Porterville City Council
October 1, 2024

3.2 Determination
The environmental analysis contained in this Initial Study is tiered from Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2006011033 prepared for the Porterville 2030 General Plan (PEIR). A copy of the PEIR may be reviewed in the City of Porterville, Community Development Department as noted above (See Lead Agency). The Project has been determined to be a subsequent project that is not fully within the scope of PEIR SCH No. 2006011033 prepared for the Porterville General Plan.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168(d), this Project has been evaluated with respect to each item on the attached environmental checklist to determine whether this project may cause any additional significant effect on the environment which was not previously examined in the PEIR.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 29 This completed environmental impact checklist form and its associated narrative reflect applicable comments of responsible and trustee agencies and research and analysis conducted to examine the interrelationship between the proposed project and the physical environment. The information contained in the Project application and its related environmental assessment application, responses to requests for comment, checklist, initial study narrative, and any attachments thereto, combine to form a record indicating that an initial study has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA.

All new development activities and many non-physical projects contribute directly or indirectly toward cumulative impacts on the physical environment. It has been determined that the incremental effect contributed by this Project toward cumulative impacts is not considered substantial or significant in itself, and/or that cumulative impacts accruing from this project may be mitigated to less than significant with application of feasible mitigation measures.

Based upon the evaluation guided by the environmental checklist form, it was determined that there may be impacts from the Project that are additional to those identified in the Porterville General Plan PEIR that related to Air Quality, after the incorporation of project-specific mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The completed environmental checklist form indicates whether an impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, less than significant, or no impact.

For some categories of potential impacts, the checklist may indicate that a specific adverse environmental effect has been identified which is of sufficient magnitude to be of concern. Such an effect may be inherent in the nature and magnitude of the Project or may be related to the design and characteristics of the individual project. Most effects so rated are not sufficient in themselves to require the preparation of an EIR and have been mitigated to the extent feasible. However, analysis included in this Initial Study has indicated there may be air quality impacts.

Both the PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Project-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be imposed on this Project.

The Initial Study has concluded that the Project may result in any adverse effects relating to Air Quality which fall within the "Mandatory Findings of Significance" contained in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, a subsequent Focused EIR will be prepared to further analyze air quality impacts.

On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency):

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 (EIR) 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 EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 29 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.

Approved By:

Claudia Calderon, Acting Community Development Director Date City of Porterville

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 31 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock out-croppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality 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 other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The SoTu Project Site (“Project site”) is approximately 447.30 gross acres bounded to the north by the Tule River, to the south by State Route 190, to the east by State Route 65, and to the west by Westwood Street. The site is currently primarily occupied by agricultural operations with a few single-family residential dwellings. No physical development is proposed as part of the Project; however, it is expected that the site would be developed with the proposed urbanized land uses, including commercial, residential, industrial, office, and recreational.

According to the Porterville 2030 General Plan, views extending along the Tule River and its heavily vegetated banks contribute to the scenic quality of the area. Rocky Hill, located approximately 18 miles north of the Project site, is also a prominent visual landmark. The General Plan also identified the city’s agricultural foundation, topography, and landscape as a contribution to community identity, aesthetic value, environmental quality, habitat protection, and recreation opportunities.

A thin horizontal line of the mountain ranges can be seen to the east as shown in Figure 4-1.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 32 Figure 4-1 Mountain Ranges to the East
South Westwood Street, looking east. Source: Google Earth, 2021

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 33 Municipal Code
Porterville Municipal Code (PMC) contains enforceable requirements for all new development intended to prevent light and glare impacts, as listed below.

Section 306.07 – Lighting and Glare
B. Lighting. Lights shall be placed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public streets, and to prevent adverse interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of surrounding properties. Direct or sky-reflected glare from floodlights shall not be directed into any other property or street. Except for public street lights, no light or combination of lights, or activity shall cast light on a public street exceeding one (1) foot-candle as measured from the centerline of the street. No light, combination of lights, or activity shall cast light onto a residentially zoned property, or any property containing residential uses, exceeding onehalf foot-candle. Refer to Section 300.07 Lighting and Illumination and Section 304.10(g) Parking Lot Lighting for additional lighting standards required by this code.

