that are not strictly necessary for the function of that project. By requiring the Project to pay a fair-share cost towards specified improvements and to meet its impact fee obligation as described above, the Project will have mitigated its specific impacts and will not conflict with a policy related to the circulation system. Consistent with the details contained in Response to Comment 2-C, TRA-2 is not intended to address traffic issues on adjacent streets, because those issues are no longer expressly of concern under CEQA. As noted on Page 3-109 of the Draft EIR, the City adopted the County of Tulare SB 743 Guidelines on September 21, 2021. Included within those Guidelines are the methods for mitigating VMTrelated impacts. Based on the trip-based costs shown in the Guidelines, by funding the identified improvement the Project will have mitigated its potential impacts to VMT.

Comment 2-F: Besides not addressing the traffic issues with Burton School Lombardi Campus, the 2 lane bridge that bottlenecks the traffic on Westwood south of this project is not addressed, The City’s Traffic Circulation Plan incorporated in the General Plan is totally ignored. How can this be? Is it because it calls for a collector street from the extension of Castle to Lombardi south to Westfield and Lombardi Street cannot be widened to 4 lanes because of the existing house that would be in the south bound lanes, so it would be nothing more that a bottleneck and even worse when it comes to Westfield. No planning is better than bad planning.

Response to Comment 2-F: The comment again implies that the Project should be responsible for alleviating existing conditions and, contrary to the substantial evidence provided in the traffic Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 20 study and addendum, asserts significant impacts to certain offsite facilities. It also again incorrectly refers to the proximity of N. Lombardi Street to the existing dwelling on APN 245- 010-037. Please see Response to Comment 1-A, Response to Comment 1-B, Response to Comment 2-C, and Response to Comment 2-D.

Comment 2-G: With regards to the EIR, my concerns and that of the neighborhoods adjacent to this project is that the social component has been completely ignored which is a major component of the environment issues. This impact report basically ignores any impacts of any type to the surrounding neighborhoods which would increase with this project. Response to Comment 2-G: As described in Section 1.1 of the EIR – Purpose of the EIR (page 1- 1), the document was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Also, please see Response to Comment 2-B.

Comment 2-H: The EIR determined that the Reduced Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, although it would not fully meet the project’s objectives. That seems to be the one point that we all agree on.

Response to Comment 2-H: The Executive Summary mistakenly summarized that the Reduced Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. The full alternatives analysis is provided in Chapter 4 of the EIR where it describes that the No Project alternative will avoid both the adverse and beneficial effects of the project. Please refer to Chapter Three – Text Changes to the Draft EIR for the textual changes in the Executive Summary.

Comment 2-I: The density and traffic on adjoining streets is such that a lot more work needs to be done in this EIR to protect the public. Response to Comment 2-I: This project cannot be required to mitigate or correct an existing situation. Please see Response to Comment 2-F.

Comment 2-J: The General Plan identifies the Project site as being within the Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Parks and Recreation designations as well as within a neighborhood center.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 21 The zoning map shows the site as prezoned to the RS-1 (Very Low Density Residential) zone with the Residential Neighborhood (RN) Overlay District. The RN Overlay District is intended to implement neighborhood town centers and neighborhood design guidelines by requiring that development conforms to the underlying land uses illustrated on the Land Use Diagram. Response to Comment 2-J: Comment noted, no response necessary.

Comment 2-K: In some places in the EIR, it states 230 homes and in other places, it states 261 homes. Which is it? In either case, it is a large increase in the number of residences from the ‘Very Low Residential” General Plan designation. Response to Comment 2-K: The EIR analyzed impacts from the development of 230 homes.

Technical analysis in the Air Quality Study, the Traffic Study, and the Initial Study assessed impacts from the development of 261 homes, which has presented a more intensive environmental impact than the Project itself.

Comment 2-L: An EIR should accomplish the following;
1-Potentially screens out environmentally unsound projects 2-Propose modified designs to reduce environmental impacts 3- Identify feasible alternatives
4- Predict significant adverse impacts
5- Identify mitigation measures to reduce, offset, or eliminate major impacts 6-Engage and inform potentially affected communities and individuals 7-Influence decision making and the development of terms and conditions We believe at this point, the EIR has not addressed numbers 2-3-4-5-at all and the timing has not happened on the balance.

Response to Comment 2-L: Similar to the statement contained in Comment 2-B, the commenter has copied and pasted information from an online source regarding the “Environmental Impact Statement”, which is not related to CEQA, and expresses an opinion that the City has not Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 22 complied with the “requirements.” Insofar as the list included in the comment is not misaligned with the regulatory and procedural aspects of CEQA, the City puts forth, as described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR, Response to Comment 1-A, Response to Comment 2-B, Response to Comment 2-C, Response to Comment 2-E, Response to Comment 2-G, Response to Comment 2-P, Response to Comment 2-R, Response to Comment 2-T, Response to Comment 2-U, Response to Comment 2-U, Response to Comment 3-B, Response to Renee Kirtley, and Response to Jenny Cox, that it has adequately addressed the items on the list. Further, as described in Response to Comment 2- N, as the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts after mitigation, no alternative development scenarios were evaluated.

Comment 2-M: We are of the opinion that the project’s social elements are much more important and complex than addressed in this report. Most of the EIR’s social-related information is limited to purely descriptive input without any serious effort to analyze its significance or determine its relevance for the specific project to which it pertains. As stated in the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an "informational document" intended to inform public agency decision makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.

Response to Comment 2-M: The commentor again asserts that profound social effects would result from the Project but fails to identify any. Please see the Response to Comment 2-B and Response to Comment 2-N.

Comment 2-N: The EIR only analyzed the proposed project and the no project alternative, although it states that it did a “Reduced Project Alternative” I have not found it in the EIR. Response to Comment 2-N: Please see the Response to Comment 2-H. As described on Page 4-1 of the EIR, “Based on the rule of reason as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the only alternatives that should be analyzed in the EIR are those that are capable of eliminating or substantially reducing significant adverse environmental impacts. The results of the analysis in this EIR and accompanying IS indicate that the proposed Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts; therefore, no alternative development scenarios are evaluated.”
Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 23 Comment 2-O: They have neglected to give an in depth study as to how the traffic would affect the surrounding neighborhoods and also the school. There is no part of the traffic study that shows how much traffic might be generated on each surrounding street at full build out of the project, only traffic into and out of the subdivision. It only gives enough information from data for future traffic available to anyone. It is basically tailored to meet the proposed project objectives without any consideration given to the environmental impact to the neighboring subdivisions. We believe that the projects impact is not stated and/or is grossly misleading.

Response to Comment 2-O: The comment provides the commenter’s admitted opinion that the traffic study is inadequate. The City of Porterville utilizes the “Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies” (Guidelines) to analyze potential impacts resulting from development projects. With regard to surrounding local roadways, the Guidelines state that the intersections and streets where project traffic is expected to reach 50 trips be analyzed. The surrounding neighborhoods do not have enough attractors (destinations) for project traffic to reach the 50-trip threshold on surrounding neighborhood local roads. See Response to Comment 1-A.

Comment 2-P: Furthermore, it appears that the baseline for air quality was taken from the monitoring station at the airport instead of actual monitoring closer to the project.

A lot of this study is cut and pasted using available data and prediction models instead of doing a comprehensive study, leading to an insufficient level of analysis of the information gathered by studies, leading to an insufficient level of analysis of the information gathered by studies.

Response to Comment 2-P: The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District operates one air quality monitoring station in Porterville, at the airport. Accordingly, this station provides the appropriate baseline data for development projects in the Porterville area. Drawing conclusions from available data and prediction models is a comprehensive study.

Comment 2-Q: Allowing a zone change to very small lots from the General Plan designation would be a step backwards taking into consideration the traffic issues as they exist and will only get worse as there is not a plan to lessen the congestion of traffic that already exists on the streets surrounding the project. I know that there is a large group of residents in the neighborhoods surrounding this project that are, like I am, concerned about the traffic issues that now exists and how adding another 230 homes to the mix without solving what already exists would be a major concern, along with solving the access to Burton School Lombardi Campus.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 24 Response to Comment 2-Q: The comment, not strictly confined to CEQA, demonstrates a misunderstanding of the distinction between the General Plan Land Use and the zoning of a site as well as how they correlate to the overall intensity of development that could occur on that site.

First, while the proposed RS-2 zoning would accommodate lots with a minimum size of 5,000 square feet, an examination of the map shows that 155 of the proposed lots are 6,000 square feet or greater, including 78 lots of at least 7,000 square feet. Thus, while the Project does include smaller lots than other neighborhoods in the vicinity, the overall development is not at a noticeably higher density than the surrounding area and is accommodated by the Low Density Residential land use, consistent with the surrounding area. Second, although the City acknowledges that it cannot use planned land use as a baseline for determining impacts under CEQA (see Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683) and has not done so in this EIR, we shall note for the sake of discussion that under the current planned land use and corresponding zoning, the Project site could accommodate up to 336 dwellings (including smaller lots than proposed within the Medium Density Residential area and/or attached multifamily dwellings), along with 41,000 square feet of commercial development, much of which would not be subject to discretionary review (or, therefore, CEQA). Additionally, if residential development were proposed at the intensity identified in the General Plan, the City would be prohibited from requiring a reduction in the number of proposed dwellings under the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 66300, et seq.).

Accordingly, while the City properly examined Project impacts by comparing the Project as proposed to the existing baseline (agriculture) as opposed to the development potential under the planned land uses, for illustrative purposes it is evident that the planned land uses could support a substantially more intense development than the Project is actually proposing, and that the City would likely have less discretionary oversight in that circumstance. Also, please see Response to Comment 1-A, Response to Comment, 2-C, Response to Comment 2-D, and Response to Comment 2-F.

Comment 2-R: We all depend on the City to adopt policies and procedures that safeguards the rights to neighborhoods that we can access our homes reasonably well on city streets without traffic gridlock which then becomes to a quality of life issue, and there is no doubt that those folks that have invested most of their savings into a home for their family do not want to see their families lifestyle degraded due to a flawed EIR. These are issues that the citizens have a right to and should not have to be brought to the City's attention. They voted on you to protect them and the future design of this city. Any consideration of the EIR and it's accompanying traffic study should be sent back for corrections and rejected in it's present form.

Response to Comment 2-R: Please see the Response to Comment 1-A.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 25 Comment 2-S: It should incorporate the alternatives to the proposed project which are considered the “heart” of an EIR.

Response to Comment 2-S: While in County of Inyo v. Yorti (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795 the 3rd District Court of Appeal noted that “in many respects the EIR is the heart of CEQA”, the City is not aware of any source describing alternatives analysis as “the ‘heart’ of an EIR.” Also, please see the Response to Comment 2-N.

Comment 2-T: Appropriate mitigating measures should be incorporated. Response to Comment 2-T: Please see the Response to Comment 2-B.

Comment 2-U: Insufficient or outdated prediction models are not being used.

Response to Comment 2-U: Modeling conducted by both the Air Quality and Traffic Study experts were both appropriate and industry-standard.

Comment 2-V: Most of all, it should have included correct traffic studies and the current effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and way to minimize the effects and a description of reasonable alternatives. Unfortunately, this study is more to meet the project objectives instead of addressing the significant impacts, especially the traffic issues.

Response to Comment 2-V: Please see all Responses to Comment 2.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 26 Comment Letter 3:

Comment 3-A: As you are aware, the proposed Lombardi Development Project creates several interesting situations for me personally. A year ago, I purchased a house that will be directly impacted by the new project and yet understand the new homes will be located within the Burton School District boundaries, which does provide a potential increase in their student population that would impact my current employer, Porterville Unified School District. However, I am aware of several new housing projects that will add inventory to the PUSD boundaries and as long as it is an equitable distribution within the city of Porterville, I hold no objections to the Lombardi project.

Response to Comment 3-A: Comment noted. No response necessary, the City appreciates your time.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 27 Comment 3-B: I do have a few concerns around the road infrastructure for the project. I do believe the current area with the Nancy Ave. entrance where a west entrance four lots north will not be an issue as there is enough space for traffic to pass for those heading southbound and turning east for that new entrance, but I could see some potential issues with northbound traffic if there are no plans to expand the street.

While I do not live in that area, I'm sure there are some concerns on Lombardi Street unless of course a new west-east street is being built north of Westfield that would alleviate some of the traffic. With a right-hand turn available at Westfield for northbound traffic on Westwood, I would hope the same right-hand lane would be available for westbound traffic on Westfield for those reaching Westwood. Response to Comment 3-B: It should be noted that access to the development would be via Westwood Street, Westfield Avenue, and Lombardi Street, so future residents of the Project would be able to avoid Lombardi Street during school pickup/dropoff times.

Comment 3-C: Despite those concerns, as a resident of Porterville for over six years, I feel change is always important even if some in the community disagree. As the former board chairman for the Porterville Chamber of Commerce and current commissioner on the Porterville Parks and Leisure Commission, I fully understand the need for more housing in the area. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the developer to provide a new park for the project. With the relocation of Eagle Mountain Casino, we need to create more housing to add more businesses in the area, which will create more job opportunities for residents. One positive thing and perhaps one that a lot of people did not realize through the COVID-19 pandemic is that Porterville will be able to provide a low-cost community for those who are now able to work from home. Housing will be available for low-to-middle class residents who might not otherwise be able to afford housing in the urban areas of the state. In closing, I think this project will be a benefit for Porterville and the surrounding community.

This email serves as notice that I am writing this public comment on my own and has not been endorsed by any member of the PUSD Governing Board or my direct supervisor. I am solely writing this public comment as a proud resident of Porterville. Thank you.

Response to Comment 3-C: Comment noted. No response necessary, the City appreciates your time.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 28 Comment Letter 4:

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 29 Comment 4-A: The city continues to expand facing challenges of balancing the growth, with incentives for developers which always raises some ethical dilemmas for our city leaders. Our city continues to collect below average park fees from developers which hurt growth and maintenance in other areas as we expand. Other cities collect more money from developers so that trade-offs make for more responsible growth like collecting a half million dollars in developer fees to fund the lighting at our sports complex for example.

Response to Comment 4-A: The comment refers to “incentives for developers” and “ethical dilemmas” and states that that the City collects "below average” development impact fees (without indicating what the average might be). The City is unaware of any incentives that the developer may have received that may lead to any ethical dilemmas, as the development is required to comply with all City standards, regulations, policies, etc. and is responsible for funding and/or installation of onand offsite improvements (including a 2.99-acre improved park within the project) and payment of development fees as would be any other similar project—the Project will also dedicate a wellsite.

Development impact fees are based on a nexus study prepared pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 30 (Gov. Code Section 66000, et seq.). Unless a project-specific study is prepared that illustrates the project would have a greater effect on certain facilities—such as the fair-share for street improvements based on the traffic study—a project can only be made to pay the fees that are in place when it's deemed accepted for processing, and those fees have to be based on the adopted fee schedule. What the City of Porterville charges for its fees is unrelated to what any other public agency charges, as each agency has prepared its own study based upon various factors such as development potential within the urban development boundary and (in the case of parks) the desired ratio of parks per population identified in the General Plan and/or the presence or absence of a Quimby Act ordinance (specific to parkland dedication), and the willingness of residents to fund maintenance activities. Importantly, it should be noted that “park fees from developers” cannot be used for maintenance. Non-standard incentives, fees, improvement requirements, and related components (such as installation of lighting at a non-project-related facility) can be included in a project as part of a development agreement (Gov.

Code Section 65864, et seq.); however, a development agreement must be requested by the developer and no such agreement is part of this project.

Comment 4-B: After all who wants to tell the folks on Westfield Avenue they can expect a 4 lane road in front of their house in the near future so we can fast track a housing development in the area?
Response to Comment 4-B: The comment erroneously states that the Project would expand W.

Westfield Avenue to four lanes. Not only is such an expansion not a part of the Project, but it should also be noted that the General Plan Circulation Element does not identify W. Westfield Avenue as having more than two through lanes at any location in the City.

Comment 4-C: Summit Charter is on the north end of Lombardi which is a dead end road where all traffic needs to go north to school and then back south every morning and every evening, to deliver and pick up 600+ students, from other parts of town outside this neighborhood. All that traffic adds to the bottlenecks on Westfield East & West. This also contributes to the 2 lane bridge bottleneck just north of CVS on Westwood where the expansion to 4 lanes with new bridge remains incomplete while it has direct connections to Westfield and the Brookside Subdivision that will exacerbate the bottleneck if not completed soon. This section around the bridge is very dangerous at peak times backing up traffic through the light and left turns hold traffic on the bridge. These 2 lane residential roads were not meant for this Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 31 much traffic so something has to give. The city is considering 4 lanes for Westfield and several traffic lights in the area as a solution, but I don't think the residents in this area are aware that they only have a month or two to weigh in on the project.

Moreover the current proposed traffic solutions don't address the REAL bottlenecks in the area. The proposed solutions may make things worse.

Response to Comment 4-C: Please see Response to Comment 2-F and Response to Comment 4- B.

Comment 4-D: An alternative route not in the plan is to extend Castle street West to Lombardi to solve the dead end issue and move traffic in/out of the area Eastward to Newcomb reducing the traffic on Westfield and improving the emergency service access to this new housing project and to the school. Castle street expansion west to the School will also open up north/south traffic on Matthew where the new traffic light will be to get traffic to Henderson to the south and traffic to the north via the proposed Castle extension without adding traffic to Westfield. The Castle street extension would help the traffic flows significantly in the entire area and would diminish the need to make Westfield 4 lanes for the foreseeable future. The Castle alternative may be desirable for the Westfield street residents that would be made to trade their front yards for a 4 lane thoroughfare and the additional city expense for eminent domain to make Westfield 4 lanes. This will also mitigate traffic bottlenecks on North/South Newcomb which is already 4 lanes and designed for more traffic.

Response to Comment 4-D: See Response to Comment 1-B, Response to Comment 2-D, and Response to Comment 3-B.

Comment 4-E: Additional things to consider for the project to ensure responsible growth. The lot sizes proposed are smaller than all of the lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Smaller lots mean more residents, more traffic, more pollution & more water. Larger lots consistent with surrounding neighborhood will protect the integrity and consistency of past projects and help maintain the values of the homes in the previous developments. Larger Lots will reduce the traffic demand with fewer residents. Larger lots will reduce the pollution that is a significant Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 32 concern in the environmental study. Larger Lots will translate into fewer connections to the water system. IF we allow smaller lots the developer makes more money and we have to suffer with more traffic, more pollution, more water hookup’s and a neighborhood with smaller houses in the middle of a neighborhood with larger houses. In Toto the integrity and consumption in the area demands we remain consistent with past development in this area of town adjacent to the canal in northwest Porterville.

Response to Comment 4-E: See Response to Comment 2-Q.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 33 Comment Letter 5:

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 34 Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 35 Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 36 Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 37 Comment 5-A: Project Related Emissions At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 38 (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.

Based on information provided to the District, Project specific annual emissions from construction and operation emissions of criteria pollutants are not expected to exceed any of the following District significance thresholds: 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO), 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), 27 tons per year of oxides of sulfur (SOx), 15 tons per year of particulate matter of 10 microns or less in size (PM10), or 15 tons per year of particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5).

Response to Comment 5-A: The City appreciates the District’s concurrence with the EIR conclusion that Project specific annual emissions will not exceed significance thresholds.

Comment 5-B: Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The District has reviewed the Project’s Health Risk Assessment (HRA) and has the following comments:
o Per Appendix B (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Assessment), diesel exhaust PM2.5 was used to estimate construction-related diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions in the HRA. As such, the pollutant type, “PM2.5”, was used in AERMOD for the HRA. However, the District recommends the HRA be revised to ensure annual PM10 diesel exhaust emissions and the pollutant type, “PM10”, in AERMOD are used to
estimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and ground level concentrations of nearby sensitive receptors.
o Non-default daily breathing rates were used to calculate the daily inhalation dose associated with the Project. Please include a discussion in the DEIR justifying the use of non-default daily breathing rates for the cancer health risk calculation.

Response to Comment 5-B: The District recommended that the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the project be revised to use PM10 exhaust as a proxy for diesel particulate matter (DPM) instead of the PM2.5 exhaust that was used.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 39 PM2.5 exhaust emissions were chosen to serve as a proxy for DPM emissions because according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), 90 percent of DPM is less than 1µm (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair), and thus is a subset of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). See: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Therefore, the use of PM2.5 as a proxy for DPM is supported through substantial evidence and is consistent with standard professional practice.

Using PM10 as the proxy would overestimate risks associated with construction equipment. The difference in PM10 emissions and PM2.5 emissions is 16.8 pounds for the duration of construction, which is approximately a 7 percent increase. Increasing the reported cancer risk by 7 percent would still result in a mitigated cancer risk of less than 20 in a million at 3.88 in a million for the maximally exposed sensitive receptor (infant). The impact would remain less than significant.

Comment 5-C: Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The District has reviewed the Project’s Health Risk Assessment (HRA) and has the following comments:
o Non-default daily breathing rates were used to calculate the daily inhalation dose associated with the Project. Please include a discussion in the DEIR justifying the use of non-default daily breathing rates for the cancer health risk calculation.

Response to Comment 5-C: The District noted that non-default breathing rates were used to calculate the daily inhalation dose associated with the Project and requested that the DEIR include a discussion justifying using a non-default daily breathing rate for cancer risk calculation.

As shown in Appendix B of the Air Quality Study, the HRA used the 95 percent breathing rate for infant (1090), 80 percent breathing rate for the child (572), and 80 percent breathing rate for the adult. There was a typographical error made in the unmitigated calculations, whereby the HRA used the 30-year breathing rate for the adult of 261 but had used the 70-year breathing rate of 233 for the mitigated adult.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 40 Cancer Risk Results:

Dose (Equation 5.4.1.1)
Exposure
Age
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Breathing Rate
L/kg body
weight-day)
Inhalation
Absorption
Factor
EF Multiplier DOSE
(mg/kg/day)
Unmitigated
Infant 0.078 1090 1 0.95890411 0.000001 8.1526E-05
Child 0.078 572 1 0.95890411 0.000001 4.27825E-05
Adult 0.078 261 1 0.95890411 0.000001 1.95214E-05
Mitigated
Infant 0.01106 1090 1 0.95890411 0.000001 1.156E-05
Child 0.01106 572 1 0.95890411 0.000001 6.06633E-06
Adult 0.01106 233 1 0.95890411 0.000001 2.47108E-06
The values used are consistent with SJVAPCD Final Staff Report, “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document” (see p.9 http://valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf) Updating the child breathing rate to 95 percent (745) would increase the unmitigated child construction risk to 5.25 in one million (from 4.03 in one million) and would increase the mitigated child construction risk to 0.75 in one million (from 0.58 in one million). Then updating the adult breathing rate to more conservative 30-year one would increase the mitigated adult risk during construction to 0.09 in one million. It should be noted that the significance determination was based on the infant risk which used the 95 percent breathing rate, as such this clarification does not alter the prior impact determination of less than significant with mitigation. Please see Chapter 3 – Text Changes to the DEIR for the textual revisions.

Comment 5-D: Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 41 customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider the feasibility of incorporating solar power systems, as an emission reduction strategy for the Project.

Response to Comment 5-D: The developer will be installing solar panels on the residential units consistent with the current California Building Code.

Comment 5-E: Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community Since the Project consists of residential development, gas-powered residential lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm
and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm. Response to Comment 5-E: The City appreciates the information and will pass on the information to the Project developer.

Comment 5-F: Charge Up! Electric Vehicle Charger
To support further installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of such infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of this incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District suggests that the City and Project Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 42 proponent consider the feasibility of installing electric vehicle chargers for the Project.

Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

Response to Comment 5-F: The Project includes the development of single-family housing and therefore does not qualify for the incentive program.

Comment 5-G: District Rules and Regulation The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources and regulates some activities not requiring permits. A project subject to District rules and regulation would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with regulatory requirements. In general, a regulation is a collection of rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. For example, Regulation II - Permits encompasses multiple rules associated with the permitting of emission sources such as Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), and others.

Response to Comment 5-G: The City recognizes that the Project is subject to District Rule 9510, District Regulation VIII, and potentially Rule 4102, Rule 4601, and Rule 4641.

Comment 5-H: Potential Air Quality Improvement Measures The District encourages the following air quality improvement measures to further reduce Project related emissions from construction and operation. A complete list of potential air quality improvement measures can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ceqaconnected/aqimeasures.aspx. Response to Comment 5-H: The City appreciates the information. Comment is noted and no response is necessary.

Comment 5-I: District Comment Letter
Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 43 The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

Response to Comment 5-I: The City will provide the applicant with a copy of the comment letter.

Oral Comments
Renee Kirtley
Response to Renee Kirtley: The City appreciates the comment. There is no proposal, currently or in the future, to expand W. Westfield Avenue to four lanes (see Response to Comment 4-B); additionally, any improvements to major street rights-of-way associated with development are paid for by the development, not by the City. It should be further noted that the Project would be developed in multiple phases over multiple years; it will not result in an immediate population increase. As it relates to the EIR, the City has exceeded the notification requirements prescribed by State law by providing the notice of preparation and the notice of availability of the EIR to property owners within 500 feet of the Project site, which notification is not required under CEQA. Notice of public hearing for the discretionary project components is accomplished in compliance with Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, as applicable, along with Porterville Municipal Code Section 609.06. Impacts to public services, such as fire, police, utilities and water are analyzed in the Initial Study prepared for the EIR. Less than significant impacts resulting from Project development are anticipated. Donating land to the Burton School District is not within the scope of the Lombardi Development Project and in any case not is not feasible for the City to accomplish.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 44 Brock Neeley
Response to Brock Neeley: The commenter appears to be referring to a parking situation at a location approximately one mile to the east of the proposed Project. This comment does not appear to relate to the Lombardi Development Project. Comment noted.

Jenny Cox:

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 45 Response to Jenny Cox: The City appreciates your comment. Potential impacts to water supply as a result of Project development were analyzed on Page 70 of the Initial Study to the EIR. The Initial Study concluded that since the site is currently and has historically been in agricultural production with plums, the residential development will utilize approximately 24.15 acre/feet per year less of water than if the site were to continue in agricultural production.

David Cox:

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 46 Response to David Cox: The City appreciates the comment, which largely attempts to illustrate how growth projections should or should not be used when the City Council considers development proposals. Please note that pursuant to Government Code Section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(D), the City is prohibited from “establishing or implementing any provision that i) limits the number of land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing; ii) acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed; or iii) limits the population of the…city.” Consistent with these provisions, the City cannot consider either historical growth rates or future growth projections when considering whether to approve housing development projects, although these rates may still be used for assessing the need for public facilities, infrastructure, etc. The comment also appears to assert that the City should disregard State mandates regarding housing production because those mandates were not developed in consideration of communities like Porterville. This comment is not strictly related to CEQA, although it does touch on the issue of water availability. In that regard, please refer to Response to Jenny Cox.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page |47 CHAPTER THREE – Text Changes to the Draft EIR
Revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR made in response to comments and information received on the Draft EIR are indicated by strikethrough text (e.g., strikethrough), indicating deletions, and underline text (e.g., underline), indicating additions.

These updates and revisions do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR because they do not disclose that a new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; that a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; that a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the Project proponent decline to adopt it; or that the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Guidelines Section 15088.5, subdivision (a)). Instead, the information merely clarifies or amplifies the information in the Draft EIR and does not result in any change in impact conclusion.

Text Changes to the Draft EIR:

Executive Summary

Page 1 ends

Alternatives Evaluated
The EIR analyzed the No Project Alternative, which would avoid both the adverse and beneficial effects of the Project but would not meet the Project’s objectives. As the proposed Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, no alternative development scenarios were evaluated. and a Reduced Project Alternative. The Reduced Project Alternative consists of decreasing the size of the proposed project. The EIR determined that the Reduced Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, although it would not fully meet the project’s objectives.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 48 Chapter 3 – Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation

Page 3 ends

Table 9: Health Risks from Project Construction at the Maximally Exposed Sensitive Receptor (Unmitigated)
Health Impact Metric
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health Risk in
One Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Risks and Hazards at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor1 Risks and Hazards: Infant 25.6 0.016 Risks and Hazards: Child 4.03

5.25 0.016
Risks and Hazards: Adult 0.61 0.016
Threshold 20 1
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No
Notes: 1
The maximally exposed sensitive receptor is located at an existing residence located approximately 100 feet west of the project site. 2 Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3. Source: Appendix B.

Table 10: Health Risks from Project Construction at the Maximally Exposed Sensitive Receptor (Mitigated)
Health Impact Metric
Carcinogenic
Inhalation Health Risk in
One Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Risks and Hazards at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor1 Risks and Hazards: Infant 3.63 0.002 Risks and Hazards: Child 0.57

0.75 0.002
Risks and Hazards: Adult 0.08

0.09 0.002
Threshold 20 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No
Notes: 1
The maximally exposed sensitive receptor is located at an existing residence located approximately 100 feet west of the project site. 2 Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3. Source: Appendix B.

Lombardi Development Project | Final EIR
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 49 CHAPTER FOUR – Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that a public agency adopts a monitoring program for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the approved project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with environmental mitigation during project implementation and operation. Since there are potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation associated with the project, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included herein on the following pages.

The first column of the Table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “Party Responsible for Implementing Mitigation,” names the party responsible for carrying out the required action. The third column, “Implementation Timing,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Party Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented.

The last column will be used by the City to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been monitored.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Mitigation Measure Party responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Timing Party responsible for Monitoring Verification (name/date) AIR-1: Clean Construction Fleet. The Project Applicant and/or their respective contractors shall submit documentation to the City of Porterville demonstrating that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets EPA or ARB Tier 5 off-road emission standards. Project Applicant / Construction Contractor Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville IS-BIO-1: Within 30 days prior to ground disturbance activities associated with construction or grading that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically March through August in the project region, or as determined by a qualified biologist), the applicant shall have weekly surveys conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the disturbance zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors and special-status species) of the disturbance zone. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of disturbance work. If ground disturbance activities are delayed, then additional pre-disturbance surveys shall be conducted such that no more than seven days will have elapsed between the survey and ground disturbance activities. If active nests are found, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors and special- status species) shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Mitigation Measure Party responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Timing Party responsible for Monitoring Verification (name/date) of the surveys shall be provided to CDFG in the Annual Mitigation Status Report. BIO-1: A qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct surveys for nesting SWHA following the entire survey methodology developed by the SWHA Technical Advisory Committee prior to Project implementation within 0.5- miles from the limits of Project-associated disturbance. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville BIO-2: If Project-specific activities take place during the SWHA nesting season (March 1 through September 15), and active SWHA nests are present, a minimum 0.5-mile no-disturbance buffer should be delineated and maintained around each nest, regardless if when it was detected by surveys or incidentally, until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, to prevent nest abandonment and unauthorized take of SWHA as a result of Project activities. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville BIO-3: In the event an active SWHA nest is detected, and a 0.5-mile no- disturbance buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW shall occur to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Mitigation Measure Party responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Timing Party responsible for Monitoring Verification (name/date) BIO-4: The removal of known SWHA nest trees, even outside of the nesting season shall be replaced with an appropriate native tree species planting at a ratio of 3:1 at or near the Project area or in another area that will be protected in perpetuity. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville BIO-5: Project activities should be timed to avoid the normal bird breeding season (February 1 through September 15). However, if Project activities must take place during that time, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct surveys for nesting TRBL no more than 10 days prior to the start of implementation to evaluate presence/absence of TRBL nesting colonies in proximity to Project activities and to evaluate potential Project-related impacts. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville BIO-6: If an active TRBL nesting colony is found during preconstruction surveys, a minimum 300-foot no-disturbance buffer in accordance with CDFW’s “Staff Guidance Regarding Avoidance of Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird Breeding Colonies on Agriculture Fields in 2015” shall be implemented. This buffer shall remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that nesting has ceased, the birds have fledged, and are no longer reliant upon the colony or parental care for survival. It is important to note that TRBL colonies can expand over time and for this reason, the colony shall be reassessed to determine the extent of the breeding colony within 10 days for Project initiation. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Mitigation Measure Party responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Timing Party responsible for Monitoring Verification (name/date) BIO-7: If a TRBL nesting colony is detected during surveys, consultation with CDFW shall occur to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take, or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b), prior to any ground- disturbing activities. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville BIO-8: If small mammal burrows are present within the Project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys to assess presence/absence following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s “Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines” and CDFW’s “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012). Specifically, if suitable habitat is present at an individual Project site, three or more surveillance surveys shall be conducted during daylight with each visit occurring at least three weeks apart during the peak breeding season (April 15 to July 15), when BUOW are most detectable. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Mitigation Measure Party responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Timing Party responsible for Monitoring Verification (name/date) BIO-9: No-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012), shall be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities. Specifically, impacts to occupied burrows shall be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville BIO-10: If BUOW are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, burrow exclusion shall be conducted by qualified biologists and only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. Replacement of occupied burrows shall happen with artificial burrows at a ratio of 1 burrow collapsed to 1 artificial burrow constructed (1:1) as mitigation for the potentially significant impact of evicting BUOW. BUOW may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be impacted; thus, ongoing surveillance shall occur, at a rate that is sufficient to detect BUOW if they return and determined by a qualified biologist. Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant / City of Porterville CUL-1: Before initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project, the City shall require all construction Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Mitigation Measure Party responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Timing Party responsible for Monitoring Verification (name/date) personnel to be alerted to the possibility of buried cultural resources, including historic, archeological and paleontological resources; The general contractor and its supervisory staff shall be responsible for monitoring the construction Project for disturbance of cultural resources; and If a potentially significant historical, archaeological, or paleontological resource, such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains or trash deposits are encountered during subsurface construction activities (i.e., trenching, grading), all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the identified potential resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the item for its significance and records the item on the appropriate State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms. The archaeologist shall determine whether the item requires further study. If, after the qualified archaeologist conducts appropriate technical analyses, the item is determined to be significant under California Environmental Quality Act, the archaeologist shall recommend feasible mitigation measures, which may include avoidance, preservation in place or other appropriate measure, as outlined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2. The City of Porterville shall implement said measures. CUL-2: The Project applicant will incorporate into the construction contract(s) a provision that in the event a fossil or fossil formations are discovered during any subsurface construction activities for the proposed Project (i.e., trenching, grading), all excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate representative Project Applicant Prior to and during construction Project Applicant CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Mitigation Measure Party responsible for Implementing Mitigation Implementation Timing Party responsible for Monitoring Verification (name/date) at the City of Porterville, who shall coordinate with the paleontologist as to any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City shall implement those measures, which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2. TRA-1: The Applicant shall pay the City of Porterville for their Fair Share Portion of the intersection and roadway segment improvements described in Tables 27 and 28, in order to maintain or improve the operational level of service of the street system in the project vicinity. Project Applicant During project design and construction Project Applicant TRA-2: The project developer shall pay a total of $50,260 in improvement fees, prior to issuance of building permits, to the City of Porterville to improve the existing bus stop at Westfield Avenue and Lombardi Street. Project Applicant During project design and construction Project Applicant Appendix A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. -2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
245-010-037, -041, AND 087 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS: the Brookside Development Project proposes to develop Assessor’s Parcel Number 245-010-087, consisting of approximately 56.06 acres situated at the northwest corner of Lombardi Street and Westfield Avenue, with 229 single-family lots; and WHEREAS: to facilitate development of the Site, the annexation of additional parcels, to wit APNs 245-010-037, -041, and -092 is necessary; and
WHEREAS: portions of APNs 245-037, -041, and -87 are variously designated Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Parks and Recreation; and
WHEREAS: to provide for uniform density and development standards and to facilitate development of single-family residential uses across the site, the project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to reflect APNs 245-010-37, -041, and -087 as Low Density Residential in their entirety, with APN 245-010-092 remaining as Education; and WHEREAS: on February 19, 2022, a notice was published in The Porterville Recorder setting the date, time, and place of a public hearing for March 1, 2022 and similar notices were sent to owners of property within 500 feet of the Site and posted at City Hall and the City’s website announcing the same; and
WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on March 1, 2022 the Porterville City Council did conduct a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: the City Council has determined that amending the General Plan to accommodate the type and intensity of proposed development is in the best interest of the City of Porterville and the public at large; and
WHEREAS: amendment of a General Plan expressly constitutes a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.; and WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2022, the City Council has certified an environmental impact report assessing the potential environmental effects of the BrooksideDevelopment Project; and WHEREAS: pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), a city may not amend any one element of its general plan more than four times per year.

Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville hereby amends the Land Use Diagram of the Land Use Element of the City of Porterville General Plan to reflect the Land Use designation of Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 245-010-037, -041, and -087 as Low Density Residential as illustrated in Exhibit A hereto. The amendment to the City of Porterville General Plan approved herein constitutes the first amendment to the Land Use Element for Calendar Year 2022.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022.

By: ___________________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: ________________________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A

Page 1 of 2 ends

ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE (PRC 2020-044) FROM RS-1 (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO RS-2 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FOR APNs 245-010-037, - 041, AND -087
WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Porterville at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 1, 2022, conducted a public hearing to approve findings and consider Zone Change (PRC 2020-044) being a change in zone from RS-1 (Very Low Density Residential) to RS-2 (Low Density Residential) for three parcels, totaling 58.60± acres, to support the BrooksideLaurelwood Development Project located at the northwest corner of Lombardi Street and Westfield Avenue, identified as APNs 245-010-037, -041, and -087; and WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Porterville determined that the proposed Zone Change (PRC 2020-044) is consistent with the guiding and implementation policies of the adopted 2030 General Plan; and
WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2022, the City Council has certified an environmental impact report for the proposed project; and WHEREAS: The City Council made the following findings that the proposed project will advance the goals and objectives of and is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and any other applicable plan that the City has adopted.
a. The project supports and complies with the following General Plan guiding policies:

LU-G-1: Promote a sustainable, balanced land use pattern that responds to existing needs and future needs of the City.

LU-G-3: Promote sustainability in the design and development of public and private development projects.

LU-G-5: Ensure that new development pays for the public facilities and infrastructure improvements required to meet the demands resulting from that growth.

PSCF-G-1: Establish and maintain a high-quality, enjoyable, and attractive park system for the entire community.

PSCF-G-2: Provide park and recreation facilities within close proximity to residents they are intended to serve.

C-G-1: Promote safe and efficient vehicular circulation b. Development of the site as proposed would be subject to the City’s development standards.
c. The subject Zone Change will not create adverse environmental impacts on the adjacent neighborhood when standards of the Development Ordinance and General Plan are applied to the subsequent development project.

Ordinance No. ______

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS by the City Council of the City of Porterville:

Section 1: The following described property in the City of Porterville, County of Tulare, State of California is hereby rezoned from RS1 (Very Low Density Residential) to RS-2 (Low Density Residential): Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 245-010-037, 245-010- 041, and 245-010-087, located generally at the northwest corner of Lombardi Street and Westfield Avenue and more particularly shown on Exhibit “A” hereto; and
Section 2: All records of the City of Porterville, together with the official zoning map of the City of Porterville, shall be changed to show the above described real property is rezoned from RS-1 (Very Low Density Residential) to RS-2 (Low Density Residential).

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting on the 1st day of March, 2022, and PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 15th day of March, 2022.

By: ____________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By:

Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
c::J Annexation Area
c::J Development Area
c:::J City Limits
Lombardi Residential Development
Zoning
RS-1 (Very
Low Density
Residential)
1 in = 750 feet
RS-1 (Very
Low Density
Residential)
Date Printed: 2/24/2022 by the Community Development Department I : • ... ...

Exhibit A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ____-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

APPROVING A CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE REDUCED LOT

DIMENSIONS AND AREA FOR THE BROOKSIDE-LAURELWOOD DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT
WHEREAS: the Brookside-Laurelwood Development Project proposes to develop Assessor’s Parcel Number 245-010-087, consisting of approximately 56.06 acres situated at the northwest corner of Lombardi Street and Westfield Avenue, with 229 single-family lots; and WHEREAS: to facilitate development of the Site, the applicant has requested a change of zone to the RS-2 (Low Density Residential) district, which district has a minimum lot size 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet; and
WHEREAS: via Resolution No. XX-2022, the City Council has amended the General Plan Land Use of the site to Low Density Residential; and
WHEREAS: via Ordinance No. XXX, the City Council has amended the zoning of the Site to the RS-2 district; and
WHEREAS: Development Code Section 201.4(C) allows, subject to approval of a conditional use permit, a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 35 feet in the RS-2 district; and
WHEREAS: the applicant has requested a reduction of the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet and of the minimum lot width to 50 feet; and WHEREAS: on February 19, 2022, a notice was published in The Porterville Recorder setting the date, time, and place of a public hearing for March 1, 2022 and similar notices were sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the Site and posted at City Hall and the City’s website announcing the same; and
WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on March 1, 2022, the Porterville City Council did conduct a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: the proposed action consists of issuance of a permit or entitlement for use and therefore constitutes a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2022, the City Council has certified an environmental impact report assessing the potential environmental effects of the BrooksideLaurelwood Development Project; and WHEREAS: the City Council has made the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 404.04, the evidence for said findings substantiated in the record:

Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

1. Approval of the proposed project will advance the goals and objectives of and is consistent with the policies of the general plan and any other applicable plan that the city has adopted.

2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed project are consistent with the purposes of the district where it is located and conforms in all significant respects with the general plan, this development ordinance and with any other applicable plan adopted by the city council.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville approves a conditional use permit for the Brookside Laurelwood Development Project authorizing a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022.

By: __________________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: ________________________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 1 of 10 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ____-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

APPROVING THE BROOKSIDE-LAURELWOOD TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Porterville at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 1, 2022 conducted a public meeting to consider approval of the Brookside Laurelwood Tentative Subdivision Map (Exhibit A). The proposed tentative subdivision map would divide the approximately 56.06 acres identified as Tulare County APN 245-010-087 into 229 parcels for development of single-family detached residences with an ±2.99 acre park. The project as proposed meets the requirements of the Development Code and General Plan, except where otherwise conditioned, and includes such features as sidewalks with parkway strips, street trees, streetlights, a dedicated park space, and circular access within the subdivision, which would take access onto the City’s circulation network from Westwood Street, Westfield Avenue, Lombardi Street, and a private drive south of Summit Charter Academy. The project would also include improvements to the major street system along the frontages of the subject site and dedication of a well site for City use; and
WHEREAS: on February 19, 2022, a notice was published in The Porterville Recorder setting the date, time, and place of a public hearing for March 1, 2022 and similar notices were sent to owners of property within 500 feet of the Site and posted at City Hall and the City’s website announcing the same; and
WHEREAS: The City Council received testimony from all interested parties relative to the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS: the proposed action consists of issuance of a permit or entitlement for use and therefore constitutes a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2022, the City Council has certified an environmental impact report assessing the potential environmental effects of the BrooksideLaurelwood Development Project, of which the Brookside-Laurelwood Tentative Subdivision Map is a component; and
WHEREAS: via Resolution No. XX-2022, the City Council has amended the General Plan Land Use of the site to Low Density Residential; and
WHEREAS: via Ordinance No. XXX, the City Council has amended the zoning of the Site to the RS-2 district; and
WHEREAS: via Resolution No. XX-2022, the City Council has approved a conditional use permit authorizing a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet for the project;
Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 2 of 10 ends

WHEREAS: The City Council finds that substantial evidence does not exist to make the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 400.4:

1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

5. That the design of the subdivisions or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City Council of the City of Porterville does hereby approve the Brookside-Laurelwood Tentative Subdivision Map (PRC 2020-044) subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval of the tentative subdivision map is contingent upon annexation to the City of Porterville.

2. The developer/applicant has shown a ±2.9-acre park centrally located of the proposed subdivision. The developer/applicant shall dedicate and improve the park to City standards. The applicant shall propose improvements and identify valuation of said improvements on a parcel sized such that the sum of the dedication and improvements would be valued based on the (check updated requirement) acres.

3. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the developer/ applicant shall have completed and approved, landscaping and/or lighting improvement plans. The developer/applicant shall petition, on a form provided by the City, to have said subdivision placed in a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District, Benefit Assessment District or similar district to include: (1) Lighting; (2) Recreational Open Space; (3) Common Public Landscaping along Westwood, Westfield, Lombardi and Brian? Streets; (4) Public walls/fences, if any; (5) Drainage reservoir, if any; and (6) any other public improvement complying with Series 400, Section 407.03 (i) of the Development Ordinance. The developer/applicant shall submit a processing fee of $375 with the executed petition form.

4. Unless otherwise noted, the developer/applicant shall comply with the City Master Plans and Standard Drawings, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (2018 Edition), and Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications (2018 Standards), except where they are in conflict with current access compliance regulations, the current California Building Code, the Tulare County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the California Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 3 of 10 ends

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Porterville Circulation Element, and the Tulare County Congestion Management Program.

5. Prior to approval of the final subdivision map, the developer/applicant shall provide surety for all public improvements and provide easements, permits, calculations, etc. if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they are needed for the proper functioning or phasing of the subdivision (e.g. water, sewer, drainage, etc.).

6. Subdivision trees and landscaping design shall be approved by the city and shall be planted at a time and in locations approved by the City Director of Parks and Leisure Services, all in general accord with the requirements of the Porterville Municipal Code.  At least one (1) tree shall be planted on each residential lot. Five (5) gallon trees shall be installed upon all lots abutting interior, local and Collector Street, and fifteen (15) gallon trees shall be planted upon parcels having frontage on arterial thoroughfares.
 The subdivider shall be required to plant street trees at thirty-five (35) feet on center along all parkways within and/or bordering the subdivision

7. The developer/applicant shall comply with Chapter 303, Landscaping, of the Porterville Development Ordinance and Chapter 25, Article I, Division 6 of the Municipal Code.

Landscape plans shall be drawn to scale and shall at a minimum indicate: proposed plant locations, species, and sizes; any additional proposed landscape elements; soil preparation measures; and any other measures to facilitate plant growth or control erosion. Landscape plans shall include verification that the soil type, depth, and other characteristics are appropriate for the proposed landscaping and irrigation. Landscape plans shall also indicate the location of any existing trees over six (6) inches in diameter, and whether each such tree is proposed for retention or removal. Each landscape plan shall be accompanied by an irrigation plan that at a minimum indicates the location, type and size of all components of the irrigation system, including automatic controllers, main and lateral lines, valves, sprinkler heads, moisture sensing devices, rain switches, quick couplers, and backflow prevention devices.

8. Landscaping shall be designed and plantings selected so that water use is minimized. The total water use (ETWU) of the proposed landscaping on a site, as described in Chapter 25, Article I, Division 6, may not exceed the maximum applied water allowance (MAWA).

9. Any existing wells on the subject property and the adjacent residential lots (APNs 245- 010-037 and 245-010-041) shall be abandoned. The adjacent residential lots shall connect to City utilities (sewer and water) prior to any newly developed lot being issued a certificate of occupancy. The proposed well lot shall have dimensions of at least 158 feet by 100 feet. The dimensions are necessary to enable future well development maintaining a proper control area.

