Porterville City Council
February 7, 2023

City Council Agenda February 7, 2023

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY HALL, 291 N. MAIN STREET

PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 7, 2023, 5:30 PM
Pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361, signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021, the City of Porterville is allowing for and encouraging electronic participation at City Council Meetings. Until further notice, Porterville City Council Meetings will be live streamed on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5KuhSrNMNL9nwHJVtnJvvA Alternatively, this meeting will also be available via Zoom using the following information Topic: City of Porterville – City Council Meeting of February 07, 2023 Please use the following link below to join the webinar:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82006398898?pwd=T3RoNGE1TFFiU3dtNlhSeDd5bHJpdz09 Or via Telephone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 820 0639 8898 Passcode: 528057 Call to Order
Roll Call

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is the opportunity to address the City Council on any matter scheduled for Closed Session. Unless additional time is authorized by the Council, all commentary shall be limited to three minutes.

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:

A. Closed Session Pursuant to:
1 - Government Code Section 54957.6 – Conference with Labor Negotiator. Agency Negotiator: John Lollis and Yuliana Andrade. Employee Organizations: Porterville City Firefighters Association.
2 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: State Farm Insurance Company as Subrogee of Pamela Plumlee. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville.
3 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Ivonne Villagomez. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville. 4 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Porfiria Martinez. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville.
5 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Federated Mutual Insurance/M&S Pump Company/Ryan Pouncey. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville.

City Council Agenda February 7, 2023

6 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Juan and Beatriz Chavez. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville.

7 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Reyes Soto v. California Department of Transportation et al., Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2022-00316708.

8 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(3) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant Exposure to Litigation: Six (6) cases in which facts are not yet known to potential plaintiff.
9 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Initiation of Litigation: One (1) case. 6:30 P.M. RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND REPORT ON REPORTABLE ACTION

TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
Pledge of Allegiance Led by Vice Mayor Carrillo
Invocation

PRESENTATIONS

Miss Porterville Queen and Court
Employee of the Month - Carlos Meza
Porterville Police Department - Recognition for Excellence in Policy and Training Management

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is the opportunity to address the Council on any matter of interest, whether on the agenda or not. Please address all items not scheduled for public hearing at this time. Unless additional time is authorized by the Council, all commentary shall be limited to three minutes.

AB 1234 REPORTS
This is the time for all AB 1234 reports required pursuant to Government Code § 53232.3.

1. Tulare County Task Force on Homelessness - January 18, 2023

2. Council of Cities - January 18, 2023 - Canceled

3. City Selection Committee - January 18, 2023 - Canceled

4. Porterville Area Development Authority Board Meeting - January 20, 2023 - Canceled

5. League of California Cities - New Mayors and Council Members Academy - January 18-20, 2023

6. Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee - January 24, 2023

7. Tulare County Economic Development Corporation Board Meeting - January 25, 2023
City Council Agenda February 7, 2023

8. Homeless Point-in-Time Survey - January 25, 2023

9. Internal City Audit Committee - January 25, 2023

10. Mighty 190 Committee - January 26, 2023

11. Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) / Tulare County Transportation Authority (TCTA) - January 30, 2023

12. Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA) - January 30, 2023

13. The U.S. Forest Service Headquarters Ribbon-Cutting - February 1, 2023

14. Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Committee Meeting - February 1, 2023

15. Tulare County Association of Governments Board Training - February 2, 2023

16. Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (ETGSA) Board Meeting - February 2, 2023

17. Police Department Badge Pinning Ceremony - February 6, 2023

REPORTS
This is the time for all committee/commission/board reports; subcommittee reports; and staff informational items.

I. Staff Informational Reports
Code Enforcement Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022) OHV Park Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022) Golf Course Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022) Charitable Car Washes Quarterly Report Calendar Year 2022 City Council Member Appointments Attendance Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022)
City Commission and Committee Attendance Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022)
Street Performance Measure Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022)
Building Permit Activity Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022)

CONSENT CALENDAR
All Consent Calendar Items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar. All items removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion will be heard at the end of Scheduled Matters.

1. City Council Minutes of January 17, 2023
Re: Considering approval of the City Council Meeting draft Minutes of September 01, 2020, and September 23, 2020.

2. Authorization to Replace City Hall Exterior Door
City Council Agenda February 7, 2023

Re: Consideration to authorize the replacement of the southeast exterior door of City Hall for $7,465.94 from Lindsay House of Glass.

3. Authorization to Repair Specialized Equipment - Primary Clarifier Center Drive Re: Consideration to award the repair of the primary clarifier center drive at Plant No. 2 to GSE Contruction in an amount not-to-exceed $150,000, which includes repair parts, labor, freight, taxes and a ten percent (10%) contingency .

4. Authorization to Purchase Aeronautical Light Beacon for the Airport Re: Consideration to authorize the purchase of a new LED rotating beacon for the Porterville Municipal Airport from Hali-Brite for $14,530.73, in addition to the related use tax, shipping, and other charges.

5. Authorization to Purchase Replacement Pump and Motor for City Well No. 1A Re: Considering authorization for approval to purchase repair parts for City Well No. 1 A, initiation of a Purchase Order, and payment to S.A. Camp in an amount not to exceed $18,852.

6. Authorization to Distribute a Request for Qualifications for Skatepark Improvements Re: Consideration to authorize staff to distribute a Request for Qualifications for the Skatepark Improvements Project located at Veterans Park.

7. Authorization to Distribute a Request for Qualifications for Hayes Field Lighting Project
Re: Consideration to authorize staff to distribute a Request for Qualifications for the Hayes Field Lighting Project located at 945 W. Mulberry Avenue.

8. Authorization to Award - Akin and Central Mutual Water System Improvement Project
Re: Consideration to award the Akin and Central Mutual Water System Improvement Project generally located in the area of Lincoln Street at Fourth Street and north of Gibbons Avenue to RT Nelson Company, Inc. in the amount of $862,644.

9. Acceptance of Project - Island Annexation Area 457 Sewer Project Re: Consideration to accept the Island Annexation Area 457 Sewer Project, which is generally bound by State Route 65 to the west, State Route 190 to the north, and Chess Terrace Street to the east, as complete.

10. Financial Status Reports
Re: Consideration to accept the Financial Status Reports for Second Quarter of FY 2022- 2023 (October - December 2022).

11. Quarterly Investment Portfolio
Re: Consideration of the quarterly Investment Portfolio Summary Report.

12. Reaffirm Conditions of State Assembly Bill 361 to Continue Remote Attendance at Public Meetings
Re: Consider adoption of a draft Resolution consistent with AB 361 to continue to allow remote attendance at public meetings.

A Council Meeting Recess Will Occur at 8:30 p.m., or as Close to That Time as Possible City Council Agenda February 7, 2023

PUBLIC HEARINGS

13. Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project
Re: Consideration to open the continued Public Hearing to receive comments on the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project; and adopt a draft Resolution, adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program; adopt the draft Resolution, amending the General Plan to reflect the Land Use designation of the site as Low-Density Residential; adopt the draft Resolution, approving the conditional use permit; adopt the draft Resolution, approving the tentative subdivision map with conditions; and adopt a draft Resolution, requesting that Tulare County LAFCo initiate proceedings for annexation.

SECOND READINGS

14. Second Reading - Ordinance No. 1900 - Zone Change (PRC 2022-012-Z), from RM-3 (High-Density Residential) to CG (General and Service Commercial) for the Development of a Future Bakery
Re: Giving Second Reading of Ordinance 1900, an Ordinance rezoning property located on a 0.17± acre parcel (APN 260-204-009) on the west side of “F” Street just north of Olive Avenue.

SCHEDULED MATTERS

15. CDBG Citizens’ Advisory and Housing Opportunity Committee and Citizen Participation Plan
Re: Consideration to adopt the 2023 Citizen Participation Plan and to appoint existing Committee members and two new members to the Citizens' Advisory and Housing Opportunity Committee for a one-year term.

16. Consider a Letter of Commitment as a Key Community Partner to the Tulare County Regional Transit Agency as the Lead Applicant to the United States Department of Transportation "Thriving Communities Program"
Re: Consider approval of a Letter of Commitment as an identified Key Community Partner to the Tulare County Regional Transit Agency as the Lead Applicant to the United States Department of Transportation "Thriving Communities Program."

17. Consider the Formation of a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Annually Review the Implementation of the City's General Plan.

Re: Consider the formation of a Council Ad Hoc Committee to annually review the implementation of the City's General Plan.

18. Status and Review of Local Emergency Drought
Re: Considering approval of the continuance of the Declaration of Local Emergency.

19. Consideration of Amendments to the City Council Procedural Handbook Re: Consideration of amendments to the City Council Procedural Handbook.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

OTHER MATTERS
City Council Agenda February 7, 2023

CLOSED SESSION
Any Closed Session Items not completed prior to 6:30 p.m. will be considered at this time.

ADJOURNMENT - to the meeting of February 21, 2023 at 5:30 P.M.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Ralph M. Brown Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, or to be able to access this agenda and documents in the agenda packet, please contact the Office of City Clerk at (559) 782-7464.

Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and/or provision of an appropriate alternative format of the agenda and documents in the agenda packet.

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the Agenda packet are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Office of City Clerk, 291 North Main Street, Porterville, CA 93257, and on the City’s website at www.ci.porterville.ca.us.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022) SOURCE: Fire
COMMENT: This informational report utilizes data from the “myPorterville” application for tracking code enforcement activity between October 1 and December 31, 2022.

During the second quarter of fiscal year 2022/2023, each Department of the City contributed towards recording 667 code enforcement issues. Of these, 418 were corrected and 249 were continued into the third quarter of 2022/2023 for additional corrective action. The Code Enforcement Division issued thirty-two (32) Administrative Citations.

At its meeting on July 20, 2021, the City Council reviewed its Ordinance related to the parking and storing of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers.

During the past quarter, Code Enforcement received ten (10) complaints specific to recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers, of which three had been completed at the time of this report.

RECOMMENDATION: Informational Only
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Code Enforcement Quarterly Report (October - December 2022)
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Bryan Cogburn, Fire Chief
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
Code Enforcement Report, Quarter 2, FY 22-23
Q1 Code Enforcement Activity # Requests # Completed % Closed Administrative Citations Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Abandoned Vehicle (Street) 48 47 97.92% $100 11 13 $2,400 Animal Control Services 1 1 100.00% $200 3 4 $1,400
Animals- agricultural animals 1 1 100.00% $500 8 12 $10,000 Animals- barking dogs 21 21 100.00% $1,000 2 3 $5,000
Animals- keeping too many or unauthorized species 4 4 100.00% $2,500 23 0 $57,500 Building Department/ Permits 12 0 0.00% FY 22-23 Total Assesment 47 32 0 0 $76,300 CEO, Building permit check 2 2 100.00%
CEO, Business License 2 1 50.00% Shopping Carts Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total CEO, Shopping Carts 32 32 100.00% Collected 39 49 88
CEO, Sign Removal 78 78 100.00% Disposed (Lbs.) 0 0 0
Code Enforcement, General 34 29 85.29%
Community Development, General or MULTIPLE violations 9 0 0.00% Private Property Vehicle Abatements Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Engineering 4 0 0.00% Voluntary Abatement 3 11 14
Fences and freestanding walls 2 0 0.00% Certified Voluntary Abatement 0 1 1 Fire Hydrant Leaking 1 0 0.00% Towed 5 1 6
Fire Information, Reporting of 3 3 100.00% Total Vehicles Abated 8 13 0 5 21 Garbage Collection/ Illegal Dumping 14 5 35.71%
Graffiti 9 9 100.00%
Health Hazard 5 0 0.00% Weed Abatement Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Housing Issue (Structure Related) 3 1 33.33% Properties Noticed 12 3 15 Itinerant Vendor, Solicitor, Peddler 11 11 100.00% Completed by Owner 116 2 118 Landscaping/trees- private property 6 0 0.00% Assigned to Contractor (private) 0 0 0 Medians 1 1 100.00% Assigned to Contractor (city owned) 0 0 0 Meter Request 123 4 3.25% Completed by Contractor 0 0 0 Neglected property/trash & debris 11 2 18.18% Admin Citations 0 3 3 Parking Issue 1 1 100.00%
Parks 8 8 100.00%
Police/ Traffic Enforcement 32 31 96.88%
Potholes 5 5 100.00%
Refuse Can Replacement / Repair 4 3 75.00%
Report Leak 37 8 21.62%
Sidewalk Condition 5 1 20.00%
Signs- Temporary 3 1 33.33%
Stop Light Issue 7 7 100.00%
Storm Water 1 0 0.00%
Street Light Issue 3 3 100.00%
Vehicles- inoperable vehicles 19 10 52.63%
Vehicles- Parked on lawn 6 4 66.67%
Vehicles- RVs/boats/etc 10 3 30.00%
Water Waste 12 5 41.67%
Water Waste Admin Cite 19 19 100.00%
Water Waste NOV 49 49 100.00%
Weed Abatement 3 2 66.67%
Yard Sales, Frequent 6 6 100.00%
Q2 Total 667 418 62.00%
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: OHV Park Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022) SOURCE: Parks and Leisure Services
COMMENT: At the request of the City Council, staff is providing a report on participation numbers at the Porterville OHV Park for informational purposes. The report reflects the Second Quarter FY 2022/2023
RECOMMENDATION: Informational Only
ATTACHMENTS: 1. OHV Park Quarterly Report (October - December 2022) Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Donnie Moore, Parks and Leisure Services Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
Oct-21 Oct-22 Nov-21 Nov-22 Dec-21 Dec-22
Riders 280 215 183 156 122 30
Days Open 12 13 6 12 5 4
Revenue $6,520.00 $5,210.00 $4,185.00 $3,900.00 $2,680.00 $725.00

PORTERVILLE OHV PARK RIDERSHIP
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Golf Course Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022) SOURCE: Parks and Leisure Services
COMMENT: At the request of the City Council, staff is providing a report on participation numbers at the Porterville Golf for informational purposes. The report reflects the Second Quarter FY 2022/2023.

RECOMMENDATION: Informational Only
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Golf Course Quarterly Report (October - December 2022) Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Donnie Moore, Parks and Leisure Services Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

PORTERVILLE GOLF COURSE STATISTICS
Oct-21 Oct-22 Nov-21 Nov-22 Dec-21 Dec-22
Golfers 2450 2224 2190 1922 1455 1287
Repeat 9/Twilight 1478 1318 1340 1098 866 736
Tickets Used 962 860 823 757 583 585
Passes Sold 39 31 34 32 35 29
Carts 1132 950 900 848 551 484
Total $21,060.00 $21,117.00 $18,196.00 $18,927.00 $12,279.00 $12,231.00

FOOTGOLF
Oct-21 Oct-22 Nov-21 Nov-22 Dec-21 Dec-22
18-hole adult 0 0 0 0 0 0
18-hole youth 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cart rental 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ball rental 0 0 0 0 0 0
Party 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
GRAND TOTAL $21,060.00 $21,117.00 $18,196.00 $18,927.00 $12,279.00 $12,231.00 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Charitable Car Washes Quarterly Report Calendar Year 2022 SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: In accordance with City Council direction, staff is providing a report on charitable car wash permits issued during the calendar year. Article VI, Section 15-130 of the City Code allows up to four car washes by a charitable organization in a calendar year.

For the period of January 1 to December 31, 2022, there have been no charitable car wash applications received or permits issued.

RECOMMENDATION: Information Only
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Municipal Code Chapter 15 Article VI. Charitable Car Wash Permit Procedure
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Maria Bemis, Finance Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
ARTICLE VI. CHARITABLE CAR WASH PERMIT PROCEDURE
SECTION:
15-70: Definitions
15-71: Permit Required For Charitable Car Wash
15-72: Application For Permit
15-73: Issuance And Form Of Permit
15-74: Term Of Permit
15-75: Nontransferability Of Permit
15-76: Manner Of Car Wash
15-77: Fundraising As A Business
15-78: Revocation Of Permit
15-79: Violations
15-80: Car Washing As A Business
15-70: DEFINITIONS:

For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply:

APPLICANT: A member of a charitable organization who applies for a car wash permit on behalf of the charitable organization.

CHARITABLE: Benevolent, civil, religious, educational, fraternal, patriotic, political, philanthropic or other similar purposes.

CHARITABLE CAR WASH: A temporary vehicle washing operation conducted by members of a charitable organization for organization fundraising purposes. It shall not be deemed to include the operation of an authorized permanent vehicle washing business or service station authorized to wash vehicles on its premises, although a car wash, as defined above, may be conducted on such premises.

CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION: Means and includes an organization which is a duly organized governmental or not for profit charitable, religious, civic, patriotic or community service organization; and the organization must have a tax exempt identification number assigned to it.

PERMIT HOLDER: The charitable organization who has been granted a permit pursuant to this article for the purpose of conducting a charitable car wash.

PERSON: Any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, society, organization, church, congregation, assembly or league, and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, agent or other similar representative thereof.

RELIGIOUS OR RELIGION: Has the meaning established by the supreme court of the state or the supreme court of the United States.

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY: A building designed for or occupied by one or more families as a residence including single-family residences, duplexes and apartments. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005) 15-71: PERMIT REQUIRED FOR CHARITABLE CAR WASH:

A. It is unlawful for any person to engage, directly or indirectly, in a charitable car wash without first obtaining a valid charitable car wash permit pursuant to the provisions of this article.

B. The permit application shall include a written application to sponsor the charitable car wash by the owner or lessee of the property upon which the car wash is to be held.

C. The car wash permit issued under this article to a charitable organization must be prominently displayed at the location where the car wash is conducted and shall be removed at the completion of the car wash. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005)
15-72: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT:

A. Applications for charitable car wash permits shall be made to the finance department upon forms prescribed by the city. The application shall be declared under penalty of perjury and filed with the finance department not less than five (5) consecutive business days prior to the time at which the applicant wishes to conduct said car wash.

B. A nonrefundable application fee an amount to be set by resolution shall be paid by the applicant. The application fee shall be based solely upon the administrative costs in processing the application and issuing the permits.

C. Such applications shall contain the following information and documentation:

1. The full name, mailing address, principal business and telephone number of the charitable organization or institution, the names and addresses of the organization's or institution's principal officers and executives, and the address of the national, state and local headquarters, if any.

2. The name and address of the sponsor, with a statement by the sponsor that he/she is the owner or lessee of the property where the car wash is to be held or is an employee or agent of the owner or lessee who has been delegated control of the premises by the owner or lessee, and that the sponsor assumes all liability regarding the car wash.

3. The full name and address of the person or persons who will be in charge of conducting the car wash.

The names and addresses of each individual who will actually be engaged in the car wash shall be on file at the agency/organization conducting the car wash and shall be made available to the city police department upon request at any time.

4. The time when such car wash will be held, including preferred date and hours of the day for commencement and termination of the car wash.

5. A statement to the effect that if a permit is granted, it will not be used or represented in any way as an endorsement of the charitable organization by the city or any department or officer thereof.

6. Proof evidencing that the permit holder is a bona fide charitable organization.

7. The number of car washes that have been held by the charitable organization in that particular calendar year, and the number of car washes that have been held at that particular location in that particular calendar year.

8. Such supplemental information requested by the finance department as the finance department may require. The finance department may require that such information be updated during the time the permit is in force if changes occur subsequent to filing of the application in the planned dates and locations for the charitable car wash.

D. If, while the application is pending or during the term of any permit granted, there is a change in fact, policy or method that would alter the information to be given on the application, the applicant shall notify the finance director in writing thereof prior to five o'clock (5:00) P.M. the day before such change.

E. The application documents shall be available for public inspection. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005) 15-73: ISSUANCE AND FORM OF PERMIT:

A. The finance department shall issue the permit, unless it finds that:

1. Any statement made in the application is factually incorrect, and the applicant fails to correct the application after being requested to do so.

2. The applicant has not provided the information required by this article and fails to provide the missing information after being requested to do so.

3. The application indicates that the proposed car wash will violate any of the requirements of this article and the applicant fails to amend the application to indicate compliance with said section after being requested to do so.

4. The number of charitable car washes by the charitable organization applying for said permit exceeds four (4) in a calendar year, or the number of charitable car washes held at a particular location exceeds four (4) per calendar year. The location requirement shall not pertain to licensed commercial car washes.

5. The applicant has violated any of the provisions of this article within one year of the date the application is submitted, resulting in the imposition of a fine or the revocation of a prior permit.

B. Nothing set forth in this article shall be construed as granting to the finance department or any other person the authority to grant, deny, suspend, revoke or renew any permit by reason of disapproval or agreement with the philosophy, opinion or belief of the applicant, permit holder or person soliciting therefor, or for any other reason not specifically provided for in this article.

C. The finance department shall either issue or deny the requested permit within two (2) consecutive business days after the date the application is made. In the event of denial, the finance department shall give the applicant a written notice which states with specificity the reasons therefor. In the event the finance department fails to act within the time prescribed, the permit shall be deemed issued.

D. The permit, if issued, shall include the following information:

1. The name and address of the permit holder;

2. The date for which the permit is valid;

3. A statement that the permit does not constitute an endorsement by the city, or any of its departments, officers or employees, of the purpose of the car wash;

4. A permit number; and

5. The signature of the finance director or his/her designee. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005) 15-74: TERM OF PERMIT:

Permits issued under this article shall be valid only for the date specified in the application for the car wash and as stated on the permit. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005)
15-75: NONTRANSFERABILITY OF PERMIT:

No permit issued under this article shall be transferred or assigned, and any attempt at assignment or transfer shall be void. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005)
15-76: MANNER OF CAR WASH:

A. Car washes held pursuant to permits under this article:

1. Shall take place between the hours of eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. and six o'clock (6:00) P.M.

2. Shall be conducted for a one day period only.

3. Shall not be conducted by any person under the age of sixteen (16) years, unless supervised by an adult.

4. Shall not be conducted at any house, apartment or other dwelling nor an area zoned for residential use only.

5. Shall be conducted in an area zoned for commercial uses; and such location shall have a means of collecting the wash water and shall discharge the water to the city sewer collection system.

6. Shall use biodegradable soaps or detergents, and shall not violate any of the provisions of chapter 25 of this code, concerning wastewater discharge requirements.

7. Shall have a means in place to limit wastewater or runoff such as pistol grip nozzle or similar apparatus affixed to each garden hose or water source.

8. Shall not allow any person to solicit cars or other contributions from a position in or on any public right of way, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, traffic islands, driveways or the like as to endanger that individual or others.

9. Shall not be conducted at any commercial property which has held four (4) prior car washes in the calendar year (excluding licensed commercial car wash locations).

10. Shall take place at a distance of more than twenty five feet (25') from the street curb, or from the near edge of the travel lane or lanes of any uncurbed street or road.

11. Shall utilize temporary signs, if any signs are utilized, in compliance with the city's applicable regulations concerning temporary signs.

12. Shall not be conducted by a charitable organization which has held four (4) prior car washes in the calendar year. Four (4) applications per tax exempt identification number, and four (4) permits per tax exempt identification number, will be allowed in the calendar year.

B. It is unlawful for a "permit holder", as defined herein, to:

1. Refuse to provide their name and a copy of the permit issued under this article, if requested by city representatives.

2. Misrepresent their identity or the identity of the charitable organization conducting the charitable car wash for which he or she is an agent.

3. Misrepresent that the charitable car wash permit issued under this article is an endorsement by the city, or any department or employee thereof, of the charitable car wash. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005) 15-77: FUNDRAISING AS A BUSINESS:

An organization in the business of fundraising (seeking a profit and paying its solicitors), even if engaged by a nonprofit organization, must comply with this article. If such an organization is soliciting on behalf of a nonprofit organization, the nonprofit organization shall obtain a permit pursuant to this article. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005) 15-78: REVOCATION OF PERMIT:

Any violation of this article by applicant or permit holder shall be cause for revocation of a permit issued pursuant to this article. Upon determination by an authorized representative of the city that a car wash is being conducted without a valid permit or in violation of the requirements of this article, said unlawful activity shall cease immediately, and all persons associated with said car wash shall be dispersed within one hour after the giving of said notice. Failure or refusal by the charitable organization and/or the owner/sponsor to cause a car wash in violation of these regulations to cease operations, after receiving such notification from the city official, shall constitute a separate violation of this article. Furthermore, any organization that violates this article shall be ineligible for the issuance of a permit for a period of one year. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005) 15-79: VIOLATIONS:

Every person who, for himself or herself, or as the agent of another, commences, engages in or conducts a car wash as provided in this article without procuring the permit as required under this article or who fails to comply with the conditions of this article shall be guilty of an infraction punishable by:

A. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first violation; B. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation within one year; and C. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each additional violation within one year. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005)
15-80: CAR WASHING AS A BUSINESS:

This article is expressly limited to charitable car washes. Any person, corporation, business or other entity who wishes to hold impromptu or temporary car washes on a for profit basis must comply with all city, county and state licensing or permitting requirements and does not fall within this article. (Ord. 1669 § 1, 6-21-2005) Item No.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: City Council Member Appointments Attendance Quarterly Report FY 2022- 2023 (October - December 2022)
SOURCE: Administrative Services
COMMENT: At its meeting on January 21, 2020, the City Council directed that staff prepare a quarterly report on Council Member attendance at meetings of boards and committees to which Council Members were appointed. This report represents attendance at meetings during the second quarter of FY 2022-2023 (October through December 2022).

RECOMMENDATION: Informational Only
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Quarterly Report (October 1 - December 13)

2. Quarterly Report (December 14 - December 31)
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Patrice Hildreth, Deputy City Manager
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
Committee/Board Member/Alternate OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Ad Hoc Committee- COVID-19 Kellie Carrillo-Member
Lawana Tate - Member
Ad Hoc Committee - Proposition 64 Lawana Tate - Member 10/7 P Regulation of Marijuana Don Weyhrauch - Member 10/7 P
Ad Hoc Library Facility Planning Committee Kellie Carrillo - Member 11/17 P Ad Hoc Committee - Provision of Kellie Carrillo - Member Local Water Services Lawana Tate - Member
Council of Cities Martha Flores - Member
Milt Stowe - Member
Eastern Tule Groundwater Don Weyhrauch - Member 10/6 P 12/1 P Sustainability Agency JPA (ETGSA) Michael Knight-Alternate 11/3 P Internal City Audit Committee Martha Flores - Member 10/26 P 11/30 P Kellie Carrillo - Member 10/26 P 11/30 P
Joint City/School District Committee Milt Stowe-Member
Kellie Carrillo-Member
Lawana Tate - Member 10/5P, 10/12P 11/2P, 11/9P
Claudia Calderon -Alternate 12/7 P
Mighty190 Committee Kellie Carrillo - Member 10/19 P 11/16 P Lawana Tate - Member 10/19 P
Milt Stowe - Member 11/9 P
Don Weyhrauch - Member 11/9 P
PDC Advisory Board John Lollis - Member
Mayor - Alternate
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Don Weyhrauch - Member District ("SJVAPCD") Board
San Joaquin Valley Special City Selection Milt Stowe - Member Committee Don Weyhrauch - Alternate
San Joaquin Valley REAP Committee Martha Flores- Member Martha Flores - Member 10/17 P 11/9 P 12/12 P
Milt Stowe - Alternate
Martha Flores - Member 10/13 P
Tulare County City Selection Mayor - City Member
Committee Designee - Alternate
Martha Flores - Member 10/26 P
John Lollis - Alternate 12/7 P
Milt Stowe - Member 12/8 P
Don Weyhrauch - Alternate 10/17P, 10/20P 11/10 P
Kellie Carrillo - Advisory 11/10 P
Tulare County Taskforce on Homelessness Martha Flores - Member 11/16P Claudia Calderon - Alternate
Jason Ridenour - Alternate 10/19 P
Tule River Improvement JPA Michael Knight - Alternate 10/3 P P = Present A = Absent
Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA)
Tulare County Economic Development
Corporation (TCEDC)
Tulare County Association of Governments/Tulare
County Transportation Authority (TCAG/TCTA)
Tulare County Association of Governments
(TCAG) - Sustainable Corridors Committee
City Council Attendance - FY 2022-2023 Second Quarter Report October 1, 2022 through December 13, 2022
Porterville Area Development Authority (PADA)
Local Initiatives Navigation Center Committee
(LINC)
Committee/Board Member/Alternate December
Ad Hoc Committee- COVID-19 Kellie Carrillo-Member
Greg Meister - Member
Ad Hoc Committee - Proposition 64 Don Weyhrauch - Member 12/26 P Regulation of Marijuana Raymond Beltran - Member 12/26 P Ad Hoc Library Facility Planning Committee Kellie Carrillo - Member Ad Hoc Committee - Provision of Kellie Carrillo - Member Local Water Services Raymond Beltran - Member
Council of Cities Martha Flores - Member
Greg Meister - Member
Eastern Tule Groundwater Don Weyhrauch - Member
Sustainability Agency JPA (ETGSA) Michael Knight-Alternate Internal City Audit Committee Martha Flores - Member
Kellie Carrillo - Member
Joint City/School District Committee Kellie Carrillo - Member Greg Meister - Member
Raymond Beltran - Member 12/19 P
Claudia Calderon -Alternate
Mighty190 Committee Kellie Carrillo - Member
Greg Meister - Member
Don Weyhrauch - Member
Raymond Beltran - Member
PDC Advisory Board John Lollis - Member
Mayor - Alternate
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Don Weyhrauch - Member District ("SJVAPCD") Board
San Joaquin Valley Special City Selection Don Weyhrauch - Member Committee Greg Meister - Alternate
San Joaquin Valley REAP Committee Martha Flores- Member Martha Flores - Member
Greg Meister - Alternate
Martha Flores - Member
Tulare County City Selection Mayor - City Member
Committee Designee - Alternate
Martha Flores - Member
John Lollis - Alternate
Don Weyhrauch - Member
Raymond Beltran - Alternate
Kellie Carrillo - Advisory
Tulare County Taskforce on Homelessness Martha Flores - Member Claudia Calderon - Alternate
Tule River Improvement JPA Don Weyhraruch - Member
Michael Knight - Alternate
P = Present A = Absent
Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA)
Tulare County Economic Development Corporation
(TCEDC)
Tulare County Association of Governments/Tulare
County Transportation Authority (TCAG/TCTA)
Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) -
Sustainable Corridors Committee
City Council Attendance - FY 2022-2023 Second Quarter Report December 14, 2022 through December 31, 2022
Porterville Area Development Authority (PADA)
Local Initiatives Navigation Center Committee (LINC)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: City Commission and Committee Attendance Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022)
SOURCE: Administrative Services
COMMENT: Staff herein provides for the City Council's information the attendance reports as of the second quarter FY 2022-2023 for the following City Commissions and Committees:
• Animal Control Commission
• Arts Commission
• Library & Literacy Commission
• Parks & Leisure Services Commission
• Transactions & Use Tax Oversight Committee
• CDBG Advisory & Housing Opportunity Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Information Only
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Animal Control Commission

2. Arts Commission

3. Library & Literacy Commission

4. Parks & Leisure Services Commission

5. Transactions and Use Tax Oversight Committee

6. CDBG Advisory and Housing Opportunities Committee
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Patrice Hildreth, Deputy City Manager
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
Animal Control Commission As of December 31, 2022
Attendance Records
2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022
May June July 11-Aug 13-Oct Nov Dec Notes:

Kathy Guinn * * * P P
Jerry Hall * * * A P
Art Duron * * * P
Kat Harris * * * P P
Shawn Schwartzenberger * * P A
Lacy Goodlett P
*Meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum.
**Meeting cancelled due to holiday and/or scheduling.
2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022 2022
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Notes:

Florenza Pizanis * * * * * *
Jerry Hall * * * * * *
Kathy Guinn * * * * * *
Kat Harris * * * * * *
Art Duron * * * * * *
*Meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum.
**Meeting cancelled due to holiday and/or scheduling.
2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021
Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Notes:

Florenza Pizanis P P ** ** P
Jerry Hall P A ** ** A
Kathy Guinn P P ** ** P
Kat Harris P P ** ** P
Art Duron A A ** ** P
*Meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum.
**Meeting cancelled due to holiday and/or scheduling.
2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Notes:

Florenza Pizanis
Jerry Hall
Kathy Guinn
Kat Harris
Vacant
*Meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum.
**Meeting cancelled due to holiday and/or scheduling.

No meetings held due to COVID.

Arts Commission As of December 31, 2022
Attendance Records
2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2023 2023
Apr May June July Aug Oct Jan April
Kyree Perkins P P P ** P *
Emily Luna P P P ** P *
Diego Monterrubio A A A ** A *
Eden Santos A A P ** Vacated seat 8/22
Maria Menga P P P ** P *
* No meeting held due to lack of quorum. ** No meeting due to scheduling. 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Kyree Perkins *P ** P *P P P P P
Emily Luna *P ** P *P P P P P
Diego Monterrubio *A ** A *A A A A A
Eden Santos *A ** P *A P P A A
Maria Menga ** P *A P P P P
* No meeting held due to lack of quorum. ** No meeting due to scheduling. 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
Vacant **
Kyree Perkins *P *P *A **
Emily Luna *P *P *A **
Diego Monterrubio *A *A *A **
Eden Santos *A *A *P **
(Student) vacancy **
* No meeting held due to lack of quorum. ** No meeting due to scheduling. 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020
April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov
Vacant
Kyree Perkins
Emily Luna
Diego Monterrubio
David Mason
(Student) vacancy
2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020
28-Aug 25-Sep 23-Oct 27-Nov 25-Dec 22-Jan 4-Mar 24-Mar
Donna Serna A* ** A ** ** ** **
Kyree Perkins P* ** P ** ** ** P **
Emily Luna P* ** P ** ** ** P **
Diego Monterrubio A* ** A ** ** ** **
David Mason P ** ** ** P **
(Student) vacancy
* No meeting due to lack of quorum.
** Meeting Cancelled
No meetings held due to COVID-19.