Section 300.07 – Lighting and Illumination
E. Shielding. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded in accordance with Table 300.07(B) so as not to produce obtrusive glare onto the public right-of-way or adjoining properties. All luminaries shall meet the most recently adopted criteria of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) for “Cut Off” or “Full Cut Off” luminaries, as illustrated in Figure 300.07.

Section 304.10 – Parking Area Design and Development Standards G. Lighting. Parking areas designed to accommodate ten (10) or more vehicles shall be provided with a minimum of one-half (0.5) foot-candle and a maximum average of three (3) foot-candles of light over the parking surface during the hours of use from one-half (0.5) hour before dusk until one-half (0.5) hour after dawn. Lighting design shall be coordinated with the landscape plan to ensure that vegetation growth will not substantially impair the intended illumination. Parking lot lighting shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be designed and installed so that light and glare is not directed onto residential use areas or adjacent public rights-of-way, consistent with Chapter 306, Performance Standards.

California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 with the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City of Porterville, inclusive of the Project site. However, State Route 190 (SR 190) is an eligible State Scenic Highway, located adjacent to the Project site starting from SR 65 extending west.
2 2 Caltrans. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed on June 27, 2023, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 34

4.1.2 Impact Assessment
Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently occupied by agricultural operations with a few single-family residential dwellings. A thin horizontal line of the mountain ranges can be seen to the east of the Project site, which is not obstructed by State Route 65 due to the flat topography of the site. As the Project site is developed with proposed uses of the Master Plan, views of the mountain ranges will be further obstructed by intervening development. However, buildout of the proposed Master Plan will not affect state designated scenic highways. The General Plan identified Tule River and Rocky Hill as the city’s scenic resources. To ensure that views of Tule River are protected, the Project proposes Open Space land use along the Tule River, including the floodway/riverbanks that are identified as Open Space Resources pursuant the General Plan. This is also consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policy OSC-G-1 “Protect the Tule River Corridor and Rocky Hill as significant open space resources.” As a result, the Project would not adversely affect scenic vistas and no impact would occur because of the Project. 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. According to the California State Scenic Highway Program, there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City of Porterville. SR 190 is an eligible State Scenic Highway but is located outside of the Project site and would not be impacted by the Project. The eligible SR 190 sections are surrounded by urban development. As such, the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources, including trees, rock out-croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
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 other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located outside of the City of Porterville city limits and is mainly occupied by agricultural operations. As such, the site is in a non-urbanized area. Although no physical development is proposed, buildout of the proposed Master Plan would increase the density and intensity of development in the area, which could obstruct views, including mountain ranges to the east and views of the Tule River. In addition, Open Space land use is planned along the Tule River, which would protect the views of the riverbank.

Future development under the Master Plan would also be subject to the entitlement review and approval process through the City of Porterville. Through this process, future development would be subject to comply with applicable policies and regulations that govern scenic quality including but not limited to the PMC and California Building Code. Compliance would ensure that future development of the site would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 35 Less than Significant Impact. Generally, lighting impacts are associated with artificial lighting in evening hours either through interior lighting from windows or exterior lighting (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, cars, and trucks). Although no physical development is proposed, future development of the Project site would incrementally increase the amount of light from exterior lighting such as streetlights and vehicular headlights. Such sources could create adverse effects on day or nighttime views in the area. Future development of the Master Plan would be subject to site development standards contained in PMC Section 306.07 – Lighting and Glare, which contains specific, enforceable requirements intended to prevent light and glare impacts, Section 300.07 – Lighting and Illumination, specifically sub-section (E), which provides standards for shielding light fixtures from right-of-way, and Section 304.10 – Parking Area Design and Development Standards, which regulates lighting in parking lots. In addition, future development would be required to comply with Title 24 lighting requirements which would also reduce impacts related to nighttime light. The Title 24 lighting requirements cover outdoor spaces including regulations for mounted luminaires (i.e., high efficacy, motion sensor controlled, time clocks, energy management control systems, etc.). As such, conditions imposed on future development by the City pursuant to the PMC and Title 24 would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant impact.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 36

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located outside of the City of Porterville city limits, but within the City of Porterville 2030 General Plan Planning Area. The site is currently pre-zoned and planned for open space, residential, and commercial uses in the City of Porterville. Although completely outside of the City’s limits, the entire Project site has been pre-zoned with City of Porterville zoning districts and are zoned RS-2 – Low Density Residential, RS-1 – Very Low Density Residential, CR – Retail Centers, and PK – Parks and Recreation. The site is zoned AE-20 – Exclusive Agricultural Zone 20 Acre Minimum, R-1-20 – Single-Family Residential, and A-1 – Agricultural in the County of Tulare.