10. A recycled water main shall be installed to accommodate park irrigation. The recycled water main shall extend from within the park to either Westwood Street or Westfield Avenue. Costs associated with this work shall follow the procedures for a Master Plan reimbursement.

Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 4 of 10 ends

11. The developer/applicant shall pay all applicable fees according to the Municipal Code and State law. The developer/applicant is hereby notified that you have the right to pay fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions, under protest, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a). You have 90 days from the date fees are paid to file a written protest.

12. The developer/applicant shall make payment of the required plan check fees at the time of building permit plan submittal.

13. The developer/applicant shall pay School Development fees and all other City fees at the time table determined by current City Ordinance.

14. The developer/applicant shall dedicate a one foot (1’) limitation of access strip at locations where, in the opinion of the City Engineer, it is undesirable to allow access.

15. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the developer/ applicant shall have completed and approved, landscaping and/or lighting improvement plans. The developer/applicant shall petition, on a form provided by the City, to have said subdivision placed in a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. Submit with the petition the $375 fee. The following shall be included and maintained in said district: (1) Lighting, (2) Recreational Open Space, (3) Public Landscaping, if any (4) Public walls/fences, if any, (5) Drainage reservoir, if any, and (6) any other public improvement in accordance with Series 400, Section 407.03 (i) of the Development Ordinance.

16. The developer/applicant shall prepare an Engineer's Report for the establishment of the assessments in order to provide for ongoing maintenance of the subdivision improvements to be included in the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. The Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District shall be established, or annexation into an existing District shall be concluded and landscape and lighting improvements shall be completed and accepted concurrently with the other improvements in the project.

Landscape easements will need to be created in areas deemed necessary by the City Engineer.

17. Exclusive of assessments for a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District, the developer/applicant shall pay all service fees and maintain all new lighting and landscape improvements in a safe and healthy manner for the greater of a minimum ninety-day plant establishment period following acceptance of the subdivision improvements, or until assessment begins for the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District.

18. In accordance with Series 400, Section 407.02 (g) or (h) of the Development Ordinance, the developer/applicant shall enter into an agreement that provides for completion of improvements within twelve (12) months of the Final Map acceptance.

19. The developer/applicant shall replace or provide surety for replacement of irrigation pipes in the right of way, if in the opinion of the City Engineer, replacement is warranted.

The developer/applicant shall provide easements for irrigation pipes across lots created, if pipes will continue to be in use.

20. Prior to recording the final subdivision map, the developer/applicant shall provide surety for off-site improvements and provide easements, permits, calculations, etc. if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they are needed for the proper functioning or phasing of the subdivision (e.g. water, sewer, drainage, etc.).

Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 5 of 10 ends

21. Building permits shall not proceed further than the installation of the foundation until all of the following items are accepted as complete:
a. The storm drain system is functional so that it will accept water from fire hydrant and/or water main flushing;
b. The water system, is functional from the source of water past the lots on which permits are being requested (i.e. all services and the sampling station, if required, are installed, valves are functional and accessible, bacteria testing is completed, etc.);
c. Street base rock for accessibility by public safety officials and building inspectors;
d. Lots are graded in accordance with the approved grading plan. Prior to receipt of the Final Grading, Drainage and Soils Report a letter from the "Supervising Civil Engineer" is required validating that the grading has been done in accordance with the approved grading plan and in accordance with the recommends contained in the Preliminary Soils Report;
e. The sewer system is completed, tested, and accepted by the City prior to residential occupancy of any house in the subdivision;
f. Lot corners are marked;
g. Fire hydrants are accepted by the Fire Department and the Engineering Division.

22. The developer/applicant shall coordinate with the U.S. Postal Service regarding the kind of mail facilities that will be utilized. If neighborhood box units (NBUs) are to be used, construct sidewalks in a timely manner to facilitate NBU installation.

23. The developer/applicant shall cause all regulatory and street name signs to be installed prior to occupancy of any house located where its occupants will utilize a street that does not have them.

24. The developer/applicant shall have a Civil Engineer design a water system that will provide a fire flow at each fire hydrant of 1,000 g.p.m. with 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a dwelling less than 3,600 square feet and 1,500 g.p.m. with 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a dwelling unit greater than 3,600 square feet.

25. The developer/applicant shall construct or provide surety for construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, water, sewer, street paving to the center of the street (if necessary), etc. along the full frontage of all proposed subdivision lots except where they exist to City standards and are in good condition in the opinion of the City Engineer. The developer/applicant shall stub improvements to the property line if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they will be needed for connection to development on the adjacent property.

26. The developer/applicant shall provide street striping and flexible delineators as necessary to provide safe vehicular movements within the sixty (60) foot right of way, where directed by the City Engineer.

27. The developer/applicant is aware that additional striping may be needed at the following locations for right turn pockets:
a. Along Lombardi Street at the northwest corner of the Westfield Avenue and Lombardi Street intersection.

Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 6 of 10 ends

b. Along Westfield Avenue at the northeast corner of the Westfield Avenue and Westwood Street intersection.

28. The developer/applicant shall verify that existing alignments are met and followed with the development of the roads serving the proposed subdivision. The proposed entry road located on Westfield Avenue shall align with the existing Silver Maple Street. The southernmost entry road located on Lombardi Street shall align with the existing Nancy Avenue.

29. The developer/applicant shall dedicate right-of-way for a street width that matches the ultimate width in the adopted Land Use and Circulation Element and/or the width established by the City Council, and dedication of required property for accessible ramp(s), sidewalk, etc.
a. The right of way width for Westwood Street shall be 84’ and will include 4.5’ of parkway behind curb, followed by 5’ of sidewalk, followed by an additional 10’ landscaping easement.
b. The right of way width for Westfield Avenue shall be 60’ and will include 4.5’ of parkway behind curb, followed by 5’ of sidewalk, followed by a 10’ landscape easement.
c. The right of way width for Lombardi Street shall be 56’ and will include 4.5’ of parkway behind curb, followed by 5’ of sidewalk, followed by a 10’ landscape easement.
d. The private drive, currently referred to as “Brian Avenue”, shall become a public road with an overall right of way width of 60’. Curb and gutter and all further mentioned improvements shall be constructed along the entire south side of the street. The 60’ right of way will include 4.5’ of parkway behind curb, followed by 5’ of sidewalk, followed by a 10’ landscape easement.
e. All local roads within the subdivision shall have a minimum right of way width of 56’.
f. Total area of dedication to be determined by a licensed surveyor.

30. Prior to recording the final subdivision map, the developer/applicant shall provide improvements by the method indicated below:
a. Pursuant to Section 66411.1(b) of the Government Code, the developer applicant shall construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks, curb returns per City Standards, sewer laterals, water services, fire hydrant relocation, street lights, connecting pavement along the full frontage of the proposed land division parcels. Additional improvements include a functional drainage system, connection of existing houses to City’s sewer system, abandonment of existing septic system(s), well abandonment (if any, and not in compliance with the City’s Backflow Ordinance), curing of leaks in irrigation lines (if any), and other improvements necessary for public health and safety, except where they exist to Federal, State and City standards and are in good condition in the opinion of the City Engineer.

31. Prior to approval of the final map the developer/applicant shall provide public improvement plans prepared by a Civil Engineer that include specific on-site grading details and specifications for City approval.

Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 7 of 10 ends

35. The developer/applicant shall comply with Appendix J, “Grading” of the current California Building Code, including provision of a grading and drainage plan signed by a licensed civil engineer or architect. The developer/applicant shall comply with City Retaining Wall Standards (adopted by City Council January 3, 1989) at lot lines where such standards are applicable.

36. The developer/applicant shall provide a Soils Report in conformance with Chapter 18 of the current California Building Code. The Soils Report shall include R-Value testing, expansion indexes, etc. where required for the construction of public improvements. The developer/applicant is advised that this area has previously been identified as an area of high soil expansion potential.

37. The developer/applicant shall construct and/or repair street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc. along the full parcel frontage(s), except where they exist and are determined to be in good condition and in compliance with current accessibility standards in the opinion of the City Engineer (Ord. No. 1306).

38. The developer/applicant shall comply with driveway vehicular sight distance requirements per Section 300.16 of the Development Ordinance and driveway separation from property line per City standards.

39. The developer/applicant is hereby notified that extension of existing water and sewer lines and/or the installation of new lines will be required per Section 407.02(f), development code.
a. The developer/applicant shall upgrade the existing sewer lift station that serves the Summit Charter Academy Lombardi campus to City standards. This includes a dual pump setup, wet well and emergency storage, new force main, and any other related items.
b. The developer/applicant shall complete an analysis demonstrating that the existing sewer mains and lift stations PS-11 and PS-18 can manage the increased capacity with the development of the proposed subdivision. Any upgrades found to be necessary will be evaluated for master plan reimbursement eligibility. c. The developer/applicant shall extend utilities along Westwood Street to the North property line of the development.
d. The developer/applicant shall extend utilities along Lombardi Street to the North property line of the development.
e. The developer shall install utilities in the current private road to be known as Brian Avenue, if necessary.
f. The developer/applicant is hereby notified that reimbursement for Master Plan facilities is made when funds are available and is contingent upon the work being done by the approved low bidder of at least two bona fide bids. The bids must be approved by the City prior to construction.

40. A looped water system is required to provide, at a minimum, two points of connection to the system for reliability and to meet fire flow requirements.

41. The developer/applicant shall comply with City Standard for “backflow” prevention pursuant to Resolution No. 9615 (1981). A double backflow preventer is required off the water main and is to be located in an above ground enclosure.

42. The developer/applicant shall design on-site water systems meeting the requirements of the current California Plumbing and Fire Codes. It shall be noted that the City water system complies with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code and any assurance to Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 8 of 10 ends

effectively provide water pressure for multi-story buildings is the sole responsibility of the owner/builder.

43. The developer/applicant shall submit design master plans consisting of combined grading & drainage and sewer & water utilities to ensure the proper functioning and/or phasing of the development. The developer/applicant shall construct drainage facilities as required to serve the property (Ord. No. 1306). Dedicate a drainage easement across each lot requiring an easement, unless all lots are graded to drain to the street. The developer/applicant shall construct concrete drainage swales, approved by the City Engineer, if necessary, to transport storm water across adjacent subdivision lots to reach a City drainage system. A minimum amount of runoff must be contained onsite per the State’s MS4 requirements. Drainage calculations must be submitted to verify that onsite drainage area/s will capture necessary runoff. The site shall be designed to convey water to the City drainage system without crossing driveways. The developer/applicant is required to install a sidewalk channel drain at the low side of the driveway, where applicable.
a. The developer/applicant shall provide storm drainage calculations showing that the proposed designated drainage area (temporary basin, master basin, etc.) is sufficient in containing runoff.
b. A master plan storm drain line interconnecting the drainage systems between the basin west of Burton Middle School and the basin along Lombardi Street will be required as part of this project development. The developer/applicant is hereby notified that reimbursement for Master Plan facilities is made when funds are available and is contingent upon the work being done by the approved low bidder of at least two bona fide bidders. The bids must be approved by the City prior to construction.

44. The developer/applicant is notified that a well lot is reserved onsite and the location is approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director.

45. The developer/applicant shall move existing utility structures (i.e., poles, splice boxes, vaults, etc.) to a position that provides a minimum of four feet (4') of clear space in the sidewalk area and a minimum of two feet (2') of clear space from the curb face to the structure, unless the utility structures are below grade (Title 24 DSA).

46. The developer/applicant shall provide 3000K LED streetlights on Marbelite poles (Marbelites spaced at a staggered 320’ intervals) following Southern California Edison Company specifications, as approved by the City Engineer. Wood poles are expressly prohibited without prior written approval of the City Engineer.

47. The developer/applicant shall comply with City Retaining Wall Standards (adopted by City Council January 3, 1989) at lot lines where such standards are applicable.

48. For residential development, the developer/applicant is hereby notified that the installation of an additional water meter, servicing the irrigation system, is required for monitoring actual water usage if the landscape area is 5,000 square feet or more. The City will require payment of impact fees based on estimated usage and will monitor actual water usage for one year.

49. The developer/applicant shall, under City inspection, remove all existing abandoned and unnecessary items, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (for example, foundations, septic tanks, irrigation pipes, etc.).

50. The developer/applicant shall abandon existing wells, if any, after first getting an abandonment permit from the Tulare County Environmental Health Services Division. The Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 9 of 10 ends

developer/applicant is required to provide the City Engineer with proof of compliance with County regulations at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

51. The developer/applicant shall assure compliance with Section 7-8, Work Site Maintenance of the Standard Specifications. Applicable requirements from both San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions and the California Green Code Standards must also be met. During grading operations the "Supervising Civil Engineer" shall be responsible for enforcing the dust control provisions of Section 7-8 or the developer/applicant shall pay inspection fees on the grading cost to compensate the City for dust control inspection.

52. The developer/applicant shall not allow onsite runoff or debris outside of the limits of the property during construction. Applicable best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to protect the City’s drainage system and inhibit vehicle track-out onto City streets. The improvement plans shall show the location of BMPs and areas designated for erosion and waste control. The developer/applicant shall remove and properly dispose of waste and spills deposited in the project area.

53. The developer/applicant is advised that they are obligated to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002 for discharge of Storm Water Associated with construction activity (except operations that result in disturbance of less than one acre of total land area and which are not a part of a larger common plan of development or sale). Before construction begins the proponent must:
a. Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the permit, a site map, and appropriate fee to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). b. Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the entire project before construction begins. The SWPPP must contain, at a minimum:

1. All items listed in Section A of the permit.

2. Descriptions of measures to be taken to prevent or eliminate unauthorized non-storm water discharges and all temporary (e.g., fiber rolls, silt fences, etc.) and permanent (e.g., vegetated swales, detention basins, etc.) best management practices that will be implemented to prevent pollutants from discharging with storm water into water of the United States.

If portions of the project area are to be sold off before the entire project is completed, the proponent must:
a. Submit to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board a change of information form identifying the new owners along with a revised site map clearly depicting those portions that were sold and those that are remaining. b. Inform each new owner of their responsibility to submit their own NOI, site map, and appropriate fee to the SWRCB and prepare their own SWPPP.

Resolution No. ___-2022

Page 10 of 10 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022.

By: _______________________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: ________________________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
APN #
245-010-092 APN # 245-010-049 APN # 245-010-026 APN # 245-010-091 APN # 245-010-044 APN # 245-480-052 APN # 245-460-082 APN # 245-460-052 APN #
245-460-051
APN #
245-460-050
APN #
245-460-049
APN #
245-460-048
APN #
245-460-047
APN #
245-460-046

GRANT DEED
DN 11796 VOL 4538 PG 40,
T.C.R.

APN #245-010-037

GRANT DEED
DN 2006-0028218
APN #245-010-041

CITY OF

PORTERVILLE

STORM WATER

RETENTION BASIN
187
209
110
210
24 208
213
211
212
220
219
216
61 58
36 49
145
182 176
197
185
183
181
195
136
141
162 163 164 165 166 167
104 105
180 179 178 177
206
175 174
207
168 169 170 171
160 159 158 157 156 155 154 153 152
142
199 200 201 202 203 204 205
173 172
190
99 101
100
102 103
98 23
25 26
60 64
62 87
76 75 70
88 74 73 69
89 72 68
86 90
71 22
10 98765432
92 96
97 31
56 33
32 27 28 29 30
57 52
47 48
42 50
55 54 53
59 46 45 44 43
51 91
34 35
39 37
38 41
40 65 66 67
63 18 19 20 21 15 16
12 14
13 11
106
117 118
108 107
119
93 140
139
138
137
133
135
134
132
151 150 149 148 147 146 144 143
194
193
191
188
189
17 1
161
192
78 80
79 77
84 115
121
111
114
109
116
129
130
127
128
222
221
131
126
113
112
81 82
83 85
218
123
124
125
226
227
228
229
122
120
223
225
224
217
215
214
196
198
186
184
95 94

OUTLOT B

WELL LOT
15,745 SF

CITY OF

PORTERVILLE

STORM WATER

RETENTION BASIN

OUTLOT A

PARK LOT

2.99 ACRES

GRANT DEED
DN 2000-0085210
APN #245-010-087

56.06 ACRES N N

WESTFIELD AVEWESTWOOD STNORTH GRAND AVE WESTWOOD ST
RESOLUTION NO. ____-2022

A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE REQUESTING

THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TAKE PROCEEDINGS

FOR ANNEXATION XXX
WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Porterville at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 1, 2022, conducted a public meeting to consider the approval of the Brookside-Laurelwood Development Project, which includes a proposed subdivision of 229 single-family homes with a 2.99-acre park on approximately 56.06 acres, said project currently within the unincorporated area of Tulare County, abutting the city limits of the City of Porterville, and within the City’s sphere of influence; and WHEREAS: Government Code Section 66454 allows the City to approve a tentative map on land outside the city limits with the provision that the final map cannot be approved until annexation of the site is complete; and
WHEREAS: to formulate a logical boundary for annexation, the project proposes to annex APNs 245-010-037, -041, and -091 in addition to the parcel to be subdivided; and WHEREAS: the City of Porterville desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for Annexation XXX; and WHEREAS: the territory proposed to be annexed to the city totals approximately 69.65 acres consisting of agricultural land, two rural residences, and the Summit Charter Academy and is therefore uninhabited; and
WHEREAS: on February 19, 2022, a notice was published in The Porterville Recorder setting the date, time, and place of a public hearing for March 1, 2022 and similar notices were sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the Site and posted at City Hall and the City’s website announcing the same; and
WHEREAS: this proposal is made pursuant to Sections 56654 and 56428 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS: the reasons for this proposal are as follows:

1. To ensure compatible land use planning practices are implemented and to steer sustainable future development in a growing area substantially surrounded by the current city limits.

2. To add much needed developable land to the City to aide in meeting Fifth Cycle and anticipated Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation quotas.

3. To maintain a definitive and organized city boundary and ensure efficient provision of services and facilities needed for high quality of life in the project area.

WHEREAS: the proposed annexation area and proposed development thereof would be subject to compliance with the Porterville Municipal Code and Porterville General Plan.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Resolution No. ___-2022
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Porterville. The Local Agency Formation Commission of Tulare County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the annexation as illustrated in Exhibit A, according to the terms and conditions stated above, and in the manner provided for by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and the detachment of the same area from County Service Area #1.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st of March, 2022.

By: ___________________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: ___________________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item No. 7.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Minor Conditional Use Permit for Stanton Optical SOURCE: Community Development
BACKGROUND: On January 26, 2022, City staff received an application for the establishment of Stanton Optical, an optometrist office, proposed to be located at 940 W. Henderson Avenue within The Porterville Town Center.

In accordance with Table 203.02 of the Porterville Development Ordinance (PDO), the establishment of office, business, or professional offices greater than 5,000 square feet in size per lot or integrated commercial development requires the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit.

COMMENT: On January 26, 2022, the Project Review Committee reviewed the project that would allow the establishment of Stanton Optical. The project proposes tenant improvements to the existing facility located at 940 W. Henderson Avenue. The Optometrist office falls within the Medical FacilitiesProfessional/Medical in the Porterville Development Ordinance land use classifications. There are currently existing office uses within the shopping center, including Keller Williams realty office with approximately 1,900 square feet of space as well as H & R Block with approximately 2,291 square feet. The proposed project for Stanton Optical, consisting of 3,826 square feet, exceeds the 5,000 square feet allowed within the integrated commercial development. Approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed new use in accordance with PDO Table 203.02.

ANALYSIS: The subject site is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Standards for CR (Retail Centers).

ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW:

The proposed project is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act per § 15301 Existing Facilities. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with Tulare County if the proposed project is approved.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the draft Resolution approving the Minor Conditional Use Permit for Stanton Optical subject to conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Locator Map

3. Zoning Map
Item No. 7.

4. Floor Plan
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Jason Ridenour, Community Development Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.____-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

CONTAINING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF A
MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PRC 2022-001-C)

FOR STANTON OPTICAL
WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Porterville at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 1, 2022, conducted a public hearing to consider approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish Stanton Optical; and WHEREAS: On January 26, 2020, the Environmental Coordinator made a preliminary determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality per § 15301 Existing Facilities, of the California Code of Regulations; and WHEREAS: The proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit is supported by the General Plan and Development Ordinance in that the proposed development is consistent with Porterville Development Ordinance (Chapter 21 of the Porterville Municipal Code); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City Council does hereby approve the Minor Conditional Use Permit (PRC 2022-001-C) for Stanton Optical subject to the following conditions:

1. Signs shall comply with Master Sign Program 2014-002 for Porterville Town Center.

2. Project shall comply with the latest applicable codes.

3. Fire Extinguishers shall be placed to comply with the currently adopted edition of the California Fire Code (2019)

4. Knox box required (www.knoxbox.com)

5. Address numbers shall be posted on the building and shall be visible from the street.

Installed numbers shall contrast with their background.

6. A back-flow device is required on the water meter.

7. A grease trap or grease interceptor is required.

8. The developer/applicant shall comply with the City standard for "backflow" prevention pursuant to Resolution No. 9615.

9. The developer/applicant shall install a refuse container enclosure according to City standards. Enclosure location to be approved by City prior to issuance of building permit.

Enclosure should be oriented for direct stab pick up. The developer/ applicant shall also Resolution No. __-2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

sign a waiver of liability for refuse truck damage to the parking lot if the refuse container location requires refuse trucks to travel on the parking lot.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2022.

Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
BY __________________________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
THETA
CIR

COBB ST

MULBERRY AVE
|ÿ65

PORTER RD

HENDERSON AVE

INDIANA ST
Locator Map
PRC 2022-001
Stanton Optical
940 W. Henderson Ave
Date Printed: 1/19/2022 by the Community Development Department 1 in = 300 feet
±
Project Location
CMX (Commercial
Mixed-Use)
PD (Planned
Development)
PK (Parks and
Public Recreation
Facilities)
PO (Professional
Office)
RM-2 (Medium Density
Residential)
RS-2 (Low
Density
Residential)
CR (Retail
Centers)
RM-3 (High
Density
Residential)
THETA
CIR

COBB ST

MULBERRY AVE
|ÿ65

PORTER RD

HENDERSON AVE

INDIANA ST
Zoning
PRC 2022-001
Stanton Optical
940 W. Henderson Ave
Date Printed: 1/19/2022 by the Community Development Department 1 in = 300 feet
±
Project Location

Item No. 8.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – MARCH 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development of Water Basin
SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT: The City is proposing the construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin to support the Eagle Mountain Casino. The basin would have a depth of roughly thirteen (13) feet from original grade to the base (toe) of the slope, and the high water line is designed to be five feet above the basin floor.

Once constructed, the basin would have a capacity of approximately 200.22 acre-feet. The basin would be surrounded by a 6-inch chain-link fence. In addition, the proposed project would include cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. Installation of the storm drain pipe would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street. The proposed project would also relocate an existing recirculation pond from its existing location west of the project site to north of the project site. The project site is currently owned by the City, and would continue to be owned by the City with implementation of the project.

Once operational, the proposed project would bring in stormwater runoff from the Airport area and casino development area. The proposed project would be utilized to recharge any available surface water that the City is able to acquire.

City staff would visit the project site on a weekly basis to ensure site security and would conduct monthly maintenance to maintain weed abatement and cleaning of the infrastructure.

Construction is estimated to start in the spring of 2022, and be operational in late 2022. Construction activities would include grading, soil removal, and restriping activities. Approximately 555,310 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the project site and would be transported to the Teapot Dome Landfill.

On January 17, 2022, the Environmental Coordinator made a preliminary determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for the Project. Mitigation measures were identified for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The Initial Study has been transmitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2022010278), as well as to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for review and comment. The review period ran for thirty (30) days from January 21, 2022, through February 22, 2022. At the time of this report, one comment was received from the Item No. 8.

Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Staff is working with the DSOD to answer the questions proposed in regard to the design of the stormwater recharge basin to better allow the DSOD to determine if the project is in DSOD’s jurisdiction. The outcome of the City’s discussions with DSOD may result in minor project revisions and/or the need for DSOD permitting, but will not affect the environmental determination.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Adopt the draft Resolution approving Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and

2. Direct staff to proceed with the Casino Basin Project.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. Locator Map

3. Response to Comment Received

4. Draft Resolution
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Jason Ridenour, Community Development Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
January 2022

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY /

MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION

CASINO BASIN PROJECT

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
This page intentionally left blank
January 2022

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY /

MITIGAT ED NEGATIVE DECLARAT ION

CASINO BASIN PROJECT

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

City of Porterville
Jason Ridenour, Community Development Director
291 N. Main Street Porterville, California 93257
Prepared by:

LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, California 93611
(559) 490-1210
Project No. POR1801.24
This page intentionally left blank

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iii

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Site ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Proposed Project............................................................................................................... 2-7

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................ 3-1

3.1 Determination................................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................. 4-3

4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................ 4-11

4.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4-22

4.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................. 4-26

4.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 4-28

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................4-33

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................4-37

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .........................................................................................4-40

4.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 4-44

4.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 4-45

4.13 Noise................................................................................................................................ 4-46

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 4-51

4.15 Public Services................................................................................................................. 4-52

4.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 4-53

4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 4-54

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4-57

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems...........................................................................................4-60

4.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................ 4-64

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................4-67

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 6-1

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) ii

APPENDICES
A: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
B: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION
C: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity ............................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2: Project Site........................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 3: Project Plans......................................................................................................................... 2-9 TABLES
Table 4.A: SJVAB Air Quality Attainment Status................................................................................. 4-6 Table 4.B: Project Construction Emissions (Tons)............................................................................... 4-8 Table 4.C: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels................................................................. 4-48

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
AC Agricultural/Conservation
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BERD Built Environment Resources Directory
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
California Register California Register of Historical Resources CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAP Climate Change Action Plan
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of Porterville
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base information CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
County Tulare County
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) iv DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
FCIR Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMMP Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program
GC Government Code
GHGs greenhouse gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Ldn day-night average sound level
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax maximum instantaneous sound level
LOS level of service
MBI McCormick Biological, Inc.

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 ozone
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) v ppb parts per billion
PRC California Public Resources Code
Project Casino Basin Project
ROG reactive organic gas
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
State State of California
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TACs toxic air contaminants
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
Tribe Tule River Tribe
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WBWG Western Bat Working Group
WPCP Water Pollution Control Preparation

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
vi P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) This page intentionally left blank

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 1-1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title:

Casino Basin Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Porterville
Community Development Department
291 N. Main Street Porterville, California 93257

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Jason Ridenour | 559.782.7460

4. Project Location:

The project site is the southerly 50 acres of an approximately 126-acre parcel, generally located at the northwest corner of Road 216 and Avenue 128 in the southwest portion of the City of Porterville (City), in Tulare County (County).

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Porterville
Community Development Department
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, California 93257

6. General Plan Designation:

Rural/Agricultural/Conservation

7. Zoning:

Agricultural/Conservation (AC)

8. Description of Project :

The proposed project includes development of a retention basin in the southwest portion of the City of Porterville, generally located at the northwest corner of Road 216 and Avenue 128. The project site is the southerly 50 acres of an approximately 126-acre parcel. The basin would have a depth of roughly 13 feet from original grade to the base (toe) of the slope, and the high water line is designed to be 5 feet above the basin floor. The basin has a proposed capacity of approximately 200.22 acre-feet.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is surrounded by agricultural land uses.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
1 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -2

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):
• City of Porterville (e.g., approval of Public Works Permit) • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (e.g., Dust Control Plan Approval letter and compliance with Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review)

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site and area were notified of the proposed project on November 23, 2021. The Tule River Native American Tribe received written notification on December 1, 2021, and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Native American Tribe received notification on November 29, 2021. No tribes have requested consultation and the City has fulfilled its obligations pursuant to AB 52.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 2-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following describes the proposed Casino Basin Project (project). This section includes a summary of the project’s location, existing site characteristics, and a description of the proposed project. The City of Porterville (City) is the lead agency for review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2.1 PROJECT SITE
The following discussion provides a description of the location, site characteristics, and existing zoning and General Plan land use designations of the project site.

2.1.1 Location
The project site is the southerly 50 acres of an approximately 126-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]: 302-100-015, generally located at the northwest corner of Road 216 and Avenue 128 in the southwest portion of the City of Porterville, in Tulare County, California. Figure 1 provides the Regional Location.

2.1.2 Site Characteristics and Current Site Conditions
The project site is currently owned by the City of Porterville and is used for effluent irrigated farming. The project site is bound to the north by agricultural uses, to the east by Road 216, to the south by Avenue 128, and to the west by agricultural uses. The Friant Kern Canal is located approximately 400 feet west of the project site. Figure 2 shows an aerial photo of the project site.

2.1.3 Existing Zoning and General Plan Designation
The project site is located in the Agricultural/Conservation (AC) zoning district, and the General Plan Land Use designation is Rural/Agricultural/Conservation.

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Tule River Tribe (Tribe) is relocating the existing Eagle Mountain Casino from the Tribe’s Reservation, approximately 15 miles east of Porterville, to a property within the boundaries of the City of Porterville. In September 2018, the Bureau of Indian Affairs released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Mountain Casino Relocation Project.1 To support the relocation, the construction of several City-owned infrastructure and utility improvements would be required. The City would be responsible for approving, constructing, and operating the improvements. 1 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2018. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Tule River Indian Tribe Fee-to-Trust and Eagle Mountain Casino Relocation Project. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
2 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -2 This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad.- Porterville, CA (1969)
I:\POR1801.24\GIS\MXD\Figure1_projectlocation.mxd (8/2/2021) FIGURE 1
Casino Basin Project
Project Location and Vicinity
LEGEND
Storm Drain
Project Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
Tulare
County
Ã65
Ã137
Ã63
Ã190
Ã99
Project
Location
Project Vicinity

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
2 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -4 This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad.- Porterville, CA (1969)
I:\POR1801.24\GIS\MXD\Figure2_project site.mxd (8/2/2021) FIGURE 2
Casino Basin Project
Project Site
LEGEND
Storm Drain
Project Location
0 500 1000
FEET

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 2-7

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project would include construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin to support the Eagle Mountain Casino. The basin would have a depth of roughly 13 feet from original grade to the base (toe) of the slope, and the high water line is designed to be 5 feet above the basin floor. Once constructed, the basin would have capacity of approximately 200.22 acre-feet.

The basin would be surrounded by a 6-inch chain-link fence. In addition, the proposed project would include cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. Installation of the storm drain pipe would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street. The proposed project would also relocate an existing recirculation pond from its existing location west of the project site to north of the project site. The project site is currently owned by the City, and would continue to be owned by the City with implementation of the project. Figure 3 shows the proposed plans.

Once operational, the proposed project would bring in stormwater runoff from the airport area and casino development area. The proposed project would be utilized to recharge any available surface waters that the City is able to acquire. City staff would visit the project site on a weekly basis to ensure site security and would conduct monthly maintenance to maintain weed abatement and cleaning of the infrastructure.

2.3.1 Construction
Construction is estimated to start in March or April of 2022, and would occur over a duration of 200 days. The proposed project would be operational in October 2022. Construction activities would include grading, soil removal, and restriping activities. Approximately 555,310 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the project site and would be transported to the Teapot Dome Landfill.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
2 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -8 This page intentionally left blank
72'' SD 72'' SD
7 2
'
'
S
D
7 2
'
'
S
D 72S
7 2
'
'
S
D
7 2
'
'
S
D
2'' S
7 2''
S
D
7 2''
S
D
7 2
''S
7 2
7 2
'
'
S
D
7 2
S
D
2 '
'
S
D
D
S
2''
7 D
S
2 ''
S
7 2
S
D 'S
7 2
'
'
(E) 10'' IRR (E) 0 (E) 10'' IRR (E) 10 (E) 10'' IR
R
R
R (E) 10 (E) 10'' IRR ) 10 ( (E) 10'' IRR (E) 10
(E) 10'' IRR E) 10 I (E) 10'' IRR E) 10 IR (E) 10'' IRR ) 10 IR (E) 10'' IRR (E) IRR (E) IRR ( (E) IRR (
E
) I
R
R
I
)
(

E (E) IRR (E) I (E) IRR (E) IRR
(
FEET
0 80 160
SOURCE: 4Creeks, 2021.

FIGURE 3a
Casino Basin Project
Site Plan
FRE Projects:\POR1801.24 Casino Basic\PRODUCTS\Figures\Figure 3a.ai (7/19/2021) FEET
0 60 120
SOURCE: 4Creeks, 2021.

FIGURE 3b
Casino Basin Project
Site Plan
FRE Projects:\POR1801.24 Casino Basic\PRODUCTS\Figures\Figure 3b.ai (7/19/2021) FEET
0 40 80
SOURCE: 4Creeks, 2021.

FIGURE 3c
Casino Basin Project
Site Plan
FRE Projects:\POR1801.24 Casino Basic\PRODUCTS\Figures\Figure 3c.ai (7/19/2021) FEET
0 40 80
SOURCE: 4Creeks, 2021.

FIGURE 3d
Casino Basin Project
Site Plan
FRE Projects:\POR1801.24 Casino Basic\PRODUCTS\Figures\Figure 3d.ai (7/20/2021) FEET
0 40 80
SOURCE: 4Creeks, 2021.

FIGURE 3e
Casino Basin Project
Site Plan
FRE Projects:\POR1801.24 Casino Basic\PRODUCTS\Figures\Figure 3e.ai (7/20/2021) FEET
0 40 80
SOURCE: 4Creeks, 2021.

FIGURE 3f
Casino Basin Project
Site Plan
FRE Projects:\POR1801.24 Casino Basic\PRODUCTS\Figures\Figure 3f.ai (7/20/2021) FEET
0 40 80
SOURCE: 4Creeks, 2021.

FIGURE 3g
Casino Basin Project
Site Plan
FRE Projects:\POR1801.24 Casino Basic\PRODUCTS\Figures\Figure 3g.ai (7/20/2021) FEET
0 40 80
SOURCE: 4Creeks, 2021.

FIGURE 3h
Casino Basin Project
Site Plan
FRE Projects:\POR1801.24 Casino Basic\PRODUCTS\Figures\Figure 3h.ai (7/20/2021)

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 3-1

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist in Chapter 3.0.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.1 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
3 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -2 This page intentionally left blank

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-1

4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? The City of Porterville is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley at the base of the Sierra Nevada foothills and is surrounded by farmland. The Tule River flows from Lake Success and through the City in a westerly direction. Views extending along the river and of its heavily vegetated banks contribute to the scenic quality of the area. The agricultural foundation, topography and landscape are important not only for community identity and aesthetic value, but also for environmental quality, habitat protection, and recreation opportunities.2 The vacant, undeveloped project site is currently used for effluent irrigated farming and is bound to the north by agricultural uses, to the east by Road 216, to the south by Avenue 128, and to the west by agricultural uses. The proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. The project site is not readily visible from any scenic vista, nor would the project block public views of a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The proposed project is not located within a State Scenic Highway and would not damage scenic resources within such a highway. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 2 Porterville, City of, 2008. Porterville 2030 General Plan. March 4.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -2 c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The proposed project would include construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin. The basin would have a depth of roughly 13 feet from original grade to the base (toe) of the slope and the high water line is designed to be 5 feet above the basin floor. Once constructed, the basin would have capacity of approximately 200.22 acre-feet. The basin would be surrounded by a 6-inch chain link fence. In addition, the proposed project would include cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. Installation of the storm drain pipe would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street. The proposed project would also relocate an existing recirculation pond from its existing location west of the project site to north of the project site. None of these changes would substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or the surrounding area. This impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Glare is the result of improperly aimed or blocked lighting sources that are visible against a dark background such as the night sky. Glare may also refer to the sensation experienced looking into an excessively bright light source that causes a reduction in the ability to see or causes discomfort.

Glare generally does not result in illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance.

The proposed project includes the construction of a new stormwater recharge basin and would not result in significant changes to lighting, shadows, or glare. In addition, there would be no increase the glare to aircraft operations, travelers on Road 216, Avenue 130, or West Street, or adjacent properties. As a result, no impact would occur.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-3

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The project site is owned by the City of Porterville and is actively used for effluent irrigated farming and is designated Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program (FMMP).3 In addition, the project site is currently under a Williamson Act Contract, restricting the land to agricultural use only4
. The project site is currently zoned as
Agricultural/Conservation (AC), which preserves agricultural and resource conservation areas. As identified in the City’s Development Code, minor utilities are permitted in this zoning district. The proposed project includes a new stormwater recharge basin on the southerly 50 acres of the approximately 126-acre parcel. The proposed stormwater recharge basin is considered a permitted use under the Agricultural/Conservation (AC) zone and would not conflict with the FMMP designation or Williamson Act Contract per State of California Government Code Section 51238. In addition, the remaining 62 acres would continue to be used for agricultural purposes. As such, impacts would be considered less than significant.
3 California Department of Conservation, 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed August 2021). 4 Conservation Biology Institute, 2021. Tulare County Williamson Act and Agricultural Preserve Lands.

Website: https://databasin.org/maps/new/#datasets=ed5964cbafe54ffeb9f70a6bc6d38263 (accessed August 2021).

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -4 b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? See Response 4.2.a. The project site is currently under a Williamson Act Contract, restricting the land to agricultural use only. The project site is currently zoned as Agricultural/Conservation (AC), and, as identified in the City’s Development Code, minor utilities are permitted in this zoning district.

Therefore, the proposed stormwater recharge basin would not conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act Contract per State of California Government Code Section 51238. In addition, the remaining 62 acres would continue to be used for agricultural purposes. As such, impacts would be considered less than significant.
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
The project site is not zoned for, nor would it require the rezoning of, any existing parcels or land use designations, including forest land or timberland uses. In addition, there is no forest land or timberland subject to the Public Resources Code within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to forest land or timberland and no mitigation would be required.
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? See Response 4.2.c. The proposed project would not convert forest land to non-forest use and would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use and no impact would occur.
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
See Responses 4.2.a and 4.2.c. The project site is currently under a Williamson Act Contract, restricting the land to agricultural use only. The project site is currently zoned as Agricultural/Conservation (AC), and as identified in the City’s Development Code, minor utilities are permitted in this zoning district. Therefore, the proposed stormwater recharge basin would not conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act Contract per State of California Government Code Section 51238. In addition, the remaining 62 acres would continue to be used for agricultural purposes. As such, impacts would be considered less than significant. The proposed project would not convert forest land to non-forest use and would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-5

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The proposed project is located within the City of Porterville. Porterville is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is responsible for air quality regulation within the eightcounty San Joaquin Valley region.

Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10). The SJVAB is designated as non-attainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and non-attainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards.

Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and maintained by the local air districts and State air quality regulating agencies. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to identify regions as “attainment” or “nonattainment” depending on whether the regions meet the requirements stated in the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the USEPA. In addition, different classifications of attainment, such as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme, are used to classify each air basin in the State on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The classifications are used as a foundation to create air quality management strategies to improve air quality and comply with the NAAQS. The SJVAB attainment statuses for each of the criteria pollutants are listed in Table 4.A.

An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -6 Table 4.A: SJVAB Air Quality Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (1-hour) Severe/Nonattainment Standard Revoked
Ozone (8-hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified
Sulfates Attainment No Federal Regulation
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Regulation
Source: SJVAPCD (2016).

To bring the San Joaquin Valley into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8- Hour Ozone Standard in June 2016 to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 75 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour ozone standard.5
To assure the SJVAB’s continued attainment of the USEPA PM10 standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007.6 The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards in November 2018 to address the USEPA 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
) and 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 µg/m3, the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m³, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m³.7 CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In addition, emission reductions achieved through implementation of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD air quality plans and impacts would be less than significant. 5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.

June 16. Website: www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm (accessed July 2021). 6 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2007. 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. Available online at: www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/Maintenance%20Plan10- 25-07.pdf (accessed July 2021). 7 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. November 15. Website: http://valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-planadopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf (accessed July 2021).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-7 b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
As identified above, the SJVAB is designated as non-attainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and non-attainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards. The SJVAPCD’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis.

By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not necessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Short-Term (Construction) Emissions. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by grading, paving, building, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), directly-emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of Regulation VIII measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -8 In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROG, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0, was used to estimate construction emissions associated with the proposed project. Construction is estimated to occur over a duration of 200 days. The proposed project would be operational in October 2022.

Construction activities would include grading, soil removal, and restriping activities. Approximately 555,310 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the project site and would be transported to the Teapot Dome Landfill, which was included in the CalEEMod analysis. Results, summarized in Table 4.B, were compared to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for construction impacts. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table 4.B: Project Construction Emissions (Tons)
CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Project Construction Emissions 2.6 3.5 3.9 <0.1 1.3 0.7 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 100.0 10.0 10.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA (September 2021).

In addition to the construction period thresholds of significance, the SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for dust control during construction. These control measures are intended to reduce the amount of PM10 emissions during the construction period. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would ensure that the proposed project complies with Regulation VIII and further reduces the short-term construction period air quality impacts.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 Consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), the following controls are required to be included as specifications for the proposed project and implemented at the construction site:
• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/ suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
• All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
• All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-9 controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
• When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
• All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)
• Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of out-door storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emission utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

As shown in Table 3.B, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Long-Term (Operational) Emissions. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity), and area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance equipment use) related to the proposed project. The proposed project would construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin. Once operational, City staff would visit the project site on a weekly basis to ensure site security and would conduct monthly maintenance to maintain weed abatement and cleaning of the infrastructure. As such, the project would not result in a significant increase in the generation of vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would increase air pollutant emissions. The project would not be a substantial source of energy or area source emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 or any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non-cancer health risks.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -10 The closest sensitive receptor includes the single-family residence located north of the project site boundary along Road 216. Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement SJVAPCD Regulation VIII measures, as required by Mitigation Measure AIR-1 above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, project construction emissions would be below SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of substantial emissions. Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction or operation, and potential impacts would be considered less than significant.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. In addition, the proposed uses that would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-11

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI) prepared a Biological Resources Evaluation for the proposed project (Appendix B), which contains an evaluation of special-status biological resources that may be affected by the project.8 The Biological Resources Evaluation documents biological resources identified during the literature review and reconnaissance survey conducted for the proposed project and recommends avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities. The Biological Resources Evaluation also includes an evaluation of the potential for special-status biological resources to occur on the project based on the habitat conditions observed. The analysis in this Biological Resources section is based on the results of the Biological Resources Evaluation.
“Special-status” or “sensitive” species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections, such as federal- and State-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts. In addition, species that are of “concern” to either the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have been 8 McCormick Biological, Inc., 2021. Biological Resources Report Casino Basin Project. September.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -12 included in the evaluation if the project site or vicinity (generally, 10-mile radius) includes habitat that may be occupied by such species. Bird species that are not listed as threatened or endangered have been included if the project site or observed vicinity includes potential nesting habitat or the species was observed during biological survey activities.

In addition, potential impacts to special-status bird species have been considered if habitat that may be important to the species outside of breeding season was observed. Species may meet the criteria for inclusion on the lists consulted during the literature review of a special interest group, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), has concluded through published data that the species is declining and warrants concern and potential habitat is present on the project site or vicinity.

Species evaluated in this biological resource assessment have been collectively referred to as “special-status species.”
The Biological Resources Evaluation includes a literature review including the following:
• California Natural Diversity Data Base information (CNDDB – RareFind 5), which is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This database covers sensitive plant and animal species as well as sensitive natural communities that occur in California. Records from nine United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles surrounding the project site (Rosedale, Wasco, Famoso, North of Oildale, Rio Bravo, Oildale, Tupman, Stevens, and Gosford) were obtained from this database to inform the field survey. For the purposes of this report, the term “historic” records refer to those occurrences that are more than 20 years old. Observations recorded in CNDDB noted in this report as “recent” are less than 20 years old. • California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, which utilizes four specific categories or “lists” of sensitive plant species to assist with the conservation of rare or endangered botanical resources. Records from the nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site were obtained from this database to inform the field survey.
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Online System, which lists all proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species managed by the Endangered Species Program of the USFWS that have the potential to occur on or near a particular site. This database also lists all known critical habitats, national wildlife refuges, and migratory birds that could potentially be impacted by activities from a proposed project. An IPaC Trust Resource Report was generated for the project area. • Designated and Proposed USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons were reviewed to determine whether critical habitat has been designated or proposed within or in the vicinity of the project site.
• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed to determine whether any wetlands or surface waters of the United States have been previously-identified in the survey area.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-13 • The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Database was reviewed to determine federal listed plant and wildlife species, as well as critical habitats that occur in in the vicinity of the project.
• The Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) Bat Species Regional Priority Matrix was reviewed to determine whether any bat species which hold a high level of conservation concern that may occur in the vicinity.

In addition to the databases listed above, historic and current aerial imagery, existing environmental reports for developments in the project vicinity, and local land use policies related to biological resources were reviewed.

A reconnaissance-level survey of the basin portion of the project was conducted on August 18, 2021, by Randi McCormick, MBI Principal Biologist. The stormwater drain pipe route was surveyed on August 19, 2021 by Daniel Hall, MBI Staff Biologist. Field notes included documentation of all plant and wildlife species observed. Supporting documentation regarding species findings included direct observations and/or significant species sign (e.g., scat, tracks, feather/fur, prey remains, nests/burrows or any other indication of wildlife presence) deemed necessary to document potential occupation.
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As discussed above, special-status plant and wildlife species and the corresponding status of each that were identified as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project were evaluated based on the literature review and a reconnaissance level survey of the project site. The proposed project has the potential to affect several State and federally listed or species proposed for State and/or federal listing occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Potential impacts to these special status species are described below.

Special-Status Plant Species. The CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory queries returned a total of 26 special-status plants that have been documented as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Based on a habitat suitability analysis, none of the special-status plant species had the potential to occur within the project site. During the survey a total of 12 plant species were observed, seven of which are non-native species. No listed or California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) species were identified on the project site during the field survey and the site does not represent suitable habitat for any of the special-status plants evaluated.

Therefore, there is no potential for direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species within the project site. In addition, the project site has undergone frequent disturbance, was historically intensive agriculture and is surrounded by urban, agricultural, and previously disturbed lands. No special-status plant species have potential to occur on site; therefore, a less-than-significant impact to special-status plants would occur.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

Tricolored Blackbird The tricolored blackbird is State listed as a threatened species. This species is a year-long resident of California, its range extending from Shasta County south to Kern County, and along the coast from Sonoma County to the Mexican border. Colonies located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage system are somewhat migratory in the winter. In the fall, birds tend to be nomadic and venture outside the vicinity of the nesting colonies.

Tricolored blackbird colonies have been reported to the CNDDB several miles east-northeast and west-southwest of the project. The colony to the west-southwest is thought to be extirpated.

No tricolored blackbirds or potentially suitable nesting habitat were observed during the reconnaissance surveys. The project site is planted in alfalfa and contains a fallow field, which are both suitable foraging habitat for this species. Based on the high mobility of this species and plentiful similar foraging habitat in the vicinity and region, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to tricolored blackbirds.