No meetings held due to COVID.

LIBRARY & LITERACY COMMISSION - Attendance Record As of December 31, 2022 P = Present; A = Absent; E = Excused absence; T = Tardy = Summer Hiatus
** = No meeting held
2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

P P P P E

P P E E E

P P P P P

P P P P P

P P P P P
P P P
P P P
2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July

P P P P P P P P

P P P P P P P P

P P P P P P P P

P E P E P P P P

P P P P P P P P

P P P E P P P P
P

P P P P P E P
2020 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021
Jan Feb Mar Nov Feb May June July Aug Sept
P E P P P P ** P
P P P P P P ** P
P P P P P P ** P
P E P P P P ** P
P P P P P P ** P
P P P P P E ** P
Leslie Pelon P P P P P P ** E
Patience Christenson
Kim Baumgardner
Susan Uptain
Catherine May
Esther Figueroa
Edith La Vonne
Leslie Pelon
Karen Stover
Catherine May
Esther Figueroa
Edith La Vonne
Patience Christenson
Kim Baumgardner
Susan Uptain
Sonya Lopez
Kim Baumgardner
Patience Christenson
Esther Figueroa
Edith LaVonne
Susan Uptain
Fernando Serrano
PARKS & LEISURE SERVICES COMMISSION As of December 31, 2022

ATTENDANCE RECORDS
Parks & Leisure Services Commissioner's Record of Attendance 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 2023 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Phillip Duncan ** ** P A P E
Diane Graybehl ** ** E P P P
Kieran Daly ** ** P P A P
** ** P P P P
** ** P P P P
** ** E P P A
** ** P P E P
** ** P A P P
**No meeting held. * Due to lack of quorum, an informal discussion only took place.

Parks & Leisure Services Commissioner's Record of Attendance 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Phillip Duncan ** ** P P P ** P E P P P A
Diane Graybehl ** ** P P P ** P P P P P P
Kieran Daly ** ** P P P ** A E P P P P
** ** P P E ** P P P P P P
** ** P P P ** P P P P P P
** ** P P E ** P P P E P P
** ** P P P ** P P P P P P
** P P P ** A P P P P P
**No meeting held. * Due to lack of quorum, an informal discussion only took place.

Parks & Leisure Services Commissioner's Record of Attendance 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Phillip Duncan ** P ** ** P ** ** A ** ** A E
Diane Graybehl ** P ** ** P ** ** P ** ** P E
Kieran Daly ** E ** ** P ** ** A ** ** E E
** P ** ** P ** ** P ** ** P P
** P ** ** P ** ** P ** ** P P
** P ** ** P ** ** P ** ** P P
** P ** ** P ** ** P ** ** P P
**No meeting held. * Due to lack of quorum, an informal discussion only took place.

Arlene Pena
Janet Uresti
Tom Fiormonti
Jason Gurrola
Jason Pommier
P = Present; E = Excused Absence; A = Absent; T = Tardy P = Present; E = Excused Absence; A = Absent; T = Tardy Janet Uresti
Tom Fiormonti
Jason Gurrola
Jason Pommier
Janet Uresti
Tom Fiormonti
Jason Gurrola
Jason Pommier
Arlene Pena
P = Present; E = Excused Absence; A = Absent; T = Tardy Transactions and Use Tax Oversight Committee As of December 31, 2022 Attendance Records
2022 2022
25-Aug 17-Nov
John Simonich P P Term expires 5/2026
Margaret Stinson P P Term expires 5/2024
John Billiou P P Term expires 5/2026
Jerry Hall P P Term expires 5/2026
Janice Kovars P P Term expires 5/2024
Shawn Byars P A Term expires 5/2026
Joshua Sulier A P Term expires 5/2024
Angela Dennis P A Apptd 12/20; Term exp 5/2024
Rae Dean Strawn P P Apptd 07/19; Term exp 5/2026
Robert K. Falls Sr. A P Apptd 07/19; Term exp 5/2024
* Meeting cancelled
2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022
23-Sep 18-Nov 26-May 25-Aug 17-Nov 24-Feb 19-May
John Simonich P P P P A P P Term expires 5/2026
Margaret Stinson P P P P P P P Term expires 5/2024
Russell "Buck" Fletcher A P P A A A A Term ended
John Billiou P P P P P P P Term expires 5/2026
Jerry Hall A P A A P P P Term expires 5/2026
Janice Kovars P P P P A P P Term expires 5/2024
Shawn Byars P A P P P P P Term expires 5/2026
Joshua Sulier P P P P P P P Term expires 5/2024
Angela Dennis P P P P P Apptd 12/20; Term exp 5/2024
Rae Dean Strawn Apptd 07/19; Term exp 5/2026
Robert K. Falls Sr. Apptd 07/19; Term exp 5/2024
* Meeting cancelled
2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020
13-Nov 9-Jan 12-Feb 28-May 27-Aug 6-Nov 26-Feb
John Simonich A P A P A A *
Margaret Stinson P P P A P P *
Russell "Buck" Fletcher P P P P P P *
John Angell A A A P P P *
Mike Boudreaux Sr. A P P P P A *
Virginia Gurrola P P P A
John Billiou P P A P P P *
Jerry Hall P P P P P P *
Janice Kovars P P P P P P *
Shawn Byars P P P P P P *
Joshua Sulier P *
* Meeting cancelled
CDBG Citizens' Advisory and Housing Opportunity Committee As of December 31, 2022 Attendance Records
Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg
Committee Member 3/4/2020 2/25/2021 3/14/2022
Pat Contreras P P P
Linda Mendez P P P
Grace Munoz-Rios P
Doug Heusdens A A A
Rebecca Vigil A A P
Kelle Jo Lowe P P
Maria Gonzalez P
Eriselda Lizarraga P A
Isabel Olmos P
Rebecca Contreras P
* No meeting was held due to COVID.

Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg
Committee Member 4/27/2015 3/28/2016 3/1/2017 2/28/2018 2/26/2019 Pat Contreras P A P P P
Linda Mendez P A P P A
Grace Munoz-Rios P P P P P
Doug Heusdens P P P P A
Rebecca Vigil P P A P P
Kelle Jo Lowe P P P P P
Maria Gonzalez P A P P P
Year Originally Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg Reg. Mtg
Committee Member Appointed 3/14/2011 3/12/2012 3/11/2013 3/10/2014 Pat Contreras 1988 P P P P
Linda Olmedo 1997 P P P P
Grace Munoz-Rios 1992 P P P A
Doug Heusdens 2012 N/A P P P
John Dennis 1998 P P A P
Rebecca Vigil 2008 P P A P
Kelle Jo Lowe 2009 P P P P
This Committee typically meets on an annual basis in February or March.

Item No.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Street Performance Measure Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022)
SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: The purpose of this staff report is to provide the City Council with an update on progress made on street reconstruction, overlay, micro-surfacing, and pothole repair efforts for the second quarter of FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022). For Council's information, when reviewing the report, the light blue bar represents staff's estimated quantity of "work" for each category for the fiscal year. The black overlaid bar represents the quantity of work accomplished to date.

City street crews have focused mainly on overlay and pothole repair efforts during this second quarter reporting period. Main Street reconstruction (Olive Avenue to Morton Avenue), Newcomb Street reconstruction (Olive Avenue to Porter Slough), Villa Street reconstruction (Olive Avenue to Westfield Avenue), Henderson Avenue rehabilitation (Westwood Street to Patsy Street), Union Avenue reconstruction (Indiana Street to Jaye Street), Morton Avenue reconstruction (Westwood Street to Plano Street), Grand Avenue (Fourth Street to Plano Street) and Henrahan Street (Grand Avenue to Morton Avenue) reconstruction, Montgomery Avenue reconstruction (Jaye Street to H Street), and Date Avenue (Jaye Street to H Street) and Kessing Street (Date Avenue to River Avenue) widening are all under design.

RECOMMENDATION: Information Only
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Streets Performance Measure Quarterly Report (October - December 2022)

2. Streets Performance Measure Quarterly Report (July - September 2022)
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

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

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
2022/2023 Level of Service Report 2nd QUARTER REPORT - July 1, 2022 - December 31, 2022 Prepared By J. Sanchez
Task
1 Street Reconstruction/Rehabilitation Progress
Each square represents 1000 LF of street reconsruction. (Length represents street lanes)
4000 LF
12000 LF20000 LF28000 LF36000 LF44000 LF52000 LF60000 LF68000 LF76000 LF84000 LF92000 LF 100000 LF
Total FY 22/23: 0 Lineal Feet of Street Lanes

2. Overlay Progress
Each square Represents 500 LF of Overlayed Streets
(Length represents street lanes)
2000 LF6000 LF
10000 LF14000 LF18000 LF22000 LF26000 LF
30000 LF34000 LF38000 LF42000 LF48000 LF52000 LF
Total FY 22/23: 50,856 Lineal Feet of Street Lanes

3. Micro Surfacing Progress
Each square represents 1000 LF of Micro-Surfaced Streets (Length represents street lanes)
4000 LF
12000 LF20000 LF28000 LF36000 LF44000 LF52000 LF60000 LF68000 LF76000 LF84000 LF92000 LF 100000 LF
Total FY 22/23: 0 Lineal Feet

4. Pothole Repair Progress
Each Square Represents 250 SF of Pothole Repair
(Each Square Represnts Approx. 250 Potholes Repaired)
2000 SF4000 SF6000 SF8000 SF
10000 SF
12000 sf14000 sf16000 sf18000 sf20000 sf22000 sf24000 sf Total FY 22/23: 24,549 Square Feet
Total annual effort in lineal feet or square footage
Completed as of 09/30/2022
2nd QUARTER REPORT - July 1, 2022 - December 31, 2022
P:\pubworks\Resources\Design\Traffic\Pavement Management\Level of Service Reports\2022-2023\2022-2023 Level of Service Progress Report 2nd quarter.xls

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
2022/2023 Level of Service Report 1st QUARTER REPORT - July 1, 2022 - September 30, 2022 Prepared By J. Sanchez
Task
1 Street Reconstruction/Rehabilitation Progress
Each square represents 1000 LF of street reconsruction.(Length represents street lanes) 4000 LF
12000 LF
20000 LF
28000 LF
36000 LF
44000 LF
52000 LF
60000 LF
68000 LF
76000 LF
84000 LF
92000 LF
100000 LF
Total FY 22/23: 0 Lineal Feet of Street Lanes

2. Overlay Progress
Each square Represents 500 LF of Overlayed Streets
(Length represents street lanes)
2000 LF
6000 LF
10000 LF
14000 LF
18000 LF
22000 LF
26000 LF
30000 LF
34000 LF
38000 LF
42000 LF
48000 LF
52000 LF
Total FY 22/23: 36,260 Lineal Feet of Street Lanes

3. Micro Surfacing Progress
Each square represents 1000 LF of Micro-Surfaced Streets (Length represents street lanes)
4000 LF
12000 LF
20000 LF
28000 LF
36000 LF
44000 LF
52000 LF
60000 LF
68000 LF
76000 LF
84000 LF
92000 LF
100000 LF
Total FY 22/23: 0 Lineal Feet

4. Pothole Repair Progress
Each Square Represents 250 SF of Pothole Repair(Each Square Represnts Approx. 250 Potholes Repaired) 2000 SF
4000 SF
6000 SF
8000 SF
10000 SF
12000 sf
14000 sf
16000 sf
18000 sf
20000 sf
22000 sf
24000 sf
Total FY 22/23: 3,024 Square Feet
Total annual effort in lineal feet or square footageCompleted as of 09/30/2022 1st QUARTER REPORT - July 1, 2022 - September 30, 2022
P:\pubworks\Resources\Design\Traffic\Pavement Management\Level of Service Reports\2022-2023\2022-2023 Level of Service Progress Report 1st quarter.xls CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Building Permit Activity Quarterly Report FY 2022-2023 (October - December 2022)
SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: The Building Permit Activity Report (BPAR) presented herein to the City Council covers the months of October, November, and December 2022. The two main categories include new residential permits issued and new commercial permits issued.
2nd Quarter of FY 2022/2023 compared to Second Quarter of FY 2021/2022 New residential permits issued during the second quarter of 2022 (24) are down twenty-five percent (25%) from the second quarter of 2021 (32). New commercial permits issued during the second quarter of 2022 (0) are down one hundred percent (100%) from the second quarter of 2021 (3).

Year-to-Date (July 2022 to December 2022)
New residential permits issued this fiscal year (35) are down fifty percent (50%) as compared to the same period last fiscal year (70). The number of commercial permits issued this fiscal year (1) is down 83.3% from the same period last fiscal year (6).

RECOMMENDATION: Informational Only
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Building Permit Activity Report - October 2022

2. Building Permit Activity Report - November 2022

3. Building Permit Activity Report - December 2022
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

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

Item No. 1.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of January 17, 2023
SOURCE: Administrative Services
COMMENT: Staff has prepared the draft Minutes of January 17, 2023, for the Council's consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the draft Minutes of January 17, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Minutes_01-17-2023
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Patrice Hildreth, Deputy City Manager
Final Approver: Patrice Hildreth, Deputy City Manager

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
CITY HALL, 291 N. MAIN STREET

PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 17, 2023, 5:30 PM
Call to Order: 5: 30 p.m.

Roll Call: Mayor Martha A. Flores, Vice Mayor Kellie Carrillo, Council Member Donald Weyhrauch, Council Member Raymond Beltran, Council Member Greg Meister

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
 Brock Neeley, Porterville, stated that he will not be attending in person due to illness, but will participate in the Open Session Oral Communications.

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:

A. Closed Session Pursuant to:
1 - Government Code Section 54957.6 – Conference with Labor Negotiator. Agency Negotiator: John Lollis and Yuliana Andrade. Employee Organizations: Porterville City Firefighters Association.
2 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Benjamin Bogle and Keri Curtis. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville. 3 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Isabel Hernandez. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville. 4 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(3) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant exposure to litigation: Four (4) cases in which facts are not yet known to potential plaintiff.
5 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Initiation of Litigation: One (1) Case.
6:39 P.M. RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND REPORT ON REPORTABLE ACTION

TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Lew reported action pertaining to A-2 and A-3, as follows:

A-2. On a MOTION made by Vice Mayor Carrillo, and SECONDED by Council Member Weyhrauch the City Council unanimously rejected the claim filed by Benjamin Bogle and Keri Curtis.

Documentation: M.O. 01-011723
Disposition: Claim rejected.

A-3. On a MOTION made by Council Member Meister, and SECONDED by Council Member Beltran the City Council unanimously rejected the claim filed by Isabel Hernandez.

Documentation: M.O. 02-011723
Disposition: Claim rejected.

Pledge of Allegiance Led by Mayor Flores
Invocation – a moment of silence was observed.

PRESENTATIONS

Veterans Homecoming
Police Department's Citizen Recognition Award
Employee Service Awards

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
 Elizabeth Booth, Porterville, voiced displeasure with the way main street looks and spoke against the large number of individuals experiencing homelessness on Main Street.  Ed McKervey, Porterville, stated he is pleased that discussions are taking place with regard to the Brookside Subdivision and believes the city should reevaluate the project and address concerns related to traffic and sewer issues.
 Brock Neeley (via Zoom), Porterville, wished everyone a Happy New Year; spoke of sandbag issues that occurred during the massive rainstorms; regarding Item No. 4, voiced concern with Milinich Body Works and Porterville Collision not working well with the City; voiced support for Council Member Weyhrauch’s proposed amendments of the Council Handbook; and spoke of the Legislative Budget and Priorities, which he indicated he had screenshot and sent to Senator Hurtado’s Office.
 Miguel Ramirez (via Zoom), Public Affairs Manager with Southern California Gas Company, advised that natural gas prices were going to be higher than usual in the month of January.

AB 1234 REPORTS
Mayor Flores moved all AB1234 reports to after Scheduled Matters.

REPORTS
I. City Commission and Committee Meetings

1. Parks & Leisure Services Commission - January 5, 2023 – no report was provided.

2. Library & Literacy Commission - January 10, 2023
Commissioner Edith LaVonne reported on the activity calendar for the month of January, gave highlights and presented monthly statistics regarding patronage, and program participation, and volunteer hours; and stated that the library provides literacy service and invites anyone to join.

3. Arts Commission – no report.

4. Animal Control Commission - January 12, 2023
Chair Kathy Guinn reported on the recent loss of Augie Gonzales and advised that staff was on duty and doing a great job of which the Commission is proud.

5. Youth Commission - January 11, 2023 – no report was provided.

6. Transactions and Use Tax Oversight Committee (TUTOC) – no report was provided.

II. Staff Informational Reports

1. Water Conservation Phase Iv Status Update - December 2022

CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Greg Meister requested that Item No. 10 be removed for further discussion.

City Manager Lollis indicated staff requested that Item No. 14 be removed for further discussion.

COUNCIL ACTION: MOVED by Council Member Donald Weyhrauch, SECONDED by Council Member Greg Meister that the City Council approve Items Nos. 1-9, and 11-13. The motion carried unanimously.

1. AUTHORIZATION TO REPAIR POLICE VEHICLES NO. 3352 AND NO. 3389 Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the repair of Police vehicles No. 3352 and No. 3389 by Milinich Body Works at a cost not to exceed $46,675 (inclusive of all parts, taxes, labor, and a 10% contingency); and

2. Authorize payment of said repairs upon satisfactory completion.

Documentation: M.O. 03-011723
Disposition: Approved.

2. APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize payment to Prime Towing & Transport, Inc. in the amount of $12,562.50.

Documentation: M.O. 04-011723
Disposition: Approved.

3. PURCHASE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT/CODE ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERA
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Authorize staff to enter into a contract with Axon Enterprises Inc. for the purchase of one body-worn camera and equipment, one docking station, one Administration license, unlimited cloud storage and associated installation hardware and technical support for a total of $11,452.94;

2. Authorize payment(s) to Axon Enterprises Inc. per contract; and

3. Authorize staff to negotiate contract renewal for services upon the current contract’s expiration.

Documentation: M.O. 05-011723
Disposition: Approved.

4. AUTHORIZATION TO REPAIR TRANSIT VEHICLE NO. 8113
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the repair of transit vehicle No. 8113 by E.M. Tharp, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $24,173 (inclusive of all parts, taxes, labor, and a 10% contingency); and

2. Authorize payment of said repair upon satisfactory completion.

Documentation: M.O. 06-011723
Disposition: Approved.

5. AUTHORIZATION TO REPAIR TRANSIT VAN NO. 8123
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Authorize transit van collision repair by E.M. Tharp, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $9,718 (inclusive of all parts, taxes, and labor, including a 10% contingency); and

2. Authorize payment of said repair upon satisfactory completion.

Documentation: M.O. 07-011723
Disposition: Approved.

6. AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

FOR DESIGN SERVICES - PARKS MASTER PLAN
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff to distribute a Design Services Request for Qualifications for a Parks Master Plan.

Documentation: M.O. 08-011723
Disposition: Approved.

7. STATUS REPORT - DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES
Recommendation: That the City Council accept the Status Report on Developer Impact Fees for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.

Documentation: M.O. 09-011723
Disposition: Approved.

8. ACCEPTANCE OF POLICE K-9 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GRANT
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the acceptance of the grant in the amount of $3,770.00; and

2. Authorize staff to sign all necessary documents that pertain to the grant.

Documentation: M.O. 10-011723
Disposition: Approved.

9. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION OF LITTLE LIBRARY BY MILT STOWE Recommendation: That the City Council consider acceptance of the donation of the Little Library by Milt Stowe.

Documentation: M.O. 11-011723
Disposition: Approved.

11. ASSIGNMENT OF AIRPORT LEASE - LOT NO. 34F
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve the Assignment of Lease for Lot No. 34F at the Porterville Municipal Airport from Steven Huth and Michael Quatacker to Michael Quatacker and Debbie Quatacker; and

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Lessor's Consent to Assignment of Lease Agreement on behalf of the City.

Documentation: M.O. 12-011723
Disposition: Approved.

12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTED AGENDA ITEM - CONSIDER THE

FORMATION OF A CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE TO ANNUALLY REVIEW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN.

Recommendation: That the City Council approve Council Member Weyhrauch's request to consider the formation of a Council Ad Hoc Committee to annually review the implementation of the City's General Plan as a Scheduled Matter at the next regular Council meeting.

Documentation: M.O. 13-011723
Disposition: Approved.

13. REAFFIRM CONDITIONS OF STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 361 TO CONTINUE

REMOTE ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS
Recommendation: That the City Council consider the adoption of the draft Resolution to continue allowing the option to participate in the City's public meetings remotely through the use of the teleconferencing provisions of AB 361.

Documentation: Resolution No. 01-2023
Disposition: Approved.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

15. ZONE CHANGE FROM RM-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO CG (GENERAL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL) FOR PANADERIA LA
COSECHA LOCATED AT 23 NORTH F STREET
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing to receive input regarding the proposed zone change; and

2. Approve the draft Ordinance, give first reading and order the Ordinance to print.

City Manager Lollis introduced the item and Associate Planner Oscar Zepeda presented the staff report.

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:18 p.m. and closed at 7:19 p.m. when no one came forward.

Council Member Weyhrauch inquired whether there was sufficient setback for access to the rear of the proposed building, which staff confirmed was the case.

COUNCIL ACTION: MOVED by Council Member Greg Meister, SECONDED by Vice Mayor Kellie Carrillo that the City Council approved the draft Ordinance approving a Zone Chance from RM-3 to CG for a 0.17± acre parcel located at 23 North "F" Street. The motion carried unanimously.

Documentation: M.O. 14-011723 Ordinance No. _______
Disposition: Approved.

16. VILLAS AT SIERRA MEADOWS 4 & 5 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Recommendation: That the City Council continue the Public Hearing scheduled to consider the entitlements for PRC 2020-48 to February 21, 2023.

City Manager Lollis introduced the item and Assistant City Manager Jason Ridenour presented the staff report, noting that the City received a comment letter from the Department of Toxic Substances Control requesting additional environmental site assessment based on the current

agricultural use. He indicated that a determination was made to recommend continuing the Public Hearing to February 21, 2023, to allow time for an additional environmental site assessment to be conducted in accordance with the comments received. Mr. Ridenour advised that the applicant had requested the item be continued to the meeting of February 7th. It was determined that if the City did not have the necessary information by the February 7th meeting, the matter would be continued to the February 21st meeting.

The Public Hearing opened at 7:25 p.m.
 Victor Rojas, Porterville, voiced his concern regarding the kit foxes that he alleged were in the area, suggesting they are potentially an endangered species and that the proposed development would destroy their habitat.
 Lillian Garcia, Porterville, also voiced her concerns with kit foxes and red foxes that she stated were in the area noting that they were potentially an endangered species.  Samantha Garcia, Porterville, also voiced her concerns noting that she believed there were kit foxes in the area of the proposed development.

The Public Hearing was continued to the council meeting on February 7th, 2023.

COUNCIL ACTION: MOVED by Vice Mayor Kellie Carrillo, SECONDED by Council Member Donald Weyhrauch that the City Council continuing the public hearing to February 7th, 2023. The motion carried unanimously.

Documentation: M.O. 15-011723
Disposition: Approved.

SCHEDULED MATTERS

10. AMENDED BARN THEATER REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT
Recommendation: That the City Council consider approval of the proposed amendments to the current Revocable License Agreement between the City and the Barn Theatre.

City Manager Lollis introduced the item and presented the staff report.

Council Member Meister stated that he wanted to see the Barn Theater be able to host fundraising events and a modification of the license agreement term.

City Manager Lollis stated that the Internal City Audit Committee, along with the Barn Theater, met and made amendments to the license agreement concerning being allowed to conduct fundraising and community enrichment activities on the property; in addition, the proposed amended Revocable License Agreement would modify the term of the current Agreement from twenty-five (25) years to five years, with a mutual option for an extension of an additional year.

COUNCIL ACTION: MOVED by Council Member Greg Meister, SECONDED by Mayor Martha A. Flores that the City Council approve the amended Barn Theater

Revocable License Agreement with the amended changes to allow the Barn Theater to conduct fundraising and/or community enrichment activities at the property including, but not limited to fine arts performances and recitals, concerts, comedy nights, art displays and art nights, talent shows, dance shows, dinners and luncheons, Christmas parties, weddings, birthday parties, and baby showers and shall be allowed to sublicense the property to community clubs for such clubs' meetings; and modify the term of the current Agreement from twenty-five (25) years to five (5) years, with a mutual option for an extension of an additional year. The motion carried unanimously.

Documentation: M.O. 16-011723
Disposition: Approved.

14. STATUS AND REVIEW OF LOCAL EMERGENCY DROUGHT
Recommendation: That the City Council receive the report of status and review of the Declaration of Local Emergency and determine the need exists to continue said Declaration.

City Manager Lollis introduced the item and presented the staff report.

City Manager Lollis stated an emergency request had been received from the County of Tulare for assistance to Self-Help Enterprises, Inc. in the provision of water for the Emergency Tank Program that currently serves 389 residences across Tulare County where domestic wells have run dry due to continued drought. Mr. Lollis stated the County had been providing water from its well at the Bob Wiley Detention Facility, north of Visalia, but the recent rainfall had caused damage to and the temporary closure of the access road to the well.

Members of Council expressed the importance of being able to help their neighbors and agreed to assist the County to provide source water to Self Help to continue the Emergency Tank Program, to be reviewed at its next regular meeting on February 7, 2023.

COUNCIL ACTION: MOVED by Council Member Greg Meister, SECONDED by Mayor Martha A. Flores that the City Council approved to support Tulare County’s request to provisionally use City water to assist Self Help with their Emergency Tank Program on a temporary basis to be reviewed at its next regular meeting on February 7, 2023. The motion carried unanimously.

Documentation: M.O. 17-011723
Disposition: Approved.

17. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL

PROCEDURAL HANDBOOK

Recommendation: That the City Council consider amendments to its Procedural Handbook and provide direction to staff as determined.

City Manager Lollis introduced the item and presented the staff report.

As a continued discussion of the consideration of amendments from the meeting on December 20, 2022, Mayor Flores recommended that the Order of Business for Council meetings be modified by the moving of Council AB 1234 Reports from prior to the Consent Calendar to after Scheduled Matters.

City Attorney Lew stated she had prepared a draft policy concerning use of social media to be considered for inclusion in the Handbook as an additional appendix.

A discussion ensued during which in addition to relocating AB 1234 Reports, and adding a Social Medial Policy as an Appendix, optional use of Council Member Weyhrauch’s proposed Council Communication Log form was discussed, as was adding clarifying language to Section X(G) concerning the City's response to President/Governor directives, and adding the FPPC’s phone number in an additional location.

Documentation: None
Disposition: Direction given to staff to bring stated revisions back for consideration.

18. 2023 STATE BUDGET AND LEGISLATION INTERESTS
Recommendation: That the City Council consider its State budget and legislative interests for the upcoming 2023 California legislative session.

City Manager Lollis introduced the item and presented the staff report the 2023 State Budget and Legislation Interests for the upcoming 2023 California legislative session which were the following:
 New Community Library Facility
 New Community Recreation Facility
 Homesless Housing and Services Funding
 Porterville Development Center Reuse
 Army National Guard Armory Resuse
 Porterville College POST Peace Officer Program Module 1 Documentation: None.

Disposition: Report received.

AB 1234 REPORTS

1. Tulare County Task Force on Homelessness - December 21, 2022 No report was provided due to meeting being canceled.

2. Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee - December 26, 2022
Council Member Weyhrauch reported on discussions between the committee and the third dispensary operator regarding their development agreement and business proposal. He stated that the ad hoc committee discussed having a meeting with all dispensary operators to review compliance with the development agreements.

Council Member Beltran reported on a brief discussion regarding potential changes to zoning in the event any dispensary may come out of compliance for whatever reason and additional time frame for the educational outreach.

3. Tulare Economic Development Corporation (TCEDC) Board - December 25, 2022 No report was provided due to the meeting being canceled.

4. Police Department Badge Pinning Ceremony - January 3, 2023 Mayor Flores reported on her attendance noting that it was always a pleasure to be a part of the ceremonies. Mayor Flores congratulated new Police Officers Jennifer Huerta and Jay Scott, Community Service Officer Mark Caldwell, Records Clerk Marth Schmidt, and Police Officer Trainee Jahni Newhauser.

Council Member Beltran stated it was his first badge-pinning ceremony and that it was an honor to see the recruits and their families, along with other police officers in attendance.

4. Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Committee Meeting - January 4, 2023 Council Member Beltran reported on his attendance and stated the committee was getting ready for the Local Point-in-Time count event and voiced pride in Porterville for having the largest volunteer group in the county concerning this event.

6. Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (ETGSA) Board Meeting - January 5, 2023
Council Member Weyrauch reported on his attendance, the approval of minutes, a resolution allowing for ongoing public teleconference meetings, a ratification of bills paid and approval of bills to be paid, appointments of agency officers; and several reports from Stakeholder Outreach, Committees, and Tule Subbasin.

7. Tule River Tribe Sesquicentennial Celebration - January 9, 2023 Mayor Flores reported on those in attendance and stated that it was an honor to be present during the welcome and prayer and the cultural presentation. She spoke of the City’s presentation of a Special Recognition Plaque to the Tribe for its Sesquicentennial of the Establishment of the Tule River Reservation on January 9, 1873.

8. Tulare County Water Commission - January 9, 2023
Mayor Flores reported on the approval of a resolution allowing for teleconferencing, approval minutes, a brief discussion of the 2022 Brown Act Amendments, a presentation by Sarah Rutherford and Charlotte Schuii concerning the CV Salts Update, a presentation by

Benjamin Barry concerning upper watershed by Sierra Nevada Conservancy, an SB 522 Updates, and Drought Updates.

9. Transit Forum - January 11, 2023
Vice Mayor Carrillo reported on those in attendance, discussions regarding the funding, grants, FTA/ Federal funding, a Genfare Regional Fare Collection System Update, discussion of Measure R Performance Metrics, discussion on planning around the 2023 Tulare County Coordinated Transportation Plan and the CrossValley Corridor Phase 1 Operations Plan RFP; and updates provided by Visalia Transit and TCRTA.

10. Porterville Homeless Services Meeting - January 11, 2023 Mayor Flores reported on those in attendance and thanked Economic and Housing Development Manager Claudia Calderon for coordinating the session inclusive of Administrative Aide Christina Tank and Assistant City Manager Jason Ridenour. She stated it was great to see new and returning members and added that statistical reports were received regarding the 2022 Point-in-Time report.

Council Member Beltran stated the citizens should be proud of the effort that was being made with regard to addressing homelessness.

11. CALvans Board - January 12, 2023
Vice Mayor Carrilo stated that she was unable to attend the meeting.

12. Tulare County Economic Development Corporation (TCEDC) Board - January 13, 2023
Mayor Flores reported on those in attendance, and stated it was a brief meeting which was to authorize President & CEO, Airica de Oliveira of the TCEDC to submit a letter of support for the California Import Concept and Grant Application.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None

OTHER MATTERS
 Council Member Weyhrauch inquired if staff would look into disabled parking spaces at the temporary library, asked City Manager to arrange a review of the Animal Shelter Construction, suggested that airport lease terms should be reviewed, restated information regarding gas assistance, and voiced support for the inclusion of Minutes on the Agenda.  Council Member Beltran spoke of his support in getting the Police Department the equipment they need, and voiced pleasure in reaching an agreement with the Barn Theater.  Council Member Meister spoke in favor of the city assisting the County with water; suggested that the Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee should look at a location away from the Main Street for the third operator. He also stated it that was great to see the good Samaritan who assisted in helping an individual from an overdose and also spoke in favor of the City’s Public Safety.  Vice Mayor Carrillo acknowledged the City departments with regard to the recent storm, spoke of the Tule River Tribe Sesquicentennial Celebration, and congratulated City staff who

received the employee service awards and to the police officers for their recognition award, and to the citizen who offered their aid to an individual who overdosed.  Mayor Flores thanked Public Works Director Michael Knight and his staff for their efforts during the recent storm, spoke of the Hall of Fame nominations, stated that she received an email from Darrin Garrett about a river clean-up event, and spoke of the upcoming Homeless Task Force Meeting and Public Safety Recognition dinner by the Exchange Club.  City Manager Lollis stated he appreciated all the work done by all departments in the field during the recent storm and spoke of Tribal Council elections the upcoming weekend and of the Police Department’s Badge Pinning Ceremony.

CLOSED SESSION
None.

ADJOURNMENT
The council adjourned at 9:22 p.m. to the meeting of February 7th, 2023 at 5:30 p.m.

Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Deputy City Clerk
SEAL
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
Item No. 2.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Authorization to Replace City Hall Exterior Door SOURCE: Parks and Leisure Services
COMMENT: The double doors located at the southeast entrance to City Hall are very old and in need of replacement. The location of the door is closest to the Finance Department Utility Window and is used more than any other entrance to City Hall. The door has been repaired numerous times over the years and is now beyond the point of repair. After an inquiry of local businesses that could possibly replace the door, including the local business who installed and performed maintenance on the door, only Lindsay House of Glass was able to produce a quote. The custom size, panic bars and ADA power operation capability of the door made the job difficult to quote and is the reason for the limited response. The door will be paid for from the Parks and Leisure Services City Hall General Fund building maintenance account.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the replacement of the southeast exterior door of City Hall for $7,465.94 from Lindsay House of Glass.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Lindsay House of Glass, LLC Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Donnie Moore, Parks and Leisure Services Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

Item No. 3.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Authorization to Repair Specialized Equipment - Primary Clarifier Center Drive SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: The City's Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) requests authorization to repair the primary clarifier center drive on Plant #2. The center drive removes organic settleable solids through clarification and thickening. The clarification and thickening accomplished in the primary clarifier are critical to meeting Waste Discharge Requirement effluent discharge limits. The WWTF is seeking to expedite the repair as the primary clarifier is not operational at this time.

The WWTF solicited and received three quotes for the repair of the center drive. The quotes are as follows:

Clean Infusion $119,765 24-weeks lead time
GSE Construction $122,000 9-weeks lead time
Double J Enterprises $132,236 9-weeks lead time
Based on the submitted quotes and lead times, GSE Construction was selected as the low bidder for the repair of the primary clarifier center drive on Plant #2.

The expenditure for the repair is not to exceed $150,000, which includes repair parts, labor, freight, taxes, and a ten percent (10%) contingency. Project funds will be made available from the 2022-2023 WWTF Reserve Fund and will be subject to prevailing wage requirements.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Award the repair of the primary center drive on Plant #2 for the City's Wastewater Treatment facility to GSE Construction for a do-not-exceed amount of $150,000, which includes repair parts, labor, freight, taxes and a ten percent (10%) contingency;

2. Direct the Finance Director to initiate a Purchase Order to GSE Construction for a do not exceed amount of $150,000, which includes repair parts, labor, freight, taxes and a ten percent (10%) contingency; and

3. Direct the Finance Director to make payment to GSE
Construction upon receipt of an invoice approved by the Public Works Director.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. GSE Construction Quote

2. Clean Infusion Quote

3. Double J Enterprises Quote
Item No. 3.

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Michael Knight, Public Works Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
G.S.E. Construction Co., Inc. ꞏ 7633 Southfront Rd. STE #160 ꞏ Livermore, CA ꞏ 94551 www.gseconstruction.com
Contractor License # 401498
January 6th, 2023
Daniel Harris
Utilities Supervisor
1333 W Grand Ave.

Porterville, Ca 93257
RE: Clareator Drive Replacement
Dear Daniel Harris,
We are pleased to provide a quotation for the following scope of work; Demo and remove existing drive unit on Claraetor. Furnish and install custom direct replacement drive. This proposal is based upon emails on 11/29/22.

The scope of work for this project is as follows;
1) Field measure existing drive for new direct replacement drive. 2) Unbolt and remove catwalk.
3) Unbolt and remove existing damaged drive w/ Off-Haul. 4) Install new drive with new gear lube.
5) Reinstall catwalk.

Our price for this work is……………………………… $122,000
….Submittal: 4-5 weeks
….Shipment: 3-4 weeks after release.

This proposal excludes the following items;
▪ Cleaning/Draining of Claraetor. (Clareator to be rinsed and drained prior to work) ▪ All electrical work required for removal of drive and catwalk. ▪ Off haul of any sludge/hazardous material.
▪ Overtime or weekends work.
▪ Any work not specifically included
We appreciate the opportunity to bid on this project. Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,
Marc Saar
Office: (925) 447-0292
Mobile: (925) 525-9114
[email protected]
Phone: +1-267-698-1176 www.CleanInfusion.com [email protected] Clean Infusion Proposal: 5033
TO: Daniel Harris
City of Porterville, CA
Utilities Superintendent
Date: January 17, 2022
RE: City of Porterville
Clarifier Drive Replacement
Dear Mr. Daniel Harris
Clean Infusion is pleased to propose the replacement of your clarifier drive replacement.

Clarifier Drive Replacement
Below is the scope of work outlined needed for the replacement of your existing clarifier drive. • Field measure existing drive for new drive
• Removal of catwalk.
• Removal of existing drive.
• Supply and Installation of new drive.
• Reinstallation of catwalk using removed hardware.
• Testing and Inspection of new drive
Price Includes Labor, Construction Equipment and Materials $119,765.00 *Pricing does not include any taxes or additional freight costs. FOB to Porterville, CA WWTP. If customer is tax exempt please provide a copy prior to shipment or a tax charge will be applied to final invoice. **Submittal Lead Times are 4-8 weeks depending on workload at time of order. ***Shipment Date is 12-16 weeks after submittal approval depending on workload at time of order. Crews wil mobilize one day prior to shipment arrival.
****Any work performed above is included in Clean Infusion and Manufacturer’s Warranty

EXCLUSIONS

1. Draining and cleaning of tank/basin. Tank/Basin will need to be drained and cleaned prior to arrival.

2. Ladders for access to the basin/tank to be provided by city/town.

3. Insurance Certificates provided upon request.

4. Safety equipment (safety glasses, steel toed shoes, goggles, gloves, hard hats, as required) will be provided by Clean Infusion. If other safety equipment requirements or training are required by Owner, Clean Infusion will need this information three weeks prior to scheduled service to accommodate requests. Clean Infusion will provide its safety plan to municipality upon request.

5. Plant owner to ensure that site safety procedures are followed.

6. It is assumed the Clean Infusion crew will have access to the facility between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday.

7. The quotes listed in this proposal are based on Prevailing Wages/Davis Bacon wage rates for the state of California.

8. Clean Infusion will warranty any and all work performed by its crews for a period of 24 months after the completion of start up.

CLEANINFUSION
Wastewater Aeration Services
Matt Conyers
Director of Operations and Sales
Office: 267-698-1176
[email protected]

Item No. 4.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Aeronautical Light Beacon for the Airport SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: The aeronautical light beacon at the Airport is nearing the end of its operational life. The beacon is a navigational aid indicating the airport location to pilots.

Parts for the beacon are no longer available given its age. Recently, replacement parts for the beacon had to be custom made by a machinist. A new beacon with LED lighting will reduce power usage by approximately sixty-five percent (65%). The new lamps will have a typical life of 50,000 hours or twelve (12) years.

Staff had requested quotes for a new LED rotating beacon and received the following:

Hali-Brite $ 14,530.73
Flight Light $ 15,288.88
The cost of the new airport beacon will be funded from the Airport Operating Fund.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the purchase of a new LED rotating beacon for the Airport from Hali-Brite for $14,530.73, in addition to the related use tax, shipping and other charges.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Hali-Brite Inc. Quote

2. Flight Light Inc. Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Maria Bemis, Finance Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

Item No. 5.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Replacement Pump and Motor for City Well No. 1A SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: The City's Well No. 1 A, located on the north side of E. Putnam Avenue between Fourth Street and Henrahan Street, has experienced an operational failure. City staff has used the City-owned well rig to pull and assess the repairs needed to restore operation to this well.

Demands on the City's Water Distribution System depend on all wells being operational, so it is imperative that the well's operation is restored. Failure to correct this issue would affect the city’s overall water system pressure and production capabilities.

Three well pump repair companies were contacted requesting quotes for the replacement pump, motor, and electrical wire that is needed to restore the operation of this well. Three bids were requested and three bids were received from these local pump repair companies:

Pump Supply
Company
Total Cost
S. A. Camp $17,138
Zim Industries $17,214
Carver Pump Service $17,571
S. A. Camp was the lowest bidder to respond, and in addition, they are immediately available to order the replacement parts. Upon receipt, City staff can install and correct all issues at City Well No. 1 A, at a cost not to exceed $18,852 (inclusive of all parts, taxes, and labor and a 10% contingency). The total repair cost will be funded by the Water Operating Fund.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Direct the Finance Director to initiate a Purchase Order to S.A.

Camp for an amount not to exceed $18,852 for the repair parts needed for City Well # 1A; and

2. Direct the Finance Director to make payment to S.A. Camp upon receipt of the invoice approved by the Public Works Director.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. S. A. Camp Pump and Drilling Company Quote

2. Zim Industries, Inc. Quote
Item No. 5.

3. Carver Pump Service Quote

4. Locator Map
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Michael Knight, Public Works Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

City Well #1A

E PUTNAM AVENUE N HENRAHAN STREET

NORTH
  
S&A/E
 

N FOURTH STREET
Item No. 6.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Authorization to Distribute a Request for Qualifications for Skatepark Improvements
SOURCE: Parks and Leisure Services
COMMENT: The City was awarded a California State Parks Per Capita Program grant for $177,952. Funds are available for local park rehabilitation, creation, and improvement grants to local governments on a per capita basis. Grant recipients are encouraged to utilize awards to rehabilitate existing infrastructure and to address deficiencies in neighborhoods lacking access to the outdoors. The City Council determined Skatepark improvements as the City's Per Capita Grant project. A shade structure is currently being manufactured and will be the first improvement of the project. The second improvement is to add some additional Skatepark elements for the community to enjoy within the Skatepark. The final improvement will be to add solar lighting in conjunction with the next phase of the Veterans Park Trail. The phase of the Skatepark improvements that this Request for Qualifications covers are the Skatepark elements which will replace the existing interior dirt portions of the Skatepark.

Staff has proceeded with the preparation of a Request for Qualifications for this project. The firms interested in the project shall submit a statement of qualifications that will be reviewed and rated by a selection panel. The highest ranking firms may or may not be asked to participate in an interview panel and ranked again. Staff will then present the results of the ranking to Council for approval and to direct staff to negotiate a fee with the highest ranking firm or the firm determined by Council. The chosen firm will meet with staff to fine tune the scope and deliver a fee. If the fee is acceptable, staff will then seek Council's approval to execute a Service Agreement so that the firm can commence with the Skatepark Improvements project. The City intends to select one qualified Skatepark professional to provide full-service materials and installation of Skatepark elements within the existing Skatepark.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to distribute a Request for Qualifications for the Skatepark Improvements project.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Request for Qualifications Cover Letter

2. Draft Request for Qualifications

3. Locator Map
Appropriated/Funded:

Item No. 6.

Review By:

Department Director:

Donnie Moore, Parks and Leisure Services Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Professional Services – Skatepark Improvements Project
February 2023
PREPARED BY:

PARKS AND LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
February 2023
I INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:

The City of Porterville (hereinafter referred to as ''CITY'') is requesting statements of qualifications (SOQs) from qualified firms to provide professional design and construction services for the Skatepark Improvements Project. This document identifies the general project scope and procedures for involvement in this process. Responding firms must have relevant experience and the ability to provide the requisite professional services.

II EXAMINATION OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS:

By submitting a proposal, each CONSULTANT represents that it has thoroughly examined and become familiar with the work required under this RFQ and that it is capable of performing quality work to achieve the objectives of CITY.

III ADDENDA/CLARIFICATIONS:

Any CITY changes to this RFQ will be made via written addendum. No verbal modification shall be binding.

IV PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS:

Proposals for this project will be accepted at this office until 4:00 p.m., on Thursday, April 6, 2023. Three (3) copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, plainly marked “Statement of Qualifications for Skatepark Improvements Project.” Cost proposals shall not be submitted until requested by the CITY. Proposals shall be addressed to:

Daniel Cervantez, City Engineer
Engineering & Project Management Department
City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, which do not meet the requirements of this RFQ and/or any portion of the requirements of this project.

V PRE-CONTRACTUAL EXPENSES:

Pre-contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by the CONSULTANT in:
1) preparing and reproducing its proposal in response to this RFQ; 2) submitting its proposal to CITY; 3) negotiating with CITY any matter related to this RFQ and CONSULTANT's proposal; 4) other matters prior to the date of award of a Contract.

CITY shall not be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in the preparation of proposals. Pre-contractual expenses shall not be included in the cost proposal.

VI EXCEPTIONS/DEVIATIONS:

Any exceptions to the requirements of this RFQ must be included in the CONSULTANT's proposal. Such exceptions must be included as a separate element of the proposal entitled “Exceptions and Deviations.”
VII CONSULTANT REPRESENTATIVE:

The CONSULTANT shall assign a responsible representative and an alternate, both of whom shall be identified in the proposal. The CONSULTANT's representative shall remain in responsible charge for the duration of the project. Should the CONSULTANT's primary representative be unable to continue with the project, the CONSULTANT's alternate representative shall become the primary representative. No personnel changes will be acceptable without prior approval by CITY. CITY reserves the right to reject any changes in personnel at any time during the course of this project. CITY also reserves the right to terminate the contract if, in the opinion of CITY, substantial changes in project management may jeopardize the successful completion of this project to the satisfaction of CITY.

VIII LOCAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE:

Sarah Weaver, Project Manager, shall be the Contract Administrator and contact person for all communications with CITY.

IX INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:

The CONSULTANT shall maintain and provide current copies to CITY of the following minimum insurance coverage for the duration of this project:
▪ Full liability under Worker’s Compensation laws of the State of California ▪ General comprehensive liability (bodily injury and property damage)* ▪ Professional liability insurance (errors and omissions)* ▪ Automotive liability Insurance*
*All must provide a combined single limit (CSL) of not less than $2 million per occurrence.

X INDEMNIFICATION:

The CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officers, employees agents from and against any and all claims, including attorney's fees and reasonable expenses for litigation or settlement, for any loss, damages, bodily injuries, and loss of property caused by negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct by the successful CONSULTANT and its subconsultants arising out of performance requirements of the Contract.

XI SUBCONTRACTING:

Only those firms identified in the Contract as subcontractor’s or subconsultant’s shall be allowed to perform work for this project. Any amendments to this requirement shall be made in writing by prime CONSULTANT to CITY. CITY has the right to reject any requested amendments at any time during the course of this project.

XII FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS:

The CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes.

XIII PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Evaluation criteria used to select the CONSULTANT shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

A. CONSULTANT(s) experience with similar projects;
B. CONSULTANT(s) key personnel qualifications/certifications and experience, especially the project manager and individuals performing services; C. CONSULTANT(s) understanding of the project requirements; D. CONSULTANT(s) ability to provide the required services in a timely and cost-effective manner to meet the required schedule;
E. CONSULTANT(s) policy in providing Equal Employment Opportunity; and F. CONSULTANT(s) approach to provide the best product for CITY.

The attached CITY’S Consultant Selection Rating Form shall be used to rate each firm.

XIV CONSULTANT SELECTION AND INTERVIEWS:

CITY selection committee, consisting of the Contract Administrator and at least two additional staff members familiar with the project requirements, will review all proposals and rank CONSULTANTs according to their demonstrated competence and professional qualifications as assessed by their response to this RFQ and the evaluation criteria contained in the CITY’S Consultant Selection Rating Form. The highest ranked CONSULTANT(s) may be invited for oral interviews with CITY team. Interviews, if deemed necessary by CITY, are tentatively scheduled for the fourth week of April 2023. Each participating firm will be contacted via telephone for verification of interview date and time. Failure to be available at the time of a scheduled interview shall be considered non-responsive and shall be cause for elimination from any further consideration. CITY reserves the right to begin negotiations and enter into a Contract without interviews or further discussion.

XV COST PROPOSAL:

The cost proposal shall not be submitted until requested by the CITY. Negotiations with the topranked candidate(s) may begin immediately. If an agreement cannot be reached within ten (10) working days, CITY may begin negotiations with the next selected candidate(s) and proceed. If necessary, this process will continue until either an agreement is reached or CITY elects to readvertise for new proposals. CITY reserves the right to reject any and all proposals prior to award of a Contract. All cost proposals not opened shall be returned to their respective firms.

XVI CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS:

The successful CONSULTANT shall enter into upcoming Contracts with CITY that are based on the contents of this RFQ, the CONSULTANT's proposal, and CITY Contract. Where two or more CONSULTANT’s desire to submit a single proposal (joint venture), only one CONSULTANT shall be listed as prime CONSULTANT. All others shall be listed as subconsultants. The chosen CONSULTANT is expected to be presented at the City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, 2023. Issuance of this RFQ and receipt of proposals does not commit CITY to award a Contract. CITY reserves the right to postpone award of a Contract for its own convenience, accept or reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFQ, and cancel any or all portions of this RFQ and resulting Contract.

XVII COMPENSATION:

A. All items of work required for completion of the project/s to result from this RFQ shall be paid for following the cost proposal format specified in each task order request.

Costs for any and all items not specifically listed, but required to complete the work for projects (including all exceptions and deviations stated included in CONSULTANT's proposal), shall be included as part of the total cost proposed. No additional compensation shall be paid for such items. No additional compensation shall be given for any reproduction costs, except those in excess of the requirements stated in this RFQ. Only a change in scope or any significant task addition or increase shall receive consideration for additional compensation.

B. lf the CONSULTANT feels that any work it has been directed to perform is beyond the scope of the Contract and constitutes extra work, it shall notify CITY in writing within ten (10) days. CITY will review such notice and, if justified, authorize additional compensation to the CONSULTANT on a fair and equitable basis.

C. Monthly progress payments will be made to the CONSULTANT only upon submittal of invoices to CITY. Said invoice shall indicate the percentage completion of each task, as well as the overall percentage completion of the entire project. In addition, an updated schedule showing tasks and their degree of completion shall be provided.

XVIII OWNERSHIP OF REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS:

Originals of all documents, letters, drawings, design calculations, estimates, specifications, and other documents and data produced under the terms of the Contract shall become the property of CITY. CITY shall retain all rights in copyright. Copies may be made and retained by the CONSULTANT for its records, but shall not be furnished to others without the written consent of CITY for a period of three (3) years from the date of acceptance, by CITY, of all requirements of this project.

XIX PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT:

Proposals shall be brief and include a concise address of the following information:

A. Firm Experience:

1. A brief list of similar projects completed in the last five (5) years, indicate the specific relationship if other than principal and each firm's responsibilities.

Descriptions of pertinent experience should include a summary of work performed, adherence to schedules, the duration of each project, and the name, title, and phone number of clients that may be contacted for reference.

2. Other information that might aid CITY in ascertaining proposing firm's qualifications.

B. Consultant Team:

Name of prime consulting firm, subconsultant(s), names of principals, associates, project manager, and key personnel, their proposed level and areas of responsibility, and their qualifications/certifications in those areas. The CONSULTANT's Project Manager and key personnel will be an important factor considered by CITY.

1. Any changes to personnel assigned to this project shall be made in writing to CITY. CITY reserves the right to reject any proposal with modified personnel.

2. If subconsultant’s are used, names of subconsultant's key personnel for the project, their professional experience, qualifications/certifications, and training, which are applicable to this project, and the scope of services that will be provided by each subconsultant.

3. The office location from which the CONSULTANT(s) shall operate along with telephone and/or cell number of the project manager.

C. Proposal Format:

1. Proposals shall contain no more than twenty (20) pages, excluding cover sheet, table of contents, index sheets, and resumes, double-sided, font size no less than 10 pt., and single or double-spaced. Cover letters will be counted as part of the twenty sheets. The City encourages the use of recycled materials.

2. Proposals should include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Page numbering;
b. Table of Contents, if applicable;
c. Section dividers with tabs, if applicable;
d. Identification of offering firms, including name, address, and telephone number of each firm;
e. Prime CONSULTANT organizational chart, which includes subconsultant(s) with names and titles of personnel to be used for this project; f. Acknowledgment of receipt of RFQ addenda, if any;
g. Concise, complete response addressing each of the items, ‘a’ through ‘p’, as shown in the City’s “Consultant Selection Rating Form”; and h. Exceptions to or deviations from the requirements of this RFQ, separating technical exceptions from contractual exceptions. Any alternative approach proposed by the CONSULTANT shall be thoroughly explained and shall meet the objectives of CITY.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR SKATEPARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT The City of Porterville seeks “Statement of Qualifications” (SOQ) from skatepark professionals interested in providing design and construction services for the skatepark improvements project.

The City intends to select one (1) qualified skatepark professional to provide full-service design and installation of skatepark improvements for the Porterville Skatepark. This document identifies the general project scope and procedures for the selected firm’s involvement in this process. Responding firms must have relevant experience and the ability to provide the requisite professional services.

SCOPE OF SERVICES:

The firm will respond directly to the Engineering and Project Management Director or their designee on the project. The selected firm will perform, but not be limited to the following tasks:

1. Meet with City staff to ascertain the full scope of work and determine the level and amount of information and drawings available to the firm to assist in the preparation of the formal “scope of service”. Said scope shall be prepared and transmitted to the City for review and concurrence. The firm shall include their “fee” for all work described in the scope of services and, if acceptable to the City, the scope of services and associated fee shall form the basis for the Contract Services Agreement. A brief description of some of the work needed is listed below.

2. Provide clarifications and answer questions as needed.

3. Coordinate early consultation and ongoing meetings with City staff.

4. The firm shall provide a working schedule indicating major milestones to complete the work identified in the scope of services above.

5. The firm will be required to perform field data collection necessary to complete the requirements of the Project. The firm is solely responsible for safety of its employees including any sub-contracted employees during any field operations.

6. The firm shall provide project management to a level commensurate with the Project including clearly defined lines of communication between the City and the firm, coordination necessary for successful completion of the Project, timely invoicing for services rendered, and notification of tasks outside the executed Agreement.

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR:

The City is seeking a qualified professional with the following qualifications:

1. Experience in similar size and need skatepark improvement projects.

2. The skatepark company should be comprised of professionals with the technical competence and resources to perform the work specific to this RFQ.

3. The skatepark company should include the proper mix of professionals capable of producing the desired outcome of CITY.

LOCAL AGENGY RESPONSIBILITIES:

The FIRM will report to the CITY’s Contract Administrator. The FIRM shall not proceed with any work until the CITY provides the Notice to Proceed to the FIRM.

The CITY’s Contract Administrator will directly handle the project management and monitoring of the FIRM’s work to ensure it is complete, accurate, and consistent with the terms and conditions of the FIRM’s contract. The Contract Administrator and designees will also inspect, review, and discuss project progress, comply with Federal, State and Local policies and regulations, and other requirements to further the prosecution of the contract work with the least delay.

The CITY’s Contract Administrator (or designee) shall be responsible for the following:
o Serve as the CITY’s primary contact person for the FIRM o Monitor the FIRM’s progress and provide direction
o Review billings and determine whether costs billed are reasonable in relation to the work performed during billing period
o Approve the FIRM’s progress payments
o Identify other CITY personnel for FIRM to contact, if needed o Provide access to CITY facilities as required
o Provide available data pertinent to the Project
o Provide FIRM with CITY documents including policies, procedures, regulations and standards pertinent to the Project
o Examine documents submitted to CITY by FIRM and render decisions pertaining thereto in a timely manner

Item No. 7.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Authorization to Distribute a Request for Qualifications for Hayes Field Lighting Project
SOURCE: Parks and Leisure Services
COMMENT: Hayes Field is predominately used for youth girls softball. The existing Hayes Field lights were relocated from the historic municipal ball field at the former fairgrounds many years ago. Hayes Field serves as a drainage basin and at times receives an abundance of water. The existing light poles are wood and a couple have rotted to the extent of having to be removed due to safety concerns. The wooden poles were not meant to withstand the saturation of water over the years. The Hayes Field lighting project was approved by the City Council as part of its adopted 2022-2023 fiscal year budget. The project's estimated cost is $750,000 and will be funded by federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.

Staff has proceeded with the preparation of a Request for Qualifications for this project. The firms interested in the project shall submit a statement of qualifications that will be reviewed and rated by a selection panel. The highest ranking firms may or may not be asked to participate in an interview panel and ranked again. Staff will then present the results of the ranking to Council for approval and to direct staff to negotiate a fee with the highest ranking firm or the firm determined by Council. The chosen firm will meet with staff to fine tune the scope and deliver a fee. If the fee is acceptable, staff will then seek Council's approval to execute a Service Agreement so that the firm can commence with the Hayes Field lighting project. The City intends to select one qualified lighting professional to provide full-service materials and installation for the replacement of existing lights for the three softball fields. The new galvanized steel poles will have LED high efficiency lighting that is fully controllable remotely.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to distribute a Request for Qualifications for the Hayes Field lighting project.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Request for Qualifications Cover Letter

2. Draft Request for Qualifications

3. Locator Map
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Item No. 7.

Department Director:

Donnie Moore, Parks and Leisure Services Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Professional Services – Hayes Field Lighting Project
February 2023
PREPARED BY:

PARKS AND LEISURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
February 2023
I INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:

The City of Porterville (hereinafter referred to as ''CITY'') is requesting statements of qualifications (SOQs) from qualified consultant firms to provide professional services for the Hayes Field Lighting Project. This document identifies the general project scope and procedures for Consultant involvement in this process. Responding consultants must have relevant experience and the ability to provide the requisite professional services.

II EXAMINATION OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS:

By submitting a proposal, each CONSULTANT represents that it has thoroughly examined and become familiar with the work required under this RFQ and that it is capable of performing quality work to achieve the objectives of CITY.

III ADDENDA/CLARIFICATIONS:

Any CITY changes to this RFQ will be made via written addendum. No verbal modification shall be binding.

IV PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS:

Proposals for this project will be accepted at this office until 4:00 p.m., on Tuesday, March 21, 2023. Three (3) copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, plainly marked “Statement of Qualifications for Hayes Field Lighting Project.” Cost proposals shall not be submitted until requested by the CITY. Proposals shall be addressed to:

Daniel Cervantez, City Engineer
Engineering & Project Management Department
City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, which do not meet the requirements of this RFQ and/or any portion of the requirements of this project.

V PRE-CONTRACTUAL EXPENSES:

Pre-contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by the CONSULTANT in:
1) preparing and reproducing its proposal in response to this RFQ; 2) submitting its proposal to CITY; 3) negotiating with CITY any matter related to this RFQ and CONSULTANT's proposal; 4) other matters prior to the date of award of a Contract.

CITY shall not be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in the preparation of proposals. Pre-contractual expenses shall not be included in the cost proposal.

VI EXCEPTIONS/DEVIATIONS:

Any exceptions to the requirements of this RFQ must be included in the CONSULTANT's proposal. Such exceptions must be included as a separate element of the proposal entitled “Exceptions and Deviations.”
VII CONSULTANT REPRESENTATIVE:

The CONSULTANT shall assign a responsible representative and an alternate, both of whom shall be identified in the proposal. The CONSULTANT's representative shall remain in responsible charge for the duration of the project. Should the CONSULTANT's primary representative be unable to continue with the project, the CONSULTANT's alternate representative shall become the primary representative. No personnel changes will be acceptable without prior approval by CITY. CITY reserves the right to reject any changes in personnel at any time during the course of this project. CITY also reserves the right to terminate the contract if, in the opinion of CITY, substantial changes in project management may jeopardize the successful completion of this project to the satisfaction of CITY.

VIII LOCAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE:

Sarah Weaver, Project Manager, shall be the Contract Administrator and contact person for all communications with CITY.

IX INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:

The CONSULTANT shall maintain and provide current copies to CITY of the following minimum insurance coverage for the duration of this project:
▪ Full liability under Worker’s Compensation laws of the State of California ▪ General comprehensive liability (bodily injury and property damage)* ▪ Professional liability insurance (errors and omissions)* ▪ Automotive liability Insurance*
*All must provide a combined single limit (CSL) of not less than $2 million per occurrence.

X INDEMNIFICATION:

The CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its elected and appointed officers, employees agents from and against any and all claims, including attorney's fees and reasonable expenses for litigation or settlement, for any loss, damages, bodily injuries, and loss of property caused by negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct by the successful CONSULTANT and its subconsultants arising out of performance requirements of the Contract.

XI SUBCONTRACTING:

Only those firms identified in the Contract as subcontractor’s or subconsultant’s shall be allowed to perform work for this project. Any amendments to this requirement shall be made in writing by prime CONSULTANT to CITY. CITY has the right to reject any requested amendments at any time during the course of this project.

XII FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS:

The CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes.

XIII PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Evaluation criteria used to select the CONSULTANT shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

A. Firm(s) experience with similar projects;
B. Firm(s) key personnel qualifications/certifications and experience, especially the project manager and individuals performing services;
C. Firm(s) understanding of the project requirements;
D. Firm(s) ability to provide the required services in a timely and cost-effective manner to meet the required schedule;
E. Firm(s) policy in providing Equal Employment Opportunity; and F. Firm(s) approach to provide the best product for CITY.

The attached CITY’S Consultant Selection Rating Form shall be used to rate each firm.

XIV CONSULTANT SELECTION AND INTERVIEWS:

CITY selection committee, consisting of the Contract Administrator and at least two additional staff members familiar with the project requirements, will review all proposals and rank CONSULTANTs according to their demonstrated competence and professional qualifications as assessed by their response to this RFQ and the evaluation criteria contained in the CITY’S Consultant Selection Rating Form. The highest ranked CONSULTANT(s) may be invited for oral interviews with CITY team. Interviews, if deemed necessary by CITY, are tentatively scheduled for the fourth week of March 2023. Each participating firm will be contacted via telephone for verification of interview date and time. Failure to be available at the time of a scheduled interview shall be considered non-responsive and shall be cause for elimination from any further consideration. CITY reserves the right to begin negotiations and enter into a Contract without interviews or further discussion.

XV COST PROPOSAL:

The cost proposal shall not be submitted until requested by the CITY. Negotiations with the topranked candidate(s) may begin immediately. If an agreement cannot be reached within ten (10) working days, CITY may begin negotiations with the next selected candidate(s) and proceed. If necessary, this process will continue until either an agreement is reached or CITY elects to readvertise for new proposals. CITY reserves the right to reject any and all proposals prior to award of a Contract. All cost proposals not opened shall be returned to their respective firms.

XVI CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS:

The successful CONSULTANT shall enter into upcoming Contracts with CITY that are based on the contents of this RFQ, the CONSULTANT's proposal, and CITY Contract. Where two or more CONSULTANT’s desire to submit a single proposal (joint venture), only one CONSULTANT shall be listed as prime CONSULTANT. All others shall be listed as subconsultants. The chosen CONSULTANT is expected to be presented at the City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 2023. Issuance of this RFQ and receipt of proposals does not commit CITY to award a Contract. CITY reserves the right to postpone award of a Contract for its own convenience, accept or reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFQ, and cancel any or all portions of this RFQ and resulting Contract.

XVII COMPENSATION:

A. All items of work required for completion of the project/s to result from this RFQ shall be paid for following the cost proposal format specified in each task order request.

Costs for any and all items not specifically listed, but required to complete the work for projects (including all exceptions and deviations stated included in CONSULTANT's proposal), shall be included as part of the total cost proposed. No additional compensation shall be paid for such items. No additional compensation shall be given for any reproduction costs, except those in excess of the requirements stated in this RFQ. Only a change in scope or any significant task addition or increase shall receive consideration for additional compensation.

B. lf the CONSULTANT feels that any work it has been directed to perform is beyond the scope of the Contract and constitutes extra work, it shall notify CITY in writing within ten (10) days. CITY will review such notice and, if justified, authorize additional compensation to the CONSULTANT on a fair and equitable basis.

C. Monthly progress payments will be made to the CONSULTANT only upon submittal of invoices to CITY. Said invoice shall indicate the percentage completion of each task, as well as the overall percentage completion of the entire project. In addition, an updated schedule showing tasks and their degree of completion shall be provided.

XVIII OWNERSHIP OF REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS:

Originals of all documents, letters, drawings, design calculations, estimates, specifications, and other documents and data produced under the terms of the Contract shall become the property of CITY. CITY shall retain all rights in copyright. Copies may be made and retained by the CONSULTANT for its records, but shall not be furnished to others without the written consent of CITY for a period of three (3) years from the date of acceptance, by CITY, of all requirements of this project.

XIX PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT:

Proposals shall be brief and include a concise address of the following information:

A. Firm Experience:

1. A brief list of similar projects completed in the last five (5) years, indicate the specific relationship if other than principal and each firm's responsibilities.

Descriptions of pertinent experience should include a summary of work performed, adherence to schedules, the duration of each project, and the name, title, and phone number of clients that may be contacted for reference.

2. Other information that might aid CITY in ascertaining proposing firm's qualifications.

B. Consultant Team:

Name of prime consulting firm, subconsultant(s), names of principals, associates, project manager, and key personnel, their proposed level and areas of responsibility, and their qualifications/certifications in those areas. The CONSULTANT's Project Manager and key personnel will be an important factor considered by CITY.

1. Any changes to personnel assigned to this project shall be made in writing to CITY. CITY reserves the right to reject any proposal with modified personnel.

2. If subconsultant’s are used, names of subconsultant's key personnel for the project, their professional experience, qualifications/certifications, and training, which are applicable to this project, and the scope of services that will be provided by each subconsultant.

3. The office location from which the CONSULTANT(s) shall operate along with telephone and/or cell number of the project manager.

C. Proposal Format:

1. Proposals shall contain no more than twenty (20) pages, excluding cover sheet, table of contents, index sheets, and resumes, double-sided, font size no less than 10 pt., and single or double-spaced. Cover letters will be counted as part of the twenty sheets. The City encourages the use of recycled materials.