The Project site is currently mostly occupied by agricultural operations with a few single-family residential dwellings, containing several existing structures. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined primarily as agricultural, including almonds and alfalfa. In addition to crop trees, there are existing trees and shrubs

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 37 on properties with single-family residences and along existing dirt roads. Existing water features include the Tule River, Poplar Ditch on the southwest of the site, and a 22.11-acre freshwater emergent wetland and 3.47-acre freshwater forested/shrub wetland on APN 259-040-044. The Project site does not contain any forestry resources such as forest land or timberland.

Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program
The California Department of Conservation manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) that provides maps and data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. The FMMP produces the Important Farmland Finder as a resource map that shows quality (soils) and land use information. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status, in addition to many other physical and chemical characteristics. The highest quality land is called “Prime Farmland” which is defined by the FMMP as “farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. 3 Maps are updated every two years. According to the FMMP, California Important Farmland Finder, the Project site includes “Prime Farmland”, “Unique Farmland”, “Farmland of Statewide Importance”, “Grazing Land”, “Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land”, “Nonagricultural and Natural Vegetation”, and “Rural Residential Land”. 4 Figure 4-2 shows the location of
each farmland type on the Project site and Table 4-1 includes the acreage of each type.

Table 4-1 Farmland Types of the Project site
Farmland Type Acreage Percentage
Grazing Land 47.7 10.7%
Farmland of Local Importance 81.5 18.2%
Nonagricultural and Natural Vegetation 16.5 3.7%
Prime Farmland 85.3 19.1%
Rural Residential Land 30.1 6.7%
Farmland of Statewide Importance 36.2 8.1%
Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land 70.8 15.8%
Unique Farmland 79.2 17.7%
Total 447.3 100.0%
California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (i.e., the Williamson Act) allows local governments to enter contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land agricultural or open space uses. In return, property tax assessments of the restricted parcels are lower than full market value. The minimum length of a Williamson Act contract is 10 years and automatically renews upon its anniversary date; as such, the contract length is essentially indefinite. The Project site is not subject to the Williamson Act. 3 California Department of Conservation. Important Farmland Categories. Accessed on June 28, 2023, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx 4 California Department of Conservation. (2018). California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on June 28, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 38 Figure 4-2 Farmland Types in the Project site

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 39

4.2.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the FMMP, the Project site has 85.3 acres of “Prime Farmland”, 79.2 acres of “Unique Farmland”, and 36.2 acres of “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” The Project site is located within the City of Porterville Planning Area. While no development is proposed as part of the Project, future buildout of the Master Plan would result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.

While the Project would result in the conversion of agricultural lands to a non-agricultural use, this conversion was evaluated under the Porterville 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR SCH #2006011033) and related Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The EIR acknowledged that farmland conversion would occur at full buildout of the General Plan, including approximately 3,050 acres of Prime Farmland soils (of which 2,880 acres are unincorporated lands) and approximately 4,200 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland soils. While the General Plan provides policies to minimize the extent of sprawl associated with future development, the EIR recognizes that the conversion of agricultural lands is still considered significant and unavoidable. To certify the EIR, the City adopted Findings of Fact related to Significant and Unavoidable Impacts as well as Statements of Overriding Considerations pursuant of Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.

The adopted Statements of Overriding Considerations for the EIR addressed Findings of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts within the categories/areas of Agricultural Resources. The findings cite specific social, economic, and environmental, or other considerations which were deemed and considered by the City Council to be benefits which outweighed the unavoidable adverse environmental effects attributed to development occurring within the City’s Planning Area, consistent with the land uses, densities, and intensities set forth in the General Plan. Consequently, the City of Porterville issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact, demonstrating that the environmental impacts are “acceptable” due to the project benefits and considerations.

