Porterville City Council
August 2, 2022

3pg18xi20

1. The State Water Board and the Recipient mutually promise, covenant, and agree to the terms, provisions, and conditions of this Agreement, including the following Exhibits, which are attached hereto or are incorporated by reference:
• Exhibit A – Scope of Work and Schedule
• Exhibit B – Specific Funding Provisions
• Exhibit C – GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2019-NOV
• Exhibit D – Special Conditions

2. The following documents are also incorporated by reference:
• the Drinking Water System Permit No. 03-12-06P-004;
• the Davis-Bacon requirements found at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/docs/davisbacon/2020_ dwsrf_governmental_entities.pdf

3. Party Contacts during the term of this Agreement are:

State Water Board City of Porterville
Section: Division of Financial Assistance
Name: Pete Stamas, Project Manager Name: Monte Reyes, Mayor Address: 1001 I Street, 16th Floor Address: 291 North Main Street City, State,
Zip:

Sacramento, CA 95814 City, State, Zip: Porterville, CA 93257 Phone: (916) 552-9983 Phone: (559) 782-7499
Fax: Fax:

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Each party may change its contact upon written notice to the other party. While Party Contacts are contacts for day-to-day communications regarding Project work, the Recipient must provide official communications and notices to the Division’s Deputy Director.

4. Conditions precedent to this Agreement are set forth as follows:
(a) The Recipient must deliver an opinion of general counsel satisfactory to the State Water Board’s counsel dated on or after the date that the Recipient signs this Agreement. (b) The Recipient must deliver to the Division a resolution authorizing this Agreement and identifying its authorized representative by title.
(c) The Recipient must deliver to the Division a resolution certifying that its decision-making body reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration filed by the State Water Board for the Akin Water Company Water Supply Project together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and reached its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the Project, pursuant to Section 15050 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

5. The Recipient represents, warrants, and commits to the following as of the Eligible Work Start Date and continuing thereafter for the term of this Agreement, which shall be at least until the Records Retention End Date:
(a) The Recipient agrees to comply with all terms, provisions, conditions, and commitments of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents.
(b) The execution and delivery of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, has been duly authorized by the Recipient. Upon execution by both parties, this Agreement constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the Recipient, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as such enforcement may be limited by law.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

3pg18xi20
(c) None of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement will be or have been made with an actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any present or future creditors of Recipient. The Recipient is solvent and will not be rendered insolvent by the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. The Recipient is able to pay its debts as they become due. The Recipient maintains sufficient insurance coverage considering the scope of this Agreement, including, for example but not necessarily limited to, general liability, automobile liability, workers compensation and employer liability, professional liability. (d) The Recipient is in compliance with all State Water Board funding agreements to which it is a party.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE
A.1. PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION.

The Project is for the benefit of the Recipient and has a Useful Life of at least 40 years. The funding under this Agreement shall be used to provide the residents of two small disadvantaged communities currently served by Akin Water Company (Akin WC) and Central Mutual Water Company (Central MWC) with a sustainable source of safe drinking water.

A.2. SCOPE OF WORK.

The Recipient agrees to do the following: consolidate with Akin WC and Central MWC. Recipient also agrees to construct a new production well, estimated to produce between 1,300 and 1,800 gallons per minute, to provide the needed source capacity for the consolidation of Akin WC, the consolidation of Central MWC, as well as satisfy the remainder of East Porterville residents’ capacity needs.

The Recipient agrees to do the following for the Akin WC service area: construct approximately 1,500 feet of 8-inch waterline to provide water service to each customer currently served by Akin WC; install approximately three new fire hydrants and twenty-six new service laterals and meters; and destroy Akin WC’s two existing wells.

The Recipient agrees to do the following for the Central MWC service area: construct approximately 1,400 feet of 6-inch waterline to provide water service to each customer currently served by Central MWC; install approximately four new fire hydrants and thirty-four new service laterals and meters; and destroy Central MWC’s existing well.

Upon Completion of Construction, the Recipient must expeditiously initiate Project operations.

A.3 SIGNAGE
The Recipient must place a professionally prepared sign at least four feet tall by eight feet wide made of ¾ inch thick exterior grade plywood or other approved material in a prominent location on the Project site and must maintain the sign in good condition for the duration of Project implementation. The sign may include another agency’s required information and must include, prominently displayed, the following disclosure statement and color logos (available from the Division):

“Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which may include capitalization funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board.” A.4 SCHEDULE.

Failure to provide items by the due dates indicated in the table below may constitute a material violation of this Agreement. The Project Manager may adjust the dates in the “Estimated Due Date” column of this table, but Critical Due Date adjustments will require an amendment to this Agreement. The Recipient City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit A
must complete and submit all work in time to be approved by the Division prior to the Project Completion Date. As applicable for specific submittals, the Recipient must plan adequate time to solicit, receive, and address comments prior to submitting the final submittal. The Recipient must submit the final Reimbursement Request prior to the Final Reimbursement Request Date set forth on the Cover Page.

ITEM DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL CRITICAL DUE
DATE

ESTIMATED DUE
DATE
EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK
A. ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL(S) TO DIVISION

1. Final Plans and Specifications September 1, 2021

2. Final Budget Approval Package February 1, 2022

3. Completion of Construction October 1, 2023
B. REPORTS

1. Progress Reports Quarterly

2. Final Inspection and Certification October 1, 2023

3. Project Completion Report December 1, 2023
4 As Needed Reports TBD
EXHIBIT B – REIMBURSEMENTS, BUDGET DETAIL, AND REPORTING PROVISIONS A. REIMBURSEMENTS

1. Reimbursement Requests Quarterly

2. Final Reimbursement Request April 1, 2024
The Recipient must award the prime construction contract and begin construction timely. The Recipient must deliver any request for extension of the Completion of Construction Date no less than 90 days prior to the Completion of Construction Date.

A.5 PROGRESS REPORTS.

The Recipient must provide a progress report to the Division each quarter, beginning no later than 90 days after execution of this Agreement. The Recipient must provide a progress report with each Reimbursement Request. Failure to provide a complete and accurate progress report may result in the withholding of Project Funds, as set forth in Exhibit B. A progress report must contain the following information:
1) A summary of progress to date including a description of progress since the last report, percent construction complete, percent contractor invoiced, and percent schedule elapsed;
2) A description of compliance with environmental requirements; 3) A listing of change orders including amount, description of work, and change in contract amount and schedule; and
4) Any problems encountered, proposed resolution, schedule for resolution, and status of previous problem resolutions.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit A
A.6 SPECIAL REPORTS.
(a) The Recipient must submit a Project Completion Report to the Division with a copy to the appropriate District Office on or before the due date established by the Division and the Recipient at the time of final project inspection. The Project Completion Report must include the following:
i. Description of the Project,
ii. Description of the water quality problem the Project sought to address, iii. Discussion of the Project’s likelihood of successfully addressing that water quality problem in the future, and
iv. Summary of compliance with applicable environmental conditions. (b) If the Recipient fails to submit a timely Project Completion Report, the State Water Board may stop processing pending or future applications for new financial assistance, withhold reimbursements under this Agreement or other agreements, and begin administrative proceedings.
(c) The Recipient must report Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) utilization to the Division on the DBE Utilization Report, State Water Board Form DBE UR334. The Recipient must submit such reports to the Division annually within ten (10) calendar days following October 1 until such time as the "Notice of Completion" is issued. The Recipient must comply with 40 CFR § 33.301 and require its contractors and subcontractors on the Project to comply.

A.7 FINAL PROJECT INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION.

Upon completion of the Project, the Recipient must provide for a final inspection and must certify that the Project has been completed in accordance with this Agreement, any final plans and specifications submitted to the State Water Board, and any amendments or modifications thereto. If the Project involves the planning, investigation, evaluation, design, or other work requiring interpretation and proper application of engineering, or other professionals, the final inspection and certification must be conducted by a California Registered Civil Engineer or other appropriate California registered professional. The results of the final inspection and certification must be submitted to the Project Manager.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit B
EXHIBIT B – FUNDING AMOUNTS
B.1 ESTIMATED REASONABLE COST AND PROJECT FUNDS.

The estimated reasonable cost of the total Project is set forth on the Cover Page of this Agreement and is greater than or equal to the funding anticipated to be provided by the State Water Board under this Agreement. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the State Water Board agrees to provide Project Funds not to exceed the amount of the Project Funding Amount set forth on the Cover Page of this Agreement.

B.2 RECIPIENT CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) The loan component of this Agreement is forgiven. The estimated amount of principal that will be due to the State Water Board from the Recipient under this Agreement is Zero dollars and no cents ($0.00). (b) The Recipient must pay any and all costs connected with the Project including, without limitation, any and all Project Costs. If the Project Funds are not sufficient to pay the Project Costs in full, the Recipient must nonetheless complete the Project and pay that portion of the Project Costs in excess of available Project Funds, and shall not be entitled to any reimbursement therefor from the State Water Board. (c) If the Recipient recovers funds from any responsible parties, the Recipient shall immediately notify the Division. The amount of this Agreement may be reduced to reflect the recovered funds.

B.3 VERIFIABLE DATA.

Upon request by the Division, the Recipient must submit verifiable data to support deliverables specified in the Scope of Work. The Recipient’s failure to comply with this requirement may be construed as a material breach of this Agreement.

B.4 BUDGET COSTS
Budget costs are contained in the Summary Project Cost Table below:

LINE ITEM TOTAL ESTIMATED COST PROJECT FUNDING AMOUNT
Construction $3,194,720 $3,194,720
Pre-Purchased Material/Equipment $0 $0
Purchase of Land $0 $0
Contingency $638,944 $638,944
Allowances (Soft Costs) $954,000 $954,000
TOTAL $4,787,664 $4,787,664

The Division’s Final Budget Approval and related Form 259 and Form 260 will document a more detailed budget of eligible Project Costs and Project funding amounts.

The Recipient is prohibited from requesting disbursement amounts that represent Recipient’s mark-ups to costs invoiced or otherwise requested by consultants or contractors.

Reasonable indirect costs may be allowable upon approval by the Division.

B.5 LINE ITEM ADJUSTMENTS.

Upon written request by the Recipient, the Division may adjust the line items of the Summary Project Cost Table at the time of Division’s Final Budget Approval. Upon written request by the Recipient, the Division may also adjust the line items of the Summary Project Cost Table as well as the detailed budget at the time of Recipient’s submittal of its final claim. Any line item adjustments to the Summary Project Cost Table that are due to a change in scope of work will require an Agreement amendment. The sum of adjusted line items in both the Summary City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit B
Project Cost Table and the detailed budget must not exceed the Project Funding Amount. The Division may also propose budget adjustments.

Under no circumstances may the sum of line items in the budget approved through the Final Budget Approval process exceed the Project Funding Amount. Any increase in the Project Funding Amount will require an Agreement amendment.

B.6 REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURE.
(a) Except as may be otherwise provided in this Agreement, reimbursements will be made as follows:

1. Upon execution and delivery of this Agreement by both parties, the Recipient may request immediate reimbursement of any eligible incurred costs as specified below through submission to the State Water Board of the Reimbursement Request Form 260 and Form 261, or any amendment thereto, duly completed and executed.

2. The Recipient must submit a Reimbursement Request for costs incurred prior to the date this Agreement is executed by the State Water Board no later than ninety (90) days after this Agreement is executed by the State Water Board. Late Reimbursement Requests may not be honored.

3. Additional Project Funds will be promptly disbursed to the Recipient upon receipt of Reimbursement Request Form 260 and Form 261, or any amendment thereto, duly completed and executed by the Recipient for incurred costs consistent with this Agreement, along with receipt of progress reports due under Exhibit A.

4. The Recipient must not request reimbursement for any Project Cost until such cost has been incurred and is currently due and payable by the Recipient, although the actual payment of such cost by the Recipient is not required as a condition of reimbursement. Supporting documentation (e.g., receipts) must be submitted with each Reimbursement Request. The amount requested for Recipient’s administration costs must include a calculation formula (i.e., hours or days worked times the hourly or daily rate = total amount claimed). Reimbursement of Project Funds will be made only after receipt of a complete, adequately supported, properly documented, and accurately addressed Reimbursement Request. Upon request by the Division, supporting documents for professional and administrative services must include the employees’ names, classifications, labor rates, hours worked, and descriptions of the tasks performed.

Reimbursement Requests submitted without supporting documents may be wholly or partially withheld at the discretion of the Division.

5. The Recipient must spend Project Funds within 30 days of receipt. If the Recipient earns interest earned on Project Funds, it must report that interest immediately to the State Water Board. The State Water Board may deduct earned interest from future reimbursements.

6. The Recipient shall not request a reimbursement unless that Project Cost is allowable, reasonable, and allocable.

7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no reimbursement shall be required at any time or in any manner which is in violation of or in conflict with federal or state laws, policies, or regulations. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Recipient agrees that the State Water Board may retain an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the Project Funding Amount until Project Completion. Any retained amounts due to the Recipient will be promptly disbursed to the Recipient, without interest, upon Project Completion.
(c) Except as follows, construction costs and disbursements are not available until after the Division has approved the final budget form submitted by the Recipient. The Deputy Director of the Division may authorize the disbursement of up to ten percent (10%) of Project Funds for the reimbursement of eligible construction costs and pre-purchased materials prior to Division approval of the final budget form submitted by the Recipient. All other construction costs are not eligible for reimbursement until after this the Division has approved the final budget form submitted by the Recipient. Construction costs incurred prior to the Eligible Construction Start Date are not eligible for reimbursement.

B.7 REVERTING FUNDS AND DISENCUMBRANCE.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit B
In the event the Recipient does not submit Reimbursement Requests for all funds encumbered under this Agreement by the Final Reimbursement Request Date, any remaining funds revert to the State. The State Water Board may notify the Recipient that the project file is closed, and any remaining balance will be disencumbered and unavailable for further use under the Agreement.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit C
EXHIBIT C – GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2019-NOV
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2019-NOV is incorporated by reference and is posted at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/general_terms.html City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
EXHIBIT D – SPECIAL CONDITIONS

1. Notwithstanding Exhibit C, the following terms have no meaning for the purposes of this Agreement:
• Work Completion
• Work Completion Date

2. Each capitalized term used in this Agreement has the following meaning:
• "Allowance" means an amount based on a percentage of the accepted bid for an eligible project to help defray the planning, design, and construction engineering and administration costs of the Project. • "Authorized Representative" means the duly appointed representative of the Recipient as set forth in the certified original of the Recipient’s authorizing resolution that designates the authorized representative by title.
• "Completion of Construction" means the date, as determined by the Division after consultation with the Recipient, that the work of building and erection of the Project is substantially complete, and is established on the Cover Page of this Agreement.
• “District Office” means District Office of the Division of Drinking Water of the State Water Board. • “Division of Drinking Water” means the Division of Drinking Water of the State Water Board. • “Eligible Construction Start Date” means the date set forth on the Cover Page of this Agreement, establishing the date on or after which construction costs may be incurred and eligible for reimbursement hereunder.
• “Eligible Work Start Date” means the date set forth on the Cover Page of this Agreement, establishing the date on or after which any non-construction costs may be incurred and eligible for reimbursement hereunder.
• “Enterprise Fund” means the enterprise fund of the Recipient in which Revenues are deposited. • “Event of Default” means, in addition to the meanings set forth in Exhibit C, the occurrence of any of the following events:
a) A material adverse change in the condition of the Recipient, the Revenues, or the System, which the Division reasonably determines would materially impair the Recipient’s ability to satisfy its obligations under this Agreement.
b) Failure to operate the System or the Project without the Division’s approval; • “Final Budget Approval” means the Division-approved final budget for the Project, as set forth in Exhibit B. • “Indirect Costs” means those costs that are incurred for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective and are not readily assignable to the Project (i.e., costs that are not directly related to the Project). Examples of Indirect Costs include, but are not limited to: central service costs; general administration of the Recipient; non-project-specific accounting and personnel services performed within the Recipient organization; depreciation or use allowances on buildings and equipment; the costs of operating and maintaining non-project-specific facilities; tuition and conference fees; generic overhead or markup; and taxes.
• "Initiation of Construction" means the date that notice to proceed with work is issued for the Project, or, if notice to proceed is not required, the date of commencement of building and erection of the Project. • “Net Revenues" means, for any Fiscal Year, all Revenues received by the Recipient less the Operations and Maintenance Costs for such Fiscal Year.
• "Operations and Maintenance Costs" means the reasonable and necessary costs paid or incurred by the Recipient for maintaining and operating the System, determined in accordance with GAAP, including all City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
reasonable expenses of management and repair and all other expenses necessary to maintain and preserve the System in good repair and working order, and including all reasonable and necessary administrative costs of the Recipient that are charged directly or apportioned to the operation of the System, such as salaries and wages of employees, overhead, taxes (if any), the cost of permits, licenses, and charges to operate the System and insurance premiums; but excluding, in all cases depreciation, replacement, and obsolescence charges or reserves therefor and amortization of intangibles. • “Reimbursement Request” means the Recipient’s request for Project Funds from the State Water Board as set forth in Exhibit B.
• "Revenues" means, for each Fiscal Year, all gross income and revenue received or receivable by the Recipient from the ownership or operation of the System, determined in accordance with GAAP, including all rates, fees, and charges (including connection fees and charges) as received by the Recipient for the services of the System, and all other income and revenue howsoever derived by the Recipient from the ownership or operation of the System or arising from the System, including all income from the deposit or investment of any money in the Enterprise Fund or any rate stabilization fund of the Recipient or held on the Recipient’s behalf, and any refundable deposits made to establish credit, and advances or contributions in aid of construction.
• “System” means all drinking water collection, transport, treatment, storage, and delivery facilities, including land and easements thereof, owned by the City of Porterville, or its successor agency, and all other properties, structures, or works hereafter acquired and constructed by the Recipient and determined to be a part of the System, together with all additions, betterments, extensions, or improvements to such facilities, properties, structures, or works, or any part thereof hereafter acquired and constructed. • “Useful Life” means the economically useful life of the Project beginning at Project Completion and is set forth in Exhibit A.

3. Acknowledgements.

The Recipient must include the following acknowledgement in any document, written report, or brochure to be shared with the general public prepared in whole or in part pursuant to this Agreement:
“Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which may include capitalization funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the foregoing, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.”

4. Rates and Charges. The Recipient must, to the extent permitted by law, fix, prescribe and collect rates, fees and charges for the System during each Fiscal Year which are reasonable, fair, and nondiscriminatory and which will be sufficient to generate Revenues in the amounts necessary to cover Operations and Maintenance Costs, and must ensure that Net Revenues are in an amount necessary to meet its obligations under this Agreement. The Recipient may make adjustments from time to time in such fees and charges and may make such classification thereof as it deems necessary, but shall not reduce the rates, fees and charges then in effect unless the Net Revenues from such reduced rates, fees, and charges will at all times be sufficient to meet the requirements of this section.

5. [RESERVED]

6. [RESERVED].

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D

7. Environmental/Technical Special Conditions
Technical:

1. The Recipient shall submit its professional engineering services contract to the Division prior to disbursement of funds for costs incurred under such contract.

2. The Recipient shall not solicit bids, award a contract, or commence construction activities until final plans and specifications are approved by the Division of Drinking Water Tulare District Office Engineer and the Project Manager.

3. The Recipient must submit final consolidation agreements with Akin WC and Central MWC, in a form satisfactory to the Division, and receive written approval from the Project Manager to proceed before Project Funds may be disbursed for any Project Costs under the Agreement.