2. Proposals should include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Page numbering;
b. Table of Contents, if applicable;
c. Section dividers with tabs, if applicable;
d. Identification of offering firms, including name, address, and telephone number of each firm;
e. Prime CONSULTANT organizational chart, which includes subconsultant(s) with names and titles of personnel to be used for this project; f. Acknowledgment of receipt of RFQ addenda, if any;
g. Concise, complete response addressing each of the items, ‘a’ through ‘p’, as shown in the City’s “Consultant Selection Rating Form”; and h. Exceptions to or deviations from the requirements of this RFQ, separating technical exceptions from contractual exceptions. Any alternative approach proposed by the CONSULTANT shall be thoroughly explained and shall meet the objectives of CITY.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR HAYES FIELD LIGHTING The City of Porterville seeks “Statement of Qualifications” (SOQ) from sport field lighting professionals interested in contracting to provide lighting improvements for Hayes Field Lighting project. The City intends to select one (1) qualified lighting professional to provide full-service materials and installation for the replacement of exisiting lights on the three (3) Hayes Field softball fields. This document identifies the general project scope and procedures for Contractor involvement in this process. Responding businesses must have relevant experience and the ability to provide the requisite professional services.

SCOPE OF SERVICES:

The contractor will respond directly to the Engineering and Project Management Director or their designee on the project. The selected contractor will perform, but not be limited to the following tasks:

1. Meet with City staff to ascertain the full scope of work and determine the level and amount of information and drawings available to the consultant to assist in the preparation of the formal “scope of service”. Said scope shall be prepared and transmitted to the City for review and concurrence. The contractor shall include their “fee” for all work described in the scope of services and, if acceptable to the City, the scope of services and associated fee shall form the basis for the Contract Services Agreement. A brief description of some of the work needed is listed below.

2. Provide clarifications and answer questions as needed.

3. Coordinate early consultation and ongoing meetings with City staff.

4. The Contractor shall provide a working schedule indicating major milestones to complete the work identified in the scope of services above.

5. The Contractor will be required to perform field data collection necessary to complete the requirements of the Project. The Contractor is solely responsible for safety of its employees including any sub-contracted employees during any field operations.

6. The Contractor shall provide project management to a level commensurate with the Project including clearly defined lines of communication between the City and the Contractor, coordination necessary for successful completion of the Project, timely invoicing for services rendered, and notification of tasks outside the executed Agreement.

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR:

The City is seeking a qualified professional with the following qualifications:

1. Experience in similar size and need sport field lighting projects.

2. The lighting company should be comprised of professionals with the technical competence and resources to perform the work specific to this RFQ.

3. The lighting company should include the proper mix of professionals capable of producing the desired outcome of CITY.

LOCAL AGENGY RESPONSIBILITIES:

The CONTRACTOR will report to the CITY’s Contract Administrator. The CONTRACTOR shall not proceed with any work until the CITY provides the Notice to Proceed to the CONTRACTOR.

The CITY’s Contract Administrator will directly handle the project management and monitoring of the CONTRACTOR’s work to ensure it is complete, accurate, and consistent with the terms and conditions of the CONTRACTOR’s contract. The Contract Administrator and designees will also inspect, review, and discuss project progress, comply with Federal, State and Local policies and regulations, and other requirements to further the prosecution of the contract work with the least delay.

The CITY’s Contract Administrator (or designee) shall be responsible for the following:
o Serve as the CITY’s primary contact person for the CONTRACTOR o Monitor the CONTRACTOR’s progress and provide direction o Review billings and determine whether costs billed are reasonable in relation to the work performed during billing period
o Approve the CONTRACTOR’s progress payments
o Identify other CITY personnel for CONTRACTOR to contact, if needed o Provide access to CITY facilities as required
o Provide available data pertinent to the Project
o Provide CONTRACTOR with CITY documents including policies, procedures, regulations and standards pertinent to the Project
o Examine documents submitted to CITY by CONTRACTOR and render decisions pertaining thereto in a timely manner

Item No. 8.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Authorization to Award - Akin and Central Mutual Water System Improvement Project
SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: On January 10, 2023, staff received five bids for the Akin and Central Mutual Water System Improvement Project. The Akin water system is located in the area of Lincoln Street at Fourth Street and north of Gibbons Avenue. The Central Mutual water system is located in the area of South Kessing Street at Gibbons Avenue.

The Engineer's Estimate of Probable Cost for the project was $924,110. The low bid presented by RT Nelson Company, Inc, of Visalia is $862,644, which is $61,466 lower than the Engineer's Estimate (-6.65%). An additional $86,264 is necessary for construction contingency (10%) and $138,616 is required for construction management, quality control, and construction surveying, for a total of $1,087,524. Dee Jaspar and Associates was selected by staff from the City's On-Call Engineering and Surveying Services Consultant list, as adopted by MO #04-041922, to handle the construction management for this project as they worked on the design and are familiar with the City's water system and requirements of the grant program; the price of their work is included in the previously detailed totals.

Funding for the project is provided by reimbursement from the State Resources Control Board and the Funding Agreement was approved by the City Council at its meeting on June 1, 2021.

The bids are as follows:

Contractor Bid Amount
RT Nelson Company, Inc.

Visalia, CA
$862,644
Dawson-Mauldin, LLC
Selma, CA
$910,480
Lyles Utility Construction, LLC
Fresno, CA
$1,026,478
West Valley Construction Company,
Inc.

San Jose, CA
$1,146,980
Todd Companies
Visalia, CA
$1,163,265
Item No. 8.

Staff found the low bid acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Award the Akin and Central Mutual Water System
Improvement Project to RT Nelson Company, Inc. in the amount of $862,644;

2. Authorize progress payments up to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract amount;

3. Authorize a ten percent (10%) contingency to cover unforeseen costs;

4. Authorize an additional $138,616 for construction
management, construction surveying, quality control and inspection services; and

5. Authorize the City Engineer to negotiate construction surveying services with one of the firms as approved by Council MO #04-041922.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map - Akin

2. Locator Map - Central Mutual
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

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

AKIN WATER COMPANY

Item No. 9.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Project - Island Annexation Area 457 Sewer Project SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: Bill Nelson Construction has completed the Island Annexation Area 457 Sewer Project per plans and specifications. The project consisted of the installation of 6,101 lineal feet (1.15 miles) of 8" and 6" diameter sewer mains, fourteen (14) sewer manholes, and 114 sewer laterals.

Staff tracks construction costs of all Capital Improvement Projects and reports project construction expenditures when the project is accepted by the City Council. At its meeting on June 6, 2022, the Council authorized an expenditure of $2,157,036 for construction, construction management, quality control and inspection services for the project. The following itemizes the construction related costs into two categories: 1) the construction contract, and 2) a combination of construction management and quality control.

1. Final Construction Cost $1,977,000

2. Construction management, quality control and inspection service costs are $72,137.87
Total project construction costs equate to $2,049,137.87, which is less than the $2,157,036 overall budget approved by Council at the time of award. The funding source for this project is the proceeds from the issuance of the 2019 Sewer Revenue Bonds, better known to staff as Certificates of Participation (COP) funds.

Bill Nelson Construction requests that the Council accept the project as complete. Staff reviewed the work and found it acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: That City Council:

1. Accept the project as complete; and

2. Authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Javier Sanchez, Engineering & Project Management Director Item No. 9.

Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

ENGINEERING DIVISION

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
291 NORTH MAIN STREET PORTERVILLE, CA. 93257
(559) 782-7462 SEWER ANNEXATION
NUMBER 457

SUBJECT

LOCATION
STATE HIGHWAY 190 STATE HIGHWAY 65 S INDIANA ST

LEGEND S WISCONSIN ST S COTTAGE ST

ANNEXATION LIMITS

EXISTING SEWER MAIN

PROPOSED SEWER MAIN
Item No. 10.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Financial Status Reports
SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: The City Charter requires financial status reports to be provided to City Council on a monthly basis. Council Minute Order No. 10-011607 approved the recommended change in submittal of the interim financial status reports and established requirements and parameters in the presentation of the reports.

In accordance with Council Minute Order No. 10-011607, the financial status reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2022, are submitted.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the Financial Status Reports as presented.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Quarterly Financial Status Reports as of December 31, 2022 Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Maria Bemis, Finance Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
2022-2023 2022-2023 2021-2022 2021-2022
ESTIMATED YEAR-TO-DATE % OF ESTIMATED YEAR-TO-DATE % OF

REVENUE SOURCE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE PROPERTY TAXES $ 8,373,700 $ 4,520,051 53.98% $ 8,083,000 $ 4,133,481 51.14% OTHER TAXES:

SALES AND USE TAX 8,361,626 2,913,459 34.84% 6,771,812 2,766,139 40.85% UTILITY USERS TAX 4,600,000 2,600,236 56.53% 4,000,000 2,201,275 55.03% TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 840,000 237,739 28.30% 575,000 248,289 43.18% PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX 120,000 45,867 38.22% 105,000 82,091 78.18% FRANCHISE TAX 1,661,134 551,337 33.19% 1,651,134 555,273 33.63% SALES TAX - PUBLIC SAFETY 300,000 184,653 61.55% 260,000 187,311 72.04% LICENSES AND PERMITS:

BUSINESS AND OTHER LICENSES 511,300 313,210 61.26% 437,100 299,914 68.61% CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 750,000 307,449 40.99% 620,000 490,833 79.17% REVENUE FROM AGENCIES-TAXES:

VEHICLE LICENSE FEES 68,000 - - 43,000 - -
OTHER TAXES 22,000 - - 24,000 - -
REVENUE FROM AGENCIES-GRANTS 167,538 50,963 30.42% 191,507 35,608 18.59% USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY 304,000 193,372 63.61% 397,414 196,703 49.50% FINES AND FORFEITURES 32,500 13,113 40.35% 22,200 22,378 100.80% CHARGES FOR SERVICES:

PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 123,000 66,215 53.83% 123,500 51,549 41.74% POLICE 351,500 123,759 35.21% 363,000 104,218 28.71%
FIRE 40,500 60,203 148.65% 26,500 115,953 437.56%
LIBRARY 10,000 5,901 59.01% 10,000 72 0.72%
RECREATIONAL 3,098,755 695,387 22.44% 1,931,000 536,617 27.79% INTERDEPARTMENTAL 2,600,000 1,434,762 55.18% 2,400,000 1,372,712 57.20% OTHER 48,636 36,320 74.68% 21,590 39,289 181.98%
OTHER REVENUES 71,000 47,204 66.48% 59,000 45,065 76.38% SUBTOTALS $ 32,455,189 $ 14,401,199 44.37% $ 28,215,757 $ 13,484,770 47.79% OPERATING TRANSFERS 1,282,345 549,264 42.83% 1,254,945 509,961 40.64% DEBT SERVICE TRANSFERS 269,264 152,731 56.72% 244,828 140,105 57.23% TOTALS $ 34,006,798 $ 15,103,193 44.41% $ 29,715,530 $ 14,134,836 47.57%

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

REVENUE STATUS REPORT - GENERAL FUND

FOR THE PERIODS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2022 AND DECEMBER 31, 2021
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000

PROPERTY TAXES SALES & USE TAX UTILITY USERS TAX LICENSES AND

PERMITS OTHER TAXES OTHER REVENUES OPERATINGTRANSFERS CHARGES FORSERVICES City of Porterville
General Fund Revenues
Periods Ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021
22-23 21-22 PROPERTY TAXES 30%

SALES & USE TAX
20% UTILITY USERS TAX
17%
LICENSES AND PERMITS 4%
OTHER TAXES 5%
OTHER REVENUES 2%
OPERATING TRANSFERS 6%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 16%
City of Porterville
General Fund Revenues
Period Ended December 31, 2022
2022-2023 2022-2023 2021-2022 2021-2022
AMENDED YEAR-TO-DATE % OF AMENDED YEAR-TO-DATE % OF

APPROP EXPEND APPROP APPROP EXPEND APPROP
LEGISLATIVE:

CITY COUNCIL $ 222,917 $ 130,138 58.4% $ 459,917 $ 46,211 10.0% COMMUNITY PROMOTION 330,952 126,914 38.3% 269,920 139,127 51.5% EMERGENCY - LIBRARY 336,105 98,334 29.3% 580,000 115,539 19.9% ADMINISTRATIVE & LEGAL:

CITY MANAGER 398,209 228,080 57.3% 338,118 162,164 48.0% CITY CLERK 243,704 159,023 65.3% 230,830 103,218 44.7%
HUMAN RESOURCES 435,747 251,745 57.8% 308,868 152,475 49.4% CITY ATTORNEY 225,000 45,140 20.1% 225,000 50,453 22.4% FINANCE:

FINANCE & ACCOUNTING 1,194,568 520,085 43.5% 957,538 452,030 47.2% INFORMATION SERVICES 683,476 313,587 45.9% 523,625 272,052 52.0% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 323,154 156,922 48.6% 337,510 120,523 35.7% POLICE PROTECTION 10,958,716 4,925,039 44.9% 11,023,315 4,803,729 43.6% FIRE PROTECTION 4,751,581 2,382,470 50.1% 4,078,865 2,442,024 59.9% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

PLANNING & ZONING 742,784 332,074 44.7% 685,514 310,670 45.3% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 493,042 223,897 45.4% 397,139 158,008 39.8% PUBLIC WORKS:

ENGINEERING & BUILDING 1,687,371 843,645 50.0% 1,553,852 742,860 47.8% STREET MAINTENANCE 546,410 292,235 53.5% 517,194 252,480 48.8% SIGNALS, SIGNING & STRIPING 301,459 175,427 58.2% 319,000 104,360 32.7% STREET LIGHTING 539,518 222,761 41.3% 537,552 201,663 37.5% STORM DRAINS 92,585 32,978 35.6% 175,343 66,581 38.0%
PARKING LOTS 68,209 34,441 50.5% 64,552 29,098 45.1%
PARKS & LEISURE:

PARK MAINTENANCE & OPERATION 2,662,004 1,392,251 52.3% 2,472,875 1,316,024 53.2% STREET TREES & PARKWAYS 234,169 120,649 51.5% 251,710 101,751 40.4% COMMUNITY CENTERS 96,217 1,356 1.4% 100,000 (5,520) -5.5% LEISURE SERVICES 392,434 210,593 53.7% 349,023 180,542 51.7% LEISURE SERVICES - SPECIAL PROG 2,953,842 1,216,446 41.2% 2,933,915 1,050,712 35.8% SWIMMING POOL 173,950 130,617 75.1% 173,950 102,100 58.7% LIBRARY OPERATIONS 825,889 323,031 39.1% 811,451 253,477 31.2% SPECIAL PROJECTS 36,506 19,093 52.3% 36,507 7,554 20.7% SUB TOTALS 31,950,518 14,908,970 46.7% 30,713,083 13,731,905 44.7% OPERATING TRANSFERS 79,000 34,500 43.7% 79,000 34,500 43.7% DEBT SERVICE 1,598,169 802,033 50.2% 1,634,345 758,131 46.4% $ 33,627,687 $ 15,745,503 46.8% $ 32,426,428 $ 14,524,536 44.8%

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT - GENERAL FUND

FOR THE PERIODS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2022 AND DECEMBER 31, 2021
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000

LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE & LEGAL FINANCE FIRE PARKS & LEISURE POLICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC WORKS OPERATING

TRANSFERS DEBT SERVICE
City of Porterville
General Fund Expenditures
Periods Ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021
22-23 21-22
LEGISLATIVE 2%
ADMINISTRATIVE & LEGAL 4%
FINANCE 7%
FIRE 16%
PARKS & LEISURE 23%
POLICE 33%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4%
PUBLIC WORKS 11%
OPERATING TRANSFERS 0%
City of Porterville
General Fund Expenditures
Period Ended December 31, 2022

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

REVENUE STATUS REPORT - ALL OTHER FUNDS

FOR THE PERIODS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2022 AND DECEMBER 31, 2021
2022-2023 2022-2023 2021-2022 2021-2022
ESTIMATED YEAR-TO-DATE % OF ESTIMATED YEAR-TO-DATE % OF

REVENUE SOURCE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE MEASURE H SALES TAX $ 5,460,597 $ 1,939,000 35.5% $ 4,434,052 $ 1,776,060 40.1% MEASURE I SALES TAX 10,741,776 3,898,214 36.3% 8,923,104 3,573,040 40.0% AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT 11,113,000 2,609,831 23.5% - 1,710,605 - SPECIAL GAS TAX 4,757,438 1,949,214 41.0% 4,218,347 1,836,117 43.5% LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS (LTF) 32,849,952 798,995 2.4% 17,022,488 705,158 4.1% TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 100,200 (14,907) - 100,200 55,818 55.7% ZALUD ESTATE 5,650 3,885 68.8% 5,850 3,081 52.7%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 1,851,488 271,005 14.6% 2,022,126 221,348 10.9% SPECIAL SAFETY GRANTS 781,539 302,269 38.7% 299,784 111,916 37.3% SEWER OPERATING 7,378,925 4,109,206 55.7% 7,141,345 3,640,128 51.0% REFUSE REMOVAL 6,636,466 3,417,693 51.5% 6,150,866 3,226,917 52.5% AIRPORT OPERATIONS 2,081,500 875,131 42.0% 1,533,553 1,437,596 93.7% GOLF COURSE 220,900 118,538 53.7% 193,800 106,365 54.9% WATER OPERATING 13,246,005 7,897,882 59.6% 12,985,280 7,542,866 58.1% RISK MANAGEMENT 7,533,016 3,942,630 52.3% 7,445,716 3,781,117 50.8% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 3,854,200 1,494,421 38.8% 3,701,260 1,794,507 48.5% LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 132,682 71,650 54.0% 154,753 79,102 51.1% WATER REPLACEMENT 4,540,000 544,471 12.0% 14,466,321 502,444 3.5% SOLID WASTE RESERVE 953,070 465,865 48.9% 923,442 444,314 48.1% SEWER REVOLVING 447,898 260,232 58.1% 540,221 223,873 41.4% TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT 295,000 132,166 44.8% 215,000 134,244 62.4% PARK DEVELOPMENT 1,805,100 79,315 4.4% 100,050 67,481 67.4% TREATMENT PLANT RESERVE 992,240 657,051 66.2% 960,371 488,345 50.8% STORM DRAIN DEVELOPMENT 320,000 158,104 49.4% 220,000 201,784 91.7% BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 1,000 1,248 124.8% 1,000 819 81.9%

TOTALS $ 118,099,642 $ 35,983,109 30.5% $ 93,758,929 $ 33,665,044 35.9% $-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000

INTERNAL SERVICE SPECIAL REVENUE ENTERPRISE IMPROVEMENT GENERAL City of Porterville
Revenue by Fund Type
Periods Ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021
22-23 21-22
INTERNAL SERVICE 11%
SPECIAL REVENUE 16%
ENTERPRISE 33%
IMPROVEMENT 4%
GENERAL 36%
City of Porterville
Revenue by Fund Type
Period Ended December 31, 2022
2022-2023 2022-2023 2021-2022 2021-2022
AMENDED YEAR-TO-DATE % OF AMENDED YEAR-TO-DATE % OF

APPROP EXPEND APPROP APPROP EXPEND ACTUAL
MEASURE H SALES TAX $ 4,457,666 $ 2,348,517 52.7% $ 4,241,135 $ 2,114,424 49.9% MEASURE I SALES TAX 5,921,250 2,741,919 46.3% 4,890,884 2,765,323 56.5% AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT 2,594,570 2,622,641 101.1% - 1,667,628 - ZALUD ESTATE 31,855 16,925 53.1% 18,855 18,169 96.4%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 190,459 123,386 64.8% 546,985 73,923 13.5% SPECIAL SAFETY GRANTS 893,718 297,260 33.3% 397,563 120,501 30.3% SEWER OPERATING 6,820,260 3,098,565 45.4% 6,529,757 2,894,253 44.3% REFUSE REMOVAL 6,999,034 3,428,221 49.0% 6,846,900 3,082,983 45.0% AIRPORT 1,767,875 716,876 40.6% 1,407,844 969,124 68.8% GOLF COURSE 500,496 288,297 57.6% 460,151 259,486 56.4% WATER OPERATING 9,454,882 5,270,474 55.7% 8,104,376 4,367,189 53.9% RISK MANAGEMENT 9,340,626 5,195,468 55.6% 7,988,321 5,900,116 73.9% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 3,802,800 2,093,074 55.0% 3,632,540 1,675,719 46.1% LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 222,738 83,504 37.5% 192,995 87,855 45.5% TOTALS $ 52,998,229 $ 28,325,127 53.4% $ 45,258,306 $ 25,996,694 57.4%

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT - ALL OTHER FUNDS

FOR THE PERIODS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2022 AND DECEMBER 31, 2021
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000

INTERNAL SERVICE SPECIAL REVENUE ENTERPRISE GENERAL
City of Porterville
Expenditures by Fund Type
Periods Ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021
22-23 21-22
INTERNAL SERVICE 17%
SPECIAL REVENUE 13%
ENTERPRISE 29%
GENERAL 41%
City of Porterville
Expenditures by Fund Type
Period Ended December 31, 2022
FY 2022-23 FY 2021-22

REVENUES
Sales Tax - Measure H $ 1,910,123 1,762,059
Interest 24,526 10,031
Police Services 1,952 969
Contributions 2,400 3,000
TOTAL REVENUES 1,939,000 1,776,060

EXPENDITURES
Police Department 966,089 888,543
Fire Department 1,068,793 952,161
Public Safety Station 97,257 82,020
Library & Literacy 216,379 191,701
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,348,517 2,114,424

CAPITAL PROJECTS
Animal Shelter 17,103 7,990
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 17,103 7,990
REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ (426,620) $ (346,355)

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

INTERIM PERFORMANCE REPORT - MEASURE H
For the Periods Ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 FY 2022-23 FY 2021-22

REVENUES
Sales Tax - Measure I $ 3,787,620 $ 3,520,729
Interest 110,387 50,725
Police Services 206 1,586
TOTAL REVENUES 3,898,214 3,573,040

EXPENDITURES
Police Department 1,658,084 1,939,201
Fire Department 1,037,532 778,930
Streets Program 45,882 47,192
Litter Abatement Program 422 -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,741,919 2,765,323

CAPITAL PROJECTS
AC Pavement Repair/Overlay 748,789 252,917
Fire Dept Classroom/Training 20,434 -
Fire Station Remodel/Additions 139,571 -
Grand Ave Connection between 4th and Henrahan 19,450 2,487 Medians Restoration Project 1,574 -
Montgomery Ave Reconstruction - Jaye to H 1,283 1,396
Pavement Management Program 2,788 13,064
PD Evidence Storage Facilities 35,260 1,078
Union - Indiana to Jaye 8,375 10,515
Villa St Reconstruction - Olive to Henderson 13,061 17,388 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 990,585 298,843
REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 165,709 $ 508,874

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

INTERIM PERFORMANCE REPORT - MEASURE I
For the Periods Ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 12/31/2022 12/31/2021

NET OPERATING NET OPERATING

FUND REVENUES EXPENSES PROFIT (LOSS) PROFIT (LOSS)
Zalud Estate 3,885 $ (16,925) $ (13,040) $ (15,089) $
Sewer Operating 4,109,206 $ (3,098,565) $ 1,010,641 $ 745,875 $ Solid Waste 3,417,693 $ (3,428,221) $ (10,528) $ 143,934 $ Airport 875,131 $ (716,876) $ 158,255 $ 468,471 $
Golf 118,538 $ (288,297) $ (169,759) $ (153,121) $
Water Operating 7,897,882 $ (5,270,474) $ 2,627,408 $ 3,175,677 $

CITY OF PORTERVILLE

INTERIM PERFORMANCE REPORT - ENTERPRISE FUNDS
For the Periods Ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 Item No. 11.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Portfolio
SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: This report reflects the investment portfolio of the City as of December 31, 2022, and is in compliance with California Government Code Section 27000, etc., Section 53600, etc., and the City of Porterville's Statement of Investment Policy. Investments are selected based on the statutory objectives of safety, liquidity and yield.

Items identified in the summary include portfolio composition , weighted average rate of earnings, weighted average days to maturity, and the percentage of liquid holdings.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the quarterly Investment Portfolio Summary Report.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Investment Portfolio Summary - December 31, 2022 Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
PORTFOLIO SUMMARY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2022

INVESTMENT COUPON

OR CUSIP PURCHASE MARKET INTEREST PURCHASE MATURITY DAYS TO

NUMBER INSTITUTION PRICE VALUE RATE DATE DATE MATURITY
1006 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND $ 15,766,233 $ 15,766,233 2.070% DAILY DAILY 1 1104 CSJVRMA INVESTMENT FUND 7,294,122 7,026,512 1.530% DAILY DAILY 30 866 TULARE COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL 9,728,137 9,728,137 2.000% DAILY DAILY 30 CA-01-0026 CALIFORNIA CLASS 7,006,260 7,006,260 4.201% DAILY DAILY 1 CORNERSTONE MAIN PARTNERS, L.P. 2,778,511 2,778,511 2.400% 12/12/2018 11/30/2038 5,813 3133ENF39 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 1,000,000 989,900 3.125% 8/18/2022 8/8/2023 220 3130ASJT7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 981,780 3.230% 6/29/2022 12/29/2023 363 3134GXF74 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 1,000,000 979,660 3.625% 7/26/2022 7/26/2024 573 3134GXP81 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 1,000,000 986,150 3.820% 8/30/2022 8/28/2024 606 3134GXX66 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 1,000,000 988,790 3.625% 9/23/2022 9/23/2024 632 3130ATFL6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 990,690 4.600% 9/30/2022 9/30/2024 639 3130AQRM7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 935,570 1.550% 2/25/2022 2/25/2025 787 3130ARQ95 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 961,770 3.030% 4/29/2022 4/28/2025 849 3130AS2Q1 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 966,100 3.150% 5/23/2022 5/23/2025 874 3134GXUC6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 1,000,000 976,620 3.400% 5/27/2022 5/23/2025 874 3134GXF66 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 1,000,000 984,270 4.000% 8/1/2022 8/1/2025 944 3130ASU98 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS, STEP-UP 1,000,000 985,210 3.500% 8/25/2022 8/25/2025 968 3135GACV1 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOC 1,000,000 979,880 4.000% 8/30/2022 8/28/2025 971 3130ATFG35 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 999,510 5.000% 10/17/2022 10/17/2025 1,021 3133ENR77 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 1,000,000 996,730 4.920% 10/12/2022 1/12/2026 1,108 3130AQJJ3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 913,900 1.125% 1/26/2022 1/26/2026 1,122 3130AKXB7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,975,000 1,757,480 0.580% 3/18/2021 2/11/2026 1,138 3130ALGJ7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 975,000 874,010 1.000% 3/23/2021 3/23/2026 1,178 3133EMUK6 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 1,000,000 899,450 1.050% 3/25/2021 3/25/2026 1,180 3130ALS62 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS, STEPUP 1,000,000 901,410 0.750% 3/30/2021 3/30/2026 1,185 3130AM3R1 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 888,980 1.000% 4/29/2021 4/29/2026 1,215 3134GXXF6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 1,000,000 971,040 3.500% 6/28/2022 6/26/2026 1,273 3130ASD71 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 958,760 3.200% 6/29/2022 6/29/2026 1,276 3130ANM64 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 885,370 1.000% 8/26/2021 8/26/2026 1,334 3130ANUN8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 2,000,000 1,769,660 1.040% 9/21/2021 9/21/2026 1,360 3130ANUX6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 886,370 1.100% 9/28/2021 9/28/2026 1,367 3133ENN89 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 1,000,000 992,750 4.870% 11/8/2022 9/28/2026 1,367 3133ENN89 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 1,000,000 993,170 4.870% 9/28/2022 9/28/2026 1,367 3130APCH6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 883,250 1.125% 9/29/2021 9/29/2026 1,368 3130APDK8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 886,210 1.100% 9/30/2021 9/30/2026 1,369 3130APCX1 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 889,510 1.250% 10/26/2021 10/26/2026 1,395 3130APDQ5 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 889,400 1.250% 10/28/2021 10/28/2026 1,397 3130APG82 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 891,410 0.800% 11/2/2021 10/28/2026 1,397 3130APTJ4 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 887,640 1.250% 11/24/2021 11/24/2026 1,424 3130APU37 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 889,350 1.300% 11/24/2021 11/24/2026 1,424 3130AQ7F4 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,500,000 1,346,220 1.600% 12/30/2021 12/30/2026 1,460 3130AQ5Q2 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 2,000,000 1,788,080 1.500% 12/30/2021 12/30/2026 1,460 3133ENNG1 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 2,000,000 1,824,100 1.860% 2/8/2022 2/8/2027 1,500 3130AQRH8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 908,210 2.000% 2/25/2022 2/25/2027 1,517 3130ARA76 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 2,000,000 1,829,180 2.250% 3/30/2022 3/30/2027 1,550 3130ARU74 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 947,680 3.375% 5/17/2022 5/17/2027 1,598 3130ARUX7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 961,180 3.750% 5/19/2022 5/19/2027 1,600 3133EN3Y4 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 1,000,000 1,001,360 5.330% 12/14/2022 6/14/2027 1,626 3130ASD63 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 945,400 3.250% 6/28/2022 6/28/2027 1,640 3130ASFQ7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 968,170 4.000% 6/29/2022 6/29/2027 1,641 3130ASPE3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1,000,000 969,020 4.300% 7/28/2022 7/28/2027 1,670 3133ENL32 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 1,000,000 983,110 4.230% 9/8/2022 9/8/2027 1,712 3134GX3K8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 1,000,000 994,210 5.250% 10/20/2022 10/20/2027 1,754 3134GY5W8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 1,000,000 998,670 5.250% 12/16/2022 12/16/2027 1,811 037833DE7 APPLE INC NOTE 1,000,000 999,520 2.400% 1/16/2018 1/13/2023 13 084670BR8 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY 1,000,000 995,720 2.750% 4/23/2018 3/15/2023 74 06406RAG2 BANK NEW YORK MELLON CORP MTN 1,000,000 995,670 3.500% 10/16/2018 4/28/2023 118 90331HNV1 US BANK ASSN MTN 1,000,000 990,870 3.400% 11/15/2018 7/24/2023 205 06747PML0 BARCLAYS BANK 1,000,000 979,320 3.000% 3/17/2020 10/17/2023 290 48133DN55 JP MORGAN CHASE FINL CO 2,000,000 1,958,280 4.050% 7/29/2022 7/29/2024 576 13605WWW7 CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK 1,000,000 934,040 2.500% 4/28/2020 4/10/2025 831

INVESTMENT COUPON

OR CUSIP PURCHASE MARKET INTEREST PURCHASE MATURITY DAYS TO

NUMBER INSTITUTION PRICE VALUE RATE DATE DATE MATURITY
89236TKC8 TOYOTA MOTOR CRD CORP 1,000,000 978,960 3.950% 9/8/2022 6/30/2025 912 17298CK64 CITIGROUP INC 1,000,000 884,930 1.000% 8/28/2020 8/28/2025 971 06748XQR5 BARCLAYS BANK 1,000,000 983,238 4.500% 9/12/2022 3/12/2026 1,167 89114TK84 TORONTO DOMINION BANK 2,000,000 1,736,331 1.050% 6/16/2021 3/16/2026 1,171 06368EWM0 BANK OF MONTREAL 2,000,000 1,750,709 1.220% 3/17/2021 3/17/2026 1,172 06048WV56 BANK OF AMERICA 1,000,000 949,150 4.000% 5/5/2022 5/5/2026 1,221 17290A3E8 CITIGROUP INC 1,000,000 867,100 1.250% 7/1/2021 7/1/2026 1,278 38150AHV0 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 1,000,000 833,810 1.400% 9/30/2021 9/30/2026 1,369 06048WZ29 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 1,000,000 973,900 6.000% 10/20/2022 10/20/2027 1,754 61747MF63 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 245,884 2.650% 1/11/2018 1/11/2023 11 22239MAR9 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 248,679 2.600% 2/2/2018 2/2/2023 33 366526AR2 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 248,552 2.650% 2/16/2018 2/16/2023 47 949495BC8 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 249,178 1.750% 2/21/2020 2/21/2023 52 819866AE4 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 248,420 2.800% 3/5/2018 3/6/2023 65 17312QJ26 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 245,139 2.900% 4/11/2018 4/11/2023 101 25665QAX3 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 245,122 2.900% 4/13/2018 4/13/2023 103 91435LAG2 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 247,942 3.050% 5/14/2018 5/15/2023 135 080515CQ0 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 244,937 3.050% 5/16/2018 5/16/2023 136 319141KL0 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 243,853 3.150% 6/6/2018 6/6/2023 157 90348JCW8 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 247,887 3.250% 6/13/2018 6/13/2023 164 74934YAH4 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 243,728 3.150% 6/20/2018 6/20/2023 171 74160NGF1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 247,748 3.200% 6/22/2018 6/22/2023 173 45581EAX9 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 247,792 3.300% 6/30/2018 6/30/2023 181 89841MAD9 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 243,172 2.850% 7/19/2022 7/19/2023 200 31911QFK6 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 247,187 3.200% 8/10/2018 8/10/2023 222 499724AD4 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 247,008 3.250% 8/30/2018 8/30/2023 242 64017AAH7 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 242,883 3.300% 9/19/2018 9/19/2023 262 92891CBK7 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 246,630 3.350% 10/16/2018 10/16/2023 289 474067AQ8 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 246,610 3.350% 10/19/2018 10/19/2023 292 59452WAE8 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 246,607 3.450% 11/9/2018 11/9/2023 313 61760ASL4 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 242,736 3.550% 11/26/2018 11/24/2023 328 635573AL2 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 242,146 3.400% 12/26/2018 12/21/2023 355 05465DAK4 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 240,071 1.650% 3/26/2020 3/26/2024 451 14042RSH5 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 240,347 3.300% 6/29/2022 7/1/2024 548 15118RRHS CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 237,969 1.850% 8/30/2019 8/30/2024 608 938828BM1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 238,569 2.000% 8/30/2019 8/30/2024 608 12527CFB3 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 239,657 3.300% 7/22/2022 9/30/2024 639 23204HLJ5 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 249,525 4.500% 10/26/2022 10/28/2024 667 654062LB2 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 247,368 4.100% 9/28/2022 3/28/2025 818 02589AC34 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 239,088 2.550% 4/17/2022 4/7/2025 828 02589AC34 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 240,700 3.050% 7/25/2022 7/25/2025 937 06740KQZ3 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 242,255 3.300% 7/27/2022 7/28/2025 940 20825WAZ3 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 241,712 3.400% 8/15/2022 8/15/2025 958 795451CD3 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 240,000 232,658 3.350% 8/24/2022 8/25/2025 968 06168LAB4 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 244,000 241,265 4.150% 10/12/2022 10/14/2025 1,018 693963AB6 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 246,522 4.200% 10/14/2022 10/14/2025 1,018 178180GQ2 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 244,000 245,747 4.850% 11/9/2022 11/10/2025 1,045 05580AM92 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 248,000 234,191 2.750% 4/22/2022 4/22/2026 1,208 02007GWJ8 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 234,544 3.150% 7/21/2022 7/21/2026 1,298 87165FE42 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 218,545 1.100% 11/12/2021 11/12/2026 1,412 07181JAU8 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 252,678 5.000% 11/22/2022 11/23/2026 1,423 14042TEH6 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 219,332 1.250% 12/8/2021 12/8/2026 1,438 89235MMH1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 219,314 1.250% 12/9/2021 12/9/2026 1,439 052392CH8 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 248,000 251,261 4.950% 12/16/2022 12/16/2026 1,446 856285F63 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 220,672 1.800% 1/31/2022 2/1/2027 1,493 70962LBE1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 221,949 1.700% 2/18/2022 2/18/2027 1,510 02589ABQ4 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 221,051 2.000% 3/9/2022 3/9/2027 1,529 39573LDA3 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 221,683 2.100% 3/15/2022 3/15/2027 1,535 58404DNW7 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 248,000 230,573 2.800% 4/29/2022 4/29/2027 1,580 254673D94 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 232,519 3.200% 5/18/2022 5/19/2027 1,600 07371C6Y0 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 230,379 3.000% 6/15/2022 6/9/2027 1,621 38150VCG2 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 246,000 230,342 3.000% 6/15/2022 6/15/2027 1,627 50625LBN2 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 235,534 3.250% 6/15/2022 6/15/2027 1,627 88413QDN5 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 231,861 3.300% 8/19/2022 8/19/2027 1,692 32022RSY4 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 236,411 3.400% 9/14/2022 9/14/2027 1,718 52470QBV5 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 237,407 3.500% 9/23/2022 9/23/2027 1,727