Burrowing Owl. The burrowing owl is a California species of special concern, and documented population declines have occurred in the state since at least the 1970s. It has no federal listing but is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In California, the species is typically found in close association with California ground squirrels. The squirrels create burrows that are used by burrowing owls as year-round shelter and seasonal nesting habitat; however, burrowing owls may also use human-made structures such as culverts, corrugated metal pipes, debris piles, or openings beneath pavement as shelter and nesting habitat. Within California, it is found throughout the Central Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, Carrizo Plain, and Imperial Valley.

The Central Valley population is a year-round resident in annual and perennial grasslands or other vegetation communities that support little to no tree or shrub cover. The State of California is considered an important wintering ground for migrants, whose burrowing owl population is augmented during the winter season.

No burrowing owl records have been reported within 10 miles of the project; however, several records have been reported from just west of the search area. No burrowing owls or sign of species presence were observed during the reconnaissance surveys and no California ground squirrel burrows, which are frequently used by burrowing owls for nesting and shelter, were observed. The project site is likely to support insects, small rodents, birds, amphibians, and reptiles that are potential prey items in the diet of burrowing owl. Therefore, there is a potential for foraging by this species. Although no potential burrows or burrow surrogates were observed, if the fallow field on the western portion of the proposed basin were to become occupied by California ground squirrels, burrowing owls may be provided with burrowing opportunities. If the site were subsequently occupied by this species, burrowing owl burrows could be crushed or destroyed by vehicles during construction activities. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18 would be required to reduce these potential impacts to a lessthan-significant level.

Swainson’s Hawk. Swainson’s hawk is State listed as a threatened species. Swainson’s hawks are an uncommon resident and migrant in the Central Valley, Klamath Basin, Northeastern

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-15 Plateau, Lassen County and Mojave Desert, although their breeding range and frequency has increased in the San Joaquin Valley over the last 20 years. Most of the State’s breeding sites are in two disjunct populations in the Great Basin and Central Valley. In the Central Valley, nest sites have been strongly associated with riparian forest vegetation, whereas in the Great Basin nest sites are widely distributed in upland habitats. Typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or cropland containing scattered, large trees or small groves. High use foraging habitat in the southern San Joaquin Valley is typically actively harvested alfalfa and irrigated grain fields.

Migrating individuals move south through the southern and central interior of California in September and October and move north from March through May.

The only Swainson’s hawk nest reported to the CNDDB within the 10-mile search radius is from a location 3.7 miles north of the project in 2017. No Swainson’s hawks were observed during the reconnaissance survey nor were any potential nest trees present on the project site. Potentially suitable nesting habitat is present at a residence just north of the northeastern corner of the proposed basin location and approximately 800 feet north-northeast of the northeastern corner on the east side of Road 216. The trees adjacent to the basin location were visually evaluated for presence of possible raptor nests and no nesting material or remnants of raptor nests were present.

No nesting opportunities for these species were present on the project site. Alfalfa and the fallow portion of the project site are suitable foraging habitat for this species. Although noise, dust, and general disturbance from construction activities could indirectly affect foraging raptors such as Swainson’s hawk, these species are highly mobile and able to access other high quality foraging opportunities in the vicinity of the project site. Disturbance to this relatively small amount of foraging habitat (approximately 50 acres) would not be significant. In addition, no direct impacts to individuals are anticipated. Therefore, impacts to Swainson’s hawk would be less than significant.

American Badger. The American badger is a California species of special concern. The historic range of American badgers in California was throughout the state with the exception of the humid coastal forests in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties. Their modern distribution in the lower San Joaquin Valley is restricted to the limited, often isolated tracts of grassland and shrubland habitats. Cultivated lands have been reported to provide little usable habitat for this species.

An American badger was collected in an unknown year from the vicinity of the Porterville Airport, which is located less than one mile from the project. Although badgers can be tolerant of human disturbance, the intensity and frequency of disturbance on this site and in adjacent areas reduces the potential for occurrence of this species. Therefore, there is a low potential for American badger foraging associated with the project site. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18 would be required to reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

San Joaquin Kit Fox. The San Joaquin kit fox is currently federal-listed as endangered and Statelisted as threatened. San Joaquin kit fox occur in a variety of open grassland, oak savannah, and shrub vegetation types/habitats as well as agricultural and urban areas in Kern County. In the

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -16 southern San Joaquin Valley portion of the range, San Joaquin kit fox are generally found in sparse, annual grassland and scrub communities (e.g., valley sink scrub, saltbush scrub).

Potential site occupation is determined based on observation of canid scat within a size range appropriate for this species, and presence of dens that meet the criteria for classification as known or natal/pupping per the USFWS guidelines.

Although there have been numerous reports of San Joaquin kit fox occurrence within the 10- mile search radius of the project, all but one of these records are greater than 40 years old. A record from the Tulare County Landfill, located on the south side of Avenue 128 approximately 700 feet west of the project, reports the sighting of 4 individuals in 1992.

No evidence of San Joaquin kit fox was observed during the reconnaissance survey. San Joaquin kit fox frequently use California ground squirrel burrows and enlarge them for use as den sites.

No California ground squirrel activity was observed during the reconnaissance survey nor were any other burrows or atypical structures observed that may be used by San Joaquin kit fox. San Joaquin kit fox are known to forage in many open habitat types, including agricultural lands occasionally if suitable denning habitat is present nearby. The annual grassland east of the stormwater drain pipe route east of West Street represents suitable foraging habitat and could potentially support San Joaquin kit fox dens. In addition, several records of San Joaquin kit fox have been reported in the vicinity.

Given the lack of observation of potential den sites or San Joaquin kit fox sign and current agricultural activity, it is not likely that San Joaquin kit fox currently occupy the project.

However, San Joaquin kit fox may occasionally forage on or near the project given that there is potentially suitable denning habitat in the vicinity. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18 would be required to reduce these potential impacts to a lessthan-significant level.

Nesting and Migratory Birds. The project site does not contain any trees or shrubs that could potentially support nesting birds. The alfalfa and fallow field present are suitable for ground nesting birds, but frequent disturbance reduces that suitability. Birds nesting on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site could be disturbed if the project is conducted during nesting season when active nests are present. If these nests are disturbed to the extent that eggs are destroyed, young are injured or killed, or adults abandon the nests, a violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code could result. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18 would be required to reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Critical Habitat. There is no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat within a 10-mile radius of the project site.

Summary. As described above, the proposed project would not impact special-status plants as the entire site has had and continues to have disturbance. Ruderal weedy species dominate the project site and no special-status plant species were observed during the reconnaissance survey.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-17 While no nesting birds were observed during the field surveys, conducting pre-activity nesting bird surveys and implementing Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant.

In addition, while no San Joaquin kit fox or American badger or evidence of site occupation were observed, both of these species may forage in the vicinity and CNDDB records are reported from the area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18 would reduce potential impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and American badger to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 If project activities occur during nesting season (February 1 to August 31) a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey to identify any active nests present within or adjacent to the proposed work area. If active nests are found, initial ground disturbance shall be postponed or halted within a buffer area, established by the qualified avian biologist, that is suitable to the particular bird species and location of the nest, until juveniles have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 If any previously unidentified protected species that is not addressed in this document, or any previously unreported protected species is found to be present, occupied areas shall be avoided and a qualified biologist shall. Notify the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of any previously unreported protected species. Any take of protected wildlife shall be reported immediately to USFWS and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Perimeter or security fence design should incorporate features that will avoid entrapment of San Joaquin kit fox. Openings should be small enough that San Joaquin kit fox cannot pass through or become entrapped (less than three feet). If chain link is used, it should be raised at least 3 inches above ground level to allow kit fox to pass underneath.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4 Traffic restraints and signs should be established to minimize temporary disturbances during construction. All construction traffic should be restricted to designated access roads and routes, Project site, storage areas, and staging and parking areas. Off-road traffic outside designated project boundaries should be prohibited. A 15 mph speed limit should be observed in all project construction areas, except as otherwise posted on county roads and State and federal highways.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -18 Mitigation Measure BIO-5 All equipment storage and parking during construction activities should be confined to the designated construction area or to previously disturbed offsite areas that are not habitat for listed species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6 Project construction activities involving initial surface disturbance should be limited to daylight hours.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7 Trenches and excavations should have an escape ramp at least every 1,000 feet at no more than 2:1 slope. Trenches or excavations that cannot include a ramp should be covered if left overnight. All such trenches and excavations should be inspected for entrapped wildlife each morning prior to the onset of construction. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for entrapped animals. Any wildlife so discovered should be allowed to escape voluntarily, without harassment, before construction activities resume. A qualified biologist may remove wildlife from a trench, hole or other entrapment out of harm’s way if the immediate welfare of the individual is in jeopardy. State or federal listed species may not be handled. Should any State or federal listed species become entrapped, CDFW and USFWS should be contacted as appropriate.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8 Material and equipment should be thoroughly inspected prior to use. All exposed pipes, culverts, and other similar structures with a diameter 3 inches or greater should be capped in order to prevent entry by San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife. Any of these materials or structures that are left overnight and are not capped shall be inspected prior to being moved, buried, or closed in order to ensure that San Joaquin kit fox or other wildlife are not present. If a listed species is found within pipe, culverts or similar structures, the animal will be allowed to escape that section of its own accord prior to moving or utilizing that segment. If a listed species does not leave of its own accord, CDFW and/or USFWS (as appropriate) should be contacted for further guidance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9 All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles and food scraps generated by project activities should be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once each week from the site. Deliberate feeding of wildlife should be prohibited.

Mitigation Measure BIO-10 To prevent harassment of special-status species, construction personnel shall not be allowed to have firearms or pets on the project site.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-19 Mitigation Measure BIO-11 All equipment and work-related materials shall be contained in closed containers either in the work area or on vehicles. Loose items (e.g. rags, hose, etc.) shall be stored within closed containers or enclosed in vehicles when on the work site.

Mitigation Measure BIO-12 All liquids shall be in closed, covered containers. Any spills of hazardous liquids shall not be left unattended until clean-up has been completed.

Mitigation Measure BIO-13 If used, rodenticides and herbicides shall follow label restrictions and other restrictions imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Food and Agricultural, and other State and federal legislation. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of its proven lower risk to San Joaquin kit fox.

Mitigation Measure BIO-14 Any employee who inadvertently kills or injures a listed species, or who finds any such wildlife dead, injured, or entrapped, shall be required to report the incident immediately to a designated site representative (e.g., foreman, project manager, environmental inspector, etc.), except animals killed on State and county roads when such mortality is not associated with project traffic.

Mitigation Measure BIO-15 In the case of injured special-status wildlife, the CDFW shall be notified immediately. During business hours Monday through Friday, the phone number is (559) 243-4017. For non-business hours, report to (800) 952-5400. Notification shall include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident. Instructions provided by the CDFW for the care of the injured animal shall be followed by the contractor onsite.

Mitigation Measure BIO-16 In the case of dead wildlife that are listed as threatened or endangered, the USFWS and the CDFW shall be immediately (within 24 hours) notified by phone or in person, and should document the initial notification in writing within 2 working days of the findings of any such wildlife. Notification shall include the date, time, location, and circumstances of the incident.

Mitigation Measure BIO-17 Prior to commencement of construction on any phase of work, work areas should be clearly marked with fencing, stakes with rope or cord, or other means of delineating the work area boundaries.

Mitigation Measure BIO-18 All personnel entering the project location shall attend a worker orientation program. The worker orientation program shall present measures required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to biological resources and shall include, at a minimum, the following

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -20 subjects: A summary of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); biological survey results for the current construction area; life history information for the species of concern; biological resource avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements; consequences for failure to successfully implement requirements; and procedures to be followed if dead or injured wildlife area located during project activities. Upon completion of the orientation, employees shall sign a form stating that they attended the program and understand all biological resource mitigation measures and receive a hardhat sticker or other means of identifying that they have attended the worker orientation. Forms verifying worker attendance shall be filed at the applicant’s office and be accessible to County, USFWS and CDFW staff. No untrained personnel shall be allowed to work onsite with the exception of delivery trucks that are only onsite for 1 day or less and are under the supervision of a trained employee.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present at the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. As a result, no impact would occur. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) resulted in no wetlands mapped on the project site. A riverine feature, the Friant-Kern canal, was present west of the project site, and the existing recirculation pond which is located outside of the project boundaries to the west, was shown on the NWI as a freshwater pond. These results are consistent with the observed conditions within and adjacent to the project site. There was water present in earthen irrigation ditches that ran along the western and northern boundaries of the alfalfa field on the project site, and just south of the proposed recirculation pond location. There was no visible natural water source for this irrigation water. As a result, no impact would occur.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Wildlife are known to commonly enter open pipes, materials stockpiles and storage containers as well as get on, under, or in vehicles and equipment. In addition, terrestrial wildlife may fall into open excavations. Closing or moving pipes with wildlife inside could lead to direct mortality of individuals.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-21 If present under pallets, wildlife could be killed or injured by equipment when moving materials. If present in, on, or under equipment or vehicles when started or moving, wildlife could be crushed by tires, injured or killed by moving parts, or threatened through harassment by workers needing to access the vehicles. If deep enough in comparison to the animal size, wildlife falling into open excavations could be injured by the fall or otherwise become entrapped thereby increasing risks to the individual.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18 would reduce the potential for these effects to occur as a result of work activities. These mitigation measures are also intended to result in compliance with applicable State and federal statutes and regulations protecting biological resources. In some cases, if the applicability of mitigation measures cannot be definitively determined based on the reconnaissance-level survey, additional surveys are recommended to determine the level of mitigation required. In addition, if it is determined that the effects to these species cannot be avoided, State and/or federal permits may be warranted to obtain the appropriate authorization for such project effects. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18 would be required to reduce these potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and the City does not currently have a tree preservation ordinance. However, the project site is within the City’s General Plan area. Therefore, the project is subject to the following guiding policy within the City of Porterville 2030 General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element:
• OSC-G-7: Protect habitat for special status species, designated under State and federal law.

As identified in the responses above, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-18, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on biological resources. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs protecting biological resources. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site is not within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. This condition precludes the possibility that implementation of the proposed project would conflict with the provisions of such a plan, and no impact would occur.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -22

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
LSA conducted a Cultural Resource Survey9 for the proposed project to (1) identify archaeological deposits that may meet the CEQA definition of a historical resource (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §21084.1) or a unique archaeological resource (PRC §21083.2), and that may be affected by the proposed project; and (2) to recommend procedures for avoiding or mitigating impacts to such deposits, as warranted. The study consisted of background research and a field survey and was conducted by LSA Cultural Resources Manager Kerrie Collison, M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist No. 28731436. The analysis in this Cultural Resources section is based on the results of the Cultural Resource Survey. The Cultural Resource Survey is included as Appendix C. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Records Search Results. A record search of the project site and a 0.5-mile radius was conducted on May 24, 2021, by staff at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Bakersfield.

The SSJVIC, an affiliate of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), is the official repository of cultural resources records and reports for Tulare County. Background research also included a review of the following State and federal inventories: Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), California Historical Landmarks; California Points of Historical Interest; Five Views:

An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California; and California Inventory of Historic Resources.

The record search results indicate that three previous cultural resources studies have included a portion of the project site and that an additional nine previous cultural resources studies have included a portion of the 0.5-mile radius. One of the previous studies was published in 2003 and consisted of a 700-acre cultural resources survey that included the entire main project site. Portions of the proposed storm drain alignment were included in two previous studies, both of which were cultural resources surveys. No cultural resources have been recorded in the project site or within a

0.5 mile radius as a result of previous cultural resources studies. No resources listed in the BERD are within the project site.
9 LSA, 2021. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Casino Basin Project in Porterville, Tulare County, California (LSA Project No. POR1801.24). August 23.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-23 Aerial Photographs and Historic Maps. Additional background research included a review of aerial photographs and historic-period maps that include the project site.10 The purpose of this review was to assess the potential for historic-period archaeological deposits in the project site. The oldest available aerial photograph that includes the project site dates to 1956, at which time the main project site was being used for agricultural purposes. The project site usage has remained unchanged since that time. The earliest available topographic quadrangle reviewed by LSA dates to 1929 and depicts Road 216 and Avenue 128 as already developed adjacent to the main project site.

The Friant Kern Canal (located west of the main project site) is first depicted on a map that dates to 1952. No additional noticeable changes are depicted in or near the project site after 1952.

Field Survey Results. On August 4, 2021, LSA Archaeologist Kerrie Collison, RPA, conducted a limited field survey and spot-checked sediments in the basin site. The limited field survey method of spot-checking was utilized due to active agricultural use of the project site and the need to not disturb or destroy crops. The proposed storm drain alignment follows existing paved roads and was not surveyed. Sediments along the edges of the main project site (away from crops) were examined, and a trowel was used to expose subsurface sediments to check subsurface sediment characteristics. Rodent burrowing holes and backdirt piles were also examined for indications of archaeological deposits and/or human remains.

The field survey did not identify any cultural resources in the project site. Observed surficial sediments were uniform throughout the project site and were a very dry, light-brown, fine-grained material. Examined subsurface sediments were similar in composition (likely due to tilling of sediments during agricultural activities) and contained no evidence indicating the presence of midden deposits.

Summary. This study, consisting of background research and a field survey, did not identify archaeological deposits or human remains in the project site. The nearest natural water source (the Tule River) is 2.75 miles from the project site. Surficial and near-surface deposits have been disturbed as a result of the use of the project site for agricultural purposes for more than 65 years, and deeper deposits date to a time that does not include human occupation of the region.

For the above reasons, it is unlikely that ground-disturbing work associated with project implementation will impact subsurface cultural resources, and no additional cultural resources studies are recommended for this proposed project. However, there is always the potential that construction activities could uncover unanticipated subsurface cultural resources. Any impacts to such resources would be significant under CEQA. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would be required to reduce the project’s potential impacts to previous unidentified historical resources that may be encountered during construction. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. 10 National Environmental Title Research. n.d. Historic Aerials. Website: http://www.historicaerials.com (accessed August 22, 2021).

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -24 Mitigation Measure CULT-1 In the unlikely event that cultural resources are encountered during project activities, contractors should stop work in the immediate area of the find and contact a qualified professional archaeologist to assess the nature and significance of the find and determine if any additional study or treatment of the find is warranted. Upon completion of any monitoring activities, the archaeologist should prepare a report to document the methods and results of monitoring activities. The final version of this report should be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce potential impacts related to the substantial adverse change in the significance of historical or archaeological resources to a lessthan-significant level. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Mitigation Measure CULT-1, as presented above, would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource. c. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Although no such remains have been identified within the project site, there is a possibility of encountering such remains, either in isolation or with prehistoric archaeological deposits. Such remains could be uncovered during project ground-disturbing activities. Based on the significance criteria identified above, the project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-2 would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level by ensuring compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 in the event that any human remains are encountered during project-related grounddisturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure CULT-2 Any human remains encountered during project-related grounddisturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The project sponsor shall inform all contractor(s) performing excavation of the sensitivity of the project site for human remains and include the following directive in the appropriate contract documents:

If human remains are uncovered, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted and the Tulare County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, the on-site monitoring
archaeologist shall assess the situation and consult with agencies as

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-25 appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will formally identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant—if one is not already on-site—to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Such recommendations shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the NAHC prior to work resuming within 50 feet of the discovered remains.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -26

4.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
This analysis evaluates energy consumption for both construction and operation of the proposed project, including diesel fuel use for construction off-road equipment.

Construction. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of energy to fuel construction equipment and vehicles. All or most of this energy would be derived from nonrenewable resources. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. As such, construction energy usage would be less than significant.

Operation. Typically, energy consumption is associated with fuel used for vehicle trips and electricity and natural gas use. The proposed project would include construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin. Once operational, City staff would visit the project site on a weekly basis to ensure site security and would conduct monthly maintenance to maintain weed abatement and cleaning of the infrastructure. As such, the project would result in a minimal increase in fuel usage. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would not include lighting or features that could contribute to a significant new source of electricity and natural gas usage. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a long-term demand for electricity and natural gas nor would the project require new service connections or construction of new off-site service lines or substations to serve the project. The nature of proposed improvements would not require substantial amounts of energy for either construction or maintenance purposes. Therefore, the proposed project would not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.

Therefore, operational energy impacts would be less than significant.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-27 b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The California Energy Commission (CEC) approved the 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report in March 2021.11 The 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, once operational, the proposed project would not generate energy usage. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, as demonstrated above, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
11 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Docket No. 20-IEPR-01.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -28

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) defines a fault as “active” if it has moved one or more times in the last 10,000 years.12 The San Joaquin Valley, like most of California, is a seismically active region; however, no known active faults occur in Tulare County.13 No Alquist-Priolo earthquake 12 United States Geological Survey, 2016. Earthquake Glossary – Active Fault. Website: earthquake.usgs.gov/ learn/glossary/?term=active%20fault (accessed July 2021). 13 Tulare County, 2012. Tulare County General Plan, 2030 Update. Website: generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us (accessed July 2021).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-29 zones are mapped in the vicinity of the project site.14 Several pre-Quaternary, inactive faults exist in the vicinity of the City. The nearest inactive fault to the project site is an unnamed fault that occurs approximately 3.8 miles to the southeast. The site does not fall within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, and is therefore not subject to any restrictions. Therefore, no people or structures would be exposed to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
As discussed above, due to the distance to the known faults, hazards due to ground shaking would be minimal. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Soil liquefaction can occur in seismic conditions. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of saturated, non-cohesive material from a relatively stable, solid condition to a liquefied state as a result of increased soil pore water pressure. Soil pore water pressure is the water pressure between soil particles. Liquefaction can occur if three factors are present: seismic activity, loose sand or silt, and shallow groundwater.

The City’s General Plan does not identify specific areas prone to liquefaction; however, it notes that some zones within its planning area are at a moderate risk of liquefaction due to steep hillside topography, soil slumping, and proximity to the Tule River. The project site does not contain any of these qualities that would make an area susceptible to liquefaction; this, combined with the lack of active faults in the area, indicates that the probability of liquefaction occurring on the site is low. As such, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
The City’s General Plan states that there is a moderate risk of landslides and liquefaction. Because the project site is generally level, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erodibility can be identified by a specific soil’s “K-Factor.” Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69, with the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to erosion. Soils with K factors above 0.40 14 California Geological Survey, 2015. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Website:
maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps (accessed July 2021).

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -30 are considered to be the most susceptible to erosion.15 Figure 7-1 of the City’s General Plan maps soil erosion potential in the City. Based on this mapping, the project site is primarily classified as

0.32 – 0.43 – High.

Implementation of the proposed project would include grading activities that could result in shortterm soil erosion during the construction period. Exposed soils are considered erodible when subjected to concentrated surface flow or wind. As such, the proposed project would be required to implement an Erosion Control Plan in conformance with the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook.
16 Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described below,
would require implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and would reduce the potential for soil erosion.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 To reduce the potential for soil erosion during construction of the proposed project, an Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared for the project in conformance with the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction Activity, prior to the start of grading.

In addition, soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized through implementation of SVJAPCD Regulation VIII fugitive dust control measures and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements (Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1). With incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and compliance with NPDES permit requirements, construction of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.

This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
See Sections 3.7.a.iii and 3.7.a.iv above. The proposed project would not require a substantial grade change or change in topography. The project would not result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils can swell or shrink in response to changes in moisture, which can significantly damage infrastructure located on expansive soils. According to the City’s General Plan, the project is not located in an area with high soil expansion potential. Therefore, the project would not create substantial risks to life or property due to expansive soils. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
15 Porterville, City of, 2008, op. cit. 16 California Stormwater Quality Association, 2019. California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practices Handbook.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-31 e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Paleontological resources are the mineralized (fossilized) remains of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Fossil remains are considered to be important as they provide indicators of the earth’s chronology and history. These resources are afforded protection under CEQA and are considered to be limited and nonrenewable, and they provide invaluable scientific and educational data.