4. Upon completion of the Project the Recipient shall submit a water supply permit amendment request for review to the Division of Drinking Water Tulare District Office.

Environmental:

1. The documents identified below are incorporated by reference and the Recipient shall comply with the conditions and recommendations therein:
a. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the State Water Board on June 16, 2016 for the Project. The Recipient shall implement all mitigation measures therein. b. The letter dated February 12, 2020, from Patricia Cole of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, San Joaquin Valley Division to Douglas E. Eberhardt of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Best Management Practices prior to and during construction activities to minimize and avoid effects to the San Joaquin kit fox.
c. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City of Porterville on April 21, 2020 for the Central Mutual Water Company Consolidation Project. The Recipient shall implement all mitigation measures therein.

2. In the Recipient’s Quarterly Reports submitted pursuant to this Agreement, the Recipient shall include a discussion of the status of its compliance with environmental measures identified in this Exhibit D, with separate sections clearly labeled and titled, discussing the status of Recipient’s compliance.

3. In the Recipient’s Project Completion Report submitted pursuant to this Agreement, the Recipient shall include a discussion of its compliance with environmental measures identified in this Exhibit D, with separate sections clearly labeled and titled, discussing the status of Recipient’s compliance.

8. [RESERVED].

9. Appointment of Receiver/Custodian. Upon the filing of a suit or other commencement of judicial proceedings to enforce the rights of the State Water Board under this Agreement, the State Water Board may make application for the appointment of a receiver or custodian of the Revenues, pending such proceeding, with such power as the court making such appointment may confer.

10. [RESERVED].

11. Damages for Breach of Federal Conditions. In the event that any breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the Recipient results in the failure of Project Funds to be used pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, or if such breach results in an obligation on the part of the State or any subdivision or agency thereof to reimburse the federal government, the Recipient must immediately reimburse the State or any subdivision or agency thereof in an amount equal to any damages paid by or loss incurred by the State or any subdivision or agency thereof due to such breach.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D

12. [RESERVED].

13. Operation and Maintenance. The Recipient shall sufficiently and properly staff, operate, and maintain the facility and structures constructed or improved as part of the project throughout the term of this Agreement, consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. The Recipient assumes all operations and maintenance costs of the facilities and structures; the State Water Board shall not be liable for any cost of such maintenance, management or operation.

14. Insurance. The Recipient will procure and maintain or cause to be maintained insurance on the System and Project with responsible insurers, or as part of a reasonable system of self-insurance, in such amounts and against such risks (including damage to or destruction of the System or Project) as are usually covered in connection with systems similar to the System or Project. Such insurance may be maintained by a self-insurance plan so long as such plan provides for (i) the establishment by the Recipient of a separate segregated self-insurance fund in an amount determined (initially and on at least an annual basis) by an independent insurance consultant experienced in the field of risk management employing accepted actuarial techniques and (ii) the establishment and maintenance of a claims processing and risk management program. In the event of any damage to or destruction of the System or Project caused by the perils covered by such insurance, the net proceeds thereof shall be applied to the reconstruction, repair or replacement of the damaged or destroyed portion of the System or Project. The Recipient must begin such reconstruction, repair or replacement as expeditiously as possible, and must pay out of such net proceeds all costs and expenses in connection with such reconstruction, repair or replacement so that the same must be completed and the System and Project must be free and clear of all claims and liens. Recipient agrees that for any policy of insurance concerning or covering the construction of the Project, it will cause, and will require its contractors and subcontractors to cause, a certificate of insurance to be issued showing the State Water Board, its officers, agents, employees, and servants as additional insured; and must provide the Division with a copy of all such certificates prior to the commencement of construction of the Project.

15. Notice Events. Upon the occurrence of any of the following events, the Recipient must notify the Division’s Deputy Director and Party Contacts by phone and email within the time specified below:
a. The Recipient must notify the Division within 24 hours by phone at (916) 327-9978 and by email to [email protected] of any discovery of any potential tribal cultural resource and/or archaeological or historical resource. Should a potential tribal cultural resource and/or archaeological or historical resource be discovered during construction or Project implementation, the Recipient must ensure that all work in the area of the find will cease until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation and made recommendations regarding preservation of the resource, and the Division has determined what actions should be taken to protect and preserve the resource. The Recipient must implement appropriate actions as directed by the Division.
b. The Recipient must notify the Division promptly of the occurrence of any of the following events:
i. Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Recipient, or actions taken in anticipation of any of the foregoing;
ii. Change of ownership of the Project (no change of ownership may occur without written consent of the Division);
iii. Loss, theft, damage, or impairment to Project;
iv. Events of Default, except as otherwise set forth in this section; City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
v. A proceeding or action by a public entity to acquire the Project by power of eminent domain.
vi. Any litigation pending or threatened with respect to the Project or the Recipient’s technical, managerial or financial capacity or the Recipient’s continued existence; vii. Consideration of dissolution, or disincorporation; viii. Enforcement actions by or brought on behalf of the State Water Board or Regional Water Board.
ix. The discovery of a false statement of fact or representation made in this Agreement or in the application to the Division for this funding, or in any certification, report, or request for reimbursement made pursuant to this Agreement, by the Recipient, its employees, agents, or contractors;
x. Any substantial change in scope of the Project. The Recipient must undertake no substantial change in the scope of the Project until prompt written notice of the proposed change has been provided to the Division and the Division has given written approval for the change;
xi. Any circumstance, combination of circumstances, or condition, which is expected to or does delay Completion of Construction for a period of ninety (90) days or more; xii. Any Project monitoring, demonstration, or other implementation activities required in this Agreement;
xiii. Any public or media event publicizing the accomplishments and/or results of this Agreement and provide the opportunity for attendance and participation by state representatives with at least ten (10) working days’ notice to the Division; xiv. Any event requiring notice to the Division pursuant to any other provision of this Agreement.
xv. Completion of work on the Project.
xvi. The Recipient must promptly notify the Division and Party Contacts of cessation of all major construction work on the Project where such cessation of work is expected to or does extend for a period of thirty (30) days or more;
xvii. The Recipient must promptly notify the Division and Party Contacts of the discovery of any unexpected endangered or threatened species, as defined in the federal Endangered Species Act. Should a federally protected species be unexpectedly encountered during implementation of the Project, the Recipient agrees to promptly notify the Division. This notification is in addition to the Recipient’s obligations under the federal Endangered Species Act;
xviii. The Recipient must promptly notify the Division and Party Contacts of Completion of Construction, and Project Completion;
xix. The Recipient must promptly notify the Division and Party Contacts of the award of the prime construction contract for the Project; and the Recipient must promptly notify the Division and Party Contacts of Initiation of construction of the Project.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
xx. The occurrence of a material breach or event of default under any Recipient obligation that results in the acceleration of principal or interest or otherwise requires immediate prepayment, repurchase or redemption.
xxi. [RESERVED].

16. Continuous Use of Project; No Lease, Sale, Transfer of Ownership, or Disposal of Project. The Recipient agrees that, except as provided in this Agreement, it will not abandon, substantially discontinue use of, lease, sell, transfer ownership of, or dispose of all or a significant part or portion of the Project during the Useful Life of the Project without prior written approval of the Division. Such approval may be conditioned as determined to be appropriate by the Division, including a condition requiring repayment of all disbursed Project Funds or all or any portion of all remaining funds covered by this Agreement together with accrued interest and any penalty assessments that may be due.

17. State Cross-Cutters. Recipient represents that, as applicable, it complies and covenants to maintain compliance with the following for the term of the Agreement:
a) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set forth in Public Resources Code 21000 et seq. and in the CEQA Guidelines at Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. b) Water Conservation requirements, including regulations in Division 3 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.
c) Monthly Water Diversion Reporting requirements, including requirements set forth in Water Code section 5103.
d) Public Works Contractor Registration with Department of Industrial Relations requirements, including requirements set forth in Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 of the Labor Code. e) Volumetric Pricing & Water Meters requirements, including the requirements of Water Code sections 526 and 527.
f) Urban Water Management Plan requirements, including the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code, § 10610 et seq.).
g) Urban Water Demand Management requirements, including the requirements of Section 10608.56 of the Water Code.
h) Delta Plan Consistency Findings requirements, including the requirements of Water Code section 85225 and California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 5002. i) Agricultural Water Management Plan Consistency requirements, including the requirements of Water Code section 10852.
j) Charter City Project Labor Requirements, including the requirements of Labor Code section 1782 and Public Contract Code section 2503.
k) The Recipient agrees that it will, at all times, comply with and require its contractors and subcontractors to comply with directives or orders issued pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code.

18. Financial Management Systems. The Recipient must comply with federal standards for financial management systems. The Recipient agrees that, at a minimum, its fiscal control and accounting procedures will be sufficient to permit preparation of reports required by the federal government and tracking of Project funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
used in violation of federal or state law or the terms of this Agreement. To the extent applicable, the Recipient is bound by, and must comply with, the provisions and requirements of the federal Single Audit Act of 1984 and 2 CFR Part 200, subpart F, and updates or revisions, thereto.

19. Access and Inspection. In addition to the obligations set forth in section 2 of the General Terms and Conditions incorporated in Exhibit C of this Agreement, the Recipient must ensure that the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Inspector General, any member of Congress, or any authorized representative of the foregoing, will have safe and suitable access to the Project site at all reasonable times during the term of the Agreement.

20. Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. The Recipient shall prevent fraud, waste, and the abuse of Project Funds, and shall cooperate in any investigation of such activities that are suspected in connection with this Agreement. The Recipient understands that discovery of any evidence of misrepresentation or fraud related to reimbursement requests, invoices, proof of payment of invoices, or other supporting information, including but not limited to double or multiple billing for time, services, or any other eligible cost, may result in referral to the Attorney General’s Office or the applicable District Attorney’s Office for appropriate action. The Recipient further understands that any suspected occurrences of false claims, misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, theft or any other misuse of Project Funds may result in withholding of reimbursements and/or the termination of this Agreement requiring the immediate repayment of all funds disbursed hereunder.

21. Disputes. The Recipient must continue with the responsibilities under this Agreement during any dispute.

The Recipient may, in writing, appeal a staff decision within 30 days to the Deputy Director of the Division or designee, for a final Division decision. The Recipient may appeal a final Division decision to the State Water Board within 30 days. The Office of the Chief Counsel of the State Water Board will prepare a summary of the dispute and make recommendations relative to its final resolution, which will be provided to the State Water Board’s Executive Director and each State Water Board Member. Upon the motion of any State Water Board Member, the State Water Board will review and resolve the dispute in the manner determined by the State Water Board. Should the State Water Board determine not to review the final Division decision, this decision will represent a final agency action on the dispute. This provision does not preclude consideration of legal questions, provided that nothing herein shall be construed to make final the decision of the State Water Board, or any official or representative thereof, on any question of law.

This section relating to disputes does not establish an exclusive procedure for resolving claims within the meaning of Government Code sections 930 and 930.4.

22. Additional Representations and Warranties. The Recipient makes the following representations and warranties:
a. [RESERVED].
b. The Recipient has not made any untrue statement of a material fact in its application for this financial assistance, or omitted to state in its application, a material fact that makes the statements in its application not misleading.
c. The Recipient agrees to fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations, and commitments in its application, accompanying documents, and communications filed in support of its request for funding under this Agreement.
d. The execution, delivery, and performance by Recipient of this Agreement, including all incorporated documents, do not violate any provision of any law or regulation in effect as of the date set forth on the first page hereof, or result in any breach or default under any contract, obligation, indenture, or other instrument to which Recipient is a party or by which Recipient is bound as of the date set forth on the Cover Page.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
e. Except as set forth in this paragraph, there are, as of the date of execution of this Agreement by the Recipient, no pending or, to Recipient’s knowledge, threatened actions, claims, investigations, suits, or proceedings before any governmental authority, court, or administrative agency which materially affect the financial condition or operations of the Recipient, the Revenues, and/or the Project.
f. There are no proceedings, actions, or offers by a public entity to acquire by purchase or the power of eminent domain any of the real or personal property related to or necessary for the Project.
g. The Recipient is duly organized and existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. Recipient must at all times maintain its current legal existence and preserve and keep in full force and effect its legal rights and authority. Within the preceding ten years, the Recipient has not failed to demonstrate compliance with state or federal audit disallowances. h. Any financial statements or other financial documentation of Recipient previously delivered to the State Water Board as of the date(s) set forth in such financial statements or other financial documentation: (a) are materially complete and correct; (b) present fairly the financial condition of the Recipient; and (c) have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. Since the date(s) of such financial statements or other financial documentation, there has been no material adverse change in the financial condition of the Recipient, nor have any assets or properties reflected on such financial statements or other financial documentation been sold, transferred, assigned, mortgaged, pledged or encumbered, except as previously disclosed in writing by Recipient and approved in writing by the State Water Board.
i. The Recipient is current in its continuing disclosure obligations associated with its material debt, if any.
j. The Recipient has no conflicting or material obligations, except as set forth in this paragraph. k. The Recipient legally possesses all real property rights necessary for the purposes of this Agreement, not subject to third party revocation, which rights extend at least to the Records Retention End Date of this Agreement, except as set forth in this paragraph. l. The Recipient and its principals, to the best of the Recipient’s knowledge and belief, are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or otherwise excluded from participation in any work overseen, directed, funded, or administered by the State Water Board program for which this grant funding is authorized; nor have they engaged or permitted the performance of services covered by this Agreement from parties that are debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in any work overseen, directed, funded, or administered by the State Water Board program for which this grant funding is authorized.
m. The Recipient possesses all water rights necessary for this Project.

23. Federal SRF Requirements. The Recipient acknowledges, warrants compliance with, and covenants to continuing compliance with the following federal terms and conditions for the Useful Life of the Project:
a. Unless the Recipient has obtained a waiver from USEPA on file with the State Water Board or unless this Project is not a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance or repair of a public water system or treatment work, the Recipient shall not purchase “iron and steel products” produced outside of the United States on this Project. Unless the Recipient has obtained a waiver from USEPA on file with the State Water Board or unless this Project is not a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance or repair of a public water system or treatment work, the City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
Recipient hereby certifies that all “iron and steel products” used in the Project were or will be produced in the United States. For purposes of this section, the term "iron and steel products" means the following products made primarily of iron or steel: lined or unlined pipes and fittings, manhole covers and other municipal castings, hydrants, tanks, flanges, pipe clamps and restraints, valves, structural steel, reinforced precast concrete, and construction materials. “Steel” means an alloy that includes at least 50 percent iron, between .02 and 2 percent carbon, and may include other elements.
b. The Recipient must include in full the Wage Rate Requirements (Davis-Bacon) language incorporated by reference in Section 2 of this Agreement in all construction contracts and subcontracts.
c. The Recipient shall notify the State Water Board and the USEPA contact of public or media events publicizing the accomplishment of significant events related to this Project and provide the opportunity for attendance and participation by federal representatives with at least ten (10) working days’ notice.
d. The Recipient shall comply with applicable EPA general terms and conditions found at http://www.epa.gov/ogd.
e. No Recipient may receive funding under this Agreement unless it has provided its DUNS number to the State Water Board.
f. [RESERVED]
g. The Recipient represents and warrants that it and its principals are not excluded or disqualified from participating in this transaction as such terms are defined in Parts 180 and 1532 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR). If the Recipient is excluded after execution of this Agreement, the Recipient shall notify the Division within ten (10) days and shall inform the Division of the Recipient’s exclusion in any request for amendment of this Agreement. The Recipient shall comply with Subpart C of Part 180 of 2 CFR, as supplemented by Subpart C of Part 1532 of 2 CFR. Such compliance is a condition precedent to the State Water Board’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement. When entering into a covered transaction as defined in Parts 180 and 1532 of 2 CFR, the Recipient shall require the other party to the covered transaction to comply with Subpart C of Part 180 of 2 CFR, as supplemented by Subpart C of Part 1532 of 2 CFR.
h. To the extent applicable, the Recipient shall disclose to the State Water Board any potential conflict of interest consistent with USEPA’s Final Financial Assistance Conflict of Interest Policy at https://www.epa.gov/grants/epas-final-financial-assistance-conflict-interest-policy. A conflict of interest may result in disallowance of costs.
i. USEPA and the State Water Board have the right to reproduce, publish, use and authorize others to reproduce, publish and use copyrighted works or other data developed under this assistance agreement.
j. Where an invention is made with Project Funds, USEPA and the State Water Board retain the right to a worldwide, nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice the invention owned by the Recipient. The Recipient must utilize the Interagency Edison extramural invention reporting system at http://iEdison.gov and shall notify the Division when an invention report, patent report, or utilization report is filed.

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
k. The Recipient agrees that any reports, documents, publications or other materials developed for public distribution supported by this Agreement shall contain the Disclosure statement set forth in Exhibit A.
l. The Recipient acknowledges that it is encouraged to follow guidelines established under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, codified at 36 CFR Part 1194, with respect to enabling individuals with disabilities to participate in its programs supported by this Project. m. The Recipient, its employees, contractors and subcontractors and their employees warrants that it will not engage in severe forms of trafficking in persons, procure a commercial sex act during the term of this Agreement, or use forced labor in the performance of this Agreement. The Recipient must include this provision in its contracts and subcontracts under this Agreement. The Recipient must inform the State Water Board immediately of any information regarding a violation of the foregoing. The Recipient understands that failure to comply with this provision may subject the State Water Board to loss of federal funds. The Recipient agrees to compensate the State Water Board for any such funds lost due to its failure to comply with this condition, or the failure of its contractors or subcontractors to comply with this condition. The State Water Board may unilaterally terminate this Agreement if the Recipient that is a private entity is determined to have violated the foregoing.
n. The Recipient certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief that:
i. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Recipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. ii. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress in connection with this Agreement, the Recipient shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions, and notify the State Water Board.
iii. The Recipient shall require this certification from all parties to any contract or agreement that the Recipient enters into and under which the Recipient incurs costs for which it seeks disbursements under this Agreement.
o. The Recipient must comply with the following federal non-discrimination requirements:
i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, including limited English proficiency (LEP). ii. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities.
iii. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits age discrimination. iv. Section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
v. 40 CFR Part 7, as it relates to the foregoing.
vi. Executive Order 13798, including, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, the requirement to respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in political and religious speech vii. All applicable federal civil rights regulations, including statutory and national policy requirements (2 CFR section 200.300).