INVESTMENT COUPON

OR CUSIP PURCHASE MARKET INTEREST PURCHASE MATURITY DAYS TO

NUMBER INSTITUTION PRICE VALUE RATE DATE DATE MATURITY
1204 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.700% 4/24/2018 4/24/2023 114 1281 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 2.800% 5/14/2018 5/14/2023 134 1282 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 3.000% 6/21/2018 6/21/2023 172 1283 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 1.591% 5/12/2020 5/12/2023 132 1285 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 2.650% 4/29/2018 4/29/2023 119 1286 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 3.100% 6/25/2018 6/25/2023 176 1303 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 1.100% 4/16/2021 4/16/2024 472 1309 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 1.800% 2/14/2022 2/14/2027 1,506 1311 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 3.200% 6/23/2022 6/23/2027 1,635 1314 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.000% 7/21/2022 7/20/2024 567 1316 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,083 250,083 2.750% 10/6/2022 4/6/2024 462 1317 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 4.500% 12/13/2022 12/13/2027 1,808 1318 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.500% 3/22/2018 3/22/2023 81 1319 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 0.800% 5/3/2022 5/3/2023 123 1320 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.250% 9/12/2018 9/12/2023 255 1324 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.350% 1/11/2019 1/11/2024 376 1326 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 276,566 276,566 3.500% 1/29/2019 1/29/2024 394 1327 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 245,000 245,000 3.500% 2/28/2019 2/28/2024 424 1328 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.250% 3/22/2019 3/22/2024 447 1329 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.210% 4/9/2019 10/9/2023 282 1330 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 248,960 248,960 3.200% 5/24/2019 5/24/2024 510 1331 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.100% 5/7/2019 5/7/2024 493 1332 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.200% 6/4/2019 6/4/2024 521 1334 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 250,000 250,000 3.050% 7/31/2019 7/31/2024 578 1335 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.810% 9/11/2019 9/11/2024 620 1336 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.800% 9/17/2019 9/17/2024 626 1337 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.700% 11/1/2019 11/1/2024 671 1338 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 268,277 268,277 2.720% 10/15/2019 10/15/2024 654 1339 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 263,480 263,480 2.250% 12/26/2019 12/26/2024 726 1340 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.400% 12/5/2019 12/5/2024 705 1341 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.250% 1/8/2020 1/8/2025 739 1342 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.250% 1/17/2020 1/17/2025 748 1343 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 2.250% 1/24/2020 1/24/2025 755 1344 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 1.100% 11/18/2020 11/18/2023 322 1345 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 252,883 252,883 3.150% 6/9/2022 6/9/2027 1,621 1346 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.250% 6/21/2022 6/21/2027 1,633 1347 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.320% 7/21/2022 7/21/2027 1,663 1348 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.200% 7/20/2022 7/20/2027 1,662 1349 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.100% 8/30/2022 3/1/2026 1,156 1350 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 3.800% 10/28/2022 10/28/2025 1,032 1351 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 4.500% 11/28/2022 11/28/2024 698 1352 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 4.650% 11/28/2022 11/28/2023 332 1352 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 5.150% 12/12/2022 12/12/2027 1,807 1354 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 249,000 249,000 4.000% 12/22/2022 12/22/2025 1,087 TOTALS $ 141,156,512 $ 135,884,329

WEIGHTED
WEIGHTED AVERAGE RATE OF EARNINGS % OF LIQUID AVERAGE

ONE YEAR HISTORY CURRENT PORTFOLIO DAYS TO
12/31/2021 3/31/2022 6/30/2022 9/30/2022 12/31/2022 HOLDINGS MATURITY

1.222% 1.274% 1.588% 2.095% 2.622% 28.192% 846
Comments:

Portfolio holdings as of December 31, 2022, are in compliance with the current Investment Policy. With 28.192% of the portfolio being held in liquid instruments, the cash needs of the City will be met. The next portfolio report will be calculated for the first calendar quarter ending March 31, 2023, and will be presented during the May 2, 2023 Council meeting.

Item No. 12.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Reaffirm Conditions of State Assembly Bill 361 to Continue Remote Attendance at Public Meetings
SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT:

During the prior eighteen (18) months, the City Council and its legislative bodies have conducted teleconferencing meetings as allowed pursuant to a series of Executive Orders, the most recent which expired on September 30, 2021 (Executive Order N-08-021, issued June 11, 2021), which waived all physical presence requirements under the Brown Act as a means of limiting the spread of COVID-19. Pursuant to adopted State law effective September 30, 2021, Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361), extends the authority of public agencies to conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, without compliance with all of the Brown Act's limitations on such meetings, which the status of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying recommendations for social distancing remain in place. Consistent with AB 361, the Council must adopt a Resolution consistent with the Governor's State of Emergency, and must review and renew such Resolution every thirty (30) days thereafter. AB 361 will sunset on January 1, 2024, although Governor Newsom announced on October 17, 2022, that the COVID-19 State of Emergency would be concluded on February 28, 2023, thus ending the authority of the legislation. The Council last adopted its Resolution consistent with AB 361 at its meeting on January 17, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider adoption of the draft Resolution to continue allowing the option to participate in the City's public meetings remotely through the use of the teleconferencing provisions of AB 361.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

John Lollis, City Manager
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
RESOLUTION _____-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY BY ASSEMBLY BILL 361 ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2021, AND AUTHORIZING REMOTE

TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF ALL LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE FOR THE PERIOD OF THIRTY (30) DAYS PURSUANT TO BROWN

ACT PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of all City of Porterville legislative bodies; and, WHEREAS, all meetings of the City’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950-54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and,
WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(s), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, a required condition is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and, WHEREAS, a proclamation is made when there is an actual incident, threat of disaster, or extreme period to the safety of persons and property within the jurisdictions that are within the City’s boundaries, caused by natural, technological, or humancaused disasters; and, WHEREAS, it is further required that State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, the legislative body meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and, WHEREAS, a State of Emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor of the State of California; and,
WHEREAS, State and local officials continue to promote social distancing measures and City’s conference chambers limited capacity would present imminent risk to health and safety of attendees; and,
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the State emergency, the City does hereby find that the legislative bodies of the City shall conduct their meetings without compliance with paragraph three (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953, as authorized by subdivision (e) of section 54953, and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in paragraph two (2) of subdivision (c) of section 54953; and, WHEREAS, the City will give notice of the meeting and post agendas, as described, to allow members of the public to access the meeting and address the legislative body, to give notice of the means by which members of the public may access the meeting and offer public comment, including an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and to conduct the meeting in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties and the public appearing before the legislative body; and, WHEREAS, the legislative body will not take any further action on agenda items when there is a disruption which prevents the public agency from broadcasting the meeting, or in the event of a disruption within the local agency’s control which prevents members of the public from offering public comments, until public access is restored; and,
WHEREAS, the legislative body will not require public comments to be submitted in advance of the meeting and specifies that the legislative body must provide an opportunity for the public to address the legislative body and offer comment in real time; and,
WHEREAS, the legislative body will not close the public comment until the public comment period has elapsed or until a reasonable amount of time has elapsed as specified.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Porterville as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference; and, SECTION 2. Ratification of Governor’s Proclamation of a State of Emergency.

The City hereby ratifies the Governor of the State of California’s Proclamation of March 2, 2020; and,
SECTION 3. Remote Teleconference Meetings. The City Manager and legislative bodies of City of Porterville are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act; and, SECTION 4. Effective Date of Resolutions. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until February 28, 2023.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2023.

Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By:

Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Item No. 13.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – FEBRUARY 7, 2023
SUBJECT: Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project SOURCE: Community Development
BACKGROUND: The City's Project Review Committee (PRC) began its assessment of PRC 2020-48 on January 6, 2021. As PRC comments were incorporated into the project, it was subsequently discussed at PRC meetings on May 26, 2021 and September 29, 2021. Formal project submittal was on December 17, 2021. The project was initially scheduled for City Council consideration on January 17, 2023; however, during the CEQA review period, the City received a comment letter from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that prompted the City and the applicant to request continuation of the Hearing until further analysis could be performed. On January 17, 2023, the Council opened the Public Hearing, took brief public comment, then voted to continue the Hearing to its regular meeting of February 7, 2023. The content of that abbreviated Hearing, along with the result of the additional analysis performed in response to the DTSC comments, is discussed under ENVIRONMENTAL below.

COMMENT: The project consists of several development entitlements: an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram, a conditional use permit, a tentative subdivision map, and annexation. The project would result in the annexation and development of APN 269-060-020, consisting of approximately 20.23 acres located at the southwest corner of W. Gibbons Avenue and S. Jaye Street.

Development would generally include subdivision of the project site into eighty (80) lots for single-family use, construction of a 0.86-acre park, construction of interior local streets and necessary onsite infrastructure, and improvements within abutting major street rights-of-way.

The 2030 General Plan Land Use Element currently designates the parcel for two uses: the northern half as Public Institutional and the southern half as Low Density Residential. The entire parcel is currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-Acre Minimum) by the County of Tulare and prezoned RS-2 (Low Density Residential) by the City of Porterville. To facilitate the project, the applicant has proposed to amend the General Plan Land Use of the northern half to Low Density Residential:

Item No. 13.

ANALYSIS: The proposed tentative subdivision map would provide new single-family residential housing on lots ranging from 5,000 SF to 11,000 SF*. Circulation is provided through the planned internal streets, which include parkway strips, streetlights, and sidewalks. The subdivision provides external connections to W.

Gibbons Avenue and S. Jaye Street; the project would dedicate and improve a 56-foot section of Jaye Street along its eastern boundary and would dedicate a 47-foot strip (plus a 10-foot landscape easement) along the southern boundary for the future extension of Scranton Avenue. The subdivision consists of generally short blocks, which slows traffic and enhances pedestrian connectivity. The project includes a 0.86-acre park toward its northern end, which will be improved and dedicated to the City and included in the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District.

The gross density of the project is 3.95 units per acre, which falls below the maximum of 6.0 units per acre allowed in the Low Density Residential Land Use designation. The areas to the north and east of the site are already developed with single-family residences. Immediately to the west is St. Anne’s Cemetery; other land to the west and south supports rural residences and agriculture. The project, while proposing lots with a smaller minimum size than the existing surrounding neighborhoods, still results in a development pattern that is compatible with the area and that falls well within the prescribed density mandated by the General Plan.

Prior to approval of any General Plan amendment, Government Code Section 65352.3 requires that the City notify any California Native American Tribe identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having an historical or cultural affiliation with the area and provides those Tribes ninety (90) days to comment on the proposal. Following receipt of a Tribal contact list from NAHC, the City notified nine Tribal contacts from five Tribes about the project. The consultation period ran from October 4, 2022 to January 2, 2023, and no comments were received.

The RS-2 zone has a default minimum lot size of 6,000 SF; approximately half of the proposed lots meet that minimum. To facilitate a smaller minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for some of the lots (with a corresponding minimum width of 50 feet), the project proposes a conditional use permit (CUP). Development Code Section 201.4(C) provides that an applicant may request lot size as low as 3,000 SF subject to City Council approval of a CUP if it finds that the lot size and configuration are consistent with the General Plan and will not adversely affect adjoining uses. This project is not requesting lots of that size. Additional Item No. 13.
design elements, including but not limited to, enhanced street trees and varied lot widths along with optional elements such as traffic calming facilities and park space are required, and the project includes them. As described above, the project would fall within the prescribed General Plan density and is not out of character with surrounding development. Prior to approval of a conditional use permit, the Council must make the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 604.04:

1. Approval of the proposed project will advance the goals and objectives of and is consistent with, the policies of the general plan and any other applicable plan that the City has adopted. Following amendment of the General Plan as proposed, the project will result in development at a density consistent with the provisions of the Low Density Residential designation. The project will serve to implement Policies LU-G-6, LU-G-7, LU-G-9, LU-G-10, LU-I-13, LU-I-14, LU-I-15, LU-I-18, LU-I-19, and LU-G-19. There are no other applicable plans.

2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed project are consistent with the purposes of the district where it is located and conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan, this development Ordinance and with any other applicable plan adopted by the City Council. The characteristics of the project are compatible with the standards of the RS-2 district (as modified by this conditional use permit). The development conforms to the density of the Low Density Residential designation and serves to implement numerous policies of the General Plan. There are no other applicable plans.

The California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) establishes most of the procedures for subdivision of land. Other components are contained within Series 400 (Land Division) of the Porterville Development Code. Generally, a tentative and final map are required in order to subdivide land into five or more parcels. Pursuant to both the Map Act and Series 400, tentative maps are valid for twenty-four (24) months following approval, with various mechanisms available to extend the life of the tentative map. Subject to approval of the conditional use permit allowing lots with a minimum size of 5,000 feet and minimum width of fifty (50) feet, all lots within the subdivision comply with area, width, and depth requirements. The project would be responsible for the dedication and improvement of the abutting major streets along with payment of specified fair-share costs to other capital improvements, installation of sidewalk on the east side of S. Jaye Street to enhance pedestrian access, and payment of development impact fees as applicable. The project is illustrated in two phases—essentially the northern one-third as Phase 1 and the southern two-thirds as Phase 2—although the Map Act precludes the City from requiring or disallowing phasing and from dictating the configuration of any proposed phases. The City can, however, impose reasonable conditions upon phases that are proposed.

Pursuant to Development Code Section 400.04, the City Council must deny a tentative map if it makes any of the following findings:

Item No. 13.

1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The southern half of the project site is designated Low Density Residential, which has a maximum density of 6.00 units per acre. The project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use for the northern half of the site to Low Density Residential as well. The tentative map proposes eighty (80) singlefamily residential lots on 20.23 acres for a density of 3.95 units per acre and therefore is consistent with the General Plan as proposed for amendment. There is no applicable specific plan.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The design and improvement of the project are in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan as well as with the development standards contained within the Development Code, which is itself the primary tool for implementation of the General Plan. There is no applicable specific plan.

3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. The site is generally flat and level, making it physically optimal for the development as proposed.

4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is generally flat and level, making it physically optimal for the development as proposed.

5. That the design of the subdivisions or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An initial study/mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project. With inclusion of mitigation, the project will not result in any significant effects to the environment or to fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. An initial study/mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project. With inclusion of mitigation, the project will not result in any serious public health problems.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. With the possible exception of easements dedicated for major street right-of-way, which will be further dedicated and improved for the benefit of the public at large, there are no easements for access through or use of the property.

Based on a fair reading of the record, including the initial study and mitigated negative declaration (described in further detail below), there is no indication that any of the findings requiring denial of the tentative map can be made.

As previously described, the project site is not within the city limits. However, Government Code Section 66454 allows the City to approve a tentative map on Item No. 13.
land outside the city limits with the provision that the final map cannot be approved until annexation of the site is complete. Annexation would require action by the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

The property was until recently subject to a Williamson Act Agricultural Land Conversation Contract, the provisions of which do not allow urban development. The property owner applied to Tulare County to cancel that contract; on November 29, 2022, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2022-1005, cancelling the contract.

The proposed land division and subsequent development of the site into a residential subdivision will provide much needed housing in conformance with the City’s General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements, as well as to help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation quota. Staff and the applicants' agents have worked through the design details to ensure adherence to the General Plan and Development Ordinance, as well as to ensure compliance with the Map Act and applicable codes.

In addition to enhanced notification provided related to CEQA (see below), public notice of this hearing was provided in accordance with Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 and Development Code Section 609.06. The procedures prescribed therein are the standard for hearings involving amendments to the General Plan or zoning and for conditional use permits and tentative maps. Additionally, as described in the Background section above, this project was discussed at three PRC meetings over the span of several months.

Information regarding PRC is readily available on the City’s website: PRC meetings are held on a regular basis, are agendized, and are accessible to the public.
*Although Lot 25 at the southwest corner of the project site is labeled at 14,562 square feet, its effective size is approximately 8,687 square feet owing to an irrevocable dedication of right-of-way for the future extension of Scranton Avenue.

ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW:

During review of the project, the City contracted with Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. to prepare an initial study (IS) to analyze the potential for environmental effects that could result from the project. Based on the results of technical studies prepared in conjunction with the IS, the City made the preliminary determination that, with mitigation included, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that adoption of a mitigated negative declaration would be appropriate. Mitigation was identified for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources; incorporation of that mitigation would reduce all potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level.

Upon completion of the draft IS/MND, the notices of intent and completion were filed in accordance with CEQA. The IS/MND was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2022120369) and circulated for a period of thirty (30) days starting on December 16, 2022 and ending on January 17, 2023. The City Item No. 13.
received a comment letter from DTSC dated January 10, 2023 (attached). In summary, the letter expressed the agency’s position about the potential for site contamination resulting from past activities and the potential for future activities on or near the site to result in exposure of persons to hazardous substances.

DTSC recommended testing; in response, the property owner contracted with AWEngineering to perform sampling and chemical analysis (report attached).

The analysis determined that there were no detectable levels of substances of concern to DTSC. Accordingly, the report is incorporated into the administrative record for the project, and the determinations in the IS/MND remain appropriate.

As mentioned, prior to continuing the Public Hearing on January 17, 2023, the City Council took brief public comment. Of note, was concern expressed by nearby residents about the potential for the project site to qualify as habitat for San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF). Specifically, the speakers claimed to have directly witnessed and interacted with various animal species, including the endangered SJKF, on or immediately adjacent to the project site. The discussion on biological resources in the IS/MND relies in part on Figure 6-4 (Special Status Species and Vegetation Map) from the Porterville General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element. That figure illustrates the observed locations of various special-status species based on various records, including SJKF at locations varying from slightly less than one mile south to approximately two miles southwest. While animals can move from one place to another and it is not impossible that the speakers did encounter SJKF, it is unlikely. First, the SJKF bears a strong resemblance to the California gray fox, which is far more common and is diurnal; conversely, the SJKF is much less common and is primarily nocturnal. Second, the primary habitat of the SJKF is open grassland; while they can forage in orchard areas, they generally do not den in them and are far more likely to be encountered in open areas as their preferred prey (small rodents, ground-dwelling birds, and insects) is mostly found in grasslands. Also, it is important to note that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was included in the State Clearinghouse review and did not comment on the project, further suggesting that the site is not of concern.

Considering the above, it is unlikely that there are SJKF on the project site or that the site serves as SJKF habitat, and the analysis and conclusions of the IS/MND most likely remain appropriate regarding biological resources.

However, the City Council retains the option to direct the applicant, working with staff and City consultants, to retain a biologist to conduct more in-depth analysis. If so directed, and if the supplemental review results in addition of mitigation measures to the IS/MND, recirculation of the document for a new thirty (30) day comment period would be required.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the continued Public Hearing to receive comments on the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project, then:

1. Adopt the draft Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting Item No. 13.
program;

2. Adopt the draft Resolution amending the General Plan to reflect the Land Use designation of the site as Low Density Residential;

3. Adopt the draft Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit;

4. Adopt the draft Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map with conditions; and

5. Adopt the draft Resolution requesting that Tulare County LAFCo initiate proceedings for annexation.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution - CEQA

2. Draft Resolution - General Plan Amendment

3. Draft Resolution - Conditional Use Permit

4. Draft Resolution - Tentative Subdivision Map

5. Draft Resolution - Annexation

6. Draft IS/MND Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5

7. Department of Toxic Substances Control Comment Letter

8. AWEngineering Soils Report

9. Locator Map

10. General Plan Land Use Map

11. Zoning Map
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Jason Ridenour, Assistant City Manager
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. -2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2022120369) FOR THE VILLAS AT SIERRA MEADOWS 4 & 5 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PRC 2020-048) WHEREAS: Smee Homes, Inc. (Applicant) has submitted to the City of Porterville the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project (Project), consisting of a Tentative Subdivision Map and related entitlements to accommodate the subdivision of approximately 20.23 acres into 80 lots located at the southwest corner of W. Gibbons Avenue and S. Jaye Street (APN 269-060-020; Site); and
WHEREAS: the Project also includes construction of interior streets, landscaping, public utilities, a neighborhood park central to the site, and portions of abutting rights-of-way; and WHEREAS: the aforementioned activities, individually and collectively, constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS: the City has prepared an initial study pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS: the initial study indicated the potential for significant effects in the resource areas of Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and
WHEREAS: the initial study concluded that with implementation of mitigation measures, all potentially significant effects resulting from the Project can be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level, and that adoption of a mitigated negative declaration would be appropriate; and WHEREAS: pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, on or about October 4, 2022 the City provided notice of the Project to Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe and the Tule River Indian Tribe and received no response therefrom; and WHEREAS: on December 17, 2023 a notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration was published in The Porterville Recorder and was filed with the Tulare County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse and posted at City Hall and on the City’s website, said notice identifying a public review and comment period of 30 days starting on December 17, 2022 and ending on January 16, 2023; and
WHEREAS: the Draft initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) was uploaded to the State Clearinghouse, assigned a State Clearinghouse number (2022120369), and circulated for a period of 30 days starting on December 17, 2022 and ending on January 16, 2023; and WHEREAS: the City received a letter from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) dated January 10, 2023; and
WHEREAS: in response to said letter from DTSC, the applicant conducted onsite soil testing for contaminants and said testing did not detect any contaminants of concern identified by DTSC; and
WHEREAS: the report generated in response to the said letter from letter is hereby incorporated as part of the record; and
WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on January 17, 2023 the City Council of the City of Porterville did conduct a public hearing to consider testimony regarding the Project; and WHEREAS: during the public hearing, members of the public provided testimony indicating their observation of San Joaquin kit fox on or near the Project site; and WHEREAS: the City Council did vote to continue the public hearing to its regular meeting of February 7, 2023; and
WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on February 7, 2023 the City Council did reconvene the continued public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: the City Council has received the IS/MND and has reviewed and considered the information contained therein; and
WHEREAS: the City Council has considered public testimony received during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS: based on evidence in the record, the City Council has determined it unlikely that the site serves as habitat for San Joaquin kit fox; and WHEREAS: the City Council finds that the IS/MND has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS: the determinations in the IS/MND consist of the City Council’s independent judgement and analysis; and
WHEREAS: based upon the IS/MND and the record, with incorporation of mitigation the Project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse impact on environmental resources; and
WHEREAS: the City of Porterville is the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings on which these determinations are based, and Porterville City Hall, 291 N. Main Street, Porterville, CA is the location of this record.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville does hereby adopt the IS/MND prepared for the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project.

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7
th of February, 2023.

By: ______________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: ________________________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | MMRP CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City of Porterville’s Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project (proposed Project). The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements as well as conditions recommended by responsible agencies who commented on the project.

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

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

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | MMRP CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 2 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Biological Resources Protection Measures
BIO-1
Within 30 days prior to ground disturbance activities associated with construction or grading that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically March through August in the project region, or as determined by a qualified biologist), the applicant shall have weekly surveys conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the disturbance zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors and special-status species) of the disturbance zone. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of disturbance work. If ground disturbance activities are delayed, then additional predisturbance surveys shall be conducted such that no more than seven days will have elapsed between the survey and ground disturbance activities. If active nests are found, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors and special-status species) shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the surveys shall be provided to CDFG in the Annual Mitigation Status Report.

Project
Applicant
Prior to and
during
construction
Project
Applicant /
City of
Porterville
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | MMRP CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Cultural Resources Protection Measures
CUL-1:
• 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.

Project
Applicant
Prior to and
during
construction
Project
Applicant
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | MMRP CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 4 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
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.

Project
Applicant
Prior to and
during
construction
Project
Applicant
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
GHG-1:

The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable BPS strategies to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The following PBS strategies are considered to be Project
Applicant
During project
design and
construction
Project
Applicant
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | MMRP CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project:
• The project applicant shall provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all residential units and connects to the existing surrounding external streets and pedestrian facilities.
• The project applicant shall ensure site design and building placement minimize barriers to pedestrian access and
interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as wells, berms, landscaping, and slopes between residential uses that
impede bicycle or pedestrian circulation shall be
eliminated. In addition, barriers to pedestrian access of neighboring facilities and sites shall be minimized.
• The project applicant shall install energy efficient roofing materials.
• The project applicant shall incorporate bike lanes and routes into the street system.
• The project applicant shall plant trees to provide shade.

The project applicant shall install only natural gas or electric stoves in residences. The project applicant shall install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems.

Traffic Resources Protection Measures
TRA-1:

The project developer shall pay a total of $16,537.50 in improvement fees, prior to issuance of building permits, to the City of Porterville to construct a sidewalk along the east side of Jaye Street, north of Gibbons Ave.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building permits
City of
Porterville
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | MMRP CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 6 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Implementation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/date)
Tribal Resources Protection Measures
TRI-1:

Tule River Tribal monitors shall be allowed to monitor all construction ground disturbing 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.

Project
Applicant
During project
design and
construction
Project
Applicant
RESOLUTION NO. _____- 2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE ADOPTING

AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 269-060-020 TO LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS: Smee Homes, Inc. (Applicant) has submitted to the City of Porterville the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project (Project), consisting of a Tentative Subdivision Map and related entitlements to accommodate the subdivision of approximately 20.23 acres into 80 lots located at the southwest corner of W. Gibbons Avenue and S. Jaye Street (APN 269-060-020; Site); and
WHEREAS: the City of Porterville General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the northern portion of the Site as Public Institutional and the southern part as Low Density Residential; and
WHEREAS: to provide for uniform density and development standards and to facilitate development of single-family residential uses across the site, the project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to amend the land use designation for the northern portion to Low Density Residential as well; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3, on or about October 4, 2022 the City provided notice of the Project to Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission, namely: the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Kern Valley Indian Community, the Tubatalbals of Kern County, the Tule River Indian Tribe, and the Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, and received no response therefrom; and WHEREAS: on January 7, 2023, a notice was published in The Porterville Recorder setting the date, and place of a public hearing for January 17, 2023 and similar notices were sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the Site and posted at City Hall and the City’s website announcing the same; and
WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on January 17, 2023, the Porterville City Council did conduct a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: following brief public testimony, the City Council did vote to continue said public hearing to its regular meeting on February 7, 2023; and WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on February 7, 223 the City Council did reconvene the continued public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: the City Council has considered public testimony received during the public hearing; and
Resolution No. __ -2023

WHEREAS: the proposed action consists of issuance of a permit or entitlement for use and therefore constitutes a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.; and WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2023, the City Council has adopted a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project; and
WHEREAS: pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), a city may not amend any one mandatory element of its general plan more than four times per calendar year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville hereby amends the Land Use Diagram of the Land Use Element of the City of Porterville General Plan to reflect the Land Use designation of the northern portion of Assessor’s Parcel No. 269-060- 020 as Low Density Residential as illustrated in Exhibit A hereto. The amendment to the City of Porterville General Plan approved herein constitutes the first amendment to the Land Use Element for Calendar Year 2023.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7th day of February, 2023.

By: _________________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: ______________________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. ____-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE REDUCED LOT DIMENSIONS AND AREA FOR THE VILLAS AT SIERRA MEADOWS 4 & 5

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS: Smee Homes, Inc. (Applicant) has submitted to the City of Porterville the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project (Project), consisting of a Tentative Subdivision Map and related entitlements to accommodate the subdivision of approximately 20.23 acres into 80 lots located at the southwest corner of W. Gibbons Avenue and S. Jaye Street (APN 269-060-020; Site); and
WHEREAS: the Site is zoned RS-2 (Low Density Residential), which district has a minimum lot size 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet; and WHEREAS: the applicant has requested a reduction of the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet and of the minimum lot width to 50 feet; and WHEREAS: Development Code Section 201.4(C) allows, subject to approval of a conditional use permit, a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 35 feet in the RS-2 district; and
WHEREAS: on January 7, 2023, a notice was published in The Porterville Recorder setting the date, time, and place of a public hearing for January 17, 2023 and similar notices were sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the Site and posted at City Hall and the City’s website announcing the same; and
WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on January 17, 2023, the Porterville City Council did conduct a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: following brief public testimony, the City Council did vote to continue said public hearing to its regular meeting on February 7, 2023; and WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on February 7, 223 the City Council did reconvene the continued public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: the City Council has considered public testimony received during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS: the proposed action consists of issuance of a permit or entitlement for use and therefore constitutes a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.; and Resolution No. __ - 2023

WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2023, the City Council has adopted a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has made the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 604.04, the evidence for said findings substantiated in the record:

1. Approval of the proposed project will advance the goals and objectives of and is consistent with the policies of the general plan and any other applicable plan that the city has adopted.

2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed project are consistent with the purposes of the district where it is located and conforms in all significant respects with the general plan, this development ordinance and with any other applicable plan adopted by the city council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville approves a conditional use permit for the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project authorizing a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7
th day of February, 2023.

By: __________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: _______________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _____-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

CONTAINING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVSION MAP FOR THE VILLAS AT SIERRA MEADOWS 4 & 5 DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT
WHEREAS: Smee Homes, Inc. (Applicant) has submitted to the City of Porterville the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project (Project), consisting of a Tentative Subdivision Map and related entitlements to accommodate the subdivision of approximately 20.23 acres into 80 lots located at the southwest corner of W. Gibbons Avenue and S. Jaye Street (APN 269-060-020; Site); and
WHEREAS: the Project also includes construction of interior streets, landscaping, public utilities, a neighborhood park central to the site, and portions of abutting rights-of-way; and WHEREAS: on January 7, 2023, a notice was published in The Porterville Recorder setting the date and time, and place of a public hearing for January 17, 2023 and similar notices were sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the site and posted at City Hall and the City’s website announcing the same; and
WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on January 17, 2023, the Porterville City Council did conduct a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: following brief public testimony, the City Council did vote to continue said public hearing to its regular meeting on February 7, 2023; and WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on February 7, 223 the City Council did reconvene the continued public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: the City Council has considered public testimony received during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS: the proposed action consists of issuance of a permit or entitlement for use and therefore constitutes a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.; and WHEREAS: the Site is zoned RS-2, Low Density Residential; and WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2023, the City Council has adopted a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the; and WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2023, the City Council has amended the General Plan Land Use Diagram to reflect the Site as Low Density Residential in its entirety; and WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2023, the City Council has approved a conditional use permit authorizing a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet for the project; and
WHEREAS: Approval of the aforementioned entitlements would further the goals and objectives of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has made the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 400.04, the evidence for said findings substantiated in the record:

1. The proposed map is consistent with the goals, policies, and land use designation of the Porterville 2030 General Plan.

2. The design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Porterville 2030 General Plan.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

5. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City Council of the City of Porterville does hereby approve the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Tentative Subdivision Map (PRC 2020- 048-S) subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall comply with the Porterville Municipal Code, Chapter 21 Development Code and conditions from the Project Review Committee (PRC) meeting held on September 29, 2021 and as outlined in the Project Review Committee (PRC) letter for PRC 2020-048.

2. The developer/applicant shall comply with Section 201.04(C) of the Porterville Development Ordinance (PDO).

3. To meet the guiding principles and policies of the General Plan. • C-I-7 Require street tree planting as part of an urban forestry program:
i.Parkway Trees. Provide for the installation of parkway trees as required by the Director of Parks and Leisure Services in accordance with City standards pertaining to the type, size, spacing and placement of such trees; to the maintenance or extension of street tree themes when applicable; and, to the time of installation when it is determined it would be in the best interest of the City to postpone the placement of trees required pursuant to this section.

4. The developer/applicant shall dedicate improved park space, so the developer/applicant shall propose improvements and identify valuation of said improvements on a parcel sized such that the sum of the dedication and improvements would be valued based on the proposed .86-acre park. A park of this size would be considered a pocket park according to the General Plan Parks, Schools, and Community Facilities Element. Amenities can include, but are not limited to, a playground, half-court basketball facilities, workout equipment, communal BBQ/picnic facilities, and pet area.

5. Approval of the tentative subdivision map is contingent upon a successful application to the Tulare County LAFCo for annexation.

6. The filing of Final Map shall comply with Chapter 404 Final Maps of the Porterville Development Ordinance (PDO).

7. Unless otherwise noted, the developer/applicant shall comply with the City Master Plans and Standard Drawings, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (2018 Edition), and Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications (2018 Standards), except where they are in conflict with current access compliance regulations, the current California Building Code, the Tulare County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Porterville Circulation Element, and the Tulare County Congestion Management Program.

8. The developer/applicant shall pay all applicable fees according to the Municipal Code and State law. The developer/applicant is hereby notified that you have the right to pay fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions, under protest, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a). You have 90 days from the date fees are paid to file a written protest.

9. The developer/applicant shall make payment of the required plan check fees at the time of building permit plan submittal.

10. The developer/applicant shall pay School Development fees and all other City fees at the time table determined by current City Ordinance.

6. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the developer/ applicant shall have completed and approved, landscaping and/or lighting improvement plans. The developer/applicant shall petition, on a form provided by the City, to have said subdivision placed in a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. Submit with the petition the $375 fee. The following shall be included and maintained in said district: (1) Lighting, (2) Recreational Open Space, (3) Public Landscaping, if any (4) Public walls/fences, if any, (5) Drainage reservoir, if any, and (6) any other public improvement in accordance with Series 400, Section 407.03 (i) of the Development Ordinance.

7. The developer/applicant shall prepare an Engineer's Report for the establishment of the assessments in order to provide for ongoing maintenance of the subdivision improvements to be included in the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. The Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District shall be established, or annexation into an existing District shall be concluded and landscape and lighting improvements shall be completed and accepted concurrently with the other improvements in the project.

Landscape easements will need to be created in areas deemed necessary by the City Engineer.

8. Exclusive of assessments for a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District, the developer/applicant shall pay all service fees and maintain all new lighting and landscape improvements in a safe and healthy manner for the greater of a minimum ninety-day plant establishment period following acceptance of the subdivision improvements, or until assessment begins for the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District.

9. In accordance with Series 400, Section 407.02 (g) or (h) of the Development Ordinance, the developer/applicant shall enter into an agreement that provides for completion of improvements within twelve (12) months of the Final Map acceptance.

10. The developer/applicant shall replace or provide surety for replacement of irrigation pipes in the right of way, if in the opinion of the City Engineer, replacement is warranted.

The developer/applicant shall provide easements for irrigation pipes across lots created, if pipes will continue to be in use.

11. Prior to recording the final subdivision map, the developer/applicant shall provide surety for off-site improvements and provide easements, permits, calculations, etc. if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they are needed for the proper functioning or phasing of the subdivision (e.g. water, sewer, drainage, etc.).

12. The developer/applicant shall dedicate a one-foot (1’) limitation of access strip at locations where, in the opinion of the City Engineer, it is undesirable to allow access.

13. Building permits shall not proceed further than the installation of the foundation until all of the following items are accepted as complete:
a. The storm drain system is functional so that it will accept water from fire hydrant and/or water main flushing;
b. The water system, is functional from the source of water past the lots on which permits are being requested (i.e. all services and the sampling station, if required, are installed, valves are functional and accessible, bacteria testing is completed, etc.);
c. Street base rock for accessibility by public safety officials and building inspectors;
d. Lots are graded in accordance with the approved grading plan. Prior to receipt of the Final Grading, Drainage and Soils Report a letter from the "Supervising Civil Engineer" is required validating that the grading has been done in accordance with the approved grading plan and in accordance with the recommends contained in the Preliminary Soils Report;
e. The sewer system is completed, tested, and accepted by the City prior to residential occupancy of any house in the subdivision;
f. Lot corners are marked;
g. Fire hydrants are accepted by the Fire Department and the Engineering Division.

14. The developer/applicant shall coordinate with the U.S. Postal Service regarding the kind of mail facilities that will be utilized. If neighborhood box units (NBUs) are to be used, construct sidewalks in a timely manner to facilitate NBU installation.

15. The developer/applicant shall cause all regulatory and street name signs to be installed prior to occupancy of any house located where its occupants will utilize a street that does not have them.

16. The developer/applicant shall dedicate and improve, to City standards, temporary turnarounds at the ends of dead-end streets to accommodate refuse vehicles and street sweepers.

17. The developer/applicant shall have a Civil Engineer design a water system that will provide a fire flow at each fire hydrant of 1,000 g.p.m. with 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a dwelling less than 3,600 square feet and 1,500 g.p.m. with 20 p.s.i. residual pressure for a dwelling unit greater than 3,600 square feet.

18. The developer/applicant shall construct or provide surety for construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, water, sewer, street paving to a 3/4 width street (as necessary), etc. along the full frontage of all proposed subdivision lots except where they exist to City standards and are in good condition in the opinion of the City Engineer. The developer/applicant shall stub improvements to the property line if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they will be needed for connection to development on the adjacent property.

19. The developer/applicant shall provide street striping and flexible delineators as necessary to provide safe vehicular movements, where directed by the City Engineer.

20. The developer/applicant shall dedicate right-of-way for a street width that matches the ultimate width in the adopted Land Use and Circulation Element and/or the width established by the City Council, and dedication of required property for accessible ramp(s), sidewalk, etc.:
a. Gibbons Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial per the Circulation Element and shall have an overall right of way width of 116’ and shall include 7.5’ of parkway behind the back of curb, followed by 8’ of sidewalk, and a 10’ landscape easement behind the sidewalk.
b. Jaye Street is designated as a Collector per the Circulation Element and must be extended along the east side of the proposed subdivision. The overall right of way shall be 70’ and shall include 4.5’ of parkway behind the back of curb, followed by 5’ of sidewalk, and a 10’ landscape easement behind the sidewalk. c. Scranton Avenue is designated as a Minor Arterial per the Circulation Element and shall be extended along the south side of the property (length of extension based on placement/location of second access point) and connected to Jaye Street at a future date. Scranton shall have an overall right of way of 94’ and shall include 7.5’ of parkway behind the back of curb, followed by 8’ of sidewalk, and a 10’ landscape easement at the time of future construction. d. Total area of dedication to be determined by a licensed surveyor.

21. The developer/applicant shall construct street improvements that comply with the intention of the adopted Development Ordinance and per City Standards. For Jaye Street, the construction of at least a 3/4 width street will be required. For Scranton Avenue, an irrevocable offer of dedication will be required and the future street right of way is to be maintained under the subdivision’s landscape & lighting district as open space until the City acts on the dedication. A stub street to the adjacent property to the west is required by City Standard P-7.

22. The developer/applicant shall verify that existing alignments are met and followed with the development of the roads serving the proposed subdivision.

23. Prior to recording the final subdivision map, the developer/applicant shall provide improvements by the method indicated below:
a. Pursuant to Section 66411.1(b) of the Government Code, the developer applicant shall construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks, curb returns per City Standards, sewer laterals, water services, fire hydrant relocation, street lights, connecting pavement along the full frontage of the proposed land division parcels. Additional improvements include a functional drainage system, connection of existing house to City’s sewer system, abandonment of existing septic system(s), well abandonment (if any, and not in compliance with the City’s Backflow Ordinance), curing of leaks in irrigation lines (if any), and other improvements necessary for public health and safety, except where they exist to Federal, State and City standards and are in good condition in the opinion of the City Engineer.

24. Prior to approval of the final map the developer/applicant shall provide public improvement plans prepared by a Civil Engineer that include specific on-site grading details and specifications for City approval.

25. The developer/applicant shall comply with Appendix J, “Grading” of the current California Building Code, including provision of a grading and drainage plan signed by a licensed civil engineer or architect. The developer/applicant shall comply with City Retaining Wall Standards (adopted by City Council January 3, 1989) at lot lines where such standards are applicable.

26. The developer/applicant shall provide a Soils Report in conformance with Chapter 18 of the current California Building Code. The Soils Report shall include R-Value testing, expansion indexes, etc. where required for the construction of public improvements. The developer/applicant is advised that this area has previously been identified as an area of variable soil expansion potential.

27. The developer/applicant shall submit design master plans consisting of combined grading & drainage and sewer & water utilities to ensure the proper functioning and/or phasing of the development. The developer/applicant shall construct drainage facilities as required to serve the property (Ord. No. 1306). A minimum amount of runoff must be contained onsite per the State’s MS4 requirements. Drainage calculations must be submitted to verify that onsite drainage area(s) will capture necessary runoff. The site shall be designed to convey water to the City drainage system without crossing driveways. The developer/applicant is required to install a sidewalk channel drain at the low side of the driveway, where applicable.
a. The developer/applicant shall provide storm drainage calculations showing that the proposed designated drainage area (temporary basin, master plan basin, etc.) is sufficient in containing runoff.

28. The developer/applicant shall construct and/or repair street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc. along the full parcel frontage, except where they exist and are determined to be in good condition and in compliance with current accessibility standards in the opinion of the City Engineer (Ord. No. 1306).

29. The developer/applicant shall comply with driveway vehicular sight distance requirements per Section 300.16 of the Development Ordinance and driveway separation from property line per City standards.

30. The developer/applicant is hereby notified that extension of existing water and sewer lines and/or the installation of new lines will be required per Section 407.02(f), development code:
a. The developer/applicant shall extend all necessary utilities along Gibbons Avenue and Jaye Street. Future utilities along Scranton Avenue are to be accounted for with the subdivision design.
b. The developer/applicant is hereby notified that reimbursement for Master Plan facilities is made when funds are available and is contingent upon the work being done by the approved low bidder of at least two bona fide bidders. The bids must be approved by the City prior to construction.

31. The developer/applicant shall design on-site water systems meeting the requirements of the current California Plumbing and Fire Codes. It shall be noted that the City water system complies with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code and any assurance to effectively provide water pressure for multi-story buildings is the sole responsibility of the owner/builder.

32. The developer/applicant shall move existing utility structures (i.e., poles, splice boxes, vaults, etc.) to a position that provides a minimum of four feet (4') of clear space in the sidewalk area and a minimum of two feet (2') of clear space from the curb face to the structure, unless the utility structures are below grade (Title 24 DSA).

33. The developer/applicant shall provide 3000K LED streetlights on Marbelite poles (Marbelites spaced at a staggered 160’ intervals) following Southern California Edison Company specifications, as approved by the City Engineer. Wood poles are expressly prohibited without prior written approval of the City Engineer.

34. The developer/applicant shall comply with City Retaining Wall Standards (adopted by City Council January 3, 1989) at lot lines where such standards are applicable.

35. For residential development, the developer/applicant is hereby notified that the installation of an additional water meter requires a double backflow prevention device per City standards.

36. The developer/applicant shall, under City inspection, remove all existing abandoned and unnecessary items, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (for example, foundations, septic tanks, irrigation pipes, etc.).

37. The developer/applicant shall abandon existing wells, if any, after first getting an abandonment permit from the Tulare County Environmental Health Services Division.

The developer/applicant is required to provide the City Engineer with proof of compliance with County regulations before performing any grading or issuance of the building permit, whichever comes first.

38. The developer/applicant shall assure compliance with Section 7-8, Work Site Maintenance of the Standard Specifications. Applicable requirements from both San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions and the California Green Code Standards must also be met. During grading operations the "Supervising Civil Engineer" shall be responsible for enforcing the dust control provisions of Section 7-8 or the developer/applicant shall pay inspection fees on the grading cost to compensate the City for dust control inspection.

39. The developer/applicant shall not allow onsite runoff or debris outside of the limits of the property during construction. Applicable best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to protect the City’s drainage system and inhibit vehicle track-out onto City streets. The improvement plans shall show the location of BMPs and areas designated for erosion and waste control. The developer/applicant shall remove and properly dispose of waste and spills deposited in the project area.

40. The developer/applicant is advised that they are obligated to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002 for discharge of Storm Water Associated with construction activity (except operations that result in disturbance of less than one acre of total land area and which are not a part of a larger common plan of development or sale). Before construction begins the proponent must:
a. Submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the permit, a site map, and appropriate fee to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). b. Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the entire project before construction begins. The SWPPP must contain, at a minimum:

1. All items listed in Section A of the permit.

2. Descriptions of measures to be taken to prevent or eliminate unauthorized non-storm water discharges and all temporary (e.g., fiber rolls, silt fences, etc.) and permanent (e.g., vegetated swales, detention basins, etc.) best management practices that will be implemented to prevent pollutants from discharging with storm water into water of the United States.

If portions of the project area are to be sold off before the entire project is completed, the proponent must:
a. Submit to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board a change of information form identifying the new owners along with a revised site map clearly depicting those portions that were sold and those that are remaining. b. Informing each new owner of their responsibility to submit their own NOI, site map, and appropriate fee to the SWRCB and prepare their own SWPPP.

41. Fire hydrants shall be placed based on distance, no greater spacing than 500’ for residential applications.

42. Fire hydrants shall be on a looped system.

43. No structure shall be greater than 400’ from a fire hydrant.

44. A back-flow device is required on the water meter.

45. The developer/applicant shall comply with the City standard for "backflow" prevention pursuant to Resolution No. 9615.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2023.

By: __________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

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

RESOLUTION NO. _-2023

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE REQUESTING

THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TAKES PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION 488
WHEREAS: Smee Homes, Inc. (Applicant) has submitted to the City of Porterville the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Development Project (Project), consisting of a Tentative Subdivision Map and related entitlements to accommodate the subdivision of approximately 20.23 acres into 80 lots located at the southwest corner of W. Gibbons Avenue and S. Jaye Street (APN 269-060-020; Site); and
WHEREAS: the Site is currently within the unincorporated area of Tulare County, abutting the city limits of the City of Porterville, and within the City’s sphere of influence; and WHEREAS: Government Code Section 66454 allows the City to approve a tentative map on land outside the city limits with the provision that the final map cannot be approved until annexation of the site is complete; and
WHEREAS: the City of Porterville desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the CorteseKnox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for Annexation 488; and WHEREAS: the territory proposed to be annexed to the city totals approximately ±20.23 acres consisting of agricultural land; and
WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. 2022-1005, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Tulare acted on November 29, 2022 to remove the Site from Agricultural Preserve No. 3933 and Agricultural Land Conservation Contract No. 13294, which Preserve and Contract theretofore encumbered the Site; and
WHEREAS: on January 7, 2023, a notice was published in The Porterville Recorder setting the date, time, and place of a public hearing for January 17, 2023 and similar notices were sent to owners of property within 300 feet of the Site and posted at City Hall and the City’s website announcing the same; and
WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on January 17, 2023, the Porterville City Council did conduct a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: following brief public testimony, the City Council did vote to continue said public hearing to its regular meeting on February 7, 2023; and WHEREAS: at a regular meeting on February 7, 223 the City Council did reconvene the continued public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS: the City Council has considered public testimony received during the public hearing; and
Resolution No. __ - 2023

WHEREAS: the proposed action consists of issuance of a permit or entitlement for use and therefore constitutes a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.; and WHEREAS: via adoption of Resolution No. XX-2023, the City Council has adopted a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project; and WHEREAS: this proposal is made pursuant to Government Code Section 56654; and WHEREAS: the reasons for this proposal are as follows:

1. To ensure compatible land use planning practices are implemented and to steer sustainable future development in a growing area substantially surrounded by the current city limits.

2. To add much needed developable land to the City to aid in meeting Fifth Cycle and anticipated Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation quotas.

3. To maintain a definitive and organized city boundary and ensure efficient provision of services and facilities needed for high quality of life in the project area.

WHEREAS: the proposed annexation area and proposed development thereof would be subject to compliance with the Porterville Municipal Code and Porterville General Plan; and WHEREAS: the City does not request or impose any additional terms or conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Resolution Application is hereby adopted an approved by the City Council of the City of Porterville. The Local Agency Formation Commission of Tulare County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the annexation as illustrated in Exhibit A, according to the terms and conditions stated above, and in the manner provided for by the CorteseKnox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, and the detachment of the same area from County Service Area #1.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7
th day of February, 2023.

By: __________________
Martha A. Flores, Mayor
ATTEST:

John D. Lollis, City Clerk
By: _______________________
Patrice Hildreth, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential 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 310
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 840-4414
Contact: Emily Bowen, LEED AP
December 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 .............................................................. 8 Other Public Agencies Involved ..................................................................................10 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................10 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...................................11 DETERMINATION .............................................................................................................12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...................................................................................13 I. AESTHETICS...............................................................................................................13 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES......................................................18 III. AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................26 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...................................................................................35 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................44 VI. ENERGY...................................................................................................................50 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.........................................................................................55 CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 3 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS......................................................................61 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................66 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................72 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................81 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES........................................................................................84 XIII. NOISE .....................................................................................................................86 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................92 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES................................................................................................. 95 XVI. RECREATION .......................................................................................................99 XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.......................................................................101 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ...............................................................105 XX. WILDFIRE..............................................................................................................116 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..........................................118 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................................................................................120 Persons and Agencies Consulted...............................................................................120 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential 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) Smee Homes Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 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
Smee Homes Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
Contact Person and Phone Number
Jason Ridenour,
Assistant City Manager
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 approximately 20-acre Project site is located at the southwest corner of W. Gibbons Avenue and S. Jaye Street in southern Porterville. See Figure 1 and Figure 2. Porterville is bisected northto-south by State Route (SR) 65 and SR 190 runs east-west in the southern portion of the City.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 5 Figure 1 – Location
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 6 Figure 2 – Site Aerial
N
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 7 Project Sponsor’s Name/Address
Smee Homes, Inc.
444 N. Prospect Street, Suite A
Porterville, CA 93257
General Plan Designation
Public Institutional, Low Density Residential
Zoning
AE-20 (Tulare County); prezoned RS-2 (City of Porterville) Project Description
The proposed Project consists of the construction of up to 80 single-family residential units and a neighborhood park on an approximately 20-acre parcel. To facilitate the development, the Project also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Tentative Subdivision Map, a Conditional Use Permit, and Annexation to the City of Porterville. The City of Porterville General Plan designates the northern part of the site as Public Institutional and the southern part as Low Density Residential; the Project would amend the land use designation of the northern portion to Low Density Residential as well. Under previous action in 2014, the City prezoned the Project site and much of the surrounding area to RS-2 (Low Density Residential). The Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission would act on the annexation component following application by the City.

Project Components
• A General Plan Amendment changing the land use designation of the northern area of the site from Public Institutional to Low Density Residential • A Conditional Use Permit to accommodate creation of lots smaller than the 6,000-squarefoot RS-2 minimum • A Tentative Subdivision Map to allow for creation of 80-single-family lots with a minimum size of 5,000 square feet
• Annexation of APN 269-060-020 (20.23 acres) into the City of Porterville • Construction of 80 single-family residences.
• Development of an approximately 37,530 sq. ft. neighborhood park. • Construction of streets and public utilities infrastructure within and adjacent to the subdivision, including the southerly extension of Jaye Street south of W. Gibbons Avenue Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 8 Project Operations
The Project would develop a conventional 80-lot single-family residential subdivision. In addition to constructing interior streets, the Project would dedicate and construct a 56-foot-wide section of S. Jaye Street to the site’s southerly extent, including a temporary cul-de-sac at its terminus, and would dedicate 47 feet across the parcel’s southern boundary for future extension of Scranton Avenue. Water, sewage disposal, and refuse collection services will be provided by the City of Porterville and the applicant will be required to connect to the City’s existing utilities systems.

The Project would require gas, telephone, cable, and electrical improvements. Natural gas would be provided by The Gas Company; telephone services would be provided by AT&T; electric power would be provided by Southern California Edison Company; and cable television would be provided by Charter Communications. The extent of work required for utilities and gas would be determined during final project design.

Surrounding Land Uses/Existing Conditions
The Project site is currently planted with orchard trees. The site is surrounded by residential uses and a cemetery. Lands directly surrounding the Project site contain uses as follows:
• North: Residential subdivision, designated Very Low Density Residential. • South: Rural residences, agriculture, and vacant land, designated as Low Density Residential.
• East: Residential development, designated as Rural Residential. • West: St. Anne’s Cemetery and vacant land, designated as Public/Quasi-Public and Low Density Residential
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 9 Figure 3 – Tentative Map
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 10 Other Public Agencies Involved
• Approval of annexation by Tulare County LAFCo.
• Approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
• Approval of a Dust Control Plan by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
• Compliance with other federal, State, and local requirements.

Tribal Consultation
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013-14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area.

The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation.

The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

The City of Porterville has received written correspondence from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe and the Tule River Indian Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of all proposed projects. A formal notification letter was sent to the Tribe on October 4, 2022. The City did not receive any further correspondence requesting consultation from the Tribes.

Because the Project involves amendment to the General Plan, the City provided additional Tribal notification pursuant to Government Code Section 65352.3 (SB 18). Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission, as identified below, were notified of the Project by US Mail on October 4, 2022. No comments were received as of this writing. • Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians
• Kern Valley Indian Community
• Tubatulabals of Kern Valley
• Tule River Indian Tribe
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential 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
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 12

DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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
Assistant City Manager
City of Porterville
Date
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential 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 southern portion of the City of Porterville.

The aesthetic features of the existing environment in the Project area are characterized by urban and rural single-family residences, limited agriculture, and vacant land along with a small cemetery. The site is bounded to the north by W. Gibbons Avenue, with residential development beyond the roadway. Tract No. 77, a subdivision of rural residences situated along Kessing Street, abuts the Project site to the east.

Rural residences, limited agriculture, and vacant land exist to the south. St. Anne’s Cemetery, along with Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 14 vacant land, abuts the site to the west. There are no scenic resources or scenic vistas in the area. State Routes (SR) in the Project vicinity include 99, 65, 190, 137.

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 Project applicant is not requesting federal funding or a federal permit.

State
California Scenic Highway Program
The Scenic Highway Program, created by the Legislature in 1963, allows county and city governments to apply to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish a scenic corridor protection program. Its purpose is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 268. While not Designated State Scenic Highways, two Eligible State Scenic Highways occur in Tulare County, SR 198 and SR 190.

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
• LU-I-14: Allow residential developments to employ creative site design, landscaping, and architectural quality that blend with the characteristics of each location and its surroundings and offer superior design solutions.
• LU-I-15 Adopt community design standards for new residential development. These could include but are not limited to:
• Maximum block length
• Maximum ratio of block length to width
• Limited use of dead-end streets
• Orientation of residential building
• Required connectivity
• LU-I-18: Protect existing residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities and land uses, and environmental hazards.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 15 • L-I-20: Establish standards for pedestrian-oriented design in neighborhood centers. Pedestrian orientation design standards may include, but would not be limited to:
• Limitations on maximum block length
• Minimum sidewalk width
• Required streetscape improvements, including street trees • Building height and articulation
• Building setbacks
• Location of entries
• Parking location and required landscaping
• LU-I-25: Establish buffering requirements and performance standards intended to minimize harmful effects of excessive noise, light, glare, and other adverse environmental impacts.

RESPONSES
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes the construction of up to 80 single-family residences, a neighborhood park, and the improvements associated with a new residential development, including lighting and site landscaping. The structures will conform to design standards set forth by the City’s General Plan and Development 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 16 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 state designated scenic highways within the immediate proximity to the Project site. California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway Mapping System identifies SR 190 east of SR 65 as an Eligible State Scenic Highway. SR 190 is located approximately 0.75 miles north 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 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 residences, neighborhood park, local streets, underground utilities, lighting, and site landscaping. The residences will be single-family and will conform to design standards set forth by the City’s General Plan and Development Ordinance. The proposed Project site is located in an area that is substantially surrounded by residential and agricultural uses, 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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 17 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.

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 is 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 streetlights, light from the Walmart Distribution parking area, the vehicles traveling along adjacent roadways, and light from nearby residences. The Project would necessitate street lighting. Such lighting would be subject to the requirements of the Porterville Development Ordinance 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential 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?
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 19

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project site is located in an area just outside the city limits and Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of Porterville, but within the Urban Area Boundary (UAB). The entire site is considered Farmland of Statewide Importance by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. On November 29, 2022, the Tulare County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2022-1005 which approved Williamson Act Cancellation No. WAC 21-002 on the Project site. As such, the site is not under Williamson Act contract.

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 California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code Sections 51200–51297.4. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses. In return, the landowners receive property tax assessment based on farming and open space uses, as opposed to full market value, thus resulting in a lower tax burden. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas is eligible for enrollment under Williamson Act contracts. However, an agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. In order to meet this requirement, two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous, or if they are in common ownership.

The Williamson Act program is administered by the DOC, in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10-year period wherein no conversion out of agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non-renewal or cancellation is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted market value. An application for immediate cancellation can also be requested by the landowner, provided that the proposed immediate cancellation application is consistent with the cancellation criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the affected county or city. Nonrenewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property. Participation in the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 20 Williamson Act program is dependent on county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners.

As defined by the Williamson Act, prime agricultural land includes: (1) Class I and II soils as classified by the NRCS; (2) land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating by the University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences; (3) land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and with at least one animal unit per acre; 4) land planted with fruit or nut-bearing crops that yield not less than $200 per acre annually during commercial bearing periods; or (5) land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products and annual gross value of not less than $200 per acre for three of the previous five years.1

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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located outside the City of Porterville limits, but within the Urban Area Boundary (UAB) and Urban Development Boundary (UDB). The site is currently zoned as AE-20 by the Tulare County and is prezoned RS-2 (Low Density Residential) by the City of Porterville and the Project proposed to subdivide the site for single-family development. The site is designated as primarily Farmland of Statewide Importance and Prime Farmland by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

The City has evaluated the Project’s farmland conversion impacts utilizing the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (LESA),2 which the California Department of Conservation developed to provide lead agencies with a methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code Section 21095.) The LESA is composed of six different factors, which are divided into two sets: Land Evaluation (LE) and Site Assessment (SA) factors. Two LE factors (Land Capability Classification Rating and Storie Index Rating) are based upon measures of soil resources quality and intended to measure the inherent, 1 Government Code, Section 51201(c)(1)-(5)).
2 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Accessible at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/qh_lesa.aspx. Accessed September 2018 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 21 soil-based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. Four SA factors (Project Size Rating, Water Resource Availability Rating, Surrounding Agricultural Lands Rating, and Surrounding Protected Resource Lands Rating) are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land.

The two sets of factors are evenly weighted, meaning the two LE factors and four SA factors are of equal importance; however, for a given project, each of these six factors is separately rated in a 100-point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. This final project score becomes the basis for making a determination of the potential impacts’ level of significance for the project, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds.

Land Evaluation Factors
The LESA includes two LE factors, discussed below, that are separately rated.

The Land Capability Classification Rating (LCC): The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops and the risk of damage to soils when used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receiving the highest rating (Class I). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils. The site soils have a Land Capability Classification of 3s.

The Storie Index Rating: The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a zero to 100 scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are considered in the Storie Index rating: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors such as drainage or salinity. In some situations, only the United States Department of Agriculture’s LCC information may be available. In those cases, the Storie Index ratings can be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists; however, if limitation of time and/or resources restrict the derivation of the Storie Index rating for a given project, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating. The site soils have a Storie Index Score of 30.

Site Assessment Factors
The four SA factors that are separately rated and included in the LESA are discussed below.

The Project Size Rating: The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining what grouping generates Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 22 the highest Project Size score. The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating. The proposed Project site has a Project Size rating of 30.

The Water Resources Availability Rating: The Water Resources Availability rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non-drought. The Project site currently pumps groundwater for the existing crop; however, the landowner has stated that there are economic restrictions during drought and non-drought years, which results in a rating of 90.

The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating: Determination of the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is based upon identification of a project’s Zone of Influence (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The Surrounding Agricultural Land rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands close to a given project. The LESA rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of the ZOI that accounts for surrounding lands (up to a minimum of 0.25 mile from the project boundary) is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. The ZOI surrounding the proposed Project site includes 263 acres of land and is classified as consisting of 111.1 acres of agricultural land (Appendix A).

The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating: The Surrounding Protected Resource Land rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land rating, and it is scored in a similar manner.

Protected resource lands are those lands with long-term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following:
• Williamson Act contracted lands
• Publicly owned lands maintained as a park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban and industrial uses The Project site has a protected resource lands score of 0, as less than 40% of the ZOI is protected.

Final LESA Scoring
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 23 A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all the individual LE and SA factors have been scored and weighted. The LESA is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the LE factors and 50 percent is derived from the SA factors. The final LESA score was determined for the proposed Project and the modeling results are described in Table 1.

Table 1
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Scoring Summary Category Factor Raw
Points
Factor
Weight
Weighted
Points
Land Evaluation Land
Capability
Class

69.37 0.25 17.34
Storie Index 30 0.25 7.5
Subtotal 0.50 24.84
Site Assessment Project Size 30 0.15 4.5
Water
Resource
Availability
90 0.15 13.5
Surrounding
Agricultural
Land
0 0.15 1.5
Surrounding
Protected
Resource
Lands
0 0.05 0
Subtotal 0.50 19.5
Final Score 44.34
LESA Thresholds of Significance
The LESA is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project’s conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score and the component LE and SA separate subscores. In this manner, the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score but a very low SA score, or vice-versa). The LESA scoring thresholds are described in Table 2.

Table 2
LESA Scoring Thresholds
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 24 Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 points Not considered significant
40 to 59 points Considered significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points
60 to 79 points Considered significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points
80 to 100 points Considered significant
LESA Results
According to the LESA Threshold of Significance, the total score of 44.34 for the proposed Project site is considered less than significant, as the SA Factor subscore is not greater than or equal to 20 points (see Appendix A).

For the reasons set forth above, the City has determined that the Project’s impacts to conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the site is not under Williamson Act contract and the site is currently prezoned for residential development by the City of Porterville. 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))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project is not zoned for forestland and does not propose any zone changes related to forest or timberland. No conversion of forestland, as defined under Public Resource Code or General Code, as referenced above, would occur as a result of the Project. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 25 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 nonforest use? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an area dominated by residential development to the north and east, a cemetery to the west, and rural residential to the south. The site is just outside the Porterville city limits but is within the UAB and UDB and is proposed for annexation in the City limits. The requested General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, CUP, Tentative Parcel Map and annexation is site specific and does not apply to any properties other than the proposed Project site.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project would result in the conversion of other farmland or forest land.

The impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 26 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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 27 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.3
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 3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed July 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 28 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 3. Note that both state and federal standards are presented.

Table 3
Standards and Attainment Status for Listed Pollutants in the Air District4 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 4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed July 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 29 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 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 4.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 30 Table 4
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Regulation VIII Control Measures for Construction Related Emissions of PM105 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 ground cover.

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 suppressant.

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 blower devices is expressly forbidden.

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.
5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Current District Rules and Regulations. http://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm#reg8.

Accessed August 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 31 • 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.

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. Air Quality Plans (AQPs) are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine if the Air Basin can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. The proposed project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SJVAPCD. To show attainment of the standards, the SJVAPCD analyzes the growth projections in the Valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The SJVAPCD then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and SJVAPCD regulations and other local programs and measures.

The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The GAMAQI indicates that projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable AQP.

As provided in Table 5, the project’s construction and operational regional emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD’s regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered in conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

The proposed Project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is designated nonattainment of state and federal health-based air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment of state PM10. 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, Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 32 • 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 follows6:
• 10 tons per year ROG;
• 10 tons per year NOx;
• 15 tons per year PM10; and
• 15 tons per year PM2.5.

Project Emissions
Site preparation and Project construction would involve excavation, grading, hauling, and various activities needed to construct 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.

The proposed Project construction schedule would begin in late 2022 and would last through 2024.

Emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), ver. 2020.4.0. 6 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 July 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 33 Construction related emissions are shown in Table 5. Refer to Appendix B – Air Emissions Output Table for the full emissions output estimates for construction and operational activities.

Table 5
Project Construction and Operational Emissions

VOC (ROG)
(tons/year)
NOx
(tons/year)
PM10*
(tons/year)
CO2
(MT/year)
2022 0.15 1.47 0.34 214.26
2023 0.23 1.97 0.16 376.92
2024 1.42 0.58 0.05 119.4
Annual Construction Emissions Maximum: 1.42 1.97 0.34 376.92 Total Operational Emissions: 1.11 0.8 0.84 954.71
Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 --
Exceed Threshold? No No No N/A
* Appendix B includes projected emissions from ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter), but are not included in this table because there is no established threshold of significance for these emissions.