Since the Project site was evaluated under the General Plan EIR and subsequent Statements of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, the Project would have a less than significant impact as it relates to agricultural land conversion.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Significant Impact. While the Project Site is currently zoned for agricultural use within the County, the Project Site is also pre-zoned as residential, commercial, and open space zoning districts, consistent with the underlying land use designations. In addition, the Project plans for future development within the Porterville city limits with urbanized land uses. Upon entitlement approval of future developments within the Project Site, Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would review and approve the expansion of the City Limits in consideration of the specific project’s impact on agricultural land, as required by state law. Once the Project is approved by LAFCO and annexed into the City Limits, the Project would no longer be within the County’s agricultural

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 40 zoning district. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project Site is not subject to the Williamson Act. As such, a less than significant impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project site is not planned or zoned for forest land or timberland. Further, the Project site would not cause the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. As a result, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land and is not planned or zoned for forest land or forest uses.

Implementation of the Project would therefore not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As a result, no impact would occur.
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? Less than Significant impact. While the Project Site is zoned for agricultural uses within the County, it is planned and pre-zoned for urban uses, including residential and commercial uses, in the City of Porterville. As described under criteria a) and b), while the Project would result in the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, this conversion was evaluated under the General Plan EIR and subsequent Statements of Overriding Considerations and Findings of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Upon entitlement approval of future developments within the Project Site, Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would review and approve the expansion of the City Limits in consideration of the specific project’s impact on agricultural land, as required by state law. In addition, the Project site is surrounded by existing residential and office uses. While some properties to the south and west of the site are currently occupied with agricultural operations, buildout of the Project is not expected to result in conversion of surrounding properties from agricultural to non-agricultural use since the Project site and surrounding properties are divided by existing right-of-way. As a result, the Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 41

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
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?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
An air quality analysis of the Project was conducted on August 17, 2023, by Johnson, Johnson and Miller, Inc. The full report is provided in Appendix A. The environmental setting, regulatory setting, existing air quality conditions, plans and regulations, and modeling parameters and assumptions within the air quality analysis are provided below.

Environmental Setting
Air quality impacts are both local and regional. Local and regional air quality is impacted by topography, dominant airflows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season. The project is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin), which experiences some of the most challenging environmental conditions for air quality in the nation. The following section describes these conditions as they pertain to the Air Basin. The information in this section is primarily from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD’s) Guidance for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI).

Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. The SJVAPCD covers the entirety of the Air Basin. The Air Basin is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 42 Climate
The climate is important for air quality because of differences in the atmosphere’s ability to trap pollutants close to the ground, which creates adverse air quality; inversely, the atmosphere’s ability to rapidly disperse pollutants over a wide area prevents high concentrations from accumulating under different climatic conditions. The Air Basin has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Air Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year.

Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor.

Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Mojave Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter.

The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the San Joaquin Valley floor. This creates strong, low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to Tule fog. Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.

Regulatory Setting
Air pollutants are regulated to protect human health and for secondary effects such as visibility and building soiling.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with setting air quality standards. The State of California also sets air quality standards, which are in some cases more stringent than federal standards, in addition to addressing additional pollutants. The following section describes these federal and state standards and the health effects of the regulated pollutants.

Clean Air Act
Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970 and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA: particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA labels these pollutants as criteria air pollutants because they are regulated by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines), which sets permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards. Another set of limits intended to prevent environmental and property damage are called secondary standards.

The federal standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards. The criteria pollutants are:

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 43 • Ozone • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Lead • Sulfur dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health.

California Clean Air Act
The California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988 to address air quality issues of concern not adequately addressed by the federal CAA at the time. California’s air quality problems were and continue to be some of the most severe in the nation and require additional actions beyond the federal mandates. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the 10 air pollutants designated in the CCAA. The 10 state air pollutants are the six federal standards listed above as well visibilityreducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The EPA authorized California to adopt its own regulations for motor vehicles and other sources that are more stringent than similar federal regulations implementing the CAA.

Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. There are no ambient air quality standards for TAC emissions. TACs are regulated in terms of health risks to individuals and populations exposed to the pollutants. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly expanded the EPA’s authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lists 187 hazardous air pollutants to be regulated by source category. Authority to regulate these pollutants was delegated to individual states. ARB and local air districts regulate TACs and HAPs in California.