City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
p. Executive Order No. 11246. The Recipient shall include in its contracts and subcontracts related to the Project the following provisions:
"During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:"(a) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
"(b) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin. "(c) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the agency contracting officer, advising the labor union or workers' representative of the contractor's commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
"(d) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of Sept. 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. "(e) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the contracting agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.
"(f) In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be cancelled, terminated or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of Sept 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. "(g) The contractor will include the provisions of Paragraphs (1) through (7) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order No. 11246 of Sept. 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the contracting agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, That in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the contracting agency, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States."
City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
q. The Recipient agrees to comply with the requirements of USEPA’s Program for Utilization of Small, Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises as set forth in this Agreement. r. Procurement Prohibitions under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act and Section 508 of the Clean Water Act, including Executive Order 11738, Administration of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with Respect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans; 42 USC § 7606; 33 USC § 1368. Except where the purpose of this Agreement is to remedy the cause of the violation, the Recipient may not procure goods, services, or materials from suppliers excluded under the federal System for Award Management: http://www.sam.gov/ . s. Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Pub. L. 91-646, as amended; 42 USC §§4601-4655. The Recipient must comply with the Act’s implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24.101 through 24.105.
t. The Recipient agrees that if its network or information system is connected to USEPA networks to transfer data using systems other than the Environmental Information Exchange Network or USEPA’s Central Data Exchange, it will ensure that any connections are secure. u. All geospatial data created pursuant to this Agreement that is submitted to the State Water Board for use by USEPA or that is submitted directly to USEPA must be consistent with Federal Geographic Data Committee endorsed standards. Information on these standards may be found at www.fgdc.gov.
v. If the Recipient is a water system that serves 500 or fewer persons, the Recipient represents that it has considered publicly-owned wells as an alternative drinking water supply. w. The Recipient represents that it is not a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability; and it is not a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under a Federal law within the preceding 24 months. x. The Recipient agrees to immediately notify the Project Manager in writing about any allegation of research misconduct involving research activities that are supported in whole or in part with EPA funds under this Project, including fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results, or ordering, advising, or suggesting that subordinates engage in research misconduct.
y. The Recipient agrees to comply with, and require all contractors and subcontractors to comply with, EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy, available at https://www.epa.gov/osa/policy-epa-scientificintegrity, when conducting, supervising, and communicating science and when using or applying the results of science. For purposes of this condition scientific activities include, but are not limited to, computer modelling, economic analysis, field sampling, laboratory experimentation, demonstrating new technology, statistical analysis, and writing a review article on a scientific issue.
z. The Recipient shall not suppress, alter, or otherwise impede the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions; intimidate or coerce scientists to alter scientific data, findings, or professional opinions or exert non-scientific influence on scientific advisory boards; knowingly misrepresent, exaggerate, or downplay areas of scientific uncertainty; or otherwise violate the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy. The Recipient must refrain from acts of research misconduct, including publication or reporting, as described in EPA’s Policy and Procedures for Addressing Research Misconduct, Section 9.C, and must ensure scientific findings are generated and City of Porterville
Project No.: 5410010-018C/ 5400655-001C
Agreement No.: SWRCB0000000000D2002017

Exhibit D
disseminated in a timely and transparent manner, including scientific research performed by contractors and subcontractors.
aa. The Recipient agrees to comply with the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (7 USC 2131-2156).

Recipient also agrees to abide by the “U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals used in Testing, Research, and Training,” available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#USGovPrinciples. bb. The Recipient certifies that no Project Funds will be used on:
i. Video surveillance or telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities), telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities);
ii. Telecommunications or video surveillance services produced by such entities; iii. Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country; or
iv. Other telecommunications or video surveillance services or equipment in violation of 2 CFR 200.216.

Item No. 19.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – AUGUST 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of Porterville Heritage Complex Project Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT: The City proposes to construct an approximate 11.61-acre multi-sport complex to be located approximately south of Olive Avenue, east of A Street, and adjacent to the Rails to Trails Parkway, on the western side of the parcel.

Proposed Project improvements that were considered include items such as twelve (12) 4,000-square foot lighted artificial turf arena soccer fields with scoreboards, two 6,000-square foot multi-use recreation lighted arenas with scoreboards, a challenge fitness course and various types of fitness equipment, eight restrooms and an 800-square foot storage building with bleachers, lighted baseball field, various playground equipment and similar park accessories, covered benches and picnic shelters and exterior landscaping.

Once developed, the proposed project would provide additional park and recreation space for the community of Porterville to utilize. The improvements are proposed to be funded by Community Development Block Grant funds, Measure R funds, and various parks grants.

On July 8, 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, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. The Initial Study has been transmitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH #2022060371), as well as to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for review and comment. The review period ran for thirty (30) days from June 18, 2022, through July 18, 2022. As of the submittal of this staff report, no comments were received.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Open the Public Hearing to receive comments regarding the Project;

2. Adopt the draft Resolution approving a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and

3. Direct staff to proceed with the Porterville Heritage Item No. 19.

Complex Project
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Draft Porterville Heritage Complex Project Initial Study

3. Locator Map
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

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE

PROPOSED PORTERVILLE HERITAGE COMPLEX PROJECT
WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Porterville at its regularly scheduled meeting of August 2, 2022, conducted a public meeting to consider approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration which evaluates the environmental impacts of the construction of an approximate 11.61-acre multi-sport complex to be located in central Porterville, approximately 325 feet south of Olive Avenue and adjacent to the Rails to Trails Parkway, on the western boundary of the parcel. Project activities included in the complex would be 12- 4,000 square foot lighted artificial turf arena soccer fields with scoreboards, 2- 6,000 square foot multi-use recreation lighted arenas with scoreboards, 1- lighted baseball field, 1- challenge fitness course and various types of fitness equipment, 8- restrooms and an 800 sf storage building with bleachers, various playground equipment and similar park accessories, covered benches and picnic shelters and exterior landscaping.; and
WHEREAS: On July 8, 2021, the Environmental Coordinator made a preliminary determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS: The proposed Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Porterville 2030 General Plan. The project will facilitate the achievement of General Plan Guiding Policy PSCF-G-1, to Establish and maintain a high-quality, enjoyable, and attractive public park system for the entire community as well as PSCF-G-2, to Provide park and recreation facilities within close proximity to residents they are intended to serve; and WHEREAS: The City Council considered the following findings in its review of the environmental circumstances for this project:

1. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. The project will not create adverse environmental impacts when mitigation measures are implemented and standards of the Development Ordinance and General Plan are maintained.

3. As the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA, the City Council is the decision making body for the consolidation project.

4. On July 8, 2021, the Environmental Coordinator made a preliminary determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for the proposed project in light of the studies prepared and with implementation of defined mitigation measures related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The Initial Resolution No. ___-2022

Study and proposed Mitigation Measures have been transmitted to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for a 30 day review period from June 18, 2022 through July 18, 2022. At the time of writing the staff report, no comments were received.

5. That review of the environmental circumstances regarding this project indicates that no adverse impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

6. That the environmental assessment and analysis prepared for this project supporting the Mitigation Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Porterville.

7. The development shall comply with all mitigation measures adopted as a component of the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville does hereby approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Porterville Heritage Complex Project.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2
nd day of August, 2022.

By:

Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By:

Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Porterville Heritage Complex Project Initial Study
Prepared for:

City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
(559) 782-7460
Contact: Jason Ridenour
Prepared by:

Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 840-4414
Contact: Emily Bowen, LEED AP
June 2022
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT INFORMATION................................................................................................. 4 Project title......................................................................................................................... 4 Lead agency name and address ..................................................................................... 4 Contact person and phone number ............................................................................... 4 Project location ................................................................................................................. 4 Project sponsor’s name/address..................................................................................... 7 General plan designation ................................................................................................ 7 Zoning ............................................................................................................................... 7 Project Description........................................................................................................... 7 Surrounding Land Uses/Existing Conditions .............................................................. 7 Other Public Agencies Involved .................................................................................. 10 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................ 10 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................... 11 DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................... 13 I. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................... 13 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ...................................................... 18 III. AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 21 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 29 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 38 VI. ENERGY ................................................................................................................... 44 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS......................................................................................... 48 CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...................................................................... 55 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS................................................... 58 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.............................................................. 64 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................. 72 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 75 XIII. NOISE...................................................................................................................... 77 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................ 82 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................. 84 XVI. RECREATION ....................................................................................................... 87 XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ......................................................................... 89 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................. 93 XX. WILDFIRE .............................................................................................................. 103 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................... 105 LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................................... 107 Persons and Agencies Consulted ............................................................................... 107 Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4

PROJECT INFORMATION
This document is the Initial Study on the potential environmental effects of the City of Porterville’s (City) multi-sport Heritage Complex Project (Project). The City of Porterville will act as the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Copies of all materials referenced in this report are available for review in the project file during regular business hours at 291 N. Main Street, Porterville, CA 93257.

Project title
Porterville Heritage Complex Project
Lead agency name and address
City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
Contact person and phone number
Jason Ridenour, Community Development Director
City of Porterville (559) 782-7460
Project location
The City of Porterville is located in Tulare County in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley.

The 11.61-acre Project site is located in central Porterville, approximately 325 feet south of Olive Avenue and adjacent to the Rails to Trails Parkway, on the western boundary of the parcel.

Residences lie beyond the parkway to the west, Santa Fe Elementary School lies to the south, a commercial strip mall and residences lie to the east and vacant land lies north. See Figure 1.

Porterville is bisected north-to-south by State Route (SR) 65 and SR 190 runs east-west in the southern portion of the City.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5 Figure 1 – Location
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 6 Figure 2 – Site Aerial
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 7 Project sponsor’s name/address
City of Porterville
General plan designation
Parks & Recreation.

Zoning
PK (Parks & Public Recreation Facilities).

Project Description
The proposed Project consists of the construction of a 11.61-acre multi-sport complex on APN 261-140-024, adjacent to the existing Rails to Trails approximately 325 feet south of Olive Avenue.

The proposed park would include the following amenities:
• Twelve 50-foot by 80-foot lighted artificial turf arena soccer fields with scoreboards • Two 60-foot by 100-foot multi-use recreation lighted arenas with scoreboards • One lighted baseball field
• One challenge fitness course and various types of fitness equipment • 8 restrooms and an 800 square-foot storage building with bleachers • Various playground equipment and similar park accessories • Covered benches and picnic shelters
• Exterior landscaping
Project Operations
It is anticipated that sporting events will be held year-round with minimal closure time. The complex will be open and accessible 14 hours per day. Water, sewage disposal and refuse collection services will be provided by the City of Portville.

Surrounding Land Uses/Existing Conditions
The proposed Project site is currently vacant and consists of minimal vegetation and a gravel access road.

Lands directly surrounding the proposed Project are described as follows:

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 8 • North: Vacant land, identified as Professional Office. • South: Santa Fe Elementary School, identified as Public and Semi-Public Land. • East: Commercial strip mall and residences, identified as Planned Development. • West: Rails to Trails Parkway, identified as Parks and Public Recreational Facilities.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 9 Figure 3 – Site Plan
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 10 Other Public Agencies Involved
• Approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
• Dust Control Plan Approval letter from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
• Compliance with other federal, State, and local requirements.

Tribal Consultation
ASM Affiliates, Inc. notified the following California Native American Tribes pursuant to AB 52 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq.) on behalf of the City of Porterville on September 13, 2021.
o Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians
o Dunlap Band of Mono Indians
o Kern Valley Indian Community
o Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
o Tubatulabals of Kern Valley
o Tule River Indian Tribe
o Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley band
Tribes were provided 30 days, to request consultation pursuant to those statutes. Keri Vera, Director of the Department of Environmental Protection for the Tule River Tribe, requested a Native American monitor onsite when earthwork is planned. No other comments were received.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 11

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 on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources
and Forest 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

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 Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 12 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Jason Ridenour
Community Development Director
City of Porterville
Date
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 13

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c. 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 publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and 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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project site is located on the San Joaquin Valley floor in the central portion of the City of Porterville, California. The 11.61-acre Project site is approximately 325 feet south of Olive Avenue, with the South County Justice Center beyond the roadway. The site is adjacent to the Rails to Trails Parkway on the western boundary of the parcel. Residences lie further to the west, Santa Fe Elementary School lies to the south, a commercial strip mall and residences lies to the east. The aesthetic features of the existing visual environment in the proposed Project area are residential, commercial and parks. There are no scenic resources or scenic vistas in the area. State Routes (SR) in the proposed Project vicinity include 99, 65, 190, 137.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 14 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Aesthetic resources are protected by several federal regulations, none of which are relevant to the proposed Project because it will not be located on lands administered by a federal agency and the applicant is not requesting federal funding or a federal permit.

State
Nighttime Sky – Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The Energy Commission adopted changes to Title 24, Parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards), on April 23, 2008. These new Standards became effective on January 1, 2010.

Requirements for outdoor lighting remained consistent with past Standards and the requirements vary according to which “Lighting Zone” the equipment is in. The Standards contain lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment and specific alterations that are dependent on which Lighting Zone the Project is located in. Existing outdoor lighting systems are not required to meet these lighting power allowances. However, alterations that increase the connected load, or replace more than 50% of the existing luminaires, for each outdoor lighting application that is regulated by the Standards, must meet the lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment.

An important part of the Standards is to base the lighting power that is allowed on how bright the surrounding conditions are. The eyes adapt to darker surrounding conditions, and less light is needed to properly see; when the surrounding conditions get brighter, more light is needed to see.

The least power is allowed in Lighting Zone 1 and increasingly more power is allowed in Lighting Zones 2, 3, and 4.

The Energy Commission defines the boundaries of Lighting Zones based on U.S. Census Bureau boundaries for urban and rural areas as well as the legal boundaries of wilderness and park areas.

By default, government designated parks, recreation areas and wildlife preserves are Lighting Zone 1; rural areas are Lighting Zone 2; and urban areas are Lighting Zone 3. Lighting Zone 4 is a special use district that may be adopted by a local government.

California Scenic Highway Program
The Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors by allowing county and city governments to apply to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to identify Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 15 and protect scenic corridors through special conservation treatment. The State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263.

While not Designated State Scenic Highways, two Eligible State Scenic Highways occur in Tulare County, SR 198 and SR 190.

RESPONSES
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes the construction of a 11.61-acre multi-sport complex, comprising twelve 50-ft by 80-ft soccer fields, two 60-ft by 100-ft general purpose arenas, one baseball field, one challenge fitness course, restrooms, and a storage building with bleachers, a parking lot, lighting, landscaping and the associated improvements. The structures will conform to design standards set forth by the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Project site is located in an area that is substantially surrounded by urban uses and will not result in a use that is visually incompatible with the surrounding area.

The City of Porterville General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the Project area. A scenic vista is generally considered a view of an area that has remarkable scenery or a resource that is indigenous to the area. The Project is located in an area of minimal topographic relief, and views of the site are easily obscured by buildings, other structures and trees. Neither the Project area nor any surrounding land use contains features typically associated with scenic vistas (e.g., ridgelines, peaks, overlooks).

Construction activities will be visible from the adjacent roadsides; however, the construction activities will be temporary in nature and will not affect a scenic vista. The impact will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no designated scenic highways within the proximity of the Project site. California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway Mapping System identifies SR 190 east of SR 65 as an Eligible State Scenic Highway. This is the closest highway, located approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the Project site; however, the Project site is both physically and visually separated from SR 190 by intervening land uses. In addition, no scenic highways or roadways are listed within the Project Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 16 area in the City of Porterville’s General Plan or Tulare County’s General Plan. Based on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the City’s General Plan, no historic buildings exist on the Project site. The proposed Project would not cause damage to rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a State scenic highway corridor. Any impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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 publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Site construction will include the aforementioned sports areas, restrooms, a storage building, a parking lot, lighting and site landscaping. The buildings will conform to design standards set forth by the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project site is located in an area that is substantially surrounded by urban uses, including residential, commercial and parks, and as such, will not result in a use that is visually incompatible with the surrounding area. The proposed Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area or its surroundings.

The impact will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Nighttime lighting is necessary to provide and maintain safe, secure, and attractive environments; however, these lights have the potential to produce spillover light and glare and waste energy, and if designed incorrectly, could be considered unattractive. Light that falls beyond the intended area is referred to as “light trespass.” Types of light trespass include spillover light and glare.

Minimizing all these forms of obtrusive light is an important environmental consideration. A less obtrusive and well-designed energy efficient fixture would face downward, emit the correct intensity of light for the use, and incorporate energy timers.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 17 Spillover light is light emitted by a lighting installation that falls outside the boundaries of the property on which the installation is sited. Spillover light can adversely affect light-sensitive uses, such as residential neighborhoods at nighttime. Because light dissipates as it travels from the source, the intensity of a light fixture is often increased at the source to compensate for the dissipated light. This can further increase the amount of light that illuminates adjacent uses. Spillover light can be minimized by using only the level of light necessary, and by using cutoff type fixtures or shielded light fixtures, or a combination of fixture types.

Glare results when a light source directly in the field of vision is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source are an indication of glare. The presence of a bright light in an otherwise dark setting may be distracting or annoying, referred to as discomfort glare, or it may diminish the ability to see other objects in the darkened environment, referred to as disability glare.

Glare can be reduced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angles, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles.

Current sources of light in the Project area include street lights, light from the Santa Fe Elementary School parking area, the strip mall parking area, the South County Justice Center parking area, the vehicles traveling along adjacent roadways, and light from nearby residences. The Project would necessitate security and parking lot lighting, as well as lighting for the sports fields. Such lighting would be subject to the requirements of Porterville Development Ordinance Section 300.07, which ensures that outdoor lighting does not produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties.

Accordingly, the Project would not create substantial new sources of light or glare. Potential impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 18 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to 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?
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 19

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project site is located within of the City of Porterville’s planning area. The site is considered Urban and Built-Up Land by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The land is not currently enrolled in Williamson Act contracts.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal regulations for agriculture and forest resources are not relevant to the proposed Project because it is not a federal undertaking (the Project site is not located on lands administered by a federal agency, and the Project applicant is not requesting federal funding or a federal permit).

State
The Project site is not currently enrolled in a Williamson Act contract; thus, State regulations for agricultural resources are not relevant.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
Porterville General Plan Policies for agriculture and forest resources are not relevant to the proposed Project because the Project site is not currently enrolled in a Williamson Act contract, nor is the site zoned or designated by the Porterville General Plan for agricultural purposes.

RESPONSES
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The Project, which consists of the construction of a multi-sport complex on approximately

11.61 acres of land, is located inside the City of Porterville limits. The site is currently zoned PK (Parks & Public Recreational Facilities). The site is designated by the Porterville General Plan as Parks & Recreation. The site is described as Urban and Built-Up Land by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Since no agricultural lands will be converted to alternative land uses, there would be no impact as a result of Project implementation.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 20 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is not zoned for agriculture nor is the site covered by a Williamson Act contract; no impacts would occur. The Project is not zoned for forestland and does not propose any zone changes related to forest or timberland. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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))? No Impact. The Project is not zoned for forestland and does not propose any zone changes related to forest or timberland. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. No conversion of forestland, as defined under Public Resource Code or Government Code, as referenced above, would occur as a result of the Project. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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? No Impact. No land conversion from Farmland would occur for the Project. Surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, and parks uses. The proposed Project site is planned for parks development and as such, does not have the potential to result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses or forestland uses to non-forestland. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 21 III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 or adversely affecting a
substantial number of people)?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The climate of the San Joaquin Valley is characterized by long, hot summers and stagnant, foggy, winters.

Precipitation is low and temperature inversions are common. These characteristics are conducive to the formation and retention of air pollutants and are in part influenced by the surrounding mountains which intercept precipitation and act as a barrier to the passage of cold air and air pollutants.

The proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which is managed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The CAAQS also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.

Air quality plans or attainment plans are used to bring the applicable air basin into attainment with all state and federal ambient air quality standards designed to protect the health and safety of residents within that air basin. Areas are classified under the Federal Clean Air Act as either “attainment”, “non-attainment”, or “extreme non-attainment” areas for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. Attainment relative to the State Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 22 standards is determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The San Joaquin Valley is designated as a State and federal extreme non-attainment area for O3, a State and federal non-attainment area for PM2.5, a State non-attainment area for PM10, and federal and State attainment area for CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb.1
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 1990) required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health or the environment. Two types of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established.