As shown in Table 5, annual construction and operational emissions would be below the SJVAPCD’s significance threshold. Additionally, the SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for dust control related to construction projects, which are applicable to the Project and will be enforced by the City and the City’s contractor, which will further reduce construction PM10 emissions.

As described above, construction/operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10. 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 status7. Likewise, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant within the SJVAPCD jurisdiction.

Finally, the Project would also not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. It will not cumulatively increase any criteria pollutant and will not result in substantial pollutant concentrations.

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

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
7 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guidance to Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19, 2015. Page 65. https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed June 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 34 d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The Project includes a residential development and as such, would not be a source of ongoing objectionable odors.

During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project’s site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts would therefore be less than significant. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 35 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?
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 36 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 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. Annual precipitation within the Project site is about 10 inches, almost 85% of which falls between the months of October and March. Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain and stormwater 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 Project site is currently planted with orchard trees. The site is surrounded by residential uses and a cemetery. The 20-acre Project site is located in southern Porterville, bounded to the north by West Gibbons Avenue, and to the south by a proposed extension of Scranton Avenue. Kessing Street is approximately 340 ft. to the east, with residential subdivisions lie to the north, east, and south. St. Anne’s Cemetery lies adjacent to and west of the site. No aquatic or wetland features occur on the proposed Project site, therefore jurisdictional waters are considered absent from the site.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 37 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act
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 (ESA, 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 ESA, 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 ESA, 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 ESA (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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 38 404 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 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.8,9 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 Section 2050, et seq. and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Sections 670.2, 670.51) prohibits the take of species listed under CESA (14 CCR Sections 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.
8 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetland Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1.
9 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 July 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 39 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 Section 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 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 Sections 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 Sections 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
CEQA 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 Sections 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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 40 California and ranks species according to rarity.10 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 planted with orchard trees. The site is surrounded primarily by existing residential uses.

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 10 California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). https://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed July 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 41 adobe-lily (Fritillaria striata), Madera leptosiphon (Leptosiphon serrulatus), Calico monkeyflower (Mimulus pictus), and Spiny-sepaled button celery (Eryngium spinosepalum).

The City of Porterville 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).

However, 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 does not support any of the aforementioned special status species. This is due to either lack of habitat within the Project area, the Project is outside the current range of the species, or the presence of disturbance would otherwise preclude their occurrence.

The Project site consists of an orchard and is not expected to provide habitat for special status species due to the high disturbance. 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?
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? No Impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on site or adjacent to the Project. According to the National Wetlands Inventory11, no wetlands occur in or near the Project site. As such, there is no impact.
11 National Wetlands Inventory. U.S Fish & Wildlife Service. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed July 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 42 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 with Mitigation. Common species of birds likely to be found within the urban planning area include morning dove, sparrow, meadowlark, blackbird, robin and scrub jay.

Potential for endangered or threatened bird species within the Project area is unlikely. Migratory birds could be expected to nest on or near the Project site. Project implementation has the potential to impede the use of nursery sites for native birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Disturbance associated with construction during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment.

Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort is considered take by the CDFW.

Loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, could constitute a significant impact if the species is particularly rare in the region. Construction activities that disturb a rare nesting bird on the site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that potential impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Protect nesting birds.

BIO-1 Within 30 days prior to ground disturbance activities associated with construction or grading that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically March through August in the project region, or as determined by a qualified biologist), the applicant shall have weekly surveys conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the disturbance zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors and special-status species) of the disturbance zone. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of disturbance work. If ground disturbance activities are delayed, then additional pre-disturbance surveys shall be conducted such that no more than seven days will have elapsed between the survey and ground disturbance activities. If active nests are found, clearing and construction Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 43 within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors and special-status species) shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the surveys shall be provided to CDFG in the Annual Mitigation Status Report.
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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 44 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 was 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 45 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 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 C). 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 two known resources, the Poplar Ditch and the Southern Pacific Railroad, 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 (CEQA 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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 46 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 (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, 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 Section 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, Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 47 district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor.

Human Remains
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code 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 Goals and 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? Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 48 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The records search conducted at the SSJVIC (Appendix C) indicated that there are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area and two recorded resources within the one-half mile, the Poplar Ditch and the Southern Pacific Railroad. There are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area or within ½ mile that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

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; • 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?
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 49 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 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 50 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 in 2019, but its per capita energy consumption was less than in all other states except Rhode Island, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.12 In 2021, California was the top-ranking producer of electricity from solar, geothermal and biomass energy, and fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric power generation, down from second in 2019, in part because of drought and increased water demand.

Energy usage is typically quantified using the British thermal unit (BTU).13 As a point of reference, the approximately amounts of energy contained in common energy sources are as follows:

Energy Source BTUs14
Motor Gasoline 120,238 per gallon
Natural Gas 1,039 per cubic foot
Electricity 3,412 per kilowatt-hour
12 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA. Accessed July 2022.
13 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Energy Units and Calculators Explained. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units-andcalculators/british-thermal-units.php. Accessed July 2022. 14 Ibid.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 51 California energy consumption in 2020 was 6,922.7 trillion BTU,15 as provided in Table 6. This represents an approximately 11.1% decrease from energy consumption in 2019.

Table 6
2020 California Energy Consumption16
End User BTU of energy
consumed (in trillions)
Percentage of total
consumption
Residential 1,507.7 21.8
Commercial 1,358.3 19.6
Industrial 1,701.2 24.6
Transportation 2,355.5 34.0
Total 6,922.7 --
Total electrical consumption by Tulare County in 2020 was 4,642.8 GWh, while total Gas consumption was 159.5 million Therms.17
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) reports that approximately 35.8 million vehicles were registered in the state in 2020, while in 2019 a total estimated 332.0 billion vehicle miles were traveled (VMT).18
Regulatory Setting
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. 15 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed July 2022. 16U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1. Accessed July 2022. 17 California Energy Commission. Electricity Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed July 2022. 18 Caltrans Fact Booklet. 2021. California Department of Transportation. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovationsystem-information/documents/caltrans-fact-booklets/2021-caltrans-facts-a11y.pdf. Accessed July 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 52 Although it was not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, electricity production 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) took effect 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 eco-friendly 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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 53 percent by year 2020 reduction goal by the end of 2013, adopt a reduction goal of 25 percent by the end 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 proposed Project consists of the development of 80 single-family residences and a neighborhood park. The Project would introduce energy usage on a site that is currently demanding minimal energy. By comparison, at buildout, the Project would consume amounts of energy in both the short-term during Project construction and in the long-term 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.

Operational Project energy consumption would occur for multiple purposes, including but not limited to, building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting and electronics. Operational energy would also be consumed during each vehicle trip associated with the proposed use. CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 was utilized to generate the estimated energy demand of the proposed Project, and the results are provided in Table 7 and in Appendix B.

Table 7
Annual Project Energy Consumption
Land Use Electricity Use
in kWh/year
Natural Gas Use in
kBTU/year
Single Family Housing 635,116 1,901,040
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 54 The proposed Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting.

Implementation of Title 24 standards significantly increases energy savings, and it is generally assumed that compliance with Title 24 ensures projects will not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

As discussed in Impact XVII – Transportation/Traffic, the proposed Project at full buildout would generate approximately 822 daily vehicle trips. The length of these trips and the individual vehicle fuel efficiencies are not known; therefore, the resulting energy consumption cannot be accurately calculated.

Adopted federal vehicle fuel standards have continually improved since their original adoption in 1975 and assists in avoiding the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy by vehicles.

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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 55 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
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 56 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 Project site. Pond Fault is approximately 27 miles southwest, New Hope Fault is approximately 32 miles southwest, Little Lake Fault Zone is approximately 61 miles east, and Owens Valley Fault is approximately 64 miles northeast 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.

Soils
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, much of the Project 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 57 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, Chapter 3, Section 15126.4 (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 (see above) also applies to paleontological resources.

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

Local
Porterville General Plan Policies
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 58 • 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.
a-ii. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? 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? Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 59 a-iv. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Less Than Significant 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. 19 Since no known surface expression of active faults is believed to cross the site, fault rupture through the site is not anticipated.

Although the Project area 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.

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. 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 well-drained 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. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
19 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse. Regulatory Maps and Reports. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/. Accessed July 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 60 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 creating substantial risks to life or property? 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 well-drained, loam underlain by hardpan. The site is not at significant risk from ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslide and is otherwise considered geologically stable. See also Response (a-i) to (a-iv) and (c). The impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 61 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, Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 62 magnitude, and nature of the potential changes to water resources as a result of climate change; however, several trends are evident.

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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 63 Local
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.20

RESPONSES
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Greenhouse gas emissions would generate from longterm area and mobile sources as well as indirectly from energy consumption. Mobile sources would include residential vehicle trips and area source emissions would result from consumption of natural gas and electricity. As discussed above, projects implementing BPS would not require quantification of specific greenhouse gas emissions and such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for greenhouse gas emissions; however, GHG gas emissions are also quantified and provided in Table 5. As such, the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered a significant impact if the Project would implement BPS strategies, in accordance with SJVAPCD recommendations. Exact project feature details are not yet available, therefore, the implementation of GHG-1 as a mitigation measure would ensure that any impacts remain less than significant.
20 SJVAPCD. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. Accessed July 2022. Page 112.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 64 Mitigation Measures:

GHG-1: The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable BPS strategies to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. The following PBS strategies are considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project:
• The project applicant shall provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all residential units and connects to the existing surrounding external streets and pedestrian facilities.
• The project applicant shall ensure site design and building placement minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as wells, berms, landscaping, and slopes between residential uses that impede bicycle or pedestrian circulation shall be eliminated. In addition, barriers to pedestrian access of neighboring facilities and sites shall be minimized.
• The project applicant shall install energy efficient roofing materials. • The project applicant shall incorporate bike lanes and routes into the street system.
• The project applicant shall plant trees to provide shade. • The project applicant shall install only natural gas or electric stoves in residences. The project applicant shall install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant. As discussed above, the SJVAPCD adopted guidance that relies on the use of BPS strategies to assess significance of project-specific greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Project implementing BPS strategies in accordance with SJVAPCD’s guidance would be determined to have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and would not require project specific quantification of greenhouse gas emissions. With implementation of GHG-1, the proposed Project would Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 65 implement BPS strategies as discussed in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 66 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
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 67 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 Project site is located south of the City of Porterville, near primarily residential and agricultural land uses. The site is currently in agricultural production. Residences exist immediately to the north and east of the Project site. The Project site is approximately 1.7 miles northeast of the Porterville Municipal Airport. Fresno-Yosemite International Airport is the closest major airport to the proposed Project site, approximately 63 miles northwest.

The Teapot Dome Landfill is approximately five miles southwest of the City limits, while the Porterville Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately two 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 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 site as a Local Responsibility Area, defined as an area where the local fire jurisdiction is responsible for emergency fire response.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 68 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.

RESPONSES
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 69 The proposed Project would include the construction of up to 80 single-family residential homes and a neighborhood park with the associated improvements. Proposed 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 residents move in to occupy the residences on a day-to-day basis. Upon Annexation, General Plan Amendment, CUP, and TSM approval, the proposed Project will include land uses that are considered compatible with the surrounding uses. The current land uses are also 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 70 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. Hope Elementary, the nearest school, is located approximately one mile south of the Project site. As the proposed Project includes the development of single-family residences, 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. Residential land uses 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 proposed 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 July 2022). 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 Project site is approximately 1.7 miles northeast of the Porterville Municipal Airport.

Upon Annexation, GPA, CUP and TSM approval, 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 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 71 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 72 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?
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 73 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. Annual precipitation within the proposed Project site is about 10 inches, almost 85% of which falls between the months of October and March. Nearly all precipitation falls in the form of rain and storm-water 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. 21 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.22
According to the City of Porterville 2020 Urban Water Master Plan (UWMP),23 water demands within the City’s service area are largely residential, with commercial, industrial, institutional, and City-related consumption accounts for approximately 23% of the total water demand. Similarly, as part of the Eastern Tule GSA, the City plans to reduce groundwater usage by diversifying their supply portfolio as well as implement additional groundwater recharge in the future. The 2020 UWMP shows a total gross water use potable water use to be 3,647 MG, which is a net change of 1,210 MG when compared to the Projected 21 California Department of Water Resources. Critically Overdrafted Basins Map. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Bulletin-118/Critically-Overdrafted-Basins. Accessed August 2022. 22 City of Porterville – Hydraulic Analysis, page 1. Dee Jaspar & Associates, Inc. (May 2015). 23 City of Porterville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2022. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/6335752189/Porterville%5F2020%20UWMP%20Final%2Epdf. Accessed August 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 74 2020 gross water use of 4,857 MG. The projected total gross water use in comparison to the 2015 UWMP was adjusted based on the 2020 actual value. The significant drop in total gross projections takes into consideration that the standard practice of domestic water consumption and the implementation of conservation efforts set by the City. Water use reduction efforts throughout the city has promoted a conservation culture which in turn has decreased total usage over time. Available rebates for high efficiency plumbing, installation of water meters on new and existing services, water waste audits, landscape rebates and selection, and a more conscientious effort by citizens has proved to reduce total usage and ultimately decrease projections over the next 20 years.

The combination of continued below average and inconsistent precipitation, general water conservation mindset, and metering has decreased typical potable water consumption to approximately 130 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Moving forward, the City’s per capita water usage is expected to increase with population growth and favorable hydrologic conditions. The City utilizes the 179 gpcd as a conservative approach for planning purposes in their water, sewer, storm drain integrated master plan (IMP) and other studies.

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 on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays and between the hours of 5AM to 10AM and 5PM to 10PM. This and other mandatory water conservation measures are being enforced with fines of up to $500 for violations.24
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. 24 City of Porterville, Public Works, Water Conservation. https://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/departments/public_works/water_conservation.php.

Accessed August 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 75 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 the State of 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 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 proposed 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 Storm Water 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
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 76 Porterville General Plan Policies
• 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.
• 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. • PU-I-8: Require that agriculture water rights be assigned to the city when agricultural land is annexed to the City for urban development, consistent with the General Plan.

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 State Water Resources Control Board requires any new construction project over an acre to complete a Storm Water 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 wastewater from residential units that will be discharged into the City’s existing wastewater treatment system. The wastewater will be typical of other urban/residential developments consisting of bathrooms, kitchen drains and other similar features. The Project will not discharge any unusual or atypical wastewater.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 77 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
To determine the estimated water use by the proposed Project, this analysis uses the same calculation methods as the City’s UWMP. According to the City’s UWMP, the City uses 179 gpcd as a conservative approach for planning purposes in their water, sewer, storm drain integrated master plan and other studies.25 To determine the number of persons (water users) that would result from the proposed Project, this analysis uses the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element (September 2015) which shows an average household size of 3.39 persons per household in Porterville.26 The proposed Project would include the construction of up to 80 single family residences. Applying the City’s average of 4.39 persons per household, this equates to approximately 351.2 persons. At 179 gallons per day per capita, the Project would require approximately 22.95 MG per year of potable water per year (351.2 residents X 179 gpcd X 365 days = 22,945,652 gallons of potable water per year), or 70.42 acre/feet per year. The proposed land use changes will amend the General Plan designation from the existing Public/Institutional and Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential, which will be a less intense use than what was planned for and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

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 residential development.

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 25 Porterville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (April 2022), page 4-2. 26 Porterville Housing Element 2015-2023 (Sept 2015), page 30.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 78 with groundwater.27 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. Water use reduction efforts throughout the city has promoted a conservation culture which in turn has decreased total usage over time. Available rebates for high efficiency plumbing, installation of water meters on new and existing services, water waste audits, landscape rebates and selection, and a more conscientious effort by citizens has proved to reduce total usage and ultimately decrease projections over the next 20 years. 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 acrefeet 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.
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 planted in orchards, with a cemetery immediately to the west and residential development immediately to the east and north. The site will be designed so 27 Porterville UWMP, page 42. (2010).

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 79 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, which has adequate capacity. 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 on-site 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 Project site is within Zone X, which experiences minimal flood hazards, as indicated by FEMA flood hazard map 06107C1642E, effective 6/15/2009. The site is not within a 100-year flood zone or a 500-year flood zone. The site will be designed for adequate storm drainage.

Flows into the Tule River (located approximately one mile north of the Project site) 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.

A portion of 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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 80 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, 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 81 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
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
The Project site is located in the unincorporated Tulare County, south of the City of Porterville. The proposed Project site is located in an area just outside the Porterville city limits but is outside the UDB and UAB. The Project site is bounded to the north by West Gibbons Avenue and will be bound to the south by a proposed extension of Scranton Avenue. Kessing Street is approximately 340 ft. to the east, with residential subdivisions lie to the north, east, and south. St. Anne’s Cemetery lies adjacent to and west of the site.

The Project consists of an Annexation, Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment, and TSM to allow for the construction of up to 80 single-family residences and a neighborhood park on approximately 20 acres. The northern portion of the site is currently designated as Public/Institutional and the southern portion is designated Low Density Residential by the City of Porterville’s General Plan.

The site is prezoned RS-2 (Low Density Residential) by the City. Existing land use and zoning surrounding the site are identified in Table 8.

Table 8
Existing Land Use, General Plan Designation and Zoning
Location Existing Land
Use
Current Zoning
Classification
General Plan
Designation
North Residential development RS-1 Very Low Density Residential South Residential development
and vacant land RS-2 Low Density Residential
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 82 Location Existing Land
Use
Current Zoning
Classification
General Plan
Designation
West Cemetery and vacant
land PS and RS-2 Public Institutional and Low
Density Residential
East Residential development RS-1 Rural Residential
Existing land uses in City of Porterville have been organized into generalized categories that are summarized below on Table 7. 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 9
Existing Land Use: City of Porterville Planning Area (2005)28 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
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).

RESPONSES
a. Physically divide an established community?
28 City of Porterville General Plan, Land Use Element.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 83 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 Project site is located in the unincorporated Tulare County, south of the City of Porterville. The Project site is located in an area just outside the Porterville city limits but within the UAB and UDB. The Project site is currently planted with orchard trees and is located in an area of residential and agricultural land uses.

The Project includes up to 80 single-family residential units on approximately 20 acres of land. The Project consists of an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, CUP, and TSM to incorporate the parcel in the City of Porterville. The Project has no characteristics that would physically divide the City of Porterville. Access to the existing surrounding areas will be improved with Project implementation.

The site is currently zoned AE-20 by Tulare County however it is within the Porterville UAB and UDB.

The northern portion of the site is currently designated as Public/Institutional and the southern portion is designated Low Density Residential by the City of Porterville’s General Plan. The site is prezoned RS2 (Low Density Residential) by the City. As part of the Project, the General Plan land use will be amended to Low Density Residential. Project development and subsequent land use and zoning changes 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 84 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.

The Tule River contains various State-classified mineral resource zones (MRZ-2a, MRZ-2b, and MRZ3a). 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. Tule River contains various State-classified mineral resource zones (MRZ2a, 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 85 Regulatory Setting
There are no federal, state or local regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the proposed Project.

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?
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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 86 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 unincorporated Tulare County, south of the City of Porterville and is currently planted with orchard trees. The site is located in an established area that provides a mix of land uses, including residential and agricultural.

The primary existing noise sources contributing to ambient noise in the proposed Project area are traffic noises and noises associated with residential neighborhoods and active agriculture.

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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 87 to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.5 PPV without experiencing structural damage. 32 The FTA has
identified the human annoyance response to vibration levels as 80 RMS.

State
The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses and dwellings other than single-family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ldn or CNEL in any habitable room.

Title 24 also mandates that for structures containing noise-sensitive uses to be located where the Ldn or CNEL exceeds 60 dB, an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior levels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment 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 8 below.

Table 10
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure, Ldn or CNEL dB
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Low
density single family,
duplex, mobile homes
<65
(<45 Interior) 65 to 70 70 to 75 >75
(>45 Interior)
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 88 Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure, Ldn or CNEL dB
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Multiple
family
<65
(<45 Interior) 65 to 70 70 to 75 >75(>45 Interior)
Schools, libraries,
churches, hospitals,
nursing homes
<70 60 to 75 70 to 80 >80
Industrial,
manufacturing,
utilities, agriculture
<75 70 to 80 75 to 85 No levels
identified
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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 89

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 is not exposed to the 55 dB or 60 dB CNEL noise contours. Design features will be incorporated into the site plan to mitigate any noise exposure to residences if needed.

The site itself is located in an urban area adjacent to roadways that are potentially heavily travelled, particularly West Gibbons Avenue. Noise from the proposed Project will be similar to existing conditions and will generally include noise from vehicles, air conditioner units and other similar equipment. 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 11, 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 11
Typical Construction Noise Levels
Type of Equipment
dBA at 50 ft
Without Feasible Noise Control With Feasible Noise Control1 Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Scraper 88 80
Front End Loader 79 75
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 90 Type of Equipment
dBA at 50 ft
Without Feasible Noise Control With Feasible Noise Control1 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.

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 residences and roadways.

Vibration from construction activities will be temporary and not exceed the FTA threshold for the nearest residences, which are located approximately 50 feet from the development.

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 12 describes the typical construction equipment vibration levels.

Table 12
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment VdB at 25 ft
Small Bulldozer 58
Jackhammer 79
Impacts are less than significant.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 91 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 92 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
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 (1975-2005), 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 (1990-2005). At the time of General Plan adoption in 2006, the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated the City with a population of 45,220 residents. In 2016, the City had an estimated population of 58,623 residents.

According to the most recent DOF report29, the City currently is at approximately 62,345 residents, an approximately 13.8 percent increase over the last 10 years. Build-out 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
Federal
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable 29 E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. State of California Department of Finance. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/.

Accessed August 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 93 rental homes: utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination and transform the way HUD does business.30 State
The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) mission is to “[p]romote safe, affordable homes and vibrant, inclusive, sustainable communities for all Californians”.31 In 1977, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) adopted regulations under the California Administrative Code, known as the Housing Element Guidelines, which are to be followed by local governments in the preparation of local housing elements. AB 2853, enacted in 1980, further codified housing element requirements. Since that time, new amendments to State Housing Law have been enacted.

State Housing Law also mandates that local governments identify existing and future housing needs in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

Local
City of Porterville Housing Element. California Housing Element law requires every jurisdiction to prepare and adopt a housing element as part of a City’s General Plan.

State Housing Element requirements are framed in the California Government Code, Sections 65580 through 65589, Chapter 1143, Article 10.6. The law requires the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to administer the law by reviewing housing elements for compliance with State law and by reporting its written findings to the local jurisdiction. Although State law allows local governments to decide when to update their general plans, State Housing Element law mandates that housing elements be updated every eight years. The City’s Housing Element was adopted in December of 2015, and contains information on housing needs, land inventory, constraints, and a program of action.
30 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mission, https://www.hud.gov/about/mission. Accessed August 2022. 31 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Mission, https://hcd.ca.gov/about/mission.shtml. Accessed August 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 94

RESPONSES
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)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would include the construction of up to 80 singlefamily residences and internal access roads, which would result in approximately 272 additional residents based on the estimated 3.39 persons per household for the City of Porterville, which would increase the City’s population by approximately 0.44% at full buildout. The site is within the Porterville Planning Area of the General Plan and as such, residential site development is expected and has been planned for. Impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant. There are no residential structures currently on-site. No houses will be displaced and as such, there will be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 95 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 Station 2, which is located at the Public Works complex, approximately 2.7 miles northwest of the Project site. The physical address of the fire station is 500 North Newcomb Street. The Porterville Police Department is located approximately 2.2 miles north of the Project site at 350 North D Street.

The Teapot Dome Landfill is approximately five miles southwest of the City limits, while the Porterville Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the Project site. Vandalia Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School are located approximately one mile to the northeast while Hope Elementary is approximately one mile south, Olive Street Elementary School and Porterville High Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 96 School are located approximately 1.6 miles north of the site, Santa Fe Elementary School approximately

1.7 miles to the northeast, John J. Doyle Elementary School approximately 2.3 miles to the northeast, and Bartlett Middle School approximately 2.2 miles to the north of the site.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
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 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 Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 97 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 Project site will continue to be served by City of Porterville Fire Station No. 2, which is approximately 2.7 miles northwest of the proposed Project site. The Project 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 also include local roads that would provide access to emergency vehicles in the event of a fire and 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 includes the construction of 80 single-family residential units and a neighborhood park, which will accommodate approximately 272 persons.

Protection services would be provided to the Project site from the existing Porterville Police Department, approximately 2.2 miles north of the site. As the Project site is located in an area currently served by the Police Department and the site has been designated for urban use by the General Plan, the department would not need to expand its existing service area or construct a new facility to serve the Project site. The impact is less than significant.

Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the Porterville Unified School District.

The Project site is within the Vandalia Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School boundaries. Based on school district generation rates for new housing units (0.4 elementary, 0.1 middle school and 0.2 high school students per residential unit32), the proposed Project would generate approximately 32 elementary school students, 8 middle school students and 16 high school students. Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The Project applicant would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development of school services. 32 Porterville 2030 General Plan EIR. SCH 2006011033. Page 234.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 98 Payment of the developer fees will offset the addition of school-age children within the district. As such, any impacts would be less than significant.

Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Porterville operates 15 parks. The nearest City Park to the proposed Project site is the Pioneer Ballfield/Jamison Stadium located approximately 0.7 miles to the northeast, and the Fallen Heroes Park, approximately 1.3 miles northeast on E. Chase Avenue.

Additionally, the tentative parcel map includes a neighborhood park in the center of the new development, which would be approximately 37,600 square feet (0.87 acres) in size.

To ensure sufficient recreational opportunities, the City has established a Park Impact Fee, implemented by Chapter 19, Parks, Article III, Park Impact Fee, of the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code states that parks must be constructed or expanded commensurate with growth of the City. The developer will receive a credit against their park fees as a result of the City requirement to include a park in the residential development. Additionally, the Project applicant would be required to comply with Article III of the Municipal Code. As such, any impacts would remain less than significant.

Other public facilities?
Less than Significant 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. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 99 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 62,345 residents,33 the City has a ratio of approximately 4.67 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
33 E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2021 and 2022. State of California Department of Finance. https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-1/. Accessed August 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 100 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.

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? Less than Significant Impact. As described in Impact XIV(a), the City has established a Park Impact Fee through the Municipal Code, which states that parks must be constructed or expanded commensurate with growth of the City. The City requires the applicant to pay a Park Impact Fee, dedicate land for open space, or a combination of both. The applicant intends to construct a 37,600 square foot (0.87 acre) park in the center of the residential development. As such, any impacts will be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. As stated previously, the proposed Project includes the construction of recreation facilities (a community park) in the site development plan. The developer will receive a credit against their park fees as a result of the City requirement to include a park in the residential development.

As such, the payment of a Park Impact Fee as directed by the Municipal Code is likely not required. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 101 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 proposed development is located on APN 269-060-020 and is bounded to the north by West Gibbons Avenue, and will be bound to the south by a proposed extension of Scranton Avenue. Kessing Street is approximately 340 ft. to the east, with residential subdivisions to the north, east, and south. St. Anne’s Cemetery lies adjacent to and west of the site. Porterville is bisected north-to-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 1.7 miles southwest of the site.

A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis was performed on behalf of the proposed Project by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers (Appendix D). The following discussion and impact analysis are directly referencing this technical report.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Transit Administration.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 102 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.

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.

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. • 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 103

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)?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed residential Project will have access along Gibbons Avenue. Based on the latest site plan, the Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 822 average daily trips (ADT), 61 AM peak hour trips and 81 PM peak hour trips at build-out (Table 12).

Baseline VMT was determined utilizing data from the California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM). The proposed residential project is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 2735, which has an average VMT/capita of 11.51 miles.

Table 12
Trip Generation
General Information Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips ITE
Code
Development
Type Variable ADT
RATE ADT Rate
In
% Split/
Trips
Out
% Split/
Trips
Rate
In
% Split/
Trips
Out
% Split/
Trips
210
Single-Family
detached
Housing
80 Dwelling
Units
eq 822 eq
26%
16 74%
45 eq
63%
51 37%
30 Total 822 61 81
The proposed residential project is considered a typical project within the TAZ and therefore the project would be expected to have the same VMT per capita. There are no special considerations with the project to assume the project would produce a VMT/capita lower than the average for the TAZ. The threshold of significance for residential project VMT/capita is if the project VMT is below the average in the TAZ where the project is located. Since VMT/capita is assumed to be equal to the average for the aforementioned zone, it is anticipated that the proposed project will have a significant transportation impact prior to mitigation.

The guidelines include a minimum cost for mitigation of $20 per daily trip generated by the Project. As noted earlier, the Project is anticipated to generate 822 daily trips, which equates to a target value of improvements of $16,440. Proposed mitigation includes installing a total of 525 feet of sidewalk located on the east side of Jaye Street between Gibbons Avenue and Melinda Avenue, which has a total estimated Project cost of $16,537.50. Therefore, with the construction of the identified improvements, Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 104 the Project will meet the minimum cost requirement for mitigation. At the time of construction should prices fluctuate, an adjustment in the scope of improvements may need to be made.

Pursuant to the guidelines, if a Project provides mitigation which meets the minimum threshold, the Project can presume a 1% reduction in VMT. The assumed VMT/capita reduction is 1% of 11.51 or

0.1151. The resulting VMT/capita after mitigation is 11.39 which is below the average VMT/capita in the TAZ which the Project is located. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 will ensure impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

TRA-1
The project developer shall pay a total of $16,537.50 in improvement fees, prior to issuance of building permits, to the City of Porterville to construct a sidewalk along the east side of Jaye Street, north of Gibbons Ave.
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. 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 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 105 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 106

REGULATORY 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.34 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; 34 California Office of Historic Preservation, Mission and Responsibilities, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1066, Accessed April 2021.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 107  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.35 Tribal Consultation Requirements: SB 18 (Burton, 2004) 36 On September 29, 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 18, Tribal Consultation Guidelines, into law. This bill amended Section 815.3 of the Civil Code, to amend Sections 65040.2, 65092, 65351, 65352, and 65560 of, and to add Sections 65352.3, 65352.4, and 65562.2 to, the Government Code, relating to traditional tribal cultural Places. SB 18, enacted March 1, 2005, creates a mechanism for California Native American Tribes to identify culturally significant sites that are located within public or private lands within the city or county’s jurisdiction. SB 18 requires cities and counties to contact, and offer to consult with, California Native American Tribes before adopting or amending a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or when designating land as Open Space, for the purpose of protecting Native American Cultural Places (PRC 5097.9 and 5097.993). The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provides local governments with a consultation list of tribal governments with traditional lands or cultural places located within the Project Area of Potential Effect. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.

As noted, tribes identified by the NAHC were notified by mail on October 4, 2022.

Tribal Consultation Requirements: AB 52 (Gatto, 2014)37 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 35 California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register of Historical Resources: Criteria for Designation. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238. Accessed August 2022. 36 Senate Bill No. 18, Chapter 905. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040SB18. Accessed August 2022. 37 Assembly Bill No. 52, Chapter 532. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB52. Accessed August 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 108 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.38 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. The City sent letters to the tribal governments listed by the NAHC on January 13, 2022 as required by AB 52.

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 38 Native American Heritage Commission, About the Native American Heritage Commission http://nahc.ca.gov/about/. Accessed August 2022.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 109 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 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. Any impacts to TCR would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No additional measures are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 110 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?
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 111

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Utilities required to serve the proposed Project would include: water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure. 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
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 112 • 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 up to 80 singlefamily residential units on the Project site. 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?
Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 113 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 Public/Institutional and Low Density Residential. As a part of the Project, land use will be redesignated as Very Low Density Residential, which is a less intensive use than what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

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 and the land use changes proposed as a part of the project will result in a less intensive use than what was planned. 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 (MGD). Currently, flows average 4.5 MGD.39 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? 39 Michael Knight, City of Porterville Public Works Director, email communication.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 114 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 Landfill 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.

The Visalia Disposal Site located approximately 28 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 2049.40 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.

According to the General Plan, solid waste generation rates in Porterville are approximately 2.0 pounds per day per resident. Therefore, the proposed Project would include the development of 80 residential units resulting in a population increase of approximately 272 persons, generating approximately 544 pounds per day of solid waste.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in an 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 40 Jonah Trevino, Environmental Coordinator for Tulare County Solid Waste Department. Personal communication on 6/24/2021.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 115 during Project construction and operation. The proposed Project will comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As such, any impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 116 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.41 The majority of the Porterville is developed into urban uses or in active agriculture, severely reducing the risk of wildland fire. According to the 41 Tulare County General Plan Background Report. February 2010. Page 8-21.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 117 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 primarily residential and agricultural 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 and agricultural 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.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 118 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 selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 119 the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the proposed Project may have substantial impact on the environment or on any resources identified in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project design to reduce potential 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. The proposed Project may contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increase need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc). Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project design to reduce potential impacts to 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. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project may have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project design to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project | Initial Study CITY OF PORTERVILLE | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. 120

LIST OF PREPARERS
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
• Emily Bowen, LEED AP, Principal Environmental Planner • Travis Crawford, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner • Deepesh Tourani, Associate Environmental Planner
Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers
• Ian Parks, Civil Engineer
Persons and Agencies Consulted
City of Porterville
• Oscar Zepeda, Associate Planner
• Jeff O’Neal, AICP, Contract City Planner
• Jason Ridenour, Assistant City Manager
California Historic Resources Information System
• Celeste Thomson, Coordinator

APPENDIX A
Land Evaluation Site Assessment
1-A
Appendix A. California Agricultural LESA Worksheets
Calculation of the Land Evaluation (LE) Score
NOTES Part 1. Land Capability Classification (LCC) Score:
(1) Determine the total acreage of the project. (2) Determine the soil types within the project area and enter them in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet provided on page 2-A. (3) Calculate the total acres of each soil type and enter the amounts in Column B. (4) Divide the acres of each soil type (Column B) by the total acreage to determine the proportion of each soil type present. Enter the proportion of each soil type in Column C. (5) Determine the LCC for each soil type from the applicable Soil Survey and enter it in Column D. (6) From the LCC Scoring Table below, determine the point rating corresponding to the LCC for each soil type and enter it in Column E.