Air Pollutant Description and Health Effects
The federal and state ambient air quality standards, relevant effects, properties, and sources of the pollutants are summarized in Table 1 in Appendix A. Several pollutants listed in Table 1 are not addressed in this analysis. Analysis of lead, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride are not included in this report because no new sources of these pollutant emissions are anticipated with the project. Visibility-reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed as PM10 and PM2.5.

Existing Air Quality Conditions
The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air. Table 4-2 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 44 Table 4-2 Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration
Health Effects Description
AQI 51–100—Moderate
Concentration 55–70 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Concentration 71–85 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 151–200—Unhealthy
Concentration 86–105 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 201–300—Very Unhealthy
Concentration 106–200 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

Source: Air Now. 2021. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculatorconcentration/. Accessed July 2023.

The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered moderate and would be triggered by a 24-hour average concentration of 12.1 to 35.4 µg/m3. The relationship of the AQI to health effects in shown Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution Air Quality Index/
PM2.5 Concentration
Health Effects Description
AQI 51–100—Moderate
Concentration 12.1–35.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Some people who may be unusually sensitive to particle.

Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people: Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. These are signs to take it easier.

AQI 101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Concentration 35.5–55.4 µg/m2
Sensitive Groups: Sensitive groups include people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and teenagers.

Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly.

AQI 151–200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Everyone

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 45 Concentration 55.5–150.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; increased respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion.

Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling. Everyone else: Reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. Take more breaks during outdoor activities.

AQI 201–300—Very Unhealthy
Concentration 150.5–250.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Everyone
Health Effects Statements: Significant aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; significant increase in respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid all physical activity outdoors. Move activities indoors or reschedule to a time when air quality is better. Everyone else:

Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling to a time when air quality is better.

Source: Air Now. 2021. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculatorconcentration/. Accessed July 2023.

Attainment Status
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.

Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics.

For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.

The current attainment designations for the Air Basin are shown in Table 4-4. The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

Table 4-4 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone—One Hour Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone—Eight Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
Carbon monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Merced, Madera, and Kings Counties are unclassified; others are in Attainment
Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment No Designation/Classification
Source of State status: California Air Resources Board (ARB 2013).

Source of National status: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2021).

Source of additional status information (SJVAPCD 2017).

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 46 Air Quality Plans and Regulations
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin or county level, and each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility: the EPA regulates at the national level, the Air Resources Board (ARB) at the state level, and the SJVAPCD at the air basin level.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The SJVAPCD, in coordination with the eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing air quality attainment plans for the Air Basin. The SJVAPCD also has roles under CEQA.

SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations
The SJVAPCD rules and regulations that may apply to projects that will occur during buildout of the project include but are not limited to the following:

Rule 4102—Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public, and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. This rule is enforced on a complaint basis.

Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling. Only compliant components are available for purchase in the San Joaquin Valley.

Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641. This regulation is enforced on the asphalt provider.

Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011–8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.

Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOX and PM10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site District-administered projects, or a combination of the two. This project is subject to Rule 9510.

CEQA
The SJVAPCD has three roles under CEQA:

1. Lead Agency: Responsible for preparing environmental analyses for its own projects (adoption of rules, regulations, or plans) or permit projects filed with the SJVAPCD where the SJVAPCD has primary approval authority over the project.

2. Responsible Agency: The discretionary authority of a responsible agency is more limited than a lead agency; having responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the environmental effects of those parts of the project which it decides to approve, carry out, or finance. The SJVAPCD defers to the lead agency for preparation of environmental documents for land use projects that also have discretionary air quality permits, unless

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 47 no document is prepared by the lead agency and potentially significant impacts related to the permit are possible. The SJVAPCD regularly submits comments on documents prepared by lead agencies to ensure that the SJVAPCD’s concerns are addressed.

3. Commenting Agency: The SJVAPCD reviews and comments on air quality analyses prepared by other public agencies (such as the proposed project).