Primary standards protect public health, while secondary standards protect public welfare, by including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, landscaping and vegetation, or buildings. NAAQS have been established for six “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb).

State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the State agency responsible for implementing the federal and state Clean Air Acts. CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which include all criteria pollutants established by the NAAQS, but with additional regulations for Visibility Reducing Particles, sulfates, hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride.

The proposed Project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which includes San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and parts of Kern counties and is managed by the SJVAPCD.

Air basins are classified as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified. Attainment is achieved when monitored ambient air quality data is in compliance with the standards for a specified pollutant.

Non-compliance with an established standard will result in a nonattainment designation and an 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 23 unclassified designation indicates insufficient data is available to determine compliance for that pollutant.

Standards and attainment status for listed pollutants in the Air District can be found in Table 1. Note that both state and federal standards are presented.

Table 1
Standards and Attainment Status for Listed Pollutants in the Air District2 Federal Standard California Standard
Ozone 0.075 ppm (8-hr avg) 0.07 ppm (8-hr avg) 0.09 ppm (1-hr avg)
Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg) 35.0 ppm
(1-hr avg)

9.0 ppm (8-hr avg) 20.0 ppm
(1-hr avg)
Nitrogen Dioxide 0.053 ppm (annual avg) 0.30 ppm (annual avg) 0.18 ppm (1-hr avg)
Sulfur Dioxide 0.03 ppm (annual avg) 0.14
ppm (24-hr avg) 0.5 ppm (3-hr
avg)

0.04 ppm (24-hr avg) 0.25
ppm (1hr avg)
Lead 1.5 µg/m3 (calendar quarter)

0.15 µg/m3 (rolling 3-month avg)

1.5 µg/m3 (30-day avg)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 µg/m3 (24-hr avg) 20 µg/m3 (annual avg) 50 µg/m3 (24-hr avg)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15 µg/m3 (annual avg) 35 µg/m3 (24-hr avg) 12 µg/m3 (annual avg)
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Additional State regulations include:

CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program – This program was designed to allow owners and operators of portable engines and other common construction or farming equipment to register their equipment under a statewide program so they may operate it statewide without the need to obtain a permit from the local air district.

U.S. EPA/CARB Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program – The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires CARB to achieve a maximum degree of emissions reductions from off-road mobile sources to attain State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS); off- road mobile sources include most construction equipment. Tier 1 standards for large compression-ignition engines used in off-road mobile sources went into effect in California in 1996. These standards, along with ongoing rulemaking, address emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and toxic particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB is currently 2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 24 developing a control measure to reduce diesel PM and NOX emissions from existing off-road diesel equipment throughout the state.

California Global Warming Solutions Act – Established in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires that California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This will be implemented through a statewide cap on GHG emissions, which will be phased in beginning in 2012. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to monitor global warming emissions levels.

In addition, the proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the local agency charged with preparing, adopting, and implementing mobile, stationary, and area air emission control measures and standards. The SJVAPCD has several rules and regulations that may apply to the Project:

Rule 3135 (Dust Control Plan Fees) – This rule requires the project applicant to submit a fee in addition to a Dust Control Plan. The purpose of this rule is to recover the SJVAPCD’s cost for reviewing these plans and conducting compliance inspections.

Rules 4101 (Visible Emissions) and 4102 (Nuisance) – These rules apply to any source of air contaminants and prohibits the visible emissions of air contaminants or any activity which creates a public nuisance.

Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations) – This rule applies to use of asphalt for paving new roadways or restoring existing roadways disturbed by project activities.

Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) – This regulation, a series of eight regulations, is designed to reduce PM10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. Regulation VIII requires implementation of control measures to ensure that visible dust emissions are substantially reduced. The control measures are summarized in Table 2.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 25 Table 2
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Regulation VIII Control Measures for Construction Related Emissions of PM103 The following are required to be implemented at all construction sites:

All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizers/suppressants, covered with a tarp or other similar cover, or vegetative All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions during construction using water or chemical stabilizer All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading cut and fill, and demolition activities during construction shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or pre-soaking.

When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from top of 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 Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

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

Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout.

Porterville General Plan Policies
• OSC-G-9: Improve and protect Porterville’s air quality by making air quality a priority in land use and transportation planning and in development review. • OSC-I-59: Require preparation of a Health Risk Assessment for any development subject to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act.
• OSC-I-61: Coordinate air quality planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies.
• OSC-I-63: Notify local and regional jurisdictions of proposed projects that may affect regional air quality.
3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Current District Rules and Regulations. http://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm#reg8.

Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 26

RESPONSES
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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). At the Federal level, the SJVAB is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, attainment for PM10 and CO, and nonattainment fort PM2.5. At the State level, the SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. Although the Federal 1- hour ozone standard was revoked in 2005, areas must still attain this standard, and the SJVAPCD recently requested an EPA finding that the SJVAB has attained the standard based on 2011-2013 data4.

To meet Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the SJVAPCD has multiple air quality attainment plan (AQAP) documents, including:
• Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (EOADP) for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard (2004);
• 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard; • 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation; and • 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

Because of the region’s non-attainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if the project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG or NOx), PM10, or PM2.5 were to exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project uses would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project uses were to result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, they may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.

The annual significance thresholds to be used for the Project for construction and operational emissions are as follows5:
• 10 tons per year ROG;
• 10 tons per year NOx;
4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guide to Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. Page 28. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed August 2021. 5 San Joaquin Valley Air Control District – Air Quality Threshold of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. Accessed August 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 27 • 15 tons per year PM10; and
• 15 tons per year PM2.5.

The project will result in both construction emissions and operational emissions as described below.

Short-Term (Construction) Emissions
Site preparation and project construction would involve grading, landscaping, and various other construction activities needed to develop the Project. During construction, the Project could generate pollutants such as hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and suspended PM. A major source of PM would be windblown dust generated during construction activities. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils.

Vehicles leaving the site could 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, the 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. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

Operational Emissions
The proposed park Project is generally passive in nature and will not generate substantial amounts of on-site emissions.

Total Project Emissions
The estimated annual construction emissions are provided below. The California Emissions Estimator (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2, was used to estimate construction emissions resulting from park construction and all defaults were utilized. Construction is anticipated to begin and end in 2022.

Modeling results are provided in Table 2 and the CalEEMod output files are provided in Appendix A.

Table 2 - Proposed Project Construction and Operation Emissions

VOC (ROG)
(tons/year)
NOx
(tons/year)
PM10
(tons/year)
PM2.5
(tons/year)
Maximum Annual Park Construction
Emissions 0.25 2.30 0.26 0.15
Annual Park Operation Emissions 0.02 0.21 0.05 0.01
Annual Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 15
Significant? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod results (Appendix A). Crawford & Bowen Planning (2021) Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 28 As demonstrated in Table 2, estimated construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the Project uses would not conflict with emissions inventories contained in regional air quality attainment plans and would not result in a significant contribution to the region’s air quality non-attainment status6.

Any impacts to air resources would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 boundary. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant.

As such, the proposed Project is not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
6 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guide to Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. Page 65. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed August 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 29 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game 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 Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 30 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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project site is located in a portion of the central San Joaquin Valley that has, for decades, experienced intensive agricultural and urban disturbances. Current agricultural endeavors in the region include orange groves, olive orchards and row crops.

Like most of California, the Central San Joaquin Valley experiences a Mediterranean climate. Warm dry summers are followed by cool moist winters. Summer temperatures usually exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely raise much above 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with daytime highs often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain and storm-water readily infiltrates the soils of the surrounding the sites.

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

The site currently consists of vacant land. The 11.61-acre Project site is approximately 325 feet south of Olive Avenue, with the South County Justice Center beyond the roadway. The site is adjacent to the Rails to Trails Parkway on the western boundary of the parcel. Residences lie further to the west, Santa Fe Elementary School lies to the south, a commercial strip mall lies to the east. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, the Porter Slough, a Riverine habitat classified as R4SBC bisects the site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 31 The USFWS and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) enforce the provisions stipulated in the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA, 16 United States Code [USC] § 1531 et seq.). Threatened and endangered species on the federal list (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.11 and 17.12) are protected from take unless a Section 10 permit is granted to an entity other than a federal agency or a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions is rendered to a federal lead agency via a Section 7 consultation. Take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed action within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species may be present in the proposed action area and determine whether the proposed action may affect such species. Under the FESA, habitat loss is considered an effect to a species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species that is listed or proposed for listing under the FESA (16 USC § 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, proposed action-related effects to these species or their habitats would be considered significant and would require mitigation.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC § 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, trading, or other forms of take of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. “Take” is defined as the pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing of birds, their nests, eggs, or young (16 USC § 703 and § 715n). This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. The MBTA specifically protects migratory bird nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter transport, import, and export, and take. For nests, the definition of take per 50 CFR 10.12 is to collect. The MBTA does not include a definition of an “active nest.” However, the “Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum” issued by the USFWS in 2003 clarifies the MBTA in that regard and states that the removal of nests, without eggs or birds, is legal under the MBTA, provided no possession (which is interpreted as holding the nest with the intent of retaining it) occurs during the destruction.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, tributaries of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, the territorial Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 32 seas, and wetlands adjacent to waters of the United States (33 CFR part 328.3). Ditches and drainage canals where water flows intermittently or ephemerally are not regulated as waters of the United States.

Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and related Regional Supplement.7,8 Construction activities, including direct removal, filling, hydrologic disruption, or other means in jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of dredged or fill material into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board is the State agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards) charged with implementing water quality certification in California.

State
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1970 (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq. and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Subsection 670.2, 670.51) prohibits the take of species listed under CESA (14 CCR Subsection 670.2, 670.5). Take is defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Under CESA, State agencies are required to consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife when preparing CEQA documents. Consultation ensures that proposed projects or actions do not have a negative effect on state-listed species. During consultation, CDFW determines whether take would occur and identifies “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for the project and conservation of special-status species. CDFW can authorize take of Statelisted species under Sections 2080.1 and 2081(b) of Fish and Game Code in those cases where it is demonstrated that the impacts are minimized and mitigated. Take authorized under section 2081(b) must be minimized and fully mitigated. A CESA permit must be obtained if a project will result in take of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project. Under CESA, CDFW is responsible for maintaining a list of threatened and endangered species designated under state law (Fish and Game Code § 2070). CDFW also maintains lists of species of special concern, which serve as “watch lists.” Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, a state or local agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact 7 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetland Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1.
8 United Sates Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046489.pdf.

Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 33 upon such species. Project-related impacts to species on the CESA list would be considered significant and would require mitigation. Impacts to species of concern or fully protected species would be considered significant under certain circumstances.

Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900–1913) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and otherwise rare species of native plants. Provisions of the act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require the project proponent to notify CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use, which allows CDFW to salvage listed plants that would otherwise be destroyed.

Nesting Birds
California Fish and Game Code Subsections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 prohibit the possession, incidental take, or needless destruction of birds, their nests, and eggs. California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 lists birds that are “Fully Protected” as those that may not be taken or possessed except under specific permit.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction The CDFW has regulatory jurisdiction over lakes and streams in California. Activities that divert or obstruct the natural flow of a stream; substantially change its bed, channel, or bank; or use any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed, may require that the project applicant enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFW in accordance with California Fish and Game Code Section 1602.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Sections 21000–21178) requires that CDFW be consulted during the CEQA review process regarding impacts of proposed projects on special-status species. Special-status species are defined under CEQA Guidelines subsection 15380(b) and (d) as those listed under FESA and CESA and species that are not currently protected by statute or regulation but would be considered rare, threatened, or endangered under these criteria or by the scientific community. Therefore, species considered rare or endangered are addressed in this biological resource evaluation regardless of whether they are afforded protection through any other statute or regulation. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventories the native flora of Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 34 California and ranks species according to rarity.
9 Plants with Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B are
considered special-status species under CEQA.

Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if it can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in the FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare and endangered plants and animals. Section 15380(d) allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine if a significant effect on species that have not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW (i.e., candidate species) would occur. Thus, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from the potential impacts of a project until the respective government agency has an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
• OSC-G-7: Protect habitat for special status species, designated under State and federal law.

RESPONSES
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently vacant. The site is highly disturbed and consists of minimal vegetation.

According to the Porterville General Plan, several special status plant species are potentially found within the Porterville Planning Area. These species include Keck’s checkerbloom (Sidalcea keckii), Springville clarkia (Clarkia springvillensis), San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Pseudobahia peirsonii), Striped adobe-lily (Fritillaria striata), Madera leptosiphon (Leptosiphon serrulatus), Calico monkeyflower (Mimulus 9 California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program (CNPS). 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39).

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/ Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 35 pictus), and Spiny-sepaled button celery (Eryngium spinosepalum). Additionally, the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, which is a special status species, is supported by elderberry shrubs which are known to grown in several areas throughout the Planning Area.

The Planning Area also contains potential habitat for many special status species of animals. These species include California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), the previously mentioned Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), American badger (Taxidea taxus), Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Morrison’s blister beetle (Lytta morrisoni), and Molestan blister beetle (Lytta molesta).

According to the Special Status Species and Vegetation map (Figure 6-4) found in the Porterville General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element, the proposed Project area may support one special status species; the striped adobe-lily. However, the Project site is highly disturbed with little vegetation and is not expected to provide habitat for any special status species. Thus, the impact remains less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, Porter Slough runs eastto-west through the middle section of the parcel. It is considered a stream with riverine habitat; however, in the Project vicinity, the Porter Slough has been undergrounded. The site is highly disturbed with no other sensitive habitats in the vicinity. As such, impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 36 Less than Significant Impact. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, 10 Porter Slough is considered a riverine wetland area. However, as previously mentioned, in the Project area, Porter Slough has been undergrounded. No impacts to Porter Slough are anticipated. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project area consists of an actively maintained vacant lot.

According to Figure 3.6-1, Special Status Species & Sensitive Vegetation, of the Porterville 2030 General Plan Update, the site may support the special status species striped adobe-lily. However, the proposed Project site is highly disturbed with minimal vegetation and is not expected to provide suitable habitat for any special status species. However, construction activities, such as excavating, trenching, and grading that disturb a nesting bird on the Project site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant effect, as migratory birds are protected under the MBTA. Implementation of mitigation measures will ensure that the Project will not adversely affect federally protected bird species or other species of special status. Any impacts to native species movement would be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO -1 – Protect nesting birds.

To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February through August. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during the implementation of the Project. A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of construction activities. This survey shall establish behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, a qualified biologist will continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral 10 United States Environmental Protection Agency. NEPAssist, National Wetlands Inventory. https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 37 changes occur, all work causing that change shall stop and CDFW shall be consulted for additional avoidance and minimization measures. If continuous monitoring of identified nests is not feasible, a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors shall be established. These buffers shall remain in place 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 on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is compelling biological or ecological reason to do so. CDFW shall be notified in advance of implementing a variance.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Porterville’s General Plan includes various policies for the protection of biological resources. The proposed Project would not conflict with any of the adopted policies and any impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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? Less than Significant Impact. Several conservation and recovery plans apply to land in the City, including the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley and the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan. Figure 6-4 (Special Status Species and Sensitive Vegetation) in the City of Porterville’s General Plan indicates the Project site is not within an area set aside for the conservation of habitat or sensitive plant or animal species pursuant to such plans. The nearest such areas are the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beatle Conservation Area, located along the Tule River within the Yaudanchi Ecological Reserve. As such, any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 38 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Archaeological resources are places where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains. Archaeological resources may be either prehistoric (before the introduction of writing in a particular area) or historic (after the introduction of writing). The majority of such places in this region are associated with either Native American or Euroamerican occupation of the area. The most frequently encountered prehistoric and early historic Native American archaeological sites are village settlements with residential areas and sometimes cemeteries; temporary camps where food and raw materials were collected; smaller, briefly occupied sites where tools were manufactured or repaired; and special-use areas like caves, rock shelters, and sites of rock art. Historic archaeological sites may include foundations or features such as privies, corrals, and trash dumps.

The City of Porterville and Tulare County were inhabited by indigenous California Native American groups consisting of the Southern Valley Yokuts, Foothill Yokuts, Monache, and Tubatulabal. Most information regarding these groups is based on Spanish government and Franciscan mission records of the 18th and 19th centuries, and in studies conducted during the 1900s to 1930s by American and British ethnographers. The ethnographic setting presented below is derived from the early works, compiled by W. J. Wallace, Robert F.G. Spier, and Charles R. Smith, with statistical information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission.

Of the four main groups inhabiting the Tulare County area, the Southern Valley Yokuts occupied the largest territory, which is defined roughly by the crest of the Diablo Range on the west and the foothills Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 39 of the Sierra Nevada on the east, and from the Kings River on the north, to the Tehachapi Mountains on the south. The Foothill Yokuts inhabited the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada, between the Fresno River and Kern River, with settlements generally occurring between the 2,000 to 4,000-foot elevations.

The Tubatulabal inhabited the Sierra Nevada Mountains, at the higher elevations, near Mt. Whitney in the east, extending westward along the drainages of the Kern River, and the Kern River-South Fork. The Monache were comprised of six small groups that lived in the Sierras east of the Foothill Yokuts, in locations ranging between 3,000- to 7,000-foot elevations.

A records search of the site files and maps was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield (see Appendix B). These investigations determined that there were no previous cultural resource studies performed within the Project area and there have been three cultural resources studies performed within a one-half mile radius.

There are no recorded resources within the Project area and there are 71 resources located within the one-half mile radius.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Cultural resources are protected by several federal regulations, none of which are relevant to this proposed Project because it will not be located on lands administered by a federal agency and the Project applicant is not requesting federal funding.

State
The proposed Project is subject to CEQA which requires public or private projects financed or approved by public agencies to assess their effects on historical resources. CEQA uses the term “historical resources” to include buildings, sites, structures, objects or districts, each of which may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA states that if implementation of a project results in significant effects on historical resources, then alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered; however, only significant historical resources need to be addressed (Guidelines Sections 15064.5, 15126.4). For the purposes of this CEQA document, a significant impact would occur if project implementation:
• Causes a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource • Causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource • Disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 40 Therefore, before impacts and mitigation measures can be identified, the significance of historical resources must be determined. CEQA guidelines define three ways that a property may qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review:
• If the resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
• If the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant
• The lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)) Each of these ways of qualifying as a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA is related to the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the CRHR (PRC 5020.1(k), 5024.1, 5024.1(g)).

A historical resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Properties that area listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are considered eligible for listing in the CRHR, and thus are significant historical resources for the purpose of CEQA (PRC Section 5024.1(d)(1)).

Public Resources Code §5097.5
California Public Resources Code §5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any “vertebrate paleontological site...or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.” Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 41 unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor.

Human Remains
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper and dignified treatment of the remains and associated grave artifacts.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
• OSC-G-11: Identify and protect archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources. • OSC-I-73: Require that new development analyze and avoid any potential impacts to archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources by:
o Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically sensitive, including hillsides and near the Tule River; o Studying the potential effects of development and construction (as required by CEQA);
o Developing, where appropriate, mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts; and Implementing appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts.

RESPONSES
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 42 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The records search conducted at the SSJVIC (Appendix B) indicated that there are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area; however, there are 71 recorded resources within the one-half mile. See Appendix B for the complete list.

Subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed Project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources. This is considered a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will ensure that significant impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

CUL-1 The following measures shall be implemented:
• Before initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project, the City shall require all construction personnel to be alerted to the possibility of buried cultural resources, including historic, archeological and paleontological resources; and
• 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. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The possibility exists that subsurface construction activities may encounter undiscovered archaeological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require inadvertently discovery practices Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 43 to be implemented should previously undiscovered archeological resources be located. As such, impacts to undiscovered archeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are no unique geological features or known fossilbearing sediments in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. However, there remains the possibility for previously unknown, buried paleontological resources or unique geological sites to be uncovered during subsurface construction activities. Therefore, this would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed requiring standard inadvertent discovery procedures to be implemented to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

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 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.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 44 VI. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in 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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
California’s total energy consumption is second-highest in the nation, but in 2018 the state’s per capita energy consumption ranked the fourth-lowest, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs. 11 In 2018, California was the top-ranking producer of electricity from solar, geothermal and biomass energy, and second in the nation in conventional hydroelectric power generation.

Energy usage is typically quantified using the British thermal unit (BTU). As a point of reference, the approximately amounts of energy contained in common energy sources are as follows:

Energy Source BTUs12
Gasoline 120,429 per gallon
Natural Gas 1,037 per cubic foot
Electricity 3,412 per kilowatt-hour
11 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1. Accessed September 2021. 12 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Energy Units and Calculators Explained. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=about_energy_units. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 45 California electrical consumption in 2018 was 7,876.8 trillion BTU13, as provided in Table 3, while total electrical consumption by Tulare County in 2019 was 14.202 trillion BTU.14 Table 3 – 2018 California Energy Consumption15
End User BTU of energy
consumed (in trillions)
Percentage of total
consumption
Residential 1,440.1 18.3
Commercial 1,510.4 19.2
Industrial 1,847.9 23.5
Transportation 3,078.4 39.1
Total 7,876.8 --
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) reports that approximately 25.6 million automobiles, 5.2 million trucks, and 857,677 motorcycles were registered in the state in 2019, while in 2017 a total estimated 344.3 billion vehicles miles were traveled (VMT).16 Applicable Regulations
California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 comprises the California Energy Code, which was adopted to ensure that building construction, system design and installation achieve energy efficiency. The California Energy Code was first established in 1978 by the CEC in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption, and apply to energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting in new residential and non-residential buildings. The standards are updated periodically to increase the baseline energy efficiency requirements. The 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings and include requirements to enable both demand reductions during critical peak periods and future solar electric and thermal system installations.

Although it was not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, electricity production 13 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1. Accessed September 2021. 14 California Energy Commission. Electricity Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed September 2021.
15U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1. Accessed September 2021. 16 Caltrans. 2017. California Transportation Fact Booklet. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/caltrans-fact-booklets/2019-cfb-a11y.pdf. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 46 by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions.

California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part II, CALGreen) The California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen in Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code) for all new construction statewide on July 17, 2008. Originally a volunteer measure, the code became mandatory in 2010 and the most recent update (2019) went into effect on January 1, 2020. CALGreen sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills, and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including ecofriendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels.

The 2019 CALGreen Code includes mandatory measures for non-residential development related to site development; water use; weather resistance and moisture management; construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling; building maintenance and operation; pollutant control; indoor air quality; environmental comfort; and outdoor air quality. Mandatory measures for residential development pertain to green building; planning and design; energy efficiency; water efficiency and conservation; material conservation and resource efficiency; environmental quality; and installer and special inspector qualifications.

Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350)
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) was passed by California Governor Brown on October 7, 2015, and establishes new clean energy, clean air, and greenhouse gas reduction goals for the year 2030 and beyond. SB 350 establishes a greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels for the State of California, further enhancing the ability for the state to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

Renewable Portfolio Standard (SB 1078 and SB 107)
Established in 2002 under SB 1078, the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was amended under SB 107 to require accelerated energy reduction goals by requiring that by the year 2010, 20 percent of electricity sales in the state be served by renewable energy resources. In years following its adoption, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed, requiring electricity retail sellers to provide 33 percent of their service loads with renewable energy by the year 2020. In 2011, SB X1-2 was signed, aligning the RPS target with the 33 percent requirement by the year 2020. This new RPS applied to all state electricity retailers, including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electrical service providers, and community choice aggregators. All entities included under the RPS were required to adopt the RPS 20 percent by year 2020 reduction goal by the end of 2013, adopt a reduction goal of 25 percent by the end Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 47 of 2016, and meet the 33 percent reduction goal by the end of 2020. In addition, the Air Resources Board, under Executive Order S-21-09, was required to adopt regulations consistent with these 33 percent renewable energy targets.

RESPONSES
a. Result in 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Porterville intends to develop a 9-acre multi-sport sports complex. The Project at build-out will consume energy in the short-term during Project construction; however, the park and is generally passive with the exception of lighting, and will not require substantial amounts of energy during Project operation.

During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards provide guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation and it is expected that contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to use recycled materials and products originating from nearby sources in order to reduce materials costs.

As such, it is anticipated that materials used in construction and construction vehicle fuel energy would not involve the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

As discussed previously, the proposed Project would be required to implement and be consistent with existing energy design standards at the local and State level. The Project would be subject to energy conservation requirements in the California Energy Code and CALGreen. Adherence to State code requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful and inefficient use of nonrenewable resources due to building operation.

Therefore, any impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 48 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the most recently
adopted Uniform Building Code
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 49 creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Porterville is situated along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The Sierra Nevada geomorphic province is primarily composed of cretaceous granitic plutons and remnants of Paleozoic and Mesozoic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cenozoic volcan and sedimentary rocks.

The majority of Porterville has elevations ranging from 400 to 800 feet.

Faulting and Seismicity
There are no known active earthquake faults in the City of Porterville. The proposed Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known faults cut through the local soil at the site. There are several faults located within a 70-mile radius of the proposed Project site. An unnamed fault is approximately seven miles south, Poso Creek Fault and the associated surrounding faults are approximately 28 miles southwest, Kern Canyon Fault is approximately 32 miles east, White Wolf Fault Zone is approximately 60 miles southwest, and San Andreas and Cholame-Carrizo Fault sections are approximately 70 miles southwest of the proposed Project site. These faults have exhibited activity in the last 1.6 million years, but not in the last 200 years. It is possible, but unlikely, that previously unknown faults could become active in the area. No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are in or near Porterville. Porterville is designated as an area in Seismic Design Category 4 according to the most recent version of the California Building Code. Under this designation, earthquake resistant design and materials are required to meet or exceed the current seismic engineering standards of the Building Code.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 50 Soils
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, much of the planning area has soils with moderate to high erosion potential. Generally, areas most susceptible to soil erosion are hilly or have slopes greater than 15 percent. Lower flatlands, such as the subject site, are usually less likely to erode than those located on slopes.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal regulations for geology and soils are not relevant to the proposed Project because it is not a federal undertaking (the Project site is not located on lands administered by a federal agency, and the Project applicant is not requesting federal funding or a federal permit).

State
California Building Code
California law provides a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is based on the IBC, with amendments for California conditions. Part 2, Volume 2, Chapter 16 of the CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety. Part 2, Volume 2, Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates soils and foundations. Part 2, Volume 2, Appendix J of the CBC regulates grading activities. Construction activities also are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations) and in section A33 of the CBC. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals and associated deposits. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources.

CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) §15126.4 (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code §5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 51 In addition, the proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
• OSC-G-5: Preserve soil resources to minimize damage to people, property, and the environment resulting from potential hazards.
• OSC-G-6: Protect significant mineral resources.
• OSC-I-21: Adopt soil conservation regulations to reduce erosion caused by overgrazing, plowing, mining, new roadways and paths, construction, and off-road vehicles. • OSC-I-23: Require adequate grading and replanting to minimize erosion and prevent slippage of manmade slopes.
• PHS-G-4: Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.
• PHS-G-1: Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.
• PHS-I-2: Maintain and enforce appropriate building standards and codes to avoid and/or reduce risks associated with geologic constraints and to ensure that all new construction is designed to meet current safety regulations.
• PHS-I-17: Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.

RESPONSES
a-i. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 52 No Impact. The proposed Project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Additionally, according to the Fault Rupture Zones Map prepared by the California Department of Conservation in 2007, the Project area is not located within a Fault‐Rupture Hazard Area.17 Since no known surface expression of active faults is believed to cross the site, fault rupture through the site is not anticipated. No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
a-ii. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project site occurs in an area with historically low to moderate level of seismicity, strong ground shaking could occur in the region; however, the Project would be designed to withstand strong ground shaking, in compliance with the California Building Code, to minimize the potential effects of ground shaking and other seismic activity. Impacts from seismic ground shaking would result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
a-iii. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. See Response a-ii. According to the City of Porterville General Plan, Public Health and Safety Element the Project site has a moderate to high risk of damaging ground motion; however, the Project’s Valley location has a low risk of liquefaction. No Subsidence prone soils or oil or gas production is involved with the proposed Project. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
a-iv. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
17 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse. Regulatory Maps and Reports. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 53 Less than Significant Impact. The City of Porterville’s 2030 General Plan, Figure 7-1 (Geological and Soil Hazards) indicates that the proposed Project site is located on relatively flat topography and is not located adjacent to any steep slopes or areas that would otherwise be subject to landslides. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Porterville sits on top of the alluvial fans of the Tule River and its distributaries. The soil in the proposed Project area is characterized as moderately deep, well-drained, sandy loam underlain by hardpan. The Project site has a generally flat topography, is in an established urban area and does not include any Project features that would result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil.

The Figure 7-1 in the City’s General Plan (Geological and Soil Hazards Map) also indicates that the Project site has a low erosion susceptibility index (K factor); thus, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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?
No Impact. The City of Porterville sits on top of the alluvial fans of the Tule River and its distributaries.

The soil in the proposed Project area is characterized as moderately deep, well-drained, sandy loam underlain by hardpan. See also Response a-ii. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the most recently adopted Uniform Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. See Responses (c) and (a-ii). The impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 54 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? No Impact. The Project will tie into the City’s existing wastewater system and will not require installation of a septic tank or alternate wastewater disposal system. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The General Plan does not identify any unique geologic features within the Planning Area and according to the CHRIS search results, there are no known paleontological resources on or near the site; however, it is unknown if any subsurface unique paleontological resources exist. Mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts and as such, impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures: CUL-1 and CUL-2.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 55 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere play an important role in moderating the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs are transparent to solar radiation, but are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. Consequently, radiation that would otherwise escape back into space is retained, resulting in a warming of the earth’s atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Scientific research to date indicates that some of the observed climate change is a result of increased GHG emissions associated with human activity. Among the GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, Nitrous Oxide (NOx), and chlorofluorocarbons. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are considered responsible for enhancing the greenhouse effect. GHG emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable, in large part, to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation. Global climate change is, indeed, a global issue. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria pollutants and TACs (which are pollutants of regional and/or local concern). Global climate change, if it occurs, could potentially affect water resources in California. Rising temperatures could be anticipated to result in sea-level rise (as polar ice caps melt) and possibly change the timing and amount of precipitation, which could alter water quality. According to some, climate change could result in more extreme weather patterns; both heavier precipitation that could lead to flooding, as well as more extended drought periods. There is uncertainty regarding the timing, magnitude, and nature of the potential changes to water resources as a result of climate change; however, several trends are evident.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 56 Snowpack and snowmelt may also be affected by climate change. Much of California’s precipitation falls as snow in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, and snowpack represents approximately 35 percent of the state’s useable annual water supply. The snowmelt typically occurs from April through July; it provides natural water flow to streams and reservoirs after the annual rainy season has ended. As air temperatures increase due to climate change, the water stored in California’s snowpack could be affected by increasing temperatures resulting in: (1) decreased snowfall, and (2) earlier snowmelt.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
The USEPA Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98), which became effective December 29, 2009, requires that all facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent per year beginning in 2010, report their emissions on an annual basis. On May 13, 2010, the USEPA issued a final rule that established an approach to addressing GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA permitting programs. The final rule set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) found that the USEPA has the authority to list GHGs as pollutants and to regulate emissions of GHGs under the CAA. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA found that CO2, CH4, NOx, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride may contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health and welfare. This finding may result in the USEPA regulating GHG emissions; however, to date the USEPA has not proposed regulations based on this finding.

State
California is taking action to reduce GHG emissions. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05 to address climate change and GHG emissions in California. This order sets the following goals for statewide GHG emissions:
• Reduce to 2000 levels by 2010
• Reduce to 1990 levels by 2020
• Reduce to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
In addition, the proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 57 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) In August 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted the Climate Change Action Plan, which directed the SJVAPCD to develop guidance to assist lead agencies, project proponents, permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project specific greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change.

In 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the guidance document: Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA. This document recommends the usage of performance-based standards, otherwise knowns as Best Performance Standards (BPS), to assess significance of project-specific greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process. Projects implementing BPS in accordance with SJVAPCD’s guidance would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact on greenhouse gas emissions and would not require project specific quantification of greenhouse gas emissions.18

RESPONSES
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases from sources that in general emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. As shown in the modeling results (Appendix A), the Project is estimated to produce 517 tons of CO2 per year during operations. This represents approximately two percent of the reporting threshold. As such, any impacts resulting from conflicting a GHG plan, policy, or regulation, or significantly impacting the environment as a result of project development is considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
18 SJVAPCD. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19, 2015. https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed September 2021. Page 112.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 58 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 59 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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project site is located in the central portion of the City of Porterville, near residential, commercial, and parks land uses. The site is currently vacant.

Residences exist within a quarter-mile of the Project site to the west, south and east. The Project site is approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the Porterville Municipal Airport. Fresno-Yosemite International Airport is the closest major airport to the proposed Project site, approximately 62 miles northwest.

The Teapot Dome Landfill plant is approximately five miles southwest of the City limits, while the Porterville Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately 2.1 miles northwest of the site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
The primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the EPA, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment – air, water and land – and works closely with other federal agencies, and state and local governments to develop and enforce regulations under existing environmental laws. Where national standards are not met, EPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states in reaching the desired levels of environmental quality. EPA also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.

State
The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health is the administering agency designed to protect worker health and general facility safety. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has designated the area that includes the proposed Project Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 60 site as a Local Responsibility Area, defined as an area where the local fire jurisdiction is responsible for emergency fire response.

In addition, the proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
City of Porterville Fire Department
The City of Porterville Fire Department, Fire Prevention Division provides limited oversight of hazardous materials. The Fire Department is responsible for conducting inspections for code compliance and fire-safe practices, permitting of certain hazardous materials, and for investigation of fire and hazardous materials incidents. The Fire Department regulates explosive and hazardous materials under the California Building Code, and permits the handling, storage and use of any explosive or other hazardous material.

Tulare County Environmental Health Division
The Tulare County Environmental Health Division (TCEHD) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for all cities and unincorporated areas within Tulare County. The CUPA was created by the California Legislature to minimize the number of inspections and different fees for businesses. The TCEHD provides the management and record keeping of hazardous materials and underground storage tank (UST) sites for Tulare County, including the City of Porterville.

Porterville General Plan Policies
• PHS-I-17: Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances. • PHS-I-18: Adopt a Household Hazardous Waste Program and support the proper disposal of hazardous household waste and waste oil; encourage citizens and crime watch organizations to report unlawful dumping of hazardous materials.
• PHS-I-19: Ensure that all specified hazardous facilities conform to the Tulare County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
• PHS-I-21: Coordinate enforcement of the Hazardous Material Disclosure Law and the implementation of the Hazardous Material Emergency Response Plan with the Tulare County Health and Human Service Agency.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 61

RESPONSES
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed Project would include the construction of a multi-sport complex with associated improvements. Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials.

These materials may include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction.

Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance would ensure that human health and the environment are not exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program through the submission and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction activities to prevent contaminated runoff from leaving the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur during construction activities.

The operational phase of the proposed Project would occur after construction is completed and visitors utilize the sports areas on a day-to-day basis. The proposed Project will include land uses that are considered compatible with the surrounding uses. None of these land uses routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, with the exception of common residential grade hazardous materials such as household and commercial cleaners, paint, etc. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment occur. Therefore, the proposed Project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. See Response a. above. Any accumulated hazardous construction or operational wastes will be collected and transported away from the site in compliance with all federal, State, and local regulations. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 62 c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Santa Fe Elementary School is located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. As the proposed Project includes the development of various sports fields and small storage/restroom buildings, it is not reasonably foreseeable that the proposed Project will cause a significant impact by emitting hazardous waste or bringing hazardous materials near a proposed or existing school. Parks and Public Recreation Facilities such as the proposed Project do not generate, store, or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Such uses also do not normally involve dangerous activities that could expose persons onsite or in the surrounding areas to large quantities of hazardous materials. See also Responses a. and b. regarding hazardous material handling. The impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Geotracker and EnviroStor databases – accessed in September 2021).

One LUST Cleanup Site is indicated within one-quarter mile west of the Project site at 80 S A Street; however, the cleanup site status is ‘completed’ and the case is closed. As such, no impacts would occur that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The proposed Project site is approximately four miles north of the Porterville Municipal Airport. Land use controls for this area will be provided by the City of Porterville General Plan and Development Ordinance. Additionally, the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 63 indicates that the Project area is outside the Proposed Airport Influence Area. The Project site is not within an established Airport Safety Zone. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Project will not interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.

There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
g. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. There are no wildlands on or near the Project site. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 64 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water 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?
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 65 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Porterville has a dry, desert-like climate with evaporation rates that exceed rainfall. Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain and stormwater readily infiltrates the soils of the surrounding the sites.

The City of Porterville is located in the Tulare Lake Basin, and within the Tule Sub-basin. which has been classified as a critically overdrafted basin.19 According to the City’s General Plan EIR, wells in and around the city have shown a moderate groundwater level decline of about 0.75 feet per year over the past 20 years. The City’s municipal wells are generally scattered west of Plano Avenue and south of Westfield Avenue and the distribution system is operated under pressure. The City of Porterville receives all of its municipal water from groundwater.20
According to the City of Porterville 2015 Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP)21, water demands within the City’s service area are largely residential, with commercial, industrial, institutional, and City-related consumption accounts for approximately 25% of the total water demand.

The City’s water use increased in a fairly linear fashion up through 2007. Beginning in 2008, water use began to decline due to economic conditions and water conservation measures. The City produced/used 19 California Department of Water Resources. Critically Overdrafted Basins Map. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Critically-Overdrafted-Basins. Accessed September 2021. 20 City of Porterville – Hydraulic Analysis, page 1. Dee Jaspar & Associates, Inc. (May 2015). 21 City of Porterville Urban Water Management Plan. 2010 Update, Amended March 2015. https://cms9files.revize.com/portervilleca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20Development/Planning/Documents/Porterville2010 UWMPRequestedChangesFromtheState.pdf. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 66 approximately 3,117 MG (9,565 ac/ft/yr) of water from groundwater supplies to serve a population of 65,702 in 2015. This was approximately 37% less than what the General Plan projected for water use for Year 2015. It should also be noted that actual population growth within the City has not kept up with the population growth projections of the General Plan. Therefore, the actual water use in the City is less than what was projected under the City’s General Plan.

The City implements its Drought Response Plan during certain times of the year when watering is limited or restricted. Currently, the City is in Drought Response Phase III, which prohibits residential outdoor watering three days per week. This and other mandatory water conservation measures are being enforced with fines of up to $500 for non-compliance.22 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters (33 CFR 1251). The regulations implementing the CWA protect waters of the U.S. including streams and wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality by regulating point source and some non-point source discharges. Under Section 402 of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process was established to regulate these discharges.