According to the City’s General Plan, the University of California Museum of Paleontology lists 25 localities where fossils have been found in Tulare County. However, due to the sensitive nature of these sites, they are not mapped. Identified fossil types in the County include prehistoric mammals, other vertebrates, invertebrates and plants.17
Implementation of the proposed project would require ground disturbing construction activities that may inadvertently encounter and damage paleontological resources. Should this occur, project construction at both well sites may result in the destruction of a unique paleontological site, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant by redirecting ground-disturbing activities, consulting with agencies as appropriate, and making recommendations for the treatment of the discovery in the event that any paleontological materials are encountered during project-related ground-disturbing activities.

The following mitigation measure would reduce the paleontological resource impacts associated with the proposed project to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2 The City shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources. Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and 17 Porterville, City of, 2008, op. cit.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -32 technical report to a paleontological repository. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Porterville for review, and (if paleontological materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. The City shall verify that the above directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-33

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, and are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change.

The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons
• Perfluorocarbons
• Sulfur Hexafluoride
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”).

The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -34 trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

This section discusses the proposed project’s potential impacts related to the release of GHG emissions for both construction and project operation.

Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as site preparation, site grading, on-site construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the project site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

The SJVAPCD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that construction of the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 488.7 metric tons of CO2e. When considered over the 30-year life of the project, the total amortized construction emissions would be 16.3 metric tons of CO2e per year. As such, construction of the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment and construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile, area, waste, and water sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile-source GHG emissions would include project-generated trips to and from the project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions are typically generated at off-site utility providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by a project. Stationary source emissions would be associated with the emergency backup generator. Waste source emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by pumping of water, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.

The proposed project would construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. Once operational, City staff would visit the project site on a weekly basis to ensure site security and would conduct monthly maintenance to maintain weed abatement and cleaning of the infrastructure. As such, the project would not result in a significant increase in the generation of vehicle trips or VMT that would increase air pollutant emissions. The project would not be a substantial source of energy, area, water, or waste source emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-35 generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which includes suggested Best Performance Standards for proposed development projects. Appendix J of the SJVAPCD Final Staff Report for the CCAP contains GHG reduction measures; however these measures are intended for commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects and wouldn’t be applicable to the proposed project.

Absent any other local or regional Climate Action Plan, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the goals of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, or Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program.

In addition, Senate Bill (SB) 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in Executive Order B-30-15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps us on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, consistent with an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) analysis of the global emissions trajectory that would stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 parts per million CO2e and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic impacts from climate change.

Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197), the companion bill to SB 32, provides additional direction to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the following areas related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016. The measures applicable to the proposed project include energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures, as discussed below.

Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. The proposed project would not require energy demand; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with energy efficient measures.

Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. The proposed project includes the construction of a new stormwater recharge basin and would not conflict with water conservation and efficiency measures.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -36 The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The second phase of Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025, resulting in a 3 percent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all vehicles by 2020. Specific regional emission targets for transportation emissions would not directly apply to the proposed project. However, vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with transportation and motor vehicle measures.

The proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, Executive Order B-30-15, SB 32, and AB 197 and would be consistent with applicable State plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-37

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of limited amounts of potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to, solvents, paints, fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. However, all materials used during construction would be contained, stored, and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). No manufacturing, industrial, or other uses utilizing large amounts of hazardous materials would occur within the project site.

Project operation could involve the use of common hazardous materials (i.e., cleaning products, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.) that could be potentially hazardous if handled improperly or ingested. However, these products are not considered acutely hazardous and are not generally considered unsafe. All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation would comply with applicable standards and regulations. The proposed residential uses would not generate significant amounts of any hazardous materials. Therefore, the

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -38 proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
See Response 3.9.a, above. The proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition related to the release of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No schools are located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. In addition, as previously stated, the proposed project would not result in the use or emission of substantial quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a human or environmental health risk. In addition, all materials would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, because the proposed project does not involve activities that would result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact related to the use or emission of hazardous materials that would adversely affect an existing school. d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
According to the DTSC EnviroStor database,18 the project site is not located on a federal superfund site, State response site, voluntary cleanup site, school cleanup site, evaluation site, school investigation site, military evaluation site, tiered permit site, or corrective action site. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.19 As a result, no impacts related to this issue are anticipated. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The Porterville Municipal Airport is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the project site.

However, the proposed project would include construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements and would not increase the residential or working 18 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2021. EnviroStor. Website: www.envirostor.dtsc. ca.gov/public (accessed July 2021). 19 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. Government Code Section 65962.5(a). Website:
www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm (accessed July 2021).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-39 population at the project sites. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to safety hazards related to airports and a less-than-significant impact would occur. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Porterville lists State Routes (SR) 65, SR 190, and Olive Avenue as evacuation routes.

Once operational, the proposed project would not include any changes to any public or private roadways that would interfere with the evacuation routes or shelters identified by the City’s General Plan.

The City adopted the Porterville Emergency Operations Plan in 2004. The Porterville Emergency Operations Plan includes planning and response scenarios for seismic hazards, extreme weather conditions, landslides, dam failure and other flooding, wildland fires, hazardous materials incidents, transportation emergencies, civil disturbance, and terrorist attacks. Porterville’s Emergency Operations Plan is intended to work in conjunction with the Tulare County Emergency Operations Plan and the State Emergency Plan. The Emergency Council of the Tulare County Operational Area meets at least four times per year. In addition, the City Fire Department has specific procedures for hazardous materials emergency response.

The proposed project consists of a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. As a result, project implementation would not physically interfere with the County’s emergency planning program or the City Fire Department access to and from the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation would be required. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The Public Health and Safety Element of the City of Porterville’s General Plan describes areas of the City that would pose a wildland fire risk to people, including wooded, undeveloped areas that have trees and unkempt vegetation as a greater source of fuel. Based on Figure 7-4 of the City’s General Plan, the project site is considered to have a moderate to high risk for fire hazard.20 However, implementation of the proposed project would include a stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements and would not expose people to significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to wildland fires. As a result, no impact would occur.
20 Porterville, City of, 2008, op. cit.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -40

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? The proposed project is located in the City of Porterville and Tulare County, which is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed with an increased potential to expose soils to wind and water erosion, which could result in temporary minimal increases in sediment load in nearby water bodies, including the adjacent Friant Kern Canal. Any potential short-term water quality effects from project related construction activities can be minimized and reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, as follows.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 To minimize any potential short-term water quality effects from project-related construction activities, the project contractor shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) in conformance with the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-41 Construction Activity. In addition, the proposed project shall be in compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including the Water Pollution Control Preparation (WPCP) Manual. In addition, implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate water quality associated with construction activities.

Once operational, the proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. The proposed project would bring in stormwater runoff from the airport area and casino development area. The proposed project would be utilized to recharge any available surface waters that the City is able to acquire. In addition, the proposed project would store stormwater runoff and would release at least a portion of that runoff by infiltrating the water into the ground. The recharge volume would be stored and allowed to infiltrate into the underlying soils over a period of time. As a result, stormwater would continue to percolate into the groundwater table to allow for natural recharge. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality standards and waste discharge would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
As discussed in Response 4.10.a above, the proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, which would store stormwater runoff and would release at least a portion of that runoff by infiltrating the water into the ground. The recharge volume would be stored and allowed to infiltrate into the underlying soils over a period of time. In addition, development of the proposed project would not require new connections to the municipal potable water supply or the drilling of any wells. Thus, development of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to regional groundwater levels. c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Implementation of the proposed project would include grading activities that could result in short-term soil erosion during the construction period. Exposed soils are considered erodible when subjected to concentrated surface flow or wind. As discussed under Section 4.7.b above, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the potential for soil erosion. In addition, soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be minimized through implementation of SVJAPCD Regulation VIII fugitive dust control measures and compliance with the NPDES permit requirements. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and compliance with NPDES permit requirements,

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -42 construction of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
As discussed in Response 4.10.a above, the proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, which would store stormwater runoff and would release at least a portion of that runoff by infiltrating the water into the ground. The recharge volume would be stored and allowed to infiltrate into the underlying soils over a period of time.

As such, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on or off site. This impact would be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or See Response 4.10.a.ii above. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. This impact would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located within an area designated as Flood Zone A. Areas within Flood Zone A are within the 100-year floodplain.

However, the proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, which would store stormwater runoff and would release at least a portion of that runoff by infiltrating the water into the ground. The recharge volume would be stored and allowed to infiltrate into the underlying soils over a period of time. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As indicated above, the project site is located within a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain.

However, the proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, which would store stormwater runoff and would release at least a portion of that runoff by infiltrating the water into the ground. The recharge volume would be stored and allowed to infiltrate into the underlying soils over a period of time. Furthermore, no enclosed bodies of water are in close enough proximity that would create a potential risk for seiche or a tsunami at the project site. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to potential hazards from inundation from flood, tsunami, or seiche.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-43 e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed above, the proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, which would store stormwater runoff and would release at least a portion of that runoff by infiltrating the water into the ground. The recharge volume would be stored and allowed to infiltrate into the underlying soils over a period of time. As a result, stormwater would continue to percolate into the groundwater table to allow for natural recharge.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. A less-than-significant impact would occur.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -44

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.

The proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street, and would not disturb or alter access to any existing adjacent land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a physical division of an established community or adversely affect the continuity of land uses in the vicinity, and there would be no impact. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project site is located in the Agricultural/Conservation (AC) zoning district and the General Plan Land Use designation is Rural/Agricultural/Conservation. The proposed stormwater retention basin would be generally compatible with the AC designation, and would not generate significant noise, odor, or other concerns that would interfere with adjacent land uses. Therefore, land use at the project site would remain the same with project implementation, and the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of the City of Porterville that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. As such, no land use incompatibilities or conflicts with existing plans or policies would result from the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation, and no impact would occur.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-45

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) regulates surface mining in California. SMARA was adopted in 1975 to protect the State’s need for a continuing supply of mineral resources and to protect the public and environmental health. SMARA requires that all cities incorporate mapped mineral resource designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board into their General Plans. There are no known or recorded mineral resources within the project site; therefore construction and operation of the proposed project could not adversely affect known or recorded mineral resources. Therefore this impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project site is not located within an area known to contain locally important mineral resources.

No impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan would occur as a result of project implementation.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -46

4.13 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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?
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound.

Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (Ldn) based on dBA. CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-47 Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.

A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Porterville.

The City of Porterville addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan21 and in Article IX of the City’s City Code.22 The Noise Element provides policies that work to minimize vehicular and stationary noise levels and noise from temporary activities and ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environment. Article IX of the City’s City Code states that construction noise is exempt from the noise level standards provided that construction activities are limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The closest sensitive receptor includes the single-family residence located north of the project site boundary along Road 216.

The following section describes how the short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation.

Short-Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below.

Short-term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Table 4.C lists typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 4.C, there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet. 21 Porterville, City of, 2008, op. cit. 22 Porterville, City of, 2018. Porterville, California City Code. August 7.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -48 Table 4.C: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1 Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Pick-up Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during grading and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on-site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Table 4.C lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.

Typical maximum noise levels range up to 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, including excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment.

Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-49 As noted above, the closest sensitive receptor includes the single-family residence located north of the project site boundary along Road 216. Therefore, the closest sensitive receptors may be subject to short-term maximum construction noise of approximately 87 dBA Lmax during construction.

However, construction equipment would operate at various locations within the project site and would only generate maximum noise levels when operations occur closest to the receptor.

Construction noise is permitted by the City of Porterville when activities occur between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. In addition, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to limit construction activities to the permitted hours and would reduce potential construction period noise impacts for the indicated sensitive receptors to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers’ standards.
• Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.
• Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all construction activities.
• Ensure that all general construction related activities are restricted to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” at the City who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.

Operational Noise. The proposed project includes the construction of a stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. Once operational, City staff would visit the project site on a weekly basis to ensure site security and would conduct monthly maintenance to maintain weed abatement and cleaning of the infrastructure. As such, the project would not result in a significant increase in vehicle trips and

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -50 would not be a source of operational noise. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of local standards. Operational noise impacts would be considered less than significant.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction of the proposed project would involve grading and site preparation activities but would not involve the use of construction equipment that would result in substantial ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise on properties adjacent to the project site. No pile driving, blasting, or significant grading activities are proposed. Furthermore, project operation would not generate substantial ground-borne noise and vibration. Therefore, the project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne noise and vibration impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? The Porterville Municipal Airport is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the project site.

However, the proposed project would include construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin and would not increase the residential or working population at the project sites.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive noise levels related to airports and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-51

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)?
The proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. The proposed project would not result in direct population growth as the use proposed is not residential and would not contribute to permanent residency on site. The proposed project is intended to address improvements needed to facilitate the construction of a casino and would not generate growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and this impact would be considered less than significant.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is located in rural and agricultural area of Porterville and does not include housing.

Therefore, the project would not displace existing housing or require the construction of replacement housing and would result in no impact.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -52

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. 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?
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?
The project site is located in an area that is already served by public service systems. Police protection services are provided to the City by the Porterville Police Department. Fire protection and emergency response services for the project site are provided by the City of Porterville Fire Department. Four school districts serve the Porterville area, including Porterville Unified School District, Burton Elementary School District, Alta Vista School District, and Tulare County Office of Education.

In addition, the City provides several types of parks and other public facilities.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-53

4.16 RECREATION
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? 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?
The proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street and would not generate population growth that would result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact to parks or recreational facilities that would occur as a result of the proposed project. 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? The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities, and the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would result in no impact to recreational facilities.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -54

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The City of Porterville is served by SR 65 and SR 190 as well as a network of arterial collector and local streets. Traffic data was collected from the City of Porterville General Plan and the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Both the General Plan and the 2018 RTP/SCS establish a level of service (LOS) threshold of D or better at roadway segments and intersections in the City. General Plan Policy C-I-10 requires traffic impact studies for all General Plan Amendments that will generate more than 100 peak hour trips.

The City’s General Plan Circulation Element includes goals and policies to encourage alternative modes of transportation and to create a balanced transportation system that serves public transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians, as well as motor vehicles. The Circulation Element also describes the City’s existing modes of transportation, including public transit, bicycling, and walking.

Once operational, City staff would visit the project site on a weekly basis to ensure site security and would conduct monthly maintenance to maintain weed abatement and cleaning of the infrastructure. As such, operation of the proposed project would generate less than 100 peak hour trips and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of trips that would result in the deficiency of existing intersections within the project vicinity. Therefore, the addition of project traffic is not anticipated to exceed the City’s level of significance threshold of LOS (LOS D or better).

In addition, implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt or otherwise prevent roadway improvements, including the addition of bike paths or sidewalks in the vicinity of the project site. The project would also not disrupt existing transit services. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system or congestion management program. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-55 b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that changes the methodology of a transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA requirements. SB 743 directed the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new CEQA guidance for jurisdictions that removes the LOS method, which focuses on automobile vehicle delay and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, from CEQA transportation analysis.

Rather, VMT, or other measures that promote “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses,” are now be used as the basis for determining significant transportation impacts in the State.

The OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA23 provides technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures to meet SB 743 requirements. The OPR Technical Advisory recommends the following screening threshold for small projects:
“Screening Threshold for Small Projects
Many local agencies have developed screening thresholds to indicate when detailed analysis is needed. Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.” City staff would visit the project site on a weekly basis to ensure site security and would conduct monthly maintenance to maintain weed abatement and cleaning of the infrastructure. Since the proposed project is considered a low trip generator (less than 110 daily trips generated) per the OPR Technical Advisory, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant VMT impacts. Therefore, the project would be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant VMT impacts, and no mitigation would be required.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would include a stormwater retention basin and associated improvements, including cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. Installation of the storm drain pipe would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street. The proposed repaving and restriping activities would be required to comply with standards set by the City’s General Plan and City Engineer to ensure there are no substantial hazards associated with the project design. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to hazards associated with a design feature, and no mitigation would be required. 23 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. Website: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_ Advisory.pdf (accessed August 2021).

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -56 d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed project would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street; however, the proposed project does not include any changes to any other public or private roadways that would result in inadequate emergency access. In addition, as discussed in Section

4.9.f, the project would not interfere with the Porterville Emergency Operations Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to emergency access, and no mitigation would be required.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-57

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k); or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA environmental review process, and equates significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. PRC Section 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are:

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -58 • Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are one of the following:
○ Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
○ Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1.
○ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2(g)), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects. Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list. California Native American tribes must be recognized by the NAHC as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, and must have previously requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of a project to request consultation with the lead agency.

The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).

LSA submitted a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) to identify the presence of Native American cultural resources that could be impacted by the proposed project. The NAHC maintains the SLF database and is the official State repository of Native American sacred site location records in California.

Nancy Gonzalez-Lopez, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded to the SLF search request on May 21, 2021, stating that results were negative and that no Native American cultural resources were known in the area. The NAHC also provided a suggested list of Native American individuals to contact for information regarding the project site. The City of Porterville is conducting Native American consultation per AB 52 with the individuals on the list provided by the NAHC.

On November 23, 2021, the City provided formal notification to those California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area within which the

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-59 proposed project is located, pursuant to the consultation requirements of AB 52. The Tule River Native American Tribe received written notification on December 1, 2021 and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Native American Tribe received notification on November 29, 2021. No tribes have requested consultation and the City has fulfilled its obligation pursuant to AB 52. Therefore, it is assumed that no Tribal Cultural Resources would be adversely affected by the project. As a result, no impact would occur.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -60

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. 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?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Potential impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects are discussed below.

Water and Wastewater. The proposed project would not result in any new land uses that would consume water or generate wastewater. Water would be used during construction to reduce fugitive dust in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII and during operation for landscape irrigation, which would not demand a substantial increase in water used for irrigation in comparison to existing conditions in the project area. The amount of water used during construction would be minimal and would cease when construction is completed.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-61 generated as a result of construction or operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the need for new water or wastewater facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, and impacts to these facilities would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage. As discussed earlier in Response 3.10.c.ii, the proposed project would include a new stormwater recharge basin and associated improvements, which would store stormwater runoff and would release at least a portion of that runoff by infiltrating the water into the ground. The recharge volume would be stored and allowed to infiltrate into the underlying soils over a period of time. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the need for new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, and impacts to these facilities would be less than significant.

Electric Power and Natural Gas. In addition, as discussed in Response 3.6.a, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to available energy sources. Once operational, the proposed project would not include lighting or features that could contribute to a significant new source of electricity and natural gas usage. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a long-term substantial demand for electric power and natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Telecommunication Facilities. The proposed project does not include any utility improvements related to telecommunications. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Summary. The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? See Section 4.19.a above. The proposed project would include a stormwater retention basin and would include cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. Installation of the storm drain pipe would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street. The proposed project would also relocate an existing recirculation pond from its existing location west of the project site to north of the project site. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in direct additions or withdrawals to existing groundwater and as such would not result in impacts on water supply. Therefore, no exceedance of the capacities of these services would occur that would result in a significant impact. Therefore, the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years and impacts would be less than significant.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -62 c. 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?
Implementation of the proposed project would not affect wastewater treatment and disposal services. Therefore, the wastewater treatment providers would have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers’ existing commitments. There would be no impact related to wastewater generation, and no mitigation would be required. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Disposal services in the City are provided by the City of Porterville. As discussed in the Project Description, approximately 555,310 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the project site and would be transported to the Teapot Dome Landfill. Teapot Dome is a County-operated Class III landfill permitted to discharge up to 600 tons per day. According to the City’s General Plan, once the Teapot Dome landfill reaches capacity, the City anticipates using its transfer facility to divert waste to the either the Woodville landfill or Visalia landfill.

The Woodville Disposal Site, located approximately 15 miles northwest of City limits, is a Countyoperated Class III landfill permitted to discharge up to 1,078 tons per day. As of 2006, the Woodville landfill was at 41.5 percent capacity with a remaining capacity of 4,954,270 cubic yards and an anticipated closure date of 2026. The Visalia Disposal Site, located approximately 35 miles northwest of the City limits, is a County-operated Class III landfill permitted to discharge up to 2,000 tons a day. As of 2006, the Visalia landfill was at 13.3 percent capacity with a remaining capacity of 16,145,600 cubic yards and an anticipated closure date of 2024. The estimated closure date for this landfill is considered to be a worst-case scenarios, where diversion goals are not met.

Therefore, the County anticipates that the available landfill capacity will be sufficient through the planning horizon of 2030.24
Pena Disposal accepts all the recyclables for the City. This processing and transfer facility is approximately 35 miles from City limits and it is permitted for unlimited recycling, 2,000 tons per day of mixed solid waste, 100 tons per day of yard waste, and 175 tons per day of construction and demolition waste. Most household hazardous wastes, including e-waste, must be taken to various sites in Visalia, except on the biannual clean-up days when the County sets up a drop-off site in Porterville.25
As indicated above, approximately 555,310 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the project site and would be transported to the Teapot Dome Landfill. This impact would be temporary and the County’s landfills have an adequate capacity to accommodate the temporary increase in waste generated by construction. Once operational, the project would not generate solid waste.

Therefore, the proposed project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to 24 Porterville, City of, 2008, op. cit. 25 Ibid.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-63 accommodate the solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to solid waste and landfill facilities. e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with all standards related to solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling during project construction and operation. The proposed project would comply with all federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As such, any impacts would be less than significant.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -64

4.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed camp fires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) Map for Tulare County, the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.26 In addition, based on Figure 7-4 of the City’s General Plan, the project site is considered to have a moderate to high risk for fire hazard.27
As discussed in Section 4.9.f, the City of Porterville lists SR 65, SR 190, and Olive Avenue as evacuation routes. The proposed project would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street; however, the proposed project does not include any changes to any other public or private roadways that would interfere with the evacuation routes or shelters identified by the City’s General Plan.

The City adopted the Porterville Emergency Operations Plan in 2004. The Porterville Emergency Operations Plan includes planning and response scenarios for seismic hazards, extreme weather conditions, landslides, dam failure and other flooding, wildland fires, hazardous materials incidents, transportation emergencies, civil disturbance, and terrorist attacks. Porterville’s Emergency 26 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed August 2021). 27 Porterville, City of, 2008, op. cit.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-65 Operations Plan is intended to work in conjunction with the Tulare County Emergency Operations Plan and the State Emergency Plan. The Emergency Council of the Tulare County Operational Area meets at least four times per year. In addition, the City Fire Department has specific procedures for hazardous materials emergency response.

The proposed project would not physically interfere with the County’s emergency planning program or the City Fire Department access to and from the project site. Moreover, since the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a State Responsibility Area, potential impacts associated with emergency access described above would not pertain to wildfire and would more likely be associated with an urban fire or other emergency situations. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
As stated previously, the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a State Responsibility Area. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope and prevailing winds, thereby exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The proposed project would involve a stormwater retention basin and associated improvements and the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a State Responsibility Area. The infrastructure and roadway improvements would not exacerbate fire risk due to the location of the project site outside of a designated fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. As a result, a lessthan-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required. d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking but can also occur as a result of erosion and downslope runoff caused by rain following a fire. As previously discussed in Section 4.7.a.i, the City’s General Plan states that there is a moderate risk of landslides and liquefaction. Because the project site is

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -66 generally level, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides. Further, as stated previously, the project site is not located in or near a VHFHSZ nor is it located in or near a State Responsibility Area. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 4-67

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the habitat, population, or range of a plant or animal species; or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
The potential impacts of the project are individually limited and are not cumulatively considerable.