LCC Scoring Table
LCC Class
I IIe IIs,w IIIe IIIs,w IVe IVs,w V VI VII VIII
Points 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
(7) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the point score (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F. (8) Sum the LCC scores in Column F. (9) Enter the LCC score in box <1> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A.

Part 2. Storie Index Score:
(1) Determine the Storie Index rating for each soil type and enter it in Column G. (2) Multiply the proportion of each soil type (Column C) by the Storie Index rating (Column G) and enter the scores in Column H. (3) Sum the Storie Index scores in Column H to gain the Storie Index Score. (4) Enter the Storie Index Score in box <2> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. 2-A
Land Evaluation Worksheet Site Assessment Worksheet 1.

Land Capability Classification (LCC)
Project Size Score
and Storie Index Scores

A B C D E F G H I J K
Soil Map Project Proportion
of
LCC LCC LCC Storie Storie
Index
LCC Class LCC
Class
LCC
Class
Unit Acres Project Area Rating Score Index Score I - II III IV - VIII (Must Sum LCC Storie Index
Totals to 1.0) Total
Score
Total Score Total Acres
Project Size
Scores
Highest Project
Size Score
3-A
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Calculation of the Site Assessment (SA) ScoreNOTES Part 1. Project Size Score:.
(1) Using Site Assessment Worksheet 1 provided on page 2-A, enter the acreage of each soil type from Column B in the Column - I, J or K - that corresponds to the LCC for that soil. (Note: While the Project Size Score is a component of the Site Assessment calculations, the score sheet is an extension of data collected in the Land Evaluation Worksheet, and is therefore displayed beside it). (2) Sum Column I to determine the total amount of class I and II soils on the project site. (3) Sum Column J to determine the total amount of class III soils on the project site. (4) Sum Column K to determine the total amount of class IV and lower soils on the project site.(5) Compare the total score for each LCC group in the Project Size Scoring Table below and determine which group receives the highest score.

Project Size Scoring Table
Class I or II Class III Class IV or Lower
Acreage Points Acreage Points Acreage Points
>80 100 >160 100 >320 100
60-79 90 120-159 90 240-319 80 40-59 80 80-119 80 160-239 60 20-39 50 60-79 70 100-159 40 10-19 30 40-59 60 40-99 20 10< 0 20-39 30 40< 0
10-19 10 10< 0
(6) Enter the Project Size Score (the highest score from the three LCC categories) in box <3> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. 4-A
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Part 2. Water Resource Availability Score:

NOTES
(1) Determine the type(s) of irrigation present on the project site, including a determination of whether there is dryland agricultural activity as well. (2) Divide the site into portions according to the type or types of irrigation or dryland cropping that is available in each portion. Enter this information in Column B of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability. (3) Determine the proportion of the total site represented for each portion identified, and enter this information in Column C. (4) Using the Water Resources Availability Scoring Table, identify the option that is most applicable for each portion, based upon the feasibility of irrigation in drought and non-drought years, and whether physical or economic restrictions are likely to exist. Enter the applicable Water Resource Availability Score into Column D. (5) Multiply the Water Resource Availability Score for each portion by the proportion of the project area it represents to determine the weighted score for each portion in Column E. (6) Sum the scores for all portions to determine the project’s total Water Resources Availability Score (7) Enter the Water Resource Availability Score in box <4> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. 5-A
Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability

A B C D E
Water Weighted
Project Water Proportion of Availability Availability
Portion Source Project Area Score Score
(C x D)
1 2 3 4 5 6
(Must Sum Total Water to 1.0) Resource
Score
6-A
Water Resource Availability Scoring Table
Non-Drought Years Drought Years
WATER

RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTIONS
Option RESOURCE
Irrigated Physical Economic Irrigated Physical Economic Production Restrictions Restrictions Production Restrictions Restrictions SCORE Feasible? ? ? Feasible? ? ? 1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 100 2 YES NO NO YES NO YES 95 3 YES NO YES YES NO YES 90 4 YES NO NO YES YES NO 85 5 YES NO NO YES YES YES 80 6 YES YES NO YES YES NO 75 7 YES YES YES YES YES YES 65 8 YES NO NO NO -- -- -- -- 50 9 YES NO YES NO -- -- -- -- 45 10 YES YES NO NO -- -- -- -- 35 11 YES YES YES NO -- -- -- -- 30 12 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 25 production in both drought and non-drought years
13 Irrigated production not feasible, but rainfall adequate for dryland 20 production in non-drought years (but not in drought years) 14 Neither irrigated nor dryland production feasible 0
7-A
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Part 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land Use Score:

NOTES
(1) Calculate the project’s Zone of Influence (ZOI) as follows:
(a) a rectangle is drawn around the project such that the rectangle is the smallest that can completely encompass the project area. (b) a second rectangle is then drawn which extends one quarter mile on all sides beyond the first rectangle. (c) The ZOI includes all parcels that are contained within or are intersected by the second rectangle, less the area of the project itself. (2) Sum the area of all parcels to determine the total acreage of the ZOI. (3) Determine which parcels are in agricultural use and sum the areas of these parcels (4) Divide the area in agriculture found in step (3) by the total area of the ZOI found in step (2) to determine the percent of the ZOI that is in agricultural use.
(5) Determine the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table below.

Surrounding Agricultural Land Scoring Table
Percent of ZOI
in
Surrounding
Agricultural
Agriculture Land Score
90-100 100
80-89 90 75-79 80 70-74 70 65-69 60 60-64 50 55-59 40 50-54 30 45-49 20 40-44 10 <40 0
(5) Enter the Surrounding Agricultural Land Score in box <5> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. 8-A
Site Assessment Worksheet 3. Surrounding Agricultural Land and Surrounding Protected Resource Land

A B C D E F G
Zone of Influence
Surrounding
Total Acres Acres in Acres of Percent in Percent Surrounding Protected Agriculture Protected Agriculture Protected Agricultural Resource Resource Resource Land Land Score Land Score Land (A/B) (A/C) (From Table) (From Table) 9-A
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Part 4. Protected Resource Lands Score:

NOTES
The Protected Resource Lands scoring relies upon the same Zone of Influence information gathered in Part 3, and figures are entered in Site Assessment Worksheet 3, which combines the surrounding agricultural and protected lands calculations. (1) Use the total area of the ZOI calculated in Part 3. for the Surrounding Agricultural Land Use score. (2) Sum the area of those parcels within the ZOI that are protected resource lands, as defined in the California Agricultural LESA Guidelines. (3) Divide the area that is determined to be protected in Step (2) by the total acreage of the ZOI to determine the percentage of the surrounding area that is under resource protection. (4) Determine the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score utilizing the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table below.

Surrounding Protected Resource Land Scoring Table
Percent of ZOI Protected Resource
Protected Land Score
90-100 100
80-89 90 75-79 80 70-74 70 65-69 60 60-64 50 55-59 40 50-54 30 45-49 20 40-44 10 <40 0
(5) Enter the Protected Resource Land score in box <6> of the Final LESA Score Sheet on page 10-A. 10-A
Final LESA Score Sheet
LESA Worksheet (cont.) Calculation of the Final LESA Score:

NOTES
(1) Multiply each factor score by the factor weight to determine the weighted score and enter in Weighted Factor Scores column. (2) Sum the weighted factor scores for the LE factors to determine the total LE score for the project. (3) Sum the weighted factor scores for the SA factors to determine the total SA score for the project. (4) Sum the total LE and SA scores to determine the Final LESA Score for the project.

Factor
Scores
Factor
Weight
Weighted
Factor
Scores
LE Factors
Land Capability
Classification
<1> 0.25
Storie
Index
<2> 0.25
LE
Subtotal

0.50 SA Factors
Project
Size
<3> 0.15
Water Resource
Availability
<4> 0.15
Surrounding
Agricultural Land
<5> 0.15
Protected
Resource Land
<6> 0.05
SA
Subtotal

0.50 Final LESA
Score
For further information on the scoring thresholds under the California Agricultural LESA Model, consult Section 4 of the Instruction Manual.

APPENDIX B
CalEEMod Output Files
Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics - Development of single-family residential housing including a neighborhood park.

Land Use - Project includes 80 single-family residences and one neighborhood park.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 0.87 Acre 0.87 37,897.20 0
Single Family Housing 80.00 Dwelling Unit 20.50 144,000.00 254

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 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 25.97 20.50
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 20.50 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 20.50 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1493 1.4678 1.2210 2.4400e0030.2742 0.0672 0.3413 0.1184 0.0623 0.1807 0.0000 214.2565 214.2565 0.0584 1.3200e003216.1100 2023 0.2250 1.9686 2.2837 4.3000e0030.0597 0.0918 0.1515 0.0162 0.0864 0.1025 0.0000 376.9162 376.9162 0.0730 6.7400e003380.7509 2024 1.4173 0.5762 0.7441 1.3600e0030.0171 0.0258 0.0428 4.6100e0030.0242 0.0288 0.0000 119.3940 119.3940 0.0251 1.7100e003120.5297 Maximum 1.4173 1.9686 2.2837 4.3000e0030.2742 0.0918 0.3413 0.1184 0.0864 0.1807 0.0000 376.9162 376.9162 0.0730 6.7400e003380.7509 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
2022 0.1493 1.4678 1.2210 2.4400e0030.2742 0.0672 0.3413 0.1184 0.0623 0.1807 0.0000 214.2562 214.2562 0.0584 1.3200e003216.1098 2023 0.2250 1.9686 2.2837 4.3000e0030.0597 0.0918 0.1515 0.0162 0.0864 0.1025 0.0000 376.9158 376.9158 0.0730 6.7400e003380.7505 2024 1.4173 0.5762 0.7441 1.3600e0030.0171 0.0258 0.0428 4.6100e0030.0242 0.0288 0.0000 119.3939 119.3939 0.0251 1.7100e003120.5295 Maximum 1.4173 1.9686 2.2837 4.3000e0030.2742 0.0918 0.3413 0.1184 0.0864 0.1807 0.0000 376.9158 376.9158 0.0730 6.7400e003380.7505 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 8-2-2022 11-1-2022 1.2183 1.2183
2 11-2-2022 2-1-2023 0.5890 0.5890
3 2-2-2023 5-1-2023 0.5368 0.5368
4 5-2-2023 8-1-2023 0.5540 0.5540
5 8-2-2023 11-1-2023 0.5545 0.5545
6 11-2-2023 2-1-2024 0.5432 0.5432
7 2-2-2024 5-1-2024 0.5428 0.5428
8 5-2-2024 8-1-2024 1.2684 1.2684
Highest 1.2684 1.2684
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7193 0.0368 0.6065 2.2000e0045.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0030.0000 35.6269 35.6269 1.6000e0036.4000e00435.8561 Energy 0.0103 0.0876 0.0373 5.6000e0047.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0030.0000 101.4468 101.4468 1.9400e0031.8600e003102.0497 Mobile 0.3777 0.6752 3.5596 8.4800e0030.8123 7.6100e0030.8199 0.2174 7.1500e0030.2246 0.0000 796.5691 796.5691 0.0417 0.0445 810.8596 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 19.4141 0.0000 19.4141 1.1473 0.0000 48.0975 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6536 0.0000 1.6536 0.1698 4.0100e0037.0948 Total 1.1073 0.7996 4.2034 9.2600e0030.8123 0.0204 0.8327 0.2174 0.0199 0.2373 21.0677 933.6428 954.7105 1.3625 0.0510 1,003.957 7 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7193 0.0368 0.6065 2.2000e0045.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0030.0000 35.6269 35.6269 1.6000e0036.4000e00435.8561 Energy 0.0103 0.0876 0.0373 5.6000e0047.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0030.0000 101.4468 101.4468 1.9400e0031.8600e003102.0497 Mobile 0.3777 0.6752 3.5596 8.4800e0030.8123 7.6100e0030.8199 0.2174 7.1500e0030.2246 0.0000 796.5691 796.5691 0.0417 0.0445 810.8596 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 19.4141 0.0000 19.4141 1.1473 0.0000 48.0975 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6536 0.0000 1.6536 0.1698 4.0100e0037.0948 Total 1.1073 0.7996 4.2034 9.2600e0030.8123 0.0204 0.8327 0.2174 0.0199 0.2373 21.0677 933.6428 954.7105 1.3625 0.0510 1,003.957 7 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 8/2/2022 8/29/2022 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/30/2022 9/12/2022 5 10 3 Grading Grading 9/13/2022 10/31/2022 5 35
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 11/1/2022 4/1/2024 5 370 5 Paving Paving 4/2/2024 4/29/2024 5 20
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/30/2024 5/27/2024 5 20 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 291,600; Residential Outdoor: 97,200; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 105
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 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 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Total 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
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 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 45.00 15.00 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 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 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 5.1000e0043.6000e0044.0900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9973 0.9973 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.0073 Total 5.1000e0043.6000e0044.0900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9973 0.9973 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.0073 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 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Total 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 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 5.1000e0043.6000e0044.0900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9973 0.9973 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.0073 Total 5.1000e0043.6000e0044.0900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9973 0.9973 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.0073 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0048.0600e0038.0600e0037.4200e0037.4200e0030.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0040.0983 8.0600e0030.1064 0.0505 7.4200e0030.0579 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.1000e0042.2000e0042.4500e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5984 0.5984 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6044 Total 3.1000e0042.2000e0042.4500e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5984 0.5984 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6044 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 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0048.0600e0038.0600e0037.4200e0037.4200e0030.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0040.0983 8.0600e0030.1064 0.0505 7.4200e0030.0579 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.1000e0042.2000e0042.4500e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5984 0.5984 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6044 Total 3.1000e0042.2000e0042.4500e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5984 0.5984 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6044 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1611 0.0000 0.1611 0.0639 0.0000 0.0639 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0634 0.6798 0.5082 1.0900e0030.0286 0.0286 0.0263 0.0263 0.0000 95.4356 95.4356 0.0309 0.0000 96.2072 Total 0.0634 0.6798 0.5082 1.0900e0030.1611 0.0286 0.1897 0.0639 0.0263 0.0903 0.0000 95.4356 95.4356 0.0309 0.0000 96.2072 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 1.2000e0038.4000e0049.5400e0033.0000e0052.8000e0032.0000e0052.8100e0037.4000e0041.0000e0057.6000e0040.0000 2.3270 2.3270 8.0000e0057.0000e0052.3504 Total 1.2000e0038.4000e0049.5400e0033.0000e0052.8000e0032.0000e0052.8100e0037.4000e0041.0000e0057.6000e0040.0000 2.3270 2.3270 8.0000e0057.0000e0052.3504 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 0.1611 0.0000 0.1611 0.0639 0.0000 0.0639 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0634 0.6798 0.5082 1.0900e0030.0286 0.0286 0.0263 0.0263 0.0000 95.4354 95.4354 0.0309 0.0000 96.2071 Total 0.0634 0.6798 0.5082 1.0900e0030.1611 0.0286 0.1897 0.0639 0.0263 0.0903 0.0000 95.4354 95.4354 0.0309 0.0000 96.2071 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 1.2000e0038.4000e0049.5400e0033.0000e0052.8000e0032.0000e0052.8100e0037.4000e0041.0000e0057.6000e0040.0000 2.3270 2.3270 8.0000e0057.0000e0052.3504 Total 1.2000e0038.4000e0049.5400e0033.0000e0052.8000e0032.0000e0052.8100e0037.4000e0041.0000e0057.6000e0040.0000 2.3270 2.3270 8.0000e0057.0000e0052.3504 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 0.0375 0.3435 0.3600 5.9000e0040.0178 0.0178 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 50.9796 50.9796 0.0122 0.0000 51.2849 Total 0.0375 0.3435 0.3600 5.9000e0040.0178 0.0178 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 50.9796 50.9796 0.0122 0.0000 51.2849 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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 7.1000e0040.0181 5.2100e0037.0000e0052.1900e0032.0000e0042.3900e0036.3000e0041.9000e0048.2000e0040.0000 6.6265 6.6265 4.0000e0059.9000e0046.9236 Worker 3.3900e0032.3900e0030.0270 7.0000e0057.9100e0034.0000e0057.9600e0032.1000e0034.0000e0052.1400e0030.0000 6.5822 6.5822 2.2000e0042.0000e0046.6484 Total 4.1000e0030.0205 0.0322 1.4000e0040.0101 2.4000e0040.0104 2.7300e0032.3000e0042.9600e0030.0000 13.2087 13.2087 2.6000e0041.1900e00313.5720 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 0.0375 0.3435 0.3600 5.9000e0040.0178 0.0178 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 50.9795 50.9795 0.0122 0.0000 51.2848 Total 0.0375 0.3435 0.3600 5.9000e0040.0178 0.0178 0.0168 0.0168 0.0000 50.9795 50.9795 0.0122 0.0000 51.2848 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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 7.1000e0040.0181 5.2100e0037.0000e0052.1900e0032.0000e0042.3900e0036.3000e0041.9000e0048.2000e0040.0000 6.6265 6.6265 4.0000e0059.9000e0046.9236 Worker 3.3900e0032.3900e0030.0270 7.0000e0057.9100e0034.0000e0057.9600e0032.1000e0034.0000e0052.1400e0030.0000 6.5822 6.5822 2.2000e0042.0000e0046.6484 Total 4.1000e0030.0205 0.0322 1.4000e0040.0101 2.4000e0040.0104 2.7300e0032.3000e0042.9600e0030.0000 13.2087 13.2087 2.6000e0041.1900e00313.5720 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
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 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383 Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
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 2.1500e0030.0862 0.0264 3.9000e0040.0129 5.6000e0040.0135 3.7400e0035.3000e0044.2700e0030.0000 37.6968 37.6968 1.6000e0045.6400e00339.3815 Worker 0.0184 0.0123 0.1456 4.1000e0040.0468 2.5000e0040.0470 0.0124 2.3000e0040.0127 0.0000 37.8732 37.8732 1.1800e0031.1000e00338.2311 Total 0.0205 0.0985 0.1720 8.0000e0040.0597 8.1000e0040.0605 0.0162 7.6000e0040.0169 0.0000 75.5700 75.5700 1.3400e0036.7400e00377.6126 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 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380 Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
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 2.1500e0030.0862 0.0264 3.9000e0040.0129 5.6000e0040.0135 3.7400e0035.3000e0044.2700e0030.0000 37.6968 37.6968 1.6000e0045.6400e00339.3815 Worker 0.0184 0.0123 0.1456 4.1000e0040.0468 2.5000e0040.0470 0.0124 2.3000e0040.0127 0.0000 37.8732 37.8732 1.1800e0031.1000e00338.2311 Total 0.0205 0.0985 0.1720 8.0000e0040.0597 8.1000e0040.0605 0.0162 7.6000e0040.0169 0.0000 75.5700 75.5700 1.3400e0036.7400e00377.6126 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
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 0.0486 0.4436 0.5335 8.9000e0040.0202 0.0202 0.0190 0.0190 0.0000 76.5102 76.5102 0.0181 0.0000 76.9625 Total 0.0486 0.4436 0.5335 8.9000e0040.0202 0.0202 0.0190 0.0190 0.0000 76.5102 76.5102 0.0181 0.0000 76.9625 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
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 5.3000e0040.0219 6.5400e0031.0000e0043.2800e0031.4000e0043.4300e0039.5000e0041.4000e0041.0800e0030.0000 9.4163 9.4163 4.0000e0051.4100e0039.8369 Worker 4.3000e0032.7600e0030.0342 1.0000e0040.0119 6.0000e0050.0119 3.1600e0035.0000e0053.2100e0030.0000 9.3729 9.3729 2.7000e0042.6000e0049.4566 Total 4.8300e0030.0247 0.0407 2.0000e0040.0152 2.0000e0040.0154 4.1100e0031.9000e0044.2900e0030.0000 18.7892 18.7892 3.1000e0041.6700e00319.2935 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 0.0486 0.4436 0.5335 8.9000e0040.0202 0.0202 0.0190 0.0190 0.0000 76.5101 76.5101 0.0181 0.0000 76.9624 Total 0.0486 0.4436 0.5335 8.9000e0040.0202 0.0202 0.0190 0.0190 0.0000 76.5101 76.5101 0.0181 0.0000 76.9624 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
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 5.3000e0040.0219 6.5400e0031.0000e0043.2800e0031.4000e0043.4300e0039.5000e0041.4000e0041.0800e0030.0000 9.4163 9.4163 4.0000e0051.4100e0039.8369 Worker 4.3000e0032.7600e0030.0342 1.0000e0040.0119 6.0000e0050.0119 3.1600e0035.0000e0053.2100e0030.0000 9.3729 9.3729 2.7000e0042.6000e0049.4566 Total 4.8300e0030.0247 0.0407 2.0000e0040.0152 2.0000e0040.0154 4.1100e0031.9000e0044.2900e0030.0000 18.7892 18.7892 3.1000e0041.6700e00319.2935 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2024
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 9.8800e0030.0953 0.1463 2.3000e0044.6900e0034.6900e0034.3100e0034.3100e0030.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1885 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.8800e0030.0953 0.1463 2.3000e0044.6900e0034.6900e0034.3100e0034.3100e0030.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1885 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.3000e0042.8000e0043.4500e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9468 0.9468 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9552 Total 4.3000e0042.8000e0043.4500e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9468 0.9468 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9552 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 9.8800e0030.0953 0.1463 2.3000e0044.6900e0034.6900e0034.3100e0034.3100e0030.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1884 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.8800e0030.0953 0.1463 2.3000e0044.6900e0034.6900e0034.3100e0034.3100e0030.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1884 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.3000e0042.8000e0043.4500e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9468 0.9468 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9552 Total 4.3000e0042.8000e0043.4500e0031.0000e0051.2000e0031.0000e0051.2100e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9468 0.9468 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9552 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
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 1.3516 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8100e0030.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5569 Total 1.3534 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5569 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
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 2.6000e0041.7000e0042.0700e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5681 0.5681 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5731 Total 2.6000e0041.7000e0042.0700e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5681 0.5681 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5731 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 1.3516 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8100e0030.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5568 Total 1.3534 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5568 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
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 2.6000e0041.7000e0042.0700e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5681 0.5681 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5731 Total 2.6000e0041.7000e0042.0700e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5681 0.5681 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5731 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3777 0.6752 3.5596 8.4800e0030.8123 7.6100e0030.8199 0.2174 7.1500e0030.2246 0.0000 796.5691 796.5691 0.0417 0.0445 810.8596 Unmitigated 0.3777 0.6752 3.5596 8.4800e0030.8123 7.6100e0030.8199 0.2174 7.1500e0030.2246 0.0000 796.5691 796.5691 0.0417 0.0445 810.8596

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 0.68 1.71 1.91 2,136 2,136
Single Family Housing 755.20 763.20 684.00 2,162,268 2,162,268 Total 755.88 764.91 685.91 2,164,404 2,164,404
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
Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 45.60 19.00 35.40 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH City Park 0.511221 0.052103 0.170611 0.160645 0.028932 0.007649 0.013284 0.025916 0.000654 0.000315 0.023645 0.001472 0.003552 Single Family Housing 0.511221 0.052103 0.170611 0.160645 0.028932 0.007649 0.013284 0.025916 0.000654 0.000315 0.023645 0.001472 0.003552

5.0 Energy Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0103 0.0876 0.0373 5.6000e0047.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0030.0000 101.4468 101.4468 1.9400e0031.8600e003102.0497 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0103 0.0876 0.0373 5.6000e0047.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0030.0000 101.4468 101.4468 1.9400e0031.8600e003102.0497

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
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 Single Family
Housing

1.90104e
+006

0.0103 0.0876 0.0373 5.6000e0047.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0030.0000 101.4468 101.4468 1.9400e0031.8600e003102.0497 Total 0.0103 0.0876 0.0373 5.6000e0047.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0030.0000 101.4468 101.4468 1.9400e0031.8600e003102.0497 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
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 Single Family
Housing

1.90104e
+006

0.0103 0.0876 0.0373 5.6000e0047.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0030.0000 101.4468 101.4468 1.9400e0031.8600e003102.0497 Total 0.0103 0.0876 0.0373 5.6000e0047.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0037.0800e0030.0000 101.4468 101.4468 1.9400e0031.8600e003102.0497 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing
635116 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing
635116 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7193 0.0368 0.6065 2.2000e0045.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0030.0000 35.6269 35.6269 1.6000e0036.4000e00435.8561 Unmitigated 0.7193 0.0368 0.6065 2.2000e0045.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0030.0000 35.6269 35.6269 1.6000e0036.4000e00435.8561 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

0.1352 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5628 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 3.5000e0030.0299 0.0127 1.9000e0042.4200e0032.4200e0032.4200e0032.4200e0030.0000 34.6566 34.6566 6.6000e0046.4000e00434.8625 Landscaping 0.0179 6.8400e0030.5938 3.0000e0053.2900e0033.2900e0033.2900e0033.2900e0030.0000 0.9703 0.9703 9.3000e0040.0000 0.9936 Total 0.7193 0.0368 0.6065 2.2000e0045.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0030.0000 35.6269 35.6269 1.5900e0036.4000e00435.8561 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.1352 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5628 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 3.5000e0030.0299 0.0127 1.9000e0042.4200e0032.4200e0032.4200e0032.4200e0030.0000 34.6566 34.6566 6.6000e0046.4000e00434.8625 Landscaping 0.0179 6.8400e0030.5938 3.0000e0053.2900e0033.2900e0033.2900e0033.2900e0030.0000 0.9703 0.9703 9.3000e0040.0000 0.9936 Total 0.7193 0.0368 0.6065 2.2000e0045.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0035.7100e0030.0000 35.6269 35.6269 1.5900e0036.4000e00435.8561 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.6536 0.1698 4.0100e0037.0948
Unmitigated 1.6536 0.1698 4.0100e0037.0948

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

1.03659

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing

5.21232 /

3.28603

1.6536 0.1698 4.0100e0037.0948
Total 1.6536 0.1698 4.0100e0037.0948
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

1.03659

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing

5.21232 /

3.28603

1.6536 0.1698 4.0100e0037.0948
Total 1.6536 0.1698 4.0100e0037.0948
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 19.4141 1.1473 0.0000 48.0975
Unmitigated 19.4141 1.1473 0.0000 48.0975
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.07 0.0142 8.4000e0040.0000 0.0352
Single Family
Housing

95.57 19.3999 1.1465 0.0000 48.0623
Total 19.4141 1.1473 0.0000 48.0975
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
City Park 0.07 0.0142 8.4000e0040.0000 0.0352
Single Family
Housing

95.57 19.3999 1.1465 0.0000 48.0623
Total 19.4141 1.1473 0.0000 48.0975
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 34 Date: 8/2/2022 9:52 AM Smee Homes Sierra Meadows Residential Project - San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

APPENDIX C
CHRIS Results Letter
To: Emily Bowen Record Search 22-294
Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc.
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
Date: August 1, 2022
Re: Sierra Meadows Smee Homes Project
County: Tulare
Map(s): Porterville 7.5’

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the OHP 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.

PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there has been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project area. There have been three cultural resource studies conducted within the onehalf mile radius: TU-00489, 01832, 01886.

Record Search 22-294

KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS According to the information in our files, there are no recorded resource within the project area. There are two known resources within the one-half mile radius: P-54-002208, 004626. These resources are known as the Poplar Ditch and the Southern Pacific Railroad.

There are no other recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand this project consists of the development of 80 single family residential units, a neighborhood park, and the future extension of Scranton Avenue to the west. We also understand the Project site is currently vacant with minimal vegetation. According to aerial photos this project area is past agricultural land. Please note that agriculture does not constitute previous development, as it does not destroy cultural resources, but merely moves them around within the plow zone. Because none of this project area has been previously studied for cultural resources, it is unknown if any are present. As such, prior to ground disturbance activities, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant conduct a field survey to determine if cultural resources are present. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.

We also recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will provide you with a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist you with information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed. Finally, please consult with the lead agency on this project to determine if any other cultural resource investigation is required. If you need any additional information or have any questions or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.

By:

Jeremy E David, Assistant Coordinator Date: August 1, 2022 Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

APPENDIX D
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
1800 30th Street, Suite 260
Bakersfield, CA 93301
December 13, 2022 524-25
Electronic Mail

Emily Bowen
Crawford & Bowen
113 N. Church Street, Suite 302
Visalia, CA 93291
REF: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for Proposed Residential Development Located on Gibbons Avenue West of Jaye Street in Porterville, CA.

Dear Ms. Bowen:

This letter is in response to your request for a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, as required by the City of Porterville for a proposed single-family residential development. The proposed project is located on Gibbons Avenue west of Jaye Street in Porterville, CA and will consist of 80 single-family lots. Proposed project access will be along Gibbons Avenue.

Trip Generation
The trip generation volumes shown in Table 1 were calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition. The ADT, AM, and PM peak hour rates and the peak hour directional splits for ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Residential) were used to estimate the project traffic volumes.

Table 1
Trip Generation
ITE Development Variable ADT ADT Rate In Out Rate In Out Code Type RATE % Split/ % Split/ % Split/ % Split/
Trips Trips Trips Trips
210 80 eq 822 eq 26% 74% eq 63% 37%
Dwelling Units =EXP(0.92*LN(80)+2.68) 61 16 45 81 51 30 Total 822 81
General Information Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Single-Family
detached Housing
61 Ms. Bowen 524-25
December 13, 2022
2 The results of the trip generation calculations show that the project would generate approximately 822 daily trips, 81 trips during the PM peak hour and 61 trips during the AM peak hour of a typical weekday.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation
An evaluation of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for project traffic was conducted in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The City of Porterville has adopted the “County of Tulare SB 743 Guidelines”, dated June 8, 2020, which contains recommendations regarding VMT assessment, significance thresholds and mitigation measures.

Analysis
Baseline VMT is determined utilizing data from the California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM). The proposed residential project is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 2735, which has an average VMT/capita of 11.51 miles. The proposed residential project is considered a typical project within the TAZ and therefore the project would be expected to have the same VMT per capita. There are no special considerations with the project to assume the project would produce a VMT/capita lower than the average for the TAZ. The threshold of significance for residential project VMT/capita is if the project VMT is below the average in the TAZ where the project is located. Since VMT/capita is assumed to be equal to the average for the aforementioned zone, it is anticipated that the proposed project will have a significant transportation impact prior to mitigation.

Mitigation
The Tulare County guidelines include detailed instructions for mitigation if a project has significant impacts. The guidelines state “The preferred method of VMT mitigation in Tulare County is for project applicants to provide transportation improvements that facilitate travel by walking, bicycling, or transit.” In accordance with these guidelines, a survey was conducted within a half mile of the project to determine any pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities deficiencies exist. After review, sidewalk improvements were identified as mitigation measures.

The proposed mitigation measures are identified as follows:
• A total of 525 feet of sidewalk located on the east side of Jaye Street between Gibbons Avenue and Melinda Avenue
Ms. Bowen 524-25
December 13, 2022
3 Figure 1
VMT Mitigation
The guidelines include a minimum cost for mitigation of $20 per daily trip generated by the project. As shown in Table 1, the project is anticipated to generate 822 daily trips, which equates to a target value of improvements of $16,440. The total estimated project cost is $16,537.50.

Therefore, with the construction of the above identified improvements, the project with meet the minimum cost requirement for mitigation. At the time of construction should prices fluctuate, an adjustment in the scope of improvements may need to be made.

Pursuant to the guidelines, if a project provides mitigation which meets the minimum threshold listed above, the project can presume a 1% reduction in VMT. The assumed VMT/capita reduction is 1% of 11.51 or 0.1151. The resulting VMT/capita after mitigation is 11.39 which is below the average VMT/capita in the TAZ which the project is located. After mitigation, the project will have a less than significant transportation impact.

Please contact me should you have any questions.

Very truly yours,
Ian J. Parks
R.C. E. 58155
Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
January 10, 2023
Mr. Jason Ridenour
City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
[email protected]
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR VILLAS AT SIERRA MEADOWS 4 & 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT – DATED DECEMBER 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022120369)
Dear Mr. Ridenour:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Villas at Sierra Meadows 4 & 5 Residential Project (Project).

The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

The MND references the listing compiled in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly known as the Cortese List. Not all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials will be found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends that the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND address actions to be taken for any sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials within the Project area, not just those found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends consulting with other agencies that may provide oversight to hazardous waste facilities and sites in order to determine a comprehensive listing of all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials within the Project area. DTSC hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues can be found on DTSC’s EnviroStor data management system. The EnviroStor Map feature can be used to locate hazardous waste facilities and sites for a county, city, or a specific Mr. Jason Ridenour
January 10, 2023