The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) makes available federally subsidized flood insurance to owners of flood-prone properties. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes.

State
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)is the agency with jurisdiction over water quality issues in California. The SWRCB is governed by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code), which establishes the legal framework for water quality control activities by the SWRCB. The intent of the Porter-Cologne Act is to regulate factors which may affect the quality of waters 22 City of Porterville, Public Works, Water Conservation. https://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/departments/public_works/water_conservation.php.

Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 67 of the State to attain the highest quality which is reasonable, considering a full range of demands and values. Much of the implementation of the SWRCB's responsibilities is delegated to its nine Regional Boards. The Project site is located within the Central Valley Region.

Regional Water Quality Board
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the NPDES storm water-permitting program in the Central Valley region. Construction activities on one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The plan will include specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during proposed Project construction to control degradation of surface water by preventing the potential erosion of sediments or discharge of pollutants from the construction area. The General Construction Permit program was established by the RWQCB for the specific purpose of reducing impacts to surface waters that may occur due to construction activities. BMPs have been established by the RWQCB in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook (2003) and are recognized as effectively reducing degradation of surface waters to an acceptable level. Additionally, the SWPPP will describe measures to prevent or control runoff degradation after construction is complete and identify a plan to inspect and maintain these facilities or project elements.

In addition, the proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
• OSC-I-43: Work with agricultural and industrial uses to ensure that water contamination and waste products are handled in a manner that protects the long-term viability of water resources. • OSC-I-44: Work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that all point source pollutants are adequately mitigated (as part of the CEQA review and project approval process) and monitored to ensure long-term compliance.
• OSC-I-45: Continue to require use of feasible and practical best management practices (BMPs) and other mitigation measures designed to protect surface water and groundwater from the adverse effects of construction activities and urban runoff in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 68 • OSC-I-51: Prior to the approval of individual projects, require the City Engineer and/or Building Official to verify that the provisions of applicable point source pollution programs have been satisfied.
• PHS-G-2: Protect the community from risks to life and property posed by flooding and stormwater runoff.
• PU-I-7: Continue to require water meters in all new development.

RESPONSES
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The SWRCB requires any new construction project of one acre or more to complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP involves site planning and scheduling, limiting disturbed soil areas, and determining best management practices to minimize the risk of pollution and sediments being discharged from construction sites. Implementation of the SWPPP will minimize the potential for impacts associated with erosion or siltation onsite or offsite.

The proposed Project will result in minimal wastewater to be discharged into the City’s existing wastewater treatment system. The wastewater will be typical of other urban/residential developments consisting of bathrooms, drains, hose faucets and other similar features. Additionally, the sports fields will require installation of a permanent sprinkler system. The Project will not discharge any unusual or atypical wastewater.

Additionally, there will be no discharge to any surface or groundwater source. As such, the proposed Project will not violate any water quality standards and will not impact waste discharge requirements.

The impact will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact.

Water Supply
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 69 The City of Porterville (and the Project site) is located in the Tulare Lake Basin, an area significantly affected by overdraft. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has estimated the groundwater by hydrologic region and for the Tulare Lake Basin; the total overdraft is estimated at 820,000 acre-feet per year, the greatest overdraft projected in the state, and 56 percent of the statewide total overdraft. The Project site is located within the Tule Sub-basin portion of the greater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, wells in and around the city have shown a moderate groundwater level decline of about 0.75 feet per year over the past 20 years. The City’s municipal wells are generally scattered west of Plano Avenue and south of Westfield Avenue and the distribution system is operated under pressure.

According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), future demand within the City planning area can be met with continued groundwater pumping, surface water purchases and conservation measures.

Therefore, since no land use changes are proposed, the Project will not result in additional groundwater use that was not already accounted for in the City’s UWMP.

As such, the impact to water supply is determined to be less than significant.

Water Availability
The proposed Project is anticipated to utilize City groundwater to support the parks and recreation development. Water usage for the Project is anticipated to be limited to restroom usage, hose faucets or sinks, and a permanent sprinkler system. The City has historically used groundwater to meet all of their water demands. Although the City’s aquifer is in a state of overdraft, they could still meet their water demands for several more years solely with groundwater.23 However, the City recognizes that continued overdraft of the City’s groundwater is not sustainable. As such, the City has and/or is planning to implement several mechanisms to address this shortfall. These include reliance on surface water, increased groundwater recharge projects, and consolidated water projects. The City’s General Plan EIR indicates that by 2030, total water demand by the City will be 30,000 acre-feet per year, which will exceed the groundwater availability. However, as noted previously, actual population growth within the City has not kept up with the population growth projections of the General Plan. Therefore, the actual water use in the City is less than what was projected under the City’s General Plan. The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) indicates that future demand can be met with continued groundwater pumping, surface water purchases and conservation measures. As such, there is a less than significant impact to this impact area.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
23 Porterville UWMP, page 42. (2010).

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 70 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 offsite; 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The site is presently vacant. While the majority of site improvements include pervious surfaces, the site will be designed so that during construction storm water is collected in compliance with Portville City standards. At full buildout, the stormwater will tie into the City’s existing storm drain system. The storm water collection system design will be subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Department. Storm water during construction will be managed as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the SWPPP is retained on-site during construction.

Impacts regarding the alteration of drainage patterns to increase runoff that will potentially induce flooding have been discussed in the impact analysis for Response IX-c. Storm water during construction will be managed as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the SWPPP is retained onsite during construction. All other on-site drainage will be collected and deposited in the City’s storm drain system.

Implementation of the proposed Project will not require expansion of the City’s existing stormwater system (other than onsite collection system), nor will it result in additional sources of polluted runoff. The Project would not otherwise degrade water quality and therefore the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The majority of Project site is within Zone AO (Depth 1), which is a Special Flood Hazard Area and Regulatory Floodway that experiences a one-percent annual chance of flood Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 71 hazard contained in channel, as indicated by FEMA flood hazard map 06107C1634E, effective 6/16/2009.

Figure 7-3, Flood Hazards Map, in the City’s General Plan indicates that the Project site is within a 100- year Flood Zone. However, the site will be designed for adequate storm drainage and any seasonal flows will be directed to the appropriate areas.

Flows into the Tule River are controlled by the Success Dam located approximately five miles upstream from the City. A dam failure is usually the result of neglect, poor design, or structural damage caused by a major event such as an earthquake. Dams must be operated and maintained in a safe manner, which is ensured through inspections for safety deficiencies, analyses using current technologies and designs, and taking corrective actions as needed based on current engineering practices.

The Project site is located within the Success Dam inundation area, as shown on Figure 7-3 of the 2030 General Plan. This inundation area runs through Porterville, to a location downstream of Corcoran, a distance of approximately 44 miles. The Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) is in the process of completing an environmental impact statement for reinforcing the strength of the dam in the event of seismically induced failure. The Project site is within the 0.5-hour to 1-hour inundation zone of Success Dam. In the event of a dam failure, most of the City would be flooded within one hour.

There are no inland water bodies that could be potentially susceptible to a seiche in the Project vicinity.

This precludes the possibility of a seiche inundating the Project site. The Project site is more than 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean, a condition that precludes the possibility of inundation by tsunami. There are no steep slopes that would be susceptible to a mudflow in the Project vicinity, nor are there any volcanically active features that could produce a mudflow in the City of Porterville. This precludes the possibility of a mudflow inundating the Project site.

The Porterville Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), adopted in 2004, includes planning and response scenarios for seismic hazards, extreme weather conditions, landslides, dam failure and other flooding.

The City has designated several evacuation routes through Porterville to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies. In the unlikely event that the dam fails before the ACOE’s proposed dam reinforcement completion date of 2014–2015, the dam owner would follow the emergency action plan (EAP) developed for Success Dam. The EAP includes a notification flowchart, early detection systems, notification for warning and evacuation by state and local emergency management officials, steps to moderate or alleviate the effects of a dam failure, and inundation maps. As such, impacts related to exposure of people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 72 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentiall
y
Significan
t Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental Setting
The proposed Project site is located in the central part of the City of Porterville and is currently vacant.

The 11.61-acre Project site is approximately 325 feet south of Olive Avenue and adjacent to the Rails to Trails Parkway, on the western boundary of the parcel. Residences lie past the parkway to the west, Santa Fe Elementary School lies to the south, a commercial strip mall and residences lie to the east and the vacant land lies north. The Project consists of the construction of a multi-sport complex and the associated improvements.

The site is currently zoned PK (Parks and Public Recreation Facilities). The site’s current land use designation is Parks & Recreation. The General Plan Designation, land use and zoning surrounding the site are identified in Table 5.

Table 5
Existing Land Use, General Plan Designation and Zoning
Location Existing Land
Use
Current Zoning
Classification
General Plan
Designation
North Vacant land D-PO (Professional Office) Public/Institutional Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 73 Location Existing Land
Use
Current Zoning
Classification
General Plan
Designation
South Santa Fe
Elementary
School
PS (Public and SemiPublic)Education
West Rails to Trails
Parkway,
residential
development
PK (Parks and Recreation
Facilities), DRM-3 (High
Density Residential)
Parks & Recreation, High
Density Residential
East Commercial
development,
residential
development
PD (Planned
Development)
Retail Centers, High Density
Residential
Existing land uses in City of Porterville have been organized into generalized categories that are summarized below on Table 6. City of Porterville has a 2030 General Plan planned build-out of approximately 36,341 acres in size, equivalent to approximately 56.6 square-miles.

Table 6
Existing Land Use: City of Porterville Planning Area (2005)24 Generalized Land Use Category Total Percentage
Agriculture/Rural/Conservation 21,270 59%
Single-Family Residential 4,760 13%
Multi-Family Residential 240 1%
Retail Shopping 80 0%
Commercial 760 2%
Industrial 350 1%
Public/Quasi-Public 2,630 7%
Vacant 3,590 10%
Unclassified (Roads, water, etc.) 2,661 7%
Total Area 36,341 100%
Regulatory Setting
Federal
24 City of Porterville General Plan, Land Use Element.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 74 Federal regulations for land use are not relevant to the proposed Project because it is not a federal undertaking (the proposed Project site is not located on lands administered by a federal agency, and the Project applicant is not requesting federal funding or a federal permit).

State
The proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA; however, there are no state regulations, plans, programs, or guidelines associated with land use and planning that are applicable to the proposed Project.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
• LU-G-19 Provide sufficient land for parks and open space to meet future demand.

RESPONSES
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed Project is located in the central portion of the City of Porterville, in an area of residential, commercial, and parks land uses. The Project site is currently vacant.

The Project includes construction of a multi-sport complex and the associated improvements on approximately 11.61 acres of land. The Project has no characteristics that would physically divide the City of Porterville.

The site is currently zoned PK (Parks and Public Recreation Facilities) City. The site’s current land use designation is Parks & Recreation. Project development will not conflict with any land use plan, policy, regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect.

With Project approval, the proposed Project will be consistent with Porterville 2030 General Plan objectives and policies and will not significantly conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations of the City of Porterville.

No impacts would occur as a result of this Project.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 75 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Porterville is situated along the western slope of a northwest-trending belt of rocks comprising the Sierra Nevada and within the southern portion of the Cascade Range. The Sierra Nevada geomorphic province is primarily composed of cretaceous granitic plutons and remnants of Paleozoic and Mesozoic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cenozoic volcan and sedimentary rocks.

The majority of the Planning Area has elevations ranging between 400 and 800 feet.

Historically, the quarrying of magnesite was a significant industry in the City of Porterville. Currently, the most economically significant mineral resources in Tulare County are sand, gravel, and crushed stone, used as sources for aggregate (road materials and other construction). The two major sources of aggregate are alluvial deposits (river beds, and floodplains), and hard rock quarries. Consequently, most Tulare County mines are located along rivers at the base of the Sierra foothills.

Tule River contains various State-classified mineral resource zones (MRZ-2a, MRZ-2b, and MRZ-3a).

While this area was once suitable for mining operations, it is now surrounded by urban development.

Approximately 890 acres along the Tule River, or 2.5 percent of all lands within the Planning Area, are within mineral resource zones.

Regulatory Setting
There are no federal, State, or local regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the proposed Project.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 76

RESPONSES
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?
No Impact. As shown in Figure 6-3 of the 2030 General Plan, the proposed Project area is not included in a State classified mineral resource zones. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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? No Impact. As shown in Figure 6-3 of the 2030 General Plan, the proposed Project area is not included in a State classified mineral resource zones. Soil disturbance for the proposed Project would be limited site ground work such as grading, foundations, and installation of infrastructure. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 77 XIII. NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project site is located in the central part of the City of Porterville and is currently vacant. The site is located in an established area that provides a mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, and parks.

The primary existing noise sources contributing to ambient noise in the proposed Project area are traffic noises and noises associated with neighborhoods, a school and commercial businesses.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FRA, fragile buildings can be exposed Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 78 to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.5 PPV without experiencing structural damage. The FTA has identified the human annoyance response to vibration levels as 80 RMS.

State
The California Noise Control Act was enacted in 1973 (Health and Safety Code § 46010 et seq.), and states that the Office of Noise Control (ONC) should provide assistance to local communities in developing local noise control programs. It also indicates that ONC staff will work with the OPR to provide guidance for the preparation of the required noise elements in city and county General Plans, pursuant to Government Code § 65302(f). California Government Code § 65302(f) requires city and county general plans to include a noise element. The purpose of a noise element is to guide future development to enhance future land use compatibility.

In addition, this proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
Measuring and reporting noise levels involves accounting for variations in sensitivity to noise during the daytime versus nighttime hours. Noise descriptors used for analysis need to factor in human sensitivity to nighttime noise when background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime and outside noise intrusions are more noticeable. Common descriptors include the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day-Night Average Level (Ldn). Both reflect noise exposure over an average day with weighting to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise during the evening and night. The two descriptors are roughly equivalent. The CNEL descriptor is used in relation to major continuous noise sources, such as aircraft or traffic, and is the reference level for the Noise Element under State planning law. The Noise Element included in the 2030 City of Porterville General Plan (2008) includes noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. These are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment
Land Use
Category
Community Noise Exposure, Ldn or CNEL dB
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unaccept
able
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential –
Low density
single family,
duplex,
<65
(<45 Interior)
65 to 70 70 to 75 >75
(>45 Interior)
Residential
– Multiple
family
<65
(<45 Interior)
65 to 70 70 to 75 >75
(>45 Interior)
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 79 Land Use
Category
Community Noise Exposure, Ldn or CNEL dB
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unaccept
able
Clearly
Unacceptable
Schools, libraries,
churches,
hospitals, nursing
<70 60 to 75 70 to 80 >80
Industrial,
manufacturing,
utilities,
agriculture
<75 70 to 80 75 to 85 No
levels
identifie
d
Normally acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Porterville General Plan Policies
• N-G-1: Minimize vehicular and stationary noise levels and noise from temporary activities. • N-G-2: Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environment. • N-G-5: Reduce noise intrusion generated by miscellaneous noise sources through conditions of approval to control noise-generating activities. • N-I-7: Require noise from existing mechanical equipment to be reduced by soundproofing materials and sound-deadening installation.

RESPONSES
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? Less than Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the major noise sources in Porterville are related to roadways and vehicle traffic. As shown in Figure 9-2 of the City’s General Plan Noise Element, the Project site’s northern boundary may be exposed to the 55dB CNEL noise contour, located along Olive Avenue.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 80 The site itself is located in an urban area adjacent to roadways that are potentially heavily travelled, particularly Olive Avenue. Noise from the proposed Project will be similar to existing conditions and will generally include noise from vehicles, voices and occasionally motorized equipment (i.e., commercial lawnmowers). It is not expected that the proposed Project will result in a discernable increase in noise to surrounding land uses.

Proposed Project construction related activities will involve temporary noise sources. Typical construction related equipment include graders, trenchers, small tractors and excavators. During the proposed Project construction, noise from construction related activities will contribute to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity; however, the City of Porterville noise ordinance includes limiting construction activities to daytime hours and not allowing construction on certain holidays. The ordinance also restricts construction delivery trucks to daylight hours to avoid noise-sensitive hours of the day.

Activities involved in construction will generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 8, ranging from 79 to 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, without feasible noise control (e.g., mufflers) and ranging from 75 to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, with feasible noise controls.

Table 8
Typical Construction Noise Levels
Type of Equipment dBA at 50 ft
Without Feasible Noise Control With Feasible Noise
Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Truck 91 75
The City of Porterville’s General Plan Noise Element (2008) sets the standard noise threshold of 60 dBA at the exterior of nearby residences; however, it does not identify a short-term, construction-noise-level threshold. The distinction between short-term construction noise impacts and long-term operational noise impacts is a typical one in both CEQA documents and local noise ordinances, which generally recognize the reality that short-term noise from construction is inevitable and cannot be mitigated beyond a certain level. Thus, local agencies frequently tolerate short-term noise at levels that they would not accept for permanent noise sources. A more severe approach would be impractical and might preclude the kind of construction activities that are to be expected from time to time in urban environments. Most residents of urban areas recognize this reality and expect to hear construction activities on occasion.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 81 Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steelwheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. Construction associated with the proposed Project includes the construction of sports field, paved areas and small structures.

The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is the vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Table 9 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

Table 9
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment VdB at 25 ft
Small Bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
Vibration from construction activities will be temporary and not exceed the FTA threshold for the nearest residences, which are located adjacent to the Project site on the eastern boundary.

Impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

None are 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 two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project is not located within the Porterville Municipal Airport’s projected airport influence area. Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 82 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentiall
y
Significan
t Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
According to the Porterville 2030 General Plan, over the past 30 years, the City of Porterville’s population has grown at an average annual rate of 3.7 percent. However, the City’s population growth slowed to an average annual rate of 2.8 percent over the most recent 15 years. In 2006, the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated the City with a population of 45,220 residents. In 2010, the City had an estimated population of 54,165 residents. In 2011 the City grew to 54,676 residents, while the City recorded an approximate population of 55,490 in 2012. According to the most recent California DOF report25, the City currently is at approximately 59,571 residents, a 7.35 percent increase from 2012. Buildout of the 2030 General Plan will accommodate a population of approximately 107,300 in Porterville, which represents an annual population growth rate of 3.7 percent.

Regulatory Setting
The proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA; however, there are no federal, State, or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the proposed Project.

RESPONSES
25 State of California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2020 and 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-1/. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 83 a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. There are no new homes associated with the proposed Project. The new employment opportunities that would be created by the proposed Project could be readily filled by the existing employment base, given the City’s existing unemployment rates. The proposed Project will not affect any regional population, housing, or employment projections anticipated by City policy documents.

There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There are no residential structures currently onsite and the Project will not displace any people; therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 84 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project site is in an area already served by public service systems. The nearest fire station is Porterville Fire Department headquarters, located at 40 W. Cleveland Avenue, approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the proposed Project site. The Porterville Police Department is located approximately 0.6 miles northwest of the proposed Project site at 350 N. D Street.

The Teapot Dome Landfill plant is approximately five miles southwest of the City limits, while the Porterville Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately 2.2 miles northwest of the site. Santa Fe Elementary School is less than one-quarter mile south of the Project site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 85 National Fire Protection Association
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international nonprofit organization that provides consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education on fire prevention and public safety.

The NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates more than 300 such codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other risks. The NFPA publishes the NFPA 1, Uniform Fire Code, which provides requirements to establish a reasonable level of fire safety and property protection in new and existing buildings.

State
California Fire Code and Building Code
The 2019 California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provision of the Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire apparatus access roads, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland urban interface areas.

In addition, the proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
• PHS-I-28: Ensure that new development incorporates safety concerns into the site, circulation, building design and landscaping plans.

RESPONSES
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site will continue to be served by City of Porterville Fire Station No. 2, which is approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the proposed Project site. The Project Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 86 applicant would be required to submit plans to the City Fire Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure the Project would conform to applicable building codes and would provide an on-site fire hydrant system in the event of an on-site fire. The Project would connect to the larger circulation system to ensure adequate provision of emergency access to the Project site. As such, any impacts would be less than significant.

Police Protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will continue to be served by the City of Porterville police department. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in demand for police services; however, this increase would be minimal compared to the number of officers currently employed by the Porterville Police Department and would not trigger the need for new or physically altered police facilities. Additionally, the proposed Project site is in an area of the City planned for residential development. No additional police personnel or equipment is anticipated. The impact is less than significant.

Schools?
No Impact. The direct increase in demand for schools is normally associated with new residential projects that bring new families with school-aged children to a region. The proposed Project does not contain any residential uses. The proposed Project, therefore, would not result in an influx of new students in the Project area and is not expected to result in an increased demand upon District resources and would not require the construction of new facilities. There is no impact.

Parks?
No Impact. The Project itself will improve accessibility to parks and recreation facilities and meet the City’s growing demand for such areas. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no impact.

Other public facilities?
No Impact. The proposed Project is within the Planning Area identified in the City’s General Plan. As such, the Project would not result in increased demand on other public facilities such as library services that has not already been planned for. Accordingly, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 87 XVI. RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Porterville provides its residents several types of parks and recreational facilities. Parks are defined as land owned or leased by the City and used for public recreational purposes. The City classifies parks and recreational facilities in five categories: Pocket Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, Specialized Recreation, and Trail/Parkways. Currently, the City of Porterville has 15 parks for a total of approximately 291 acres of parkland.

These facilities range in size from the 0.1-acre North Park pocket park up to the 95-acre Sports Complex facility. With a 2021 population of 59,571 residents,26 the City has a ratio of 4.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The park ratio is based on Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, and Specialized Recreation areas only. Trails, Community Facilities and Pocket Parks do not contribute to the ratio.

Regulatory Setting
The proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA; however, there are no additional federal, State, or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with recreation that are applicable to the proposed Project.
26 State of California Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2020 and 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-1/. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 88

RESPONSES
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? No Impact. The proposed Project does not include the construction of residential uses and would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities from increased usage or result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. The proposed Project would alleviate the growing demand for such recreational spaces by increasing access to parks and recreation areas for the surrounding communities.

The Project would have no impact to existing parks.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 89 XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 11.61-acre proposed Project site is located in central Porterville, approximately 325 feet south of Olive Avenue and adjacent to the Rails to Trails Parkway, on the western boundary of the parcel. Residences lie further to the west, Santa Fe Elementary School lies to the south, a commercial strip mall and residences lie to the east and vacant land lies north. Porterville is bisected north-south by State Route (SR) 65 and SR 190 runs east-west in the southern portion of the City.

The nearest airport to the proposed Project site is the Porterville Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Transit Administration.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is an authority that provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems, including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 90 The FTA is funded by Title 49 of the United States Code, which states the FTA’s interest in fostering the development and revitalization of public transportation.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Titles I, II, III, IV, and V of the ADA have been codified in Title 42 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 12101. Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation” (businesses and nonprofit agencies that serve the public) and “commercial facilities” (other businesses). The regulation includes Standards for Accessible Design, which establish minimum standards for ensuring accessibility when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility.

State
Senate Bill (SB) 743.

On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and codified a process that changed transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. SB 743 directs the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to administer new CEQA guidance for jurisdictions that removes automobile vehicle delay and LOS or other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestions from CEQA transportation analysis. Rather, it requires the analysis of VMT or other measures that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi‐modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses,” to be used as a basis for determining significant impacts to circulation in California. The goal of SB 743 is to appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to reducing GHG emissions, encourage infill development, and promote public health through active transportation.

Local
The City of Porterville and the Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan designate level of service “D” as the minimum acceptable intersection peak hour level of service standard. On September 21, 2021, the Porterville City Council adopted the Tulare County SB 743 Guidelines for the City’s use pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7.

Porterville General Plan Policies
• C-G-6: Maintain acceptable levels of service and ensure that future development and the circulation system are in balance.
• C-G-7: Ensure that new development pays its fair share of the costs of transportation facilities.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 91 • C-I-12: Continue to require that new development pay a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and local transportation improvements based on traffic generated and impacts on traffic service levels.

RESPONSES
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. There will be staff employed for maintenance of the proposed sports complex; however, an exact number of employees is not known at this time. Personnel assigned to the complex would be expected to generate minimal vehicle trips to and from the site. According to the CalEEMod, the park will generate approximately 178 trips on the weekend and 17 trips on the weekday. This operational aspect would not deteriorate the performance of the existing circulation system. Regarding VMT, the Tulare County SB 743 Guidelines state that projects that generate less than 500 trips per day can be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Additionally, localserving public facilities are also presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT, including parks.27
The Porterville General Plan Circulation Element, describes Olive Avenue, located approximately 325 feet north of the Project site, as an arterial. Arterials are described as roadways designed to move large volumes of traffic between freeways/highways and other arterials in Porterville and to adjacent jurisdictions. The proposed Project is not expected to negatively impact nearby arterials and other roadways, or otherwise result in a decrease in surrounding roadway LOS thresholds.

No roadway design features associated with this proposed Project would result in an increase in hazards due to a design feature or be an incompatible use. The points of ingress/egress to the proposed 27 County of Tulare Draft SB 743 Guidelines. June 8, 2020. https://tularecounty.ca.gov/rma/index.cfm/planning-building/environmentalplanning/environmental-planning-resources/tulare-county-sb-743-guidelines/. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 92 Project site will be sized appropriately for emergency vehicles. As such, the proposed Project has been appropriately designed for emergency access. Any impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 93 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 the Public
Resources Code section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 94

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Federal
The National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) established federal regulations for the purpose of protecting significant cultural resources. The legislation established the National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic Landmarks Program. It mandated the establishment of the Office of Historic Preservation, responsible for implementing statewide historic preservation programs in each state.

State
California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
The California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is responsible for administering federally and State mandated historic preservation programs to further the identification, evaluation, registration and protection of California's irreplaceable archaeological and historical resources under the direction of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), appointed by the governor, and the State Historical Resources Commission, a nine-member state review board appointed by the governor.

Among OHP's responsibilities are identifying, evaluating, and registering historic properties; and ensuring compliance with federal and state regulations. The OHP administers the State Register of Historical Resources and maintains the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) database. The CHRIS database includes statewide Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) database. The records are maintained and managed under contract by eleven independent regional Information Centers. Tulare, Fresno, Kern, Kings and Madera counties are served by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (Center), located in Bakersfield, CA. The Center provides information on known historic and cultural resources to governments, institutions and individuals.28 A historical resource may be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) if it:
 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
 Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; 28 California Office of Historic Preservation, Mission and Responsibilities. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1066, Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 95  Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or  Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.29 Tribal Consultation Requirements: AB 52 (Gatto, 2014)30 This bill was approved by Governor Brown on September 25, 2014 and became effective July 1, 2015. This bill amended Section 5097.94 of, and to add Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to, the Public Resources Code, relating to Native Americans. The bill specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. This bill requires a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated (can be a tribe anywhere within the State of California) with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project.

Existing law establishes the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and vests the commission with specified powers and duties. This bill required the NAHC to provide each California Native American tribe, as defined, on or before July 1, 2016, with a list of all public agencies that may be a lead agency within the geographic area in which the tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated, the contact information of those agencies, and information on how the tribe may request those public agencies to notify the tribe of projects within the jurisdiction of those public agencies for the purposes of requesting consultation.

The NAHC provides protection to Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction, provides a procedure for the notification of most likely descendants regarding the discovery of Native American human remains and associated grave goods, brings legal action to prevent severe and irreparable damage to sacred shrines, ceremonial sites, sanctified cemeteries and place of worship on public property, and maintains an inventory of sacred places.31 29 California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register of Historical Resources: Criteria for Designation. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238. Accessed September 2021. 30 Assembly Bill No. 52, Chapter 532. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB52, Accessed September 2021.
31 Native American Heritage Commission, About the Native American Heritage Commission http://nahc.ca.gov/about/. Accessed September 2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 96 The NAHC performs a Sacred Lands File search for sites located on or near the Project site upon request.

The NAHC also provides local governments with a consultation list of tribal governments with traditional lands or cultural places located within the Project Area of Potential Effect. ASM Affiliates, Inc. notified the following California Native American Tribes pursuant to AB 52 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq.) on behalf of the City of Porterville on September 13, 2021. • Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians
• Dunlap Band of Mono Indians
• Kern Valley Indian Community
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
• Tubatulabals of Kern Valley
• Tule River Indian Tribe
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley band
Tribes were provided 30 days, to request consultation pursuant to those statutes. Keri Vera, Director of the Department of Environmental Protection for the Tule River Tribe, requested a Native American monitor onsite when earthwork is planned. No other comments were received.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
• OSC-I-72: Develop an agreement with Native American representatives for consultation in the cases where new development may result in disturbance to Native American sites.

RESPONSES
a-i, a-ii. 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 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 the Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than Significant Impact. A Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) is defined under Public Resources Code section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 97 and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included and that is listed or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or in a local register of historical resources, or if the City of Porterville, acting as the Lead Agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a TCR. As discussed above, under Section V, Cultural Resources, criteria (b) and (d), no known archeological resources, ethnographic sites or Native American remains are located on the proposed Project site. As discussed under criterion (b) implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits, including TCRs, to a less than significant level. As discussed under criterion (d), compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would reduce the likelihood of disturbing or discovering human remains, including those of Native Americans.

On October 1,2021, Kerri Vera, with the Tule River Tribe (Tribe), emailed ASM Affiliates, Inc., stating that the tribe is familiar with the area and views the site as potentially sensitive, with known cultural sites within the near proximity. As such, the Tribe requested to arrange a Native American monitor onsite when earth work is planned. Implementation of TCR-1 will ensure that impacts to potential tribal cultural resources will remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

TCR-1 Tule River Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all construction grounddisturbing activities. The Tule River Tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop and redirect ground-disturbing activities in order to evaluate the nature and significance of any archaeological resources discovered. At least seven business days prior to ground-disturbing activities, the City shall notify the Tule River Tribe.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 98 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
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?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 99

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Utilities required to serve the proposed Project would include: water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and electricity. Water service, sewage disposal and refuse collection would be provided by the City of Porterville.

Regulatory Setting
State
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Waste Discharge Requirements Program. State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Section 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27).

In general, the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Program (sometimes also referred to as the "Non Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program") regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to section 20230 of Title 2744. Several SWRCB programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. In California, it is the responsibility of Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve and enhance the quality of the state's waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge requirements (WDRs). WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits. Tulare County is within the Central Valley RWQCB's jurisdiction.

In addition, the proposed Project is being evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 100 • OSC-I-44: Work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that all point source pollutants are adequately mitigated (as part of the CEQA review and project approval process) and monitored to ensure long-term compliance.
• OSC-I-51: Prior to the approval of individual projects, require the City Engineer and/or Building Official to verify that the provisions of applicable point source pollution programs have been satisfied.

RESPONSES
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would include a multi-sport complex, comprised of various sports fields, a restroom and storage building, a parking lot and the associated improvements. The Project site is located within the service territory of the Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). Since the WWTF is considered a publicly owned treatment works, operational discharge flows treated at the WWTF would be required to comply with applicable water discharge requirements issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City as well as water discharge requirements outlined by the Central Valley RWQCB would ensure that wastewater discharges coming from the proposed Project site and treated by the WWTF system would not exceed applicable Central Valley RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements.

As discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, with an increase in the area of impervious surfaces on the Project site, an increase in the amount of storm water runoff is anticipated. The site will be designed so that storm water is collected and deposited in the City’s existing storm drain system. The storm water collection system design will be subject to review and approval by the City Public Works Department. Storm water during construction will be managed as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the SWPPP is retained on-site during construction. Thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 101 Less than Significant Impact. See Section X – Hydrology for a full discussion pertaining to available water supply. The site is designated and zoned for urban development and has been accounted for in the General Plan and other infrastructure planning documents. The site land use designation is currently Parks & Recreation.

The City will have sufficient supply to serve the proposed Project and as such, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section XVIII(a), implementation of the proposed Project would result in the need for additional wastewater treatment service; however, the proposed development was accounted for in the General Plan. In addition, as acknowledged in the General Plan, the City will begin planning for additional WWTF capacity to accommodate growth and development allowed under the General Plan when the influent flow reaches 6.4 million gallons per day. Currently, flows average 4.5 MGD. Additionally, the proposed Project applicant would be required to comply with any applicable City and WWTF regulations and would be subject to applicable development impact fees and wastewater connection charges. Therefore, with compliance to applicable standards and payment of required fees and connection charges, the Project would not result in a significant impact related to construction or expansions of existing wastewater treatment facilities.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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? Less than Significant Impact. Disposal services in the City are provided by the City of Porterville. As of 2004, the City’s solid waste was disposed at Teapot Dome landfill, located approximately five miles southwest of the City limits. Teapot Dome is a County-operated Class III landfill permitted to discharge up to 300 tons per day. As of 2004, the landfill was at 84.7 percent capacity with a remaining capacity of 998,468 cubic yards. According to the City’s General Plan, once Teapot Dome landfill reaches capacity, the City anticipates using its transfer facility to divert waste to the Visalia landfill.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 102 The Visalia Disposal Site, located approximately 35 miles northwest of the City limits, is a Countyoperated Class III landfill permitted to discharge up to 2,000 tons a day. As of 2017, there was approximately 18,000,000 cubic yards of capacity with an expected closure date of 2049.32 The estimated closure date is considered to be worst case scenario, where diversion goals are not met.

Pena Disposal accepts all the recyclables for the City. This processing and transfer facility is approximately 35 miles from City limits and 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.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a small increase in solid waste disposal needs; however, this increase would be minimal and, as indicated in the General Plan, the County anticipates the available landfill capacity will be sufficient through 2030. The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to solid waste and landfill facilities.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. See Response f, above. 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.. As such, any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
32 Jonah Trevino, Environmental Coordinator for Tulare County Solid Waste Department. Personal communication on 6/24/2021.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 103 XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Human activities such as smoking, debris burning, and equipment operation are the major causes of wildland fires. Within Tulare County, over 1,029,130 acres (33% of the total area) are classified as “Very High” fire threat and approximately 454,680 acres (15% of the total area) are classified as “High” fire threat. The portion of the county that transitions from the valley floor into the foothills and mountains is characterized by high to very high threat of wildland fires.33 The majority of the Porterville is developed into urban uses or in active agriculture, severely reducing the risk of wildland fire. According to the 33 Tulare County General Plan Background Report. February 2010. Page 8-21.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 104 Tulare County Background Report Figure 8-2, the majority of the City has no threat of wildfire. The proposed Project site is relatively flat in an area actively utilized with residential, commercial and parks uses.

RESPONSES
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in an area developed with residential, commercial and parks uses, which precludes the risk of wildfire. The area is flat in nature which would limit the risk of downslope flooding and landslides, and limit any wildfire spread.

To receive building permits, the proposed Project would be required to be in compliance with the adopted emergency response plan. As such, any wildfire risk to the project structures or people would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 105 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
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, 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?

RESPONSES
a. Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 106 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the proposed Project is not expected to have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. 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)?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). The impact is less than significant. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Heritage Complex Project | Initial Study
CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 107

LIST OF PREPARERS
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
• Emily Bowen, LEED AP, Principal Environmental Planner • Travis Crawford, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner • Caroline Gibbons, Assistant Planner
Persons and Agencies Consulted
City of Porterville
• Troy Andres, Assistant Planner
• Jeff O’Neal, Contract City Planner
• Jason Ridenour, Community Development Director
California Historic Resources Information System
• Celeste Thomson, Coordinator
Appendix A
CalEEMod Output Files
Project Characteristics - Construction is anticipated to begin spring of '22.

Land Use -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 9.00 Acre 9.00 392,040.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
7 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Porterville Heritage Complex
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

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 0.1278 1.2385 0.9126 2.0000e0030.1921 0.0561 0.2482 0.0932 0.0522 0.1453 0.0000 177.7401 177.7401 0.0372 0.0000 178.6689 2022 0.2542 2.3034 2.2422 5.7600e0030.1712 0.0867 0.2579 0.0465 0.0815 0.1279 0.0000 516.9214 516.9214 0.0747 0.0000 518.7889 Maximum 0.2542 2.3034 2.2422 5.7600e0030.1921 0.0867 0.2579 0.0932 0.0815 0.1453 0.0000 516.9214 516.9214 0.0747 0.0000 518.7889 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 0.1278 1.2385 0.9126 2.0000e0030.1921 0.0561 0.2482 0.0932 0.0522 0.1453 0.0000 177.7400 177.7400 0.0372 0.0000 178.6687 2022 0.2542 2.3034 2.2422 5.7600e0030.1712 0.0867 0.2579 0.0465 0.0815 0.1279 0.0000 516.9211 516.9211 0.0747 0.0000 518.7887 Maximum 0.2542 2.3034 2.2422 5.7600e0030.1921 0.0867 0.2579 0.0932 0.0815 0.1453 0.0000 516.9211 516.9211 0.0747 0.0000 518.7887 Mitigated 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 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.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

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 3.6900e0030.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e0041.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 1.7000e004 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 0.0196 0.2123 0.1803 8.8000e0040.0512 7.4000e0040.0520 0.0138 7.0000e0040.0145 0.0000 81.9465 81.9465 6.2900e0030.0000 82.1038 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1563 0.0000 0.1563 9.2400e0030.0000 0.3872 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0233 0.2123 0.1804 8.8000e0040.0512 7.4000e0040.0520 0.0138 7.0000e0040.0145 0.1563 81.9466 82.1029 0.0155 0.0000 82.4912 Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.0489 1.0489
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 0.8386 0.8386
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.8270 0.8270
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.8261 0.8261
5 9-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.2556 0.2556
Highest 1.0489 1.0489
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