Implementation of mitigation measures recommended in this report would reduce potentially significant impacts that could become cumulatively considerable. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed project would be constructed and operated in accordance with all applicable regulations governing hazardous materials, noise, and geotechnical considerations. Because all

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
4 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -68 potentially significant impacts of the proposed project are expected to be mitigated to less-thansignificant levels, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. As a result, less-than-significant impacts would occur with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 5-1

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
LSA
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172
Clovis, California 93611
Amy Fischer, Principal-in-Charge
Cara Carlucci, Senior Planner
Kerrie Collison, Associate/Cultural Resources Manager
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
Patty Linder, Graphics/Document Production
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
Lauren Johnson, Document Management
Chantik Virgil, Document Management

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
5 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -2 This page intentionally left blank

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) 6-1

6.0 REFERENCES
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 2018. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Tule River Indian Tribe Fee-to-Trust and Eagle Mountain Casino Relocation Project. Sacramento, CA: U.S.

Department of the Interior.

California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed August 2021).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.

Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed August 2021).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2021. EnviroStor. Website:
www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public (accessed July 2021).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Docket No. 20- IEPR-01.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), 2021. Government Code Section 65962.5(a).

Website: www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm (accessed July 2021).

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2015. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Website:
maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps (accessed July 2021).

California Stormwater Quality Association, 2019. California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practices Handbook.

Conservation Biology Institute, 2021. Tulare County Williamson Act and Agricultural Preserve Lands.

Website: https://databasin.org/maps/new/#datasets=ed5964cbafe54ffeb9f70a6bc6d38263 (accessed August 2021).

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. Website: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/ 20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed August 2021).

LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), 2021. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Casino Basin Project in Porterville, Tulare County, California (LSA Project No. POR1801.24). August 23.

McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI), 2021. Biological Resources Report Casino Basin Project. September.

National Environmental Title Research. n.d. Historic Aerials. Website: http://www.historicaerials. com (accessed August 22, 2021).

Porterville, City of, 2008. Porterville 2030 General Plan. March 4.

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
6 P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) -2 Porterville, City of, 2018. Porterville, California City Code. August 7.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), 2007. 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. Available online at: www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/ Maintenance%20Plan10-25-07.pdf (accessed July 2021).

SJVAPCD, 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. June 16. Website: www.valleyair. org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm (accessed July 2021).

SJVAPCD, 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. November 15. Website:
http://valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997- 2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf (accessed July 2021).

Tulare County, 2012. Tulare County General Plan, 2030 Update. Website: generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us (accessed July 2021).

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2017. Census of Agriculture County Profile – Tulare County, California. Available online at:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profile s/California/cp06107.pdf (accessed September 2021).

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. Earthquake Glossary – Active Fault. Website:
earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=active%20fault (accessed July 2021).

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22)

APPENDIX A

CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22) This page intentionally left blank
Casino Basin Project
Tulare County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - The proposed project would include construction and operation of a new stormwater recharge basin. In addition, the proposed project would include cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street.

Installation of the storm drain pipe would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street.

Construction Phase - Construction is estimated to start in fall 2021, and would occur over a duration of 200 days.

Grading - Approximately 555,310 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the project site and would be transported to the Teapot Dome Landfill.

Trips and VMT - Approximately 555,310 cubic yards of soil would be excavated from the project site and would be transported to the Teapot Dome Landfill.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 50.00 Acre 50.00 2,178,000.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.50 Acre 0.50 21,780.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
7 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 120.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 10.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 40.00 60.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/30/2027 9/9/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/1/2022 8/12/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/15/2027 8/26/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/28/2022 2/25/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/16/2027 8/29/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/29/2022 2/28/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/3/2026 8/15/2022 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 360.00 330.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 90.00 60.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 55,310.00
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.25
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0399 0.4058 0.2203 4.0000e0040.2147 0.0205 0.2352 0.1033 0.0188 0.1222 0.0000 35.3106 35.3106 0.0109 6.0000e00535.6011 2022 0.7633 3.1428 2.3757 5.0800e0030.9641 0.1341 1.0982 0.4288 0.1234 0.5522 0.0000 448.7509 448.7509 0.1317 3.5500e003453.1012 Maximum 0.7633 3.1428 2.3757 5.0800e0030.9641 0.1341 1.0982 0.4288 0.1234 0.5522 0.0000 448.7509 448.7509 0.1317 3.5500e003453.1012 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0399 0.4058 0.2203 4.0000e0040.2147 0.0205 0.2352 0.1033 0.0188 0.1222 0.0000 35.3105 35.3105 0.0109 6.0000e00535.6010 2022 0.7633 3.1428 2.3757 5.0800e0030.9641 0.1341 1.0982 0.4288 0.1234 0.5522 0.0000 448.7504 448.7504 0.1317 3.5500e003453.1007 Maximum 0.7633 3.1428 2.3757 5.0800e0030.9641 0.1341 1.0982 0.4288 0.1234 0.5522 0.0000 448.7504 448.7504 0.1317 3.5500e003453.1007 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 12-6-2021 3-5-2022 1.2369 1.2369
2 3-6-2022 6-5-2022 1.4454 1.4454
3 6-6-2022 9-5-2022 1.3931 1.3931
4 9-6-2022 9-30-2022 0.1359 0.1359
Highest 1.4454 1.4454

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1881 0.0000 4.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 9.6000e004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1881 0.0000 4.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 9.6000e004 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 12/6/2021 2/25/2022 5 60 2 Grading Grading 2/28/2022 8/12/2022 5 120
3 Paving Paving 8/15/2022 8/26/2022 5 10
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/29/2022 9/9/2022 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 5,469.00 16.80 6.60 1.25 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 185.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 131,987 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 330
Acres of Paving: 50.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.9000e0048.4000e0048.7400e0032.0000e0052.2300e0031.0000e0052.2400e0035.9000e0041.0000e0056.0000e0040.0000 1.8749 1.8749 6.0000e0056.0000e0051.8950 Total 9.9000e0048.4000e0048.7400e0032.0000e0052.2300e0031.0000e0052.2400e0035.9000e0041.0000e0056.0000e0040.0000 1.8749 1.8749 6.0000e0056.0000e0051.8950 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2125 0.0000 0.2125 0.1027 0.0000 0.1027 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e0040.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e0040.2125 0.0204 0.2329 0.1027 0.0188 0.1216 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.8000e0031.4500e0030.0157 4.0000e0054.4600e0032.0000e0054.4800e0031.1900e0032.0000e0051.2100e0030.0000 3.6477 3.6477 1.1000e0041.1000e0043.6841 Total 1.8000e0031.4500e0030.0157 4.0000e0054.4600e0032.0000e0054.4800e0031.1900e0032.0000e0051.2100e0030.0000 3.6477 3.6477 1.1000e0041.1000e0043.6841 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.3931 0.0000 0.3931 0.2021 0.0000 0.2021 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0634 0.6617 0.3940 7.6000e0040.0323 0.0323 0.0297 0.0297 0.0000 66.8787 66.8787 0.0216 0.0000 67.4195 Total 0.0634 0.6617 0.3940 7.6000e0040.3931 0.0323 0.4254 0.2021 0.0297 0.2317 0.0000 66.8787 66.8787 0.0216 0.0000 67.4195 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.5363 0.0000 0.5363 0.2175 0.0000 0.2175 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2175 2.3306 1.7425 3.7200e0030.0981 0.0981 0.0903 0.0903 0.0000 327.2076 327.2076 0.1058 0.0000 329.8532 Total 0.2175 2.3306 1.7425 3.7200e0030.5363 0.0981 0.6344 0.2175 0.0903 0.3078 0.0000 327.2076 327.2076 0.1058 0.0000 329.8532 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.5900e0030.0775 0.0455 1.8000e0042.9700e0033.1000e0043.2800e0038.2000e0042.9000e0041.1100e0030.0000 17.4349 17.4349 1.9000e0042.7400e00318.2567 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e0034.8400e0030.0524 1.3000e0040.0149 8.0000e0050.0149 3.9500e0037.0000e0054.0200e0030.0000 12.1590 12.1590 3.6000e0043.8000e00412.2804 Total 9.5900e0030.0824 0.0979 3.1000e0040.0178 3.9000e0040.0182 4.7700e0033.6000e0045.1300e0030.0000 29.5939 29.5939 5.5000e0043.1200e00330.5371 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.5363 0.0000 0.5363 0.2175 0.0000 0.2175 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2175 2.3306 1.7425 3.7200e0030.0981 0.0981 0.0903 0.0903 0.0000 327.2072 327.2072 0.1058 0.0000 329.8528 Total 0.2175 2.3306 1.7425 3.7200e0030.5363 0.0981 0.6344 0.2175 0.0903 0.3078 0.0000 327.2072 327.2072 0.1058 0.0000 329.8528 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 5.5100e0030.0556 0.0729 1.1000e0042.8400e0032.8400e0032.6100e0032.6100e0030.0000 10.0138 10.0138 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0948 Paving 6.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.1700e0030.0556 0.0729 1.1000e0042.8400e0032.8400e0032.6100e0032.6100e0030.0000 10.0138 10.0138 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0948 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e0043.0000e0043.2700e0031.0000e0059.3000e0040.0000 9.3000e0042.5000e0040.0000 2.5000e0040.0000 0.7599 0.7599 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.7675 Total 3.7000e0043.0000e0043.2700e0031.0000e0059.3000e0040.0000 9.3000e0042.5000e0040.0000 2.5000e0040.0000 0.7599 0.7599 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.7675 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 5.5100e0030.0556 0.0729 1.1000e0042.8400e0032.8400e0032.6100e0032.6100e0030.0000 10.0138 10.0138 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0947 Paving 6.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.1700e0030.0556 0.0729 1.1000e0042.8400e0032.8400e0032.6100e0032.6100e0030.0000 10.0138 10.0138 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0947 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.6200e0033.7300e0030.0404 1.0000e0040.0115 6.0000e0050.0115 3.0500e0036.0000e0053.1000e0030.0000 9.3726 9.3726 2.8000e0042.9000e0049.4662 Total 4.6200e0033.7300e0030.0404 1.0000e0040.0115 6.0000e0050.0115 3.0500e0036.0000e0053.1000e0030.0000 9.3726 9.3726 2.8000e0042.9000e0049.4662 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.4588 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0200e0037.0400e0039.0700e0031.0000e0054.1000e0044.1000e0044.1000e0044.1000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e0050.0000 1.2787 Total 0.4598 7.0400e0039.0700e0031.0000e0054.1000e0044.1000e0044.1000e0044.1000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e0050.0000 1.2787 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Asphalt Surfaces 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.491968 0.051162 0.166648 0.188672 0.034593 0.008513 0.012315 0.015417 0.000659 0.000471 0.024128 0.001541 0.003914 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.491968 0.051162 0.166648 0.188672 0.034593 0.008513 0.012315 0.015417 0.000659 0.000471 0.024128 0.001541 0.003914

5.0 Energy Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1881 0.0000 4.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 9.6000e004 Unmitigated 0.1881 0.0000 4.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 9.6000e004

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0459 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.0000e0050.0000 4.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 9.6000e004 Total 0.1881 0.0000 4.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 9.6000e004 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0459 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.0000e0050.0000 4.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 9.6000e004 Total 0.1881 0.0000 4.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0000e0049.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 9.6000e004 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 27 Date: 9/13/2021 1:26 PM Casino Basin Project - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

INITIAL S TUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
J ANUARY 2022

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\POR1801.24 Casino Basin\PRODUCTS\Public Review Draft ISMND\Casino Basin Public Review Draft ISMND.docx (01/14/22)

APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION

C ASINO B ASIN P ROJECT

CITY OF P ORTERVILLE , C ALIFORNIA

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION

CASINO BASIN PROJECT
Portions of Sections 7 and 8, Township 22 South Range 27 East, M. D. B. & M.

Porterville, California
September 2021
Prepared for:

LSA
7086 North Maple Avenue, Suite 104
Fresno, CA 93720
Prepared by:

Randi McCormick, Principal Biologist
McCormick Biological, Inc.

P.O. Box 80983
Bakersfield, CA 93380

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Purpose and Background................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Project Site and Surrounding Area Descriptions............................................................... 5

1.3 Regulatory Background..................................................................................................... 8

1.3.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Acts.............................................................. 8

1.3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act......................................................................................... 8

1.3.3 California Fish and Game Code (C.F.G.C. § 1580 et seq.) ....................................... 8

1.3.4 Local Jurisdictions................................................................................................... 11

2.0 METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 Literature and Records Review....................................................................................... 12

2.2 Field Survey .................................................................................................................... 14

3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 16

3.1 General Conditions.......................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Special-status Biological Resources................................................................................ 16

3.2.1 Special-status Plant Species..................................................................................... 24

3.2.2 Special-status Wildlife Species................................................................................ 24

3.2.3 Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, and Other Waters........................................................ 30

3.2.4 Critical Habitat......................................................................................................... 31

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 32

4.1 Effects of the Proposed Project ....................................................................................... 32

4.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................... 36

5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 40

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................................ 41

7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 42 Appendix A.................................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix B.................................................................................................................................... 57 Appendix C.................................................................................................................................... 62 List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Project Location and Vicinity
Figure 1-2: Aerial Photograph of the Proposed Project Site Figure 3-1: CNDDB Special-status Plant Results (A-M)
Figure 3-2: CNDDB Special-status Plant Results (N-Z)
Figure 3-3: CNDDB Special-status Invertebrate Results
Figure 3-4: CNDDB Special-status Reptile and Amphibian Results Figure 3-5: CNDDB Special-status Bird Results
Figure 3-6: CNDDB Special-status Mammal Results
Figure 3-7: SSURGO Soil Data Results
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Special-status Wildlife That May Occur in the Project Area Appendices
Appendix A Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Evaluation Appendix B Photographs of the Project Site and Surrounding Area Appendix C Plants and Wildlife Observed During the Biological Surveys 2021 Biological Resources Evaluation 4 Casino Basin Project
September 2021 LSA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report documents the biological resources found during a reconnaissance-level biological survey conducted on August 18 and 19, 2021, on the Casino Basin Project (Project), which includes an approximately 50-acre stormwater retention basin, recirculation pond, and stormwater drain pipe. The proposed project includes development of a retention basin in the southwest portion of the City of Porterville, generally located at the northwest corner of Road 216 and Avenue 128.

The project site is the southerly 50 acres of an approximately 126-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number [APN]: 302-100-015), generally located at the northwest corner of Road 216 and Avenue 128 in the southwest portion of the City of Porterville (City), in Tulare County (County). The site is located on agricultural land and within paved and unpaved streets with no nearby undisturbed or natural lands.

The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during the literature review and reconnaissance survey conducted for the proposed Project and to recommend avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during Project activities.

This report includes an evaluation of the potential for special-status biological resources to occur on the Project based on the habitat conditions observed. The Project is located within the geographic range of several threatened and/or endangered wildlife taxa including San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), as well as others. In addition, the site is within the range of listed plant taxa, including San Joaquin woolly threads (Monolopia congdonii), California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus) and others.

Listed plants and wildlife are protected primarily through the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Each of these laws, among other provisions, prohibits take of listed threatened and endangered species. Although the definition of take under each law varies somewhat, in general, injuring or killing listed species without a permit issued from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; formerly the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]) is unlawful. Under FESA, harassment and/or harm are also considered take for which the USFWS requires a permit.

Based upon the literature review and field survey results, the Project will not result in significant impacts to wildlife corridors, wetlands, riparian habitat or sensitive plant communities. The Project does have the potential to affect some special-status species. Recommendations are included that, when implemented, will mitigate any potentially significant Project impacts to biological resources. The Project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources.

Biological Resources Evaluation 5 Casino Basin Project
September 2021 LSA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Background
The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during a reconnaissance biological survey and literature review of the Projectsite, to assess the potential for special-status biological resources, analyze potential impacts to those resources and to recommend avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during Project activities. The literature review, survey results, and the professional experience of McCormick Biological, Inc. (MBI) staff were combined to evaluate the potential Project effects on biological resources. A reconnaissance survey was performed to evaluate habitat conditions suitable for occupation by potentially occurring special-status species; based on the existing natural vegetative communities, current site conditions, and diagnostic sign detected during the survey.

This report is intended to support CEQA review of the proposed Project for this Project that will be undertaken by the City of Porterville (City). For the purposes of this report, potential impacts to the biological resources of the proposed Project were evaluated in accordance with the biological resources section in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (2021).

1.2 Project Site and Surrounding Area Descriptions
The proposed project includes development of a retention basin in the southwest portion of the City of Porterville, generally located at the northwest corner of Road 216 and Avenue 128. The project site is the southerly 50 acres of an approximately 126-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number [APN]: 302-100-015, generally located at the northwest corner of Road 216 and Avenue 128 in the southwest portion of the City of Porterville (City), in Tulare County (County). Figure 1 provides the Regional Location. The basin would have a depth of roughly 13 feet from original grade to the base (toe) of the slope and the high water line is designed to be 5 feet above the basin floor. The basin has a proposed capacity of approximately 200.22 acre-feet. The basin would be surrounded by a 6-inch chain link fence.

In addition to construction and operation of this new stormwater recharge basin to support the Eagle Mountain Casino, the proposed project would include cast-in-place storm drain outlets, storm drain manholes, and an underground 72-inch storm drain pipe underneath to Road 216, Avenue 130, and West Street. Installation of the storm drain pipe would require repaving and restriping of the centerline on Road 216 and West Street. The proposed project would also relocate an existing recirculation pond from its existing location west of the project site to north of the project site. The project site is currently owned by the City and would continue to be owned by the City with implementation of the project.

The general topography of the area is generally level as the land appears to have been cleared for agriculture prior to 1994 and has been actively farmed since that time. The entire basin and all but 650 feet of the storm drain pipe installation route is in or adjacent to active agriculture. The remaining 650 feet of the storm drain pipe route is adjacent to a fallow field.

Biological Resources Evaluation 6 Casino Basin Project
September 2021 LSA
Figure 1-1: Project Location and Vicinity
Biological Resources Evaluation 7 Casino Basin Project
September 2021 LSA
Figure 1-2: Aerial Photograph of the Proposed Project Site Biological Resources Evaluation 8 Casino Basin Project
September 2021 LSA
The Project site is surrounded by active agriculture and industrial land uses. The proposed basin is west of Road 216 and north of Avenue 128, with the Friant-Kern Canal located approximately 525 feet west of the Project. A Tulare County landfill is located about 750 feet west-southwest of the Project and the Porterville Airport is approximately one mile east of the basin portion of the Project. The average elevation of the Project area is approximately 355 feet (108 meters) above sea-level.

The Project is in the southeastern San Joaquin Valley; a broad, treeless plain in the rain shadow of the Coast Ranges. The region’s climate can be characterized as Mediterranean; with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. July is the hottest month, with an average daily high of

98.3°Fahrenheit (F) (36.8°Celsius (C)) and December is the coolest month, with an average minimum of 36.6°F (2.6°C). Average annual precipitation is 10.99 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center 2021).

1.3 Regulatory Background
The following section identifies the regulatory compliance framework that has been considered during both the field work and development of this biological evaluation. The regulatory framework establishes criteria in which significance is determined and whether a project will have a significant impact on species, biological resources, or the environment.

1.3.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Acts
The Project site is within the range of several state- and federal-listed species which are protected through various statutes. Listed plant and animal species are protected primarily through FESA and/or CESA. Each of these laws, among other provisions, prohibits take of listed threatened and endangered species. Although the definition of take under each law varies, in general, injuring or killing listed species without a permit issued from the USFWS and/or the CDFW is unlawful. Under FESA, harassment and/or harm could also be considered take, which requires a permit. The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) has classified some species as fully protected. Under this designation, no take of these species is allowed, even with authorization under CESA or FESA permitting.

1.3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Among other provisions, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (2021) prohibits the destruction of nests, eggs, and/or young of all designated migratory bird species. With very limited exceptions, all birds are included in this prohibition (MBTA 2021).

1.3.3 California Fish and Game Code (C.F.G.C. § 1580 et seq.) The following paragraphs summarize several sections of the CFGC, and are applicable to analysis of biological resource impacts that may be associated with the Project.

Section 1580
Biological Resources Evaluation 9 Casino Basin Project
September 2021 LSA
This section declares the policy of the state is to protect threatened or endangered native plants; wildlife; aquatic organisms or specialized habitat types; both terrestrial and non-marine aquatic, or large, heterogeneous natural gene pools for the future use of mankind through the establishment of ecological reserves.

Sections 1600–1616
This portion of the CFGC requires notification to the CDFW if any of the following may occur within a river, stream, or lake in the state of California:
• Substantial diversion or obstruction of the natural flow, • Substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank, • Depositing or disposing of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

This notification may result in a Streambed Alteration Agreement between the Project applicant and the CDFW. Activities in intermittent streams and canals may require Streambed Alteration Agreements.

Section 1900, et seq.

This portion of the CFGC is known as the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (2021).

The purpose of this chapter is to preserve, protect and enhance endangered or rare native plants of California. Many species and subspecies of native plants are endangered because their habitats are threatened with destruction, drastic modification, or severe curtailment. Commercial exploitation, disease, and other factors also represent threats to species and subspecies of native plants. This portion of the code designates rare, threatened, and endangered plant taxa of California.

Section 1930–1933
These sections established the Significant Natural Areas Program and declared it to be administered by the CDFW, because areas containing diverse ecological and geological characteristics are vital to the continual health and well-being of the state’s citizens and natural resources. The CDFW is responsible for obtaining access to the most recent information with respect to natural resources by maintaining, expanding, and keeping a current data management system (California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB]), designed to document information on these resources. This data is required to be made available to interested parties on request, and costs are to be shared by all who use the data management system.

The state’s most significant natural areas are to be designated and; after consultation with federal, state, and local agencies; educational institutions, civic and public interest organizations, private organizations, landowners, and other private individuals; periodic reports regarding the most significant natural areas are to be prepared. The CDFW is required to maintain and perpetuate these significant natural areas for present and future generations in the most feasible Biological Resources Evaluation 10 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
manner. The code also requires that the CDFW coordinate services to federal, state, local and private interests wishing to aid in the maintenance and perpetuation of significant natural areas.

Section 3503
This section prohibits taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying the nest or eggs or any bird.

Birds of prey are included in Section 3503.5.

Section 3513
California’s migratory birds are protected under this section by making it unlawful to take or possess any migratory, non-game bird (or any part of such bird) as designated in the MBTA.

Section 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515
These sections prohibit take of animals that are classified as fully protected in California. Take of fully protected species is specifically prohibited, even if other sections of the CFGC provide for incidental take of the species.

Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15000 et seq.

This portion of the CCR prescribes the regulations to be followed by all local and state agencies in implementing CEQA.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification or Waiver)
The state of California regulates water quality related to discharge of fill material into waters of the state pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (2021). Section 401 compliance is a federal mandate implemented by the state. The local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has jurisdiction over all those areas defined as jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA and regulates water quality for all waters of the State. These waters may include isolated wetlands as defined under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (2021). Regulated discharges include those that can affect water quality, even if there is no significant nexus to a traditional navigable water body required for the United States (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) determination of jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. A Waste Discharge Permit may be required to comply with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act even if the CWA (including Section 401 water quality certifications or Section 404 permits) would not apply.

The ACOE, under Section 404 of the CWA, regulates discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S. In addition to designated and traditional navigable waters, these terms include:
waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: 1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers Biological Resources Evaluation 11 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
for recreational or other purposes; or 2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or 3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce.

Tributaries to waters of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands would also be included. Some intermittent washes may be included in the defined waters of the U.S. depending on connection or nexus to navigable waters. Both wetlands and non-wetland areas can be included within the regulated area. Within non-wetlands that are classified as waters of the U.S., the ACOE maintains jurisdiction up to the ordinary high-water mark. If wetlands are present that meet the criteria established by the ACOE, the limit of jurisdiction is the ordinary high-water mark or the limit of the adjacent or associated wetland, whichever is greater. If waters are determined to be under the jurisdiction of the ACOE, the RWQCB would be the state-permitting authority. At the discretion of the ACOE, impacts to these areas could require a permit, depending on the type and size of the activity within ACOE jurisdiction.

1.3.4 Local Jurisdictions
Porterville General Plan Policies
The Project is located within the Porterville General Plan area. The following is the guiding policy in regard to biological resources:

OSC-G-7 Protect habitat for special status species, designated under State and federal law.

Biological Resources Evaluation 12 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Literature and Records Review
For the purposes of this document, special status wildlife and plants include all species that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Special-status species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections and include federal- and state-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts.
o Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.). A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors (Fish and Game Code §2062). A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures (Fish and Game Code §2067).
o Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish and Game Code §1901).
• Meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following:
o Species considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B and 2); o Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.
o Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2021a) or Special Animals List (CDFW 2021b).
o Considered as sensitive by groups such as the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), where such a group has concluded based on published and/or empirical data that the species is declining and warrants concern. • Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.

Biological Resources Evaluation 13 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Data sources included in the literature review included the following:
• California Natural Diversity Data Base information (CNDDB – RareFind 5), which is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). This database covers sensitive plant and animal species as well as sensitive natural communities that occur in California.

Records from nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site (Rosedale, Wasco, Famoso, North of Oildale, Rio Bravo, Oildale, Tupman, Stevens, Gosford) were obtained from this database to inform the field survey (CNDDB 2021). For the purposes of this report, the term “historic” records refer to those occurrences that are more than 20 years old. Observations recorded in CNDDB noted in this report as “recent” are less than 20 years old.
• California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, which utilizes four ranks of sensitive plant species to assist with the conservation of rare or endangered botanical resources. Records from the nine USGS quadrangles surrounding the project site were obtained from this database to inform the field survey (CNPS 2021).
• Designated and Proposed USFWS Critical Habitat Polygons were reviewed to determine whether critical habitat has been designated or proposed within or in the vicinity of the project site (USFWS 2021a).
• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was reviewed to determine whether any wetlands or surface waters of the United States have been previously identified in the survey area (USFWS 2021b).
• The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Database (IPaC) was reviewed to determine federal listed plant and wildlife species, as well as critical habitats that occur in in the vicinity of the project (USFWS 2021c).
• The Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) Bat Species Regional Priority Matrix was reviewed to determine whether any bat species which hold a high level of conservation concern that may occur in the vicinity (WBWG 2021).
“Special-status” or “sensitive” wildlife and plant species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections, such as federal- and state-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts. In addition, species that are of “concern” to either USFWS or CDFW have been included in the evaluation if the project site or vicinity (generally, 10- mile radius) includes habitat that may be occupied by such species. Special-status bird species that are not listed as threatened or endangered have been included if the project site or observed vicinity includes potential nesting habitat or the species was observed during biological survey activities. In addition, potential impacts to special-status bird species have been considered if habitat that may be important to the species outside of breeding season was observed. Species Biological Resources Evaluation 14 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
may meet the criteria for inclusion on the lists consulted during the literature review if a special interest group, such as the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), has concluded through empirical or published data that the species is declining and warrants concern and, potential habitat is present on the project site or vicinity. Species evaluated in this biological resource assessment have been collectively referred to as “special-status species.” In addition to the databases listed above, historic and current aerial imagery, existing environmental reports for development in the project vicinity, regional habitat conservation plans and local land use policies related to biological resources were reviewed.

The list of special-status species that was evaluated was additionally compiled by consulting pertinent literature, obtaining the USFWS List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project, and accessing the CNDDB (USFWS 2021; CNDDB 2021). The CNDDB contains records for special-status species, as well as special-status natural communities that have been reported to the CDFW.

Updates to the database are provided monthly for subscribers (CNDDB 2021). A standard 10-mile (16-kilometer) report was generated for the project location (i.e., USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle in which the project site is found as well as the quadrangles located within a 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the project footprint: Porterville, Lindsay, Cairns Corner, Woodville, Patterson Mountain, Sacate Ridge, Rough Spur, Success Dam, and Fountain Springs. For illustration purposes, a map was generated to show those species reported in close proximity to the project area by the CNDDB. Species that are recorded in the CNDDB that have no official status (e.g., Watch List) were not further considered in the impact evaluation unless observed during the reconnaissance site visits.

MBI Biologist Randi McCormick conducted the literature review and records search on August 17, 2021, to identify the previously reported observations and potential for occurrence of sensitive or special-status plant and wildlife species in the vicinity of the project site. MBI staff reviewed these lists and other pertinent information to complete the list of special-status species evaluated. The list was then reviewed based on-site characteristics, the project description, and observations, to assess the potential for occurrence. Potential impacts were determined in relation to the special-status species that may occur on the proposed project site and the aspects of the Project that could result in impacts to those species. Species whose occurrence in the vicinity and life history makes them vulnerable to impacts even if they are not known to occur directly on the project site were also evaluated.

2.2 Field Survey
A reconnaissance-level survey was conducted on the project site. Survey methods consisted of visually evaluating the Project site and walking meandering transects if potential habitat for burrowing wildlife was present. Additionally, trees on and near (within 300 ft.) the project site were inspected via line-of-sight using binoculars for birds, nesting activity, or nesting materials.

Field notes included documentation of all plant and wildlife species observed. Supporting documentation regarding species findings included direct observations and/or significant species sign (e.g., scat, tracks, feather/fur, prey remains, nests/burrows or any other indication of wildlife presence) deemed necessary to document potential occupation.

Biological Resources Evaluation 15 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
If encountered, burrows and dens were classified based on agency protocols or best practices to identify possible species occupation or occurrence on the Project.

Naturalized plant taxa encountered were identified to the extent possible given the diagnostic features present. Although a complete list of plants was not compiled due the nature of the reconnaissance level survey, the prominent species present were identified. Identifications were made using keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California and online updates containing revisions to taxonomic treatments (Baldwin et al. 2012; Jepson Flora Project 2021).

When necessary, plant identifications were made using a 10X or greater magnification field hand lens and/or were collected and identified using a dissecting microscope. Locations of specialstatus plant species or tentatively identified special-status plant species were recorded using a handheld global positioning system unit if observed.

General habitat and site conditions were photographed to visually depict conditions during the field surveys. In addition, special-status species or habitat features, such as vegetation communities or ephemeral channels, were also photographically documented when encountered.

Subsequent to conducting the reconnaissance-level survey, special-status resource occurrence information from the existing databases and literature was reviewed against field survey results to complete an occurrence evaluation. A table was prepared that presents an evaluation of the potential for each species identified during the literature review to occur on the Project site. Each special-status species was then categorized as follows: no potential to occur (none); low potential; moderate potential; high potential; or known to occur. A brief explanation is provided in the table and additional information is presented in Section 3.0. Potential impacts to each identified special-status resource were compiled based on this occurrence evaluation. If potentially significant impacts were identified during the evaluation process, recommendations for reducing these impacts are included in this report, with a goal of reducing impacts to “less than significant.” If impacts could not be reduced to “less than significant”, those impacts are identified. The sources of these recommendations include agency guidelines and protocols, previously prepared environmental documents for similar projects, and MBI’s experience and professional judgment.

Biological Resources Evaluation 16 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA

3.0 RESULTS
The literature review resulted in identification of 26 special-status plants and 25 special-status wildlife taxa for evaluation that could occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project (Appendix A; Tables A1–A2). Figures 3-1 through 3-6 provide the results of the 2021 CNDDB records query within 10 miles (16 kilometers) for the proposed Project. The general site conditions combined with the habitat requirements and known ranges of these species were evaluated to determine potential for occurrence of these species on the proposed Project site.

3.1 General Conditions
A reconnaissance-level survey of the basin portion of the Project was conducted on August 18, 2021, by Ms. Randi McCormick, MBI Principal Biologist. The stormwater drain pipe route was surveyed on August 19, 2021 by Mr. Daniel Hall, MBI Staff Biologist. Photographs taken during the site visits are shown in Appendix B. During these site visits, 12 plant species and 8 wildlife species were observed (Appendix C). No nesting bird activity or nesting material was observed on or adjacent to the project site during the reconnaissance surveys. No direct observations of specialstatus species were recorded during the site visits.

While the eastern 30 acres of the basin portion of the Project site and the proposed recirculation pond site were actively irrigated alfalfa fields, the eastern 20 acres appeared dry and fallow, but possibly had been recently harvested. No existing permanent structures were present on the Project site and a part of the northeastern corner of the basin site was being used for hay storage.

All of the lands adjacent to the stormwater drain pipe route were active agriculture, with the exception of approximately 650 feet along the east side of Road 216 near the northern end of the route. This area consisted of annual grassland that was likely to have been historically farmed. No undisturbed, natural lands were present on or in the vicinity of the Project site.

The SSURGO soil survey map describes the soil at the Project site as Exeter loam, 0 to 2 % slopes (Figure 3-7). Observed conditions were consistent with the soil survey, but surface soils were heavily disturbed.

The remainder of this section discusses the 2021 field survey results for special-status biological resources and evaluation of those results based on the literature review and professional judgment of MBI personnel.

3.2 Special-status Biological Resources
As a result of the literature review, 26 special-status plants and 25 wildlife taxa were identified through database queries as potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the Project site. Specialstatus plant and animal species identified with at least a low potential to be impacted by the Project are further discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, below.

Biological Resources Evaluation 17 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Figure 3-1: CNDDB special-status plant results (A-M)
Biological Resources Evaluation 18 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Figure 3-2: CNDDB special-status plant results (N-Z)
Biological Resources Evaluation 19 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Figure 3-3: CNDDB special-status invertebrate results.

Biological Resources Evaluation 20 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Figure 3-4: CNDDB special-status amphibian and reptile results.

Biological Resources Evaluation 21 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Figure 3-5: CNDDB special-status bird results.

Biological Resources Evaluation 22 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Figure 3-6: CNDDB special-status mammal results.

Biological Resources Evaluation 23 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Figure 3-7: Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) soil results.

Biological Resources Evaluation 24 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox were identified as having a low potential to occur on the Project site, while Swainson’s hawk was found to have a moderate potential to occur. Those that the initial evaluation found with no potential to occur, and therefore, not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed Project are not discussed further in this report.

3.2.1 Special-status Plant Species
Twenty-six special-status plants were evaluated as a result of the literature review. Only 6 of these plant taxa are state and/or federally listed. CEQA requires consideration of impacts to locally significant plant species and those that meet the criteria for listing, but which may not be officially listed under CESA or FESA; therefore, several non-listed special-status species have been included in the evaluation in Appendix A. No listed or other special-status plant species were observed during the fieldwork conducted for the preparation of this report. No listed or other special-status plant species have been recorded as occurring within the Project site footprint by any of the literature sources consulted.

All special-status plant species were eliminated from further consideration because the proposed The Project site does not provide suitable habitat for each taxon. Based on the evaluation, no additional discussion is provided for special-status plant species beyond the evaluation included in Appendix A (Table A-1).

3.2.2 Special-status Wildlife Species
Appendix A (Table A-2) contains a discussion of the potential for each special-status wildlife species to occur on the Project site and whether there is a potential for impacts based on a combination of the literature review and conditions observed on and in the vicinity of the Project site. Table 3-2 shows those special-status wildlife that were determined to have at least a low potential for occurrence on the proposed Project site based on the evaluation contained in Appendix A. Due to this low potential for occurrence, additional discussion regarding tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox is provided in the following paragraphs.

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
The tricolored blackbird is state listed as a threatened species (CDFW 2021). It is about 8.75 inches (22.2 centimeters) in length with a pointed black conical bill. They are similar in size, shape, and coloring of the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) but have slightly thinner bills and pointed wings in flight. The species is sexually dimorphic: males are primarily black with red epaulets (shoulder patches) similar to the red-winged blackbird; however, epaulets are often a deeper red in the tricolored blackbird. The males are further distinguished from male red-winged blackbirds with epaulets broadly margined in white, rather than the yellow or absence of a marginal color seen in the red-winged blackbird. Males are best identified before late summer because the epaulet margins of male red-winged blackbirds can appear whitish as they fade.

Females are sooty and often streaky like a sparrow, but larger than a sparrow, with a faint eyeline.

Biological Resources Evaluation 25 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
Table 3-1: Special-status Wildlife That May Occur in the Project Area for Which Potential Impacts Were Identified*
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Federal/State1
Birds
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird -/T
Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl -/CSC
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk -/T
Mammals
Taxidea taxus American badger -/CSC
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox E/T
1 Status:

Federal
E Listed as Endangered
- No listing status
State
CSC California Species of Concern
T Listed as Threatened
* For additional evaluation of other special-status species, see Appendix A, Table A-2 and Section 3.2.2 Biological Resources Evaluation 26 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
They are very similar to red-winged blackbird females but slightly darker. Juveniles are similar to females but paler (Beedy 2016; Kaufman 2000).

The tricolored blackbird is an opportunistic feeder that forages on grains and seeds wherever available (often associated with dairies in the San Joaquin Valley), insects such as grasshoppers, and both terrestrial and aquatic insect larvae. Some individuals have been recorded to forage as far as 5.6 miles (9 kilometers) from their colony. Historically, their nests are built in vegetation dominated by cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus or Schoenoplectus spp.) and consist of a platform of leaves woven around these and other substrates such as willow (Salix spp.), nettle (Urtica spp.), and blackberry (Rubus spp.). Platforms rest between 6.5 feet (2 meters) to a few centimeters above ground or water, and hold nests made of mud and materials similar to the platform material. In recent years, nesting of tricolored blackbirds in agricultural fields has been increasing, with the species using substrates such as mustards (Brassica spp.), mallows (Malva spp.), and agricultural silage. Eggs are laid from mid-April to late June in clutches of three to four oval-shaped eggs, are generally light blue to light green, and have dark reddish-brown splotches concentrated on one end. Incubation lasts approximately 11 days with young leaving the nest about 13 days after hatching. Tricolored blackbird nesting colonies are distinct from those of the red-winged blackbird which contain nests that are spread farther apart from one another.

Tricolored blackbird nests can be spaced as little as 3.3 feet (1 meter) apart. Sometimes in dense colonies, nests can even be vertically stacked (Beedy 2016; Granholm 2008; Grinnell & Miller 1944; Zeiner et al. 1988-1990).

This species is a year-long resident of California, its range extending from Shasta County south to Kern County, and along the coast from Sonoma County to the Mexican border. Colonies located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage system are somewhat migratory in the winter. In the fall, birds tend to be nomadic and venture outside the vicinity of the nesting colonies (Grinnell & Miller 1994; Zeiner et al. 1988-1990).

Tricolored blackbird colonies have been reported to the CNDDB several miles east-northeast and west-southwest of the Project (CNDDB 2021a). The colony to the west-southwest is thought to be extirpated. No suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird was present on or adjacent to the Project site during the reconnaissance survey. The basin portion of the Project site represents suitable foraging habitat and some of the fields adjacent to the stormwater drain pipe route would be suitable foraging habitat. No tricolored blackbirds were observed during the survey. Given the distance that tricolored blackbirds will travel to forage during both breeding season and winter, there is a moderate potential for tricolored blackbirds to forage in the alfalfa and fallow fields present on and in the vicinity of the Project.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
The burrowing owl is a California species of special concern, and documented population declines have occurred in the state since at least the 1970s. It has no federal listing but is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and potential habitat may be protected through the California Environmental Quality Act (CDFG 2012; CNDDB 2021a; MBTA 2021). The burrowing owl is a small, ground-dwelling owl with a round head that lacks ear tufts. Adults are sandy brown overall with bold spotting and barring, have white eyebrows above yellow eyes, and can be distinguished from Biological Resources Evaluation 27 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
all other small owls by their long legs. Adult burrowing owls have an average weight of 6 ounces (170 grams), a full body length of 8.5 to 11 inches (22–28 centimeters), and average wingspan of 20- to 24-inches (51- to 61-centimeters) wingspan (Brown 2006).

Within California, this species is found throughout the Central Valley, in the San Francisco Bay Area, Carrizo Plain, and Imperial Valley. Typical habitat includes open grasslands, agricultural or range lands, and desert lands with short, sparse vegetation at elevations from 200 feet (61 meters) below sea level to 9,000 feet (2,743 meters) above sea level (Brown 2006). The Central Valley population resides in the area year-round in the annual and perennial grasslands or other vegetation communities that support little to no tree or shrub cover. The state of California is also considered an important wintering ground for migrants; thus, California’s burrowing owl population increases during the winter season (CDFG 2012; Dunn & Alderfer 2008; Shuford & Gardali 2008). Nesting season begins late March and breeding pairs exhibit biparental care in which the female incubates the eggs and the male cares for the young.

Burrowing owls are active daytime and nighttime but are mostly active during dawn and dusk. In California, the species is typically found in close association with California ground squirrels that create burrows that are used by burrowing owls as year-round shelter and seasonal nesting habitat; however, burrowing owls may also use human-made structures such as culverts, corrugated metal pipes, debris piles, or openings beneath pavement as shelter and nesting habitat. During active periods of the year, they may be observed above ground in the vicinity of their burrows or roosting on the ground or nearby high spots such as berms, fence posts, or shrubs. They have a varied diet that includes insects, small rodents, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and carrion, and there is some evidence that population sizes of California vole (Microtus californicus) influence their survival and reproductive success (Poulin et al., 1998). Pellets including animal bones and exoskeletons may be found near burrow entrances, along with whitewash and tracks.

No burrowing owl records have been reported within 10 miles of the Project (CNDDB 2021a); however, several records have been reported from just west of the search area. No potentially suitable burrows or burrow surrogates for burrowing owl were present on the Project site during the reconnaissance survey. The basin portion of the Project site represents suitable foraging habitat and the annual grassland east of the stormwater drain pipe route east of West Street represents suitable foraging and could potentially support burrowing owl burrows. No burrowing owls were observed during the reconnaissance survey. Given the lack of burrowing owl observations, lack of observation of burrowing owl sign, burrows, or surrogates, and active agriculture on the basin site, burrowing owls are not currently occupying the Project but may occasionally forage in the vicinity.

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
Swainson’s hawk is state listed as a threatened species (CDFW 2021b). They are diurnal and similar in size to the red-tailed hawk but lack their pale spotting on scapulars. There are two distinct color morphs with several variations. Light morphs have a whitish forehead and white patch on the throat below the bill, while the rest of the head, sides of the throat, patch on its chest, and all other upper body parts are dark brown. The belly is white with brown barring, and in flight their Biological Resources Evaluation 28 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
wings have dark trailing edges that contrast with the light-colored leading edges and the belly.

Individuals of the dark morph are entirely dark brown, except for a patch under the tail (Brown 2006; Dunn and Alderfer 2008). The Swainson’s hawk feeds on mice, gophers, ground squirrels, rabbits, large arthropods, amphibians, reptiles, birds and sometimes fish (Brown & Amadon 1968; Dunkle 1977).

Swainson’s hawks are an uncommon resident and migrant in the Central Valley, Klamath Basin, Northeastern Plateau, Lassen County and Mojave Desert, although their breeding range and frequency has increased in the San Joaquin Valley over the last 20 years. Limited breeding has been reported from Lanfair Valley, Owens Valley, Fish Lake Valley and Antelope Valley (Bloom 1980; Garrett and Dunn 1981). Most of the state’s breeding sites are in two disjunct populations in the Great Basin and Central Valley. In the Central Valley, nest sites have been strongly associated with riparian forest vegetation, whereas in the Great Basin nest sites are widely distributed in upland habitats (Woodbridge 1998). Typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or cropland containing scattered, large trees or small groves. High use foraging habitat in the southern San Joaquin Valley is typically actively harvested alfalfa and irrigated grain fields.

Migrating individuals move south through the southern and central interior of California in September and October and move north from March through May (Grinnell and Miller 1944; Zeiner et al. 1988-1990).

The only Swainson’s hawk nest reported to the CNDDB within the 10-mile search radius is from a location 3.7 miles north of the Project in 2017 (CNDDB 2021a). No Swainson’s hawks were observed during the reconnaissance survey nor were any potential nest trees present on the Project site. Potentially suitable nesting habitat is present at a residence just north of the northeastern corner of the proposed basin location and approximately 800 feet north-northeast of the northeastern corner on the east side of Road 216. The trees adjacent to the basin location were visually evaluated for presence of possible raptor nests and no nesting material or remnants of raptor nests were present.

Given the lack of potential nest trees on the Project, lack of reported nests within a 10-mile radius, but presence of potential nest trees near the Project, there is a moderate potential for foraging by Swainson’s hawk on the Project.

American badger (Taxidea taxus)
The American badger is a California species of special concern (CDFW 2021b). This species is a low, squat animal with conspicuous silver-tipped, dorsal fur and a short, black-tipped tail. The most striking visual feature of this species is its striped face, consisting of a median white stripe proceeding from the tip of its nose to the back of its head. This stripe is flanked by alternating white and dark stripes giving way to bright, white-outlined ears. The American badger has short but powerful legs, and the front feet are fitted with long claws that are well suited for digging out the burrows of the rodents on which it feeds (Reid 2006). In addition to rodents, their diet includes other small mammals, invertebrates, birds, snakes and carrion. Mating occurs in late summer or early autumn, and litters of two to five offspring are born in early spring (Zeiner et al. 1988-1990).

Biological Resources Evaluation 29 Casino Basin Project September 2021 LSA
The historic range of American badgers in California was throughout the state with the exception of the humid coastal forests in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties (Zeiner et al. 1988- 1990). Their modern distribution in the lower San Joaquin Valley is restricted to the limited, often isolated tracts of grassland and shrubland habitats. Cultivated lands have been reported to provide little usable habitat for this species. In the 1980s, badgers were believed to be declining throughout California, and their status has not changed (Williams 1986).

Badgers are primarily nocturnal animals and infrequently observed directly during daytime surveys; however, they have a fairly distinctive digging style and burrow shape, which is easily detected in the field. Combined with tracks, it is typically the method used to determine presence on a site (Reid 2006; Zeiner et al. 1988-1990). In addition, it is notable that badger burrow size overlaps with that of SJKF.

An American badger was collected in an unknown year from the vicinity of the Porterville Airport, which is located less than one mile from the Project (CNDDB 2021a). Although badgers can be tolerant of human disturbance, the intensity and frequency of disturbance on this site and in adjacent areas reduces the potential for occurrence of this species. Therefore, there is a low potential for American badger foraging associated with the Project site.

San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
The SJKF currently federal-listed as endangered and state-listed as threatened, resembles a small, lanky dog in appearance, with disproportionately large ears containing an abundance of large white, inner guard hairs. This species is the largest subspecies of kit fox, with adults weighing 4.5 to 5 pounds (2–2.3 kilograms). Total length is about 32 inches (81 centimeters), including a bushy black-tipped tail up to 12 inches (30 centimeters) long, and total height is about 12 inches (30 centimeters) tall. Coloration ranges from light buff to grayish along the back and tail; gray, rust, or yellowish along the sides; and white on the belly.

Porterville City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Porterville City Council
March 1, 2022