The SJVAPCD also provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality and GHG analyses. The result of this guidance, as well as state regulations to control air pollution, is an overall improvement in the Air Basin. In particular, the SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI states the following:

1. The District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs. The general plan is the primary longrange planning document used by cities and counties to direct development. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals. Section 65302.1 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend appropriate elements of their general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality in their next housing element revisions.

2. The Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP), adopted by the District in 1994 and amended in 2005, is a guidance document containing goals and policy examples that cities and counties may want to incorporate into their General Plans to satisfy Section 65302.1. When adopted in a general plan and implemented, the suggestions in the AQGGP can reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled and improve air quality. The specific suggestions in the AQGGP are voluntary. The District strongly encourages cities and counties to use their land use and transportation planning authority to help achieve air quality goals by adopting the suggested policies and programs.

Local
The City of Porterville 2030 General Plan was adopted on March 4, 2008. The City’s applicable air quality goals and policies from the Air Quality section are listed below.

City of Porterville Air Quality Goals and Policies
The General Plan lists the following policies that are supportive of improved air quality. Policies that are directly related to the project are listed below:

Land Use Element
LU‐G‐3: Promote sustainability in the design and development of public and private development projects.

LU‐G‐11: Foster strong, visually attractive regional commercial centers with a mix of tenants to serve both local and regional needs.

LU‐I‐20: Establish standards for pedestrian‐oriented design in neighborhood centers. Pedestrian‐oriented design standards may include, but would not be limited to:
‐ Limitations on maximum block length;
‐ Minimum sidewalk width;

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 48 ‐ Required streetscape improvements, including street trees; ‐ Building height and articulation;
‐ Building setbacks;
‐ Location of entries; and
‐ Parking location and required landscaping.

The City also may provide additional incentives for projects that contribute to the pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks, and/or the open space network.

Circulation Element
C‐G‐3: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through coordinated land use planning, strive to improve accessibility to shops, schools, parks and employment centers and reduce total vehicle miles traveled per household to minimize vehicle emissions and save energy.

C‐I‐2: Require all new developments to provide right‐of‐way and improvements consistent with the General Plan street designations and City street section standards.

C‐I‐3: Provide for greater street connectivity by: Incorporating in subdivision regulations requirements for a minimum number of access points to existing local or collector streets for each development; Encouraging roundabouts over signals, where feasible and appropriate; Requiring the bicycle and pedestrian connections from cul‐de‐sacs to nearby public areas and main streets; and Requiring new residential communities on undeveloped land planned for urban uses to provide stubs for future connections to the edge of the property line. Where stubs exist on adjacent properties, new streets within the development should connect to these stubs.

C‐G‐8: Promote the use of public transit for daily trips to schools and work and for other purposes.

C‐G‐9: Promote the use of bicycles to alleviate vehicle traffic and improve public health.

C‐G‐10: Promote pedestrian activity.

C‐I‐21: Develop a series of continuous walkways within new office parks, commercial districts, and residential neighborhoods so they connect to one another.

Open Space & Conservation Element
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‐58: Continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review and require developers to implement best management practices to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.

The City will use the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts for determining and mitigating project air quality impacts and related thresholds of

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 49 significance for use in environmental documents. The City shall cooperate with the SJVAPCD in the review of development proposals.

BMPs could include transportation demand management strategies for large development projects such as:
‐ Providing bicycle access and parking facilities;
‐ Providing preferential parking for high‐occupancy vehicles, carpools, or alternative fuels vehicles; ‐ Establishing telecommuting programs or satellite work centers; ‐ Allowing alternative work schedules;
‐ Subsidizing public transit costs for employee; and
‐ Scheduling deliveries at off‐peak traffic periods.

OSC‐I‐59: Require preparation of a Health Risk Assessment for any development subject to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act.

OSC‐I‐60: Require dust control measures as a condition of approval for subdivision maps, site plans, and all grading permits.

OSC‐I‐61: Coordinate air quality planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies.

OSC‐I‐62. Be proactive in educating the public about the linkages between land use, transportation and air quality.

OSC‐I‐63: Notify local and regional jurisdictions of proposed projects that may affect regional air quality.

OSC‐I‐65: When asbestos has been identified in the preliminary soils report, require all new development and public works projects to comply with all provisions of State and regional ATCM regulations for control of airborne asbestos emissions relating to construction, road maintenance, and grading activities.

The City will establish Best Management Practices for construction, grading, and road maintenance in areas with naturally occurring asbestos, consistent with State and regional regulations for Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. BMPs may include but are not limited to:
‐ Wetting soil during excavation and other dust suppression measures; ‐ Wetting roads, excavated materials and rinsing equipment; ‐ Limiting vehicle speeds within construction areas;
‐ Creating wind breaks and berms;
‐ Suspending activities when wind creates visible dust; ‐ Prohibiting rock‐crushing of asbestos‐containing materials; ‐ Monitoring dust levels;
‐ Posting warning signs;
‐ Replanting; and

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 50 ‐ Paving or other permanent sealants or covers.

Existing Sources of Toxic Emissions
No existing sources were identified that exceed ARB recommendations in its Air Quality Land Use Handbook for siting sensitive land uses impact the project.

ARB Air Quality Land Use Handbook
Table 4-5 lists the following ARB advisory recommendations that address the issue of siting “sensitive land uses” near specific sources of air pollution:
• High traffic freeways and roads
• Distribution centers
• Rail yards
• Ports
• Refineries
• Chrome plating facilities
• Dry cleaners
• Large gas dispensing facilities
The analysis examines the area around the site to determine if potential sources of TAC emissions may impact the project, based on the ARB recommended screening distances.

Table 4-5 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-Traffic Roads Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

Distribution Centers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).

Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation.

For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with the local air district.

Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 51 Note: These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.

4.3.2 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
Model Selection and Guidance
Air pollutant emissions can be estimated by using emission factors and a level of activity. Emission factors represent the emission rate of a pollutant given the activity over time; for example, grams of NOX per horsepower-hour or grams of NOX per vehicle mile traveled. The ARB has published emission factors for on-road mobile vehicles/trucks in the EMission FACtors Model (EMFAC) mobile source emissions model and emission factors for off-road equipment and vehicles in the OFFROAD emissions model. An air emissions model (or calculator) combines the emission factors and the various levels of activity and outputs the emissions for the various pieces of equipment.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the State. CalEEMod is designed as a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of land uses.

The modeling follows SJVAPCD guidance where applicable from its GAMAQI. The models used in this analysis are summarized as follows:
• Construction emissions: CalEEMod, version 2022.1 (specifically, 2022.1.1.17) • Operational emissions: CalEEMod, version 2022.1 (specifically, 2022.1.1.17) • Other emission rates: EMFAC 2021
Criteria Pollutants Assessed
The following air pollutants are assessed in this analysis:
• Reactive organic gases (ROG)
• Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) • Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) Note that the project would emit ozone precursors ROG and NOX. However, the project would not directly emit ozone, since it is formed in the atmosphere during the photochemical reaction of ozone precursors. Other criteria pollutants such as vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, lead, and sulfates were not included because of their low levels of emissions from the project.

As noted previously, the project would emit ultrafine particles. However, there is currently no standard separate from the PM2.5 standards for ultrafine particles and there is no accepted methodology to quantify or assess the significance of such particles.

Construction Modeling Assumptions
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from on-site and off-site activities.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 52 On-site emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions from the activity levels of heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Additionally, paving operations and application of architectural coatings would release VOC emissions. Off-site emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5).

Project Schedule
Although no physical development is proposed by the project, this analysis looks at the potential buildout of the plan area at a programmatic level using reasonable assumptions so that future development of the site can tier from this Initial Study pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1) and 15168(d) for evaluations of environmental issues associated with later activities/subsequent projects. Buildout of development contemplated under the proposed Master Plan would occur over several years. For the purpose of estimating emissions, construction was anticipated to occur starting as early as the first quarter of 2024. The use of an earlier construction schedule in this analysis represents a conservative estimate of emissions, as emissions resulting from construction equipment and vehicle use are expected to decrease over time due to turnover and other factors. Overall CalEEMod default HP hours were retained. In instances where the CalEEMod default schedule was modified for ground-up construction to reflect the anticipated buildout schedule, equipment usage was proportionally modified to retain the overall HP hours.

Construction Equipment Emission Factors
The analysis uses CalEEMod default assumptions for the equipment