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 3.6900e0030.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e0041.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 1.7000e004 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 0.0196 0.2123 0.1803 8.8000e0040.0512 7.4000e0040.0520 0.0138 7.0000e0040.0145 0.0000 81.9465 81.9465 6.2900e0030.0000 82.1038 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1563 0.0000 0.1563 9.2400e0030.0000 0.3872 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0233 0.2123 0.1804 8.8000e0040.0512 7.4000e0040.0520 0.0138 7.0000e0040.0145 0.1563 81.9466 82.1029 0.0155 0.0000 82.4912 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
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.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 9/28/2021 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/29/2021 10/12/2021 5 10 3 Grading Grading 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20
4 Building Construction Building Construction 11/10/2021 9/27/2022 5 230 5 Paving Paving 9/28/2022 10/25/2022 5 20
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/26/2022 11/22/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 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
Off-Road 0.0317 0.3144 0.2157 3.9000e0040.0155 0.0155 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 34.0008 34.0008 9.5700e0030.0000 34.2400 Total 0.0317 0.3144 0.2157 3.9000e0040.0155 0.0155 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 34.0008 34.0008 9.5700e0030.0000 34.2400 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
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
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 165.00 64.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 33.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 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 5.8000e0043.8000e0043.9700e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0395 1.0395 3.0000e0050.0000 1.0402 Total 5.8000e0043.8000e0043.9700e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0395 1.0395 3.0000e0050.0000 1.0402 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 0.0317 0.3144 0.2157 3.9000e0040.0155 0.0155 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 34.0007 34.0007 9.5700e0030.0000 34.2400 Total 0.0317 0.3144 0.2157 3.9000e0040.0155 0.0155 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 34.0007 34.0007 9.5700e0030.0000 34.2400 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 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 5.8000e0043.8000e0043.9700e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0395 1.0395 3.0000e0050.0000 1.0402 Total 5.8000e0043.8000e0043.9700e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0395 1.0395 3.0000e0050.0000 1.0402 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e0040.0102 0.0102 9.4000e0039.4000e0030.0000 16.7179 16.7179 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8530 Total 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e0040.0903 0.0102 0.1006 0.0497 9.4000e0030.0591 0.0000 16.7179 16.7179 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8530 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.3 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 3.5000e0042.3000e0042.3800e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.6237 0.6237 2.0000e0050.0000 0.6241 Total 3.5000e0042.3000e0042.3800e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.6237 0.6237 2.0000e0050.0000 0.6241 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 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e0040.0102 0.0102 9.4000e0039.4000e0030.0000 16.7178 16.7178 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8530 Total 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e0040.0903 0.0102 0.1006 0.0497 9.4000e0030.0591 0.0000 16.7178 16.7178 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8530 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.3 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 3.5000e0042.3000e0042.3800e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.6237 0.6237 2.0000e0050.0000 0.6241 Total 3.5000e0042.3000e0042.3800e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.6237 0.6237 2.0000e0050.0000 0.6241 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0655 0.0000 0.0655 0.0337 0.0000 0.0337 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0229 0.2474 0.1586 3.0000e0040.0116 0.0116 0.0107 0.0107 0.0000 26.0537 26.0537 8.4300e0030.0000 26.2644 Total 0.0229 0.2474 0.1586 3.0000e0040.0655 0.0116 0.0771 0.0337 0.0107 0.0443 0.0000 26.0537 26.0537 8.4300e0030.0000 26.2644 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.4 Grading - 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 5.8000e0043.8000e0043.9700e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0395 1.0395 3.0000e0050.0000 1.0402 Total 5.8000e0043.8000e0043.9700e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0395 1.0395 3.0000e0050.0000 1.0402 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 0.0655 0.0000 0.0655 0.0337 0.0000 0.0337 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0229 0.2474 0.1586 3.0000e0040.0116 0.0116 0.0107 0.0107 0.0000 26.0537 26.0537 8.4300e0030.0000 26.2643 Total 0.0229 0.2474 0.1586 3.0000e0040.0655 0.0116 0.0771 0.0337 0.0107 0.0443 0.0000 26.0537 26.0537 8.4300e0030.0000 26.2643 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.4 Grading - 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 5.8000e0043.8000e0043.9700e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0395 1.0395 3.0000e0050.0000 1.0402 Total 5.8000e0043.8000e0043.9700e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0395 1.0395 3.0000e0050.0000 1.0402 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 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
Off-Road 0.0361 0.3312 0.3149 5.1000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 44.0111 44.0111 0.0106 0.0000 44.2765 Total 0.0361 0.3312 0.3149 5.1000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 44.0111 44.0111 0.0106 0.0000 44.2765 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 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 3.9200e0030.1341 0.0245 3.4000e0048.0600e0033.8000e0048.4400e0032.3300e0033.6000e0042.6900e0030.0000 32.5294 32.5294 2.4800e0030.0000 32.5915 Worker 0.0122 8.0000e0030.0829 2.4000e0040.0251 1.7000e0040.0252 6.6600e0031.6000e0046.8200e0030.0000 21.7247 21.7247 5.7000e0040.0000 21.7391 Total 0.0161 0.1421 0.1074 5.8000e0040.0331 5.5000e0040.0337 8.9900e0035.2000e0049.5100e0030.0000 54.2541 54.2541 3.0500e0030.0000 54.3305 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 0.0361 0.3312 0.3149 5.1000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 44.0110 44.0110 0.0106 0.0000 44.2765 Total 0.0361 0.3312 0.3149 5.1000e0040.0182 0.0182 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 44.0110 44.0110 0.0106 0.0000 44.2765 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 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 3.9200e0030.1341 0.0245 3.4000e0048.0600e0033.8000e0048.4400e0032.3300e0033.6000e0042.6900e0030.0000 32.5294 32.5294 2.4800e0030.0000 32.5915 Worker 0.0122 8.0000e0030.0829 2.4000e0040.0251 1.7000e0040.0252 6.6600e0031.6000e0046.8200e0030.0000 21.7247 21.7247 5.7000e0040.0000 21.7391 Total 0.0161 0.1421 0.1074 5.8000e0040.0331 5.5000e0040.0337 8.9900e0035.2000e0049.5100e0030.0000 54.2541 54.2541 3.0500e0030.0000 54.3305 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 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 0.1638 1.4991 1.5709 2.5900e0030.0777 0.0777 0.0731 0.0731 0.0000 222.4562 222.4562 0.0533 0.0000 223.7886 Total 0.1638 1.4991 1.5709 2.5900e0030.0777 0.0777 0.0731 0.0731 0.0000 222.4562 222.4562 0.0533 0.0000 223.7886 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 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 0.0184 0.6418 0.1140 1.7100e0030.0407 1.6500e0030.0424 0.0118 1.5800e0030.0134 0.0000 162.8325 162.8325 0.0121 0.0000 163.1350 Worker 0.0571 0.0361 0.3818 1.1700e0030.1266 8.4000e0040.1275 0.0337 7.8000e0040.0344 0.0000 105.8444 105.8444 2.5900e0030.0000 105.9091 Total 0.0755 0.6779 0.4958 2.8800e0030.1674 2.4900e0030.1699 0.0454 2.3600e0030.0478 0.0000 268.6769 268.6769 0.0147 0.0000 269.0441 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 0.1638 1.4991 1.5709 2.5900e0030.0777 0.0777 0.0731 0.0731 0.0000 222.4560 222.4560 0.0533 0.0000 223.7883 Total 0.1638 1.4991 1.5709 2.5900e0030.0777 0.0777 0.0731 0.0731 0.0000 222.4560 222.4560 0.0533 0.0000 223.7883 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.5 Building Construction - 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 0.0184 0.6418 0.1140 1.7100e0030.0407 1.6500e0030.0424 0.0118 1.5800e0030.0134 0.0000 162.8325 162.8325 0.0121 0.0000 163.1350 Worker 0.0571 0.0361 0.3818 1.1700e0030.1266 8.4000e0040.1275 0.0337 7.8000e0040.0344 0.0000 105.8444 105.8444 2.5900e0030.0000 105.9091 Total 0.0755 0.6779 0.4958 2.8800e0030.1674 2.4900e0030.1699 0.0454 2.3600e0030.0478 0.0000 268.6769 268.6769 0.0147 0.0000 269.0441 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 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 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e0045.6800e0035.6800e0035.2200e0035.2200e0030.0000 20.0276 20.0276 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1895 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e0045.6800e0035.6800e0035.2200e0035.2200e0030.0000 20.0276 20.0276 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1895 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.6 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 5.4000e0043.4000e0043.6200e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0023 1.0023 2.0000e0050.0000 1.0029 Total 5.4000e0043.4000e0043.6200e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0023 1.0023 2.0000e0050.0000 1.0029 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 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e0045.6800e0035.6800e0035.2200e0035.2200e0030.0000 20.0275 20.0275 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1895 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0110 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e0045.6800e0035.6800e0035.2200e0035.2200e0030.0000 20.0275 20.0275 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1895 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.6 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 5.4000e0043.4000e0043.6200e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0023 1.0023 2.0000e0050.0000 1.0029 Total 5.4000e0043.4000e0043.6200e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 1.0023 1.0023 2.0000e0050.0000 1.0029 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 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
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0500e0030.0141 0.0181 3.0000e0058.2000e0048.2000e0048.2000e0048.2000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e0040.0000 2.5574 Total 2.0500e0030.0141 0.0181 3.0000e0058.2000e0048.2000e0048.2000e0048.2000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e0040.0000 2.5574 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

3.7 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 1.1900e0037.5000e0047.9500e0032.0000e0052.6400e0032.0000e0052.6600e0037.0000e0042.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.2051 2.2051 5.0000e0050.0000 2.2064 Total 1.1900e0037.5000e0047.9500e0032.0000e0052.6400e0032.0000e0052.6600e0037.0000e0042.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.2051 2.2051 5.0000e0050.0000 2.2064 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0500e0030.0141 0.0181 3.0000e0058.2000e0048.2000e0048.2000e0048.2000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e0040.0000 2.5574 Total 2.0500e0030.0141 0.0181 3.0000e0058.2000e0048.2000e0048.2000e0048.2000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e0040.0000 2.5574 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 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 1.1900e0037.5000e0047.9500e0032.0000e0052.6400e0032.0000e0052.6600e0037.0000e0042.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.2051 2.2051 5.0000e0050.0000 2.2064 Total 1.1900e0037.5000e0047.9500e0032.0000e0052.6400e0032.0000e0052.6600e0037.0000e0042.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 2.2051 2.2051 5.0000e0050.0000 2.2064 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual 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 0.0196 0.2123 0.1803 8.8000e0040.0512 7.4000e0040.0520 0.0138 7.0000e0040.0145 0.0000 81.9465 81.9465 6.2900e0030.0000 82.1038 Unmitigated 0.0196 0.2123 0.1803 8.8000e0040.0512 7.4000e0040.0520 0.0138 7.0000e0040.0145 0.0000 81.9465 81.9465 6.2900e0030.0000 82.1038

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
City Park 17.01 204.75 150.66 134,331 134,331
Total 17.01 204.75 150.66 134,331 134,331
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 City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.511925 0.031902 0.170344 0.119204 0.018408 0.005097 0.021580 0.111258 0.001794 0.001564 0.005229 0.000954 0.000741 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual 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

5.2 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
City Park 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 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

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

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
City Park 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 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

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
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 3.6900e0030.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e0041.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 1.7000e004 Unmitigated 3.6900e0030.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e0041.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 1.7000e004

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

3.6900e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e0041.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 1.7000e004 Total 3.7000e0030.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e0041.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 1.7000e004 Unmitigated
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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

3.6900e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e0041.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 1.7000e004 Total 3.7000e0030.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6000e0041.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 1.7000e004 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
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
City Park 0 /

10.7233

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated

7.0 Water Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
City Park 0 /

10.7233

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1563 9.2400e0030.0000 0.3872
Unmitigated 0.1563 9.2400e0030.0000 0.3872
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.77 0.1563 9.2400e0030.0000 0.3872
Total 0.1563 9.2400e0030.0000 0.3872
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.77 0.1563 9.2400e0030.0000 0.3872
Total 0.1563 9.2400e0030.0000 0.3872
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual

11.0 Vegetation

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.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 31 Date: 9/1/2021 8:38 PM Porterville Heritage Complex - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual Appendix B
CHRIS Results Letter
8/31/2021

David Whitley
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
20424 West Valley Blvd., Suite A
Tehachapi, CA 93561
Re: Olive Avenue Park Project – Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.

Records Search File No.: 21-303
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Porterville USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☐ custom GIS maps ☒ GIS data
Resources within project area: None
Resources within 0.5 mile radius: 71 resources (list enclosed) Reports within project area: None
Reports within 0.5 mile radius: 3 reports (list enclosed) Note: Search excludes data previously provided with Record Search 20-143, per the Data Request Form.

Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Report Copies: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Note: Only the Title Page, Table of Contents, & Executive Summary of TU-00102 was included.

OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Note: P-15-007046 is not listed in the BERD. The 2013 HPD page was included for this resource.

Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/cultural-studies/california-historical-bridges-tunnels Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1 and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Sincerely,
Celeste M. Thomson
Coordinator
SSJVIC Record Search 21-303
Reports in .5 Mi: Resources in .5Mi:

TU-00532 P-54-000573 P-54-002881
TU-01303 P-54-002207 P-54-002882
TU-01886 P-54-002806 P-54-002883
P-54-002827 P-54-002884
P-54-002828 P-54-002885
P-54-002829 P-54-002886
P-54-002830 P-54-002895
P-54-002831 P-54-002896
P-54-002832 P-54-002897
P-54-002833 P-54-002898
P-54-002834 P-54-002899
P-54-002835 P-54-002900
P-54-002836 P-54-002901
P-54-002837 P-54-002902
P-54-002838 P-54-002903
P-54-002839 P-54-002904
P-54-002840 P-54-002905
P-54-002841 P-54-003218
P-54-002842 P-54-004032
P-54-002843 P-54-004355
P-54-002844 P-54-004356
P-54-002845 P-54-004358
P-54-002846 P-54-004359
P-54-002847 P-54-004360
P-54-002848 P-54-004361
P-54-002849
P-54-002850
P-54-002861
P-54-002863
P-54-002864
P-54-002865
P-54-002866
P-54-002867
P-54-002868
P-54-002869
P-54-002870
P-54-002871
P-54-002872
P-54-002873
P-54-002874
P-54-002875
P-54-002876
P-54-002877
P-54-002878
P-54-002879
P-54-002880

Item No. 20.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – AUGUST 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Formation of Sewer Utility District 479A
SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT:

This is the time and place set forth for the Public Hearing on the formation of the Area 479A Sewer Utility District. Ballot and information materials were distributed on May 23, 2022, to Area 479A stakeholders. The official end to the ballot process is at the end of tonight’s Public Hearing. Property owners have until then to submit ballots in support or opposition of the formation of the District and the imposition of the assessment.

Assessments for the District were determined in the Engineering Report and accepted by the City Council at its meeting on June 20, 2022. Pursuant to the notices provided to the property owners, assessments per lot were determined by lot acreage divided by contractor bid plus ten percent (10%) contingency, bid lateral cost plus ten percent (10%) contingency, and a $969.41 per lot construction management fee (10% of bid). The City proposes the following:

1. If Area 479A Sewer Utility District Passes:
a) Property owners receive a one-time assessment calculated using final construction costs or cost based on the City’s Schedule ‘H’, whichever is the lesser amount, payable over thirty (30) years adjusted three percent (3%) interest compounded annually and billed through the Tulare County Assessor’s Office beginning December 2023, or December 2024, depending on acceptance of project by the Council.
b) At the time of connection, the property owner/s or a licensed plumbing contractor secures a plumbing permit and abandons the septic system to County standards. Monthly service charges for sewer begin at time of connection. c) Property owners who do not want collection of the assessment to occur via the above-mentioned method have until June 30, 2023, or June 30, 2024, depending on acceptance of the project by the Council, to inform the City in writing by signing a "decline to participate" form once final costs have been calculated. These property owners shall pay connection fees per Exhibit “H” at the time of connection and the cost of the lateral thereafter.

2. If Area 479A Sewer Utility District Fails:
a) Sewer mains and laterals are installed per plans and specifications. b) Property owners wishing to connect to the City’s sewer system shall secure a plumbing permit, abandon the existing septic system per County standards, and pay all connection fees based on actual construction costs, adjusted three percent (3%) interest compounded annually, or per the City’s Exhibit “H”, Item No. 20.
“Connection Fees” schedule and the cost of the lateral, whichever is the lesser amount.

The number of ballots makes it infeasible to tabulate and announce whether a Sewer Utility District has been formed or not formed during the Public Hearing.

Staff recommends that the Council direct the City Clerk to count and tabulate the votes on August 3, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in the Jay C. Coleman Conference Room, located in City Hall. The tabulation process is open to the public. The results will be presented to the Council at its meeting on August 16, 2022. No assessment may be imposed if a “majority protest” exists. A “majority protest” exists if the ballots submitted in opposition exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment.

RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

1. Open the Public Hearing, take comments, and accept any ballots; and

2. Instruct the City Clerk to receive all ballots, and count said votes on August 3, 2022, in the Jay C. Coleman Conference Room, located in City Hall, at 9:00 am and report to the Council the outcome of the voting at its meeting on August 16, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Javier Sanchez, Engineering & Project Management Director Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

ENGINEERING DIVISION

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 NORTH MAIN STREET PORTERVILLE, CA. 93257
(559) 782-7462 SEWER ANNEXATION
NUMBER 479A

SUBJECT

LOCATIONS BEVERLY ST

W OLIVE AVE S NEWCOMB ST
W ROBY AVE S PROSPECT ST STATE HIGHWAY 65 S COBB ST
LEGEND

ANNEXATION LIMITS

EXISTING SEWER MAIN

PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
Item No. 21.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – AUGUST 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of Request to Accept Donation of Banner Sign Poles on Main Street
SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT: The Arts Commission was established in October 2010 by Ordinance 1767, with the primary duties identified as making recommendations to the City Council regarding development and promotion of practices and policies pertaining to the arts and fostering the development and enjoyment of visual, cultural, performing, and other arts in the City of Porterville.

City staff received a request from the Porterville Exchange Club, requesting that the City consider approving the installation of two banner sign poles to be located on Main Street in the area of City Hall and Centennial Park. The Porterville Exchange Club is proposing to solicit community funds and donate the funds to the City to complete the banner sign pole project, similar to the Time Marches on Committee donations of the Frank "Buck" Shaffer Memorial Clock and the Marching Through Time mural in Centennial Park. The project would provide the City with the ability to install banners across Main Street to promote City-sponsored events.

The request by the Porterville Exchange Club was considered by the City’s Arts Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 24, 2022, at which time the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the installation of two banner sign poles in a location to be determined by the Council and that the poles be consistent with historic light poles located along Main Street. The proposed banner sign poles are consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policy LU-G-20 to enhance Porterville’s Downtown as a pedestrian-oriented district that reflects local history and culture.

The use of banner sign poles will require the establishment of a policy that clearly and concisely outlines the approved uses and types of banners that would be able to be displayed across Main Street. The Main Street banner policy will aid in the utilization of the banner poles and ensure that the City is in compliance with all laws and regulations.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1.) Consider the recommendation of the Arts Commission to approve the request from the Porterville Exchange Club for the acceptance of the donation and installation of two banner sign poles on Main Street; and
Item No. 21.

2.) Direct staff to develop a draft policy for the use of the banner poles for City Council’s consideration prior to the installation of the banner sign poles.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Rendering of Banner Sign Poles
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Jason Ridenour, Community Development Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

Item No. 22.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – AUGUST 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of Draft Memorandum of Understanding Proposed by the Porterville Chamber of Commerce
SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: As the City Council is aware, on May 11, 2022, the Porterville Chamber of Commerce provided written notice to the City that it was unilaterally terminating the Agreement between the Chamber and the City effective June 30, 2022. The Chamber prepared and presented a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Council's consideration of how the Chamber and the City could continue to coordinate in support of the community. At its meeting on July 13, 2022, the Internal City Audit Committee considered the draft MOU as presented by the Chamber, and recommends approval by the Council.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the draft Mememorandum of Understanding proposed by the Porterville Chamber of
Commerce, and provide direction as determined.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Porterville Chamber of Commerce Proposed Memorandum of Understanding
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

John Lollis, City Manager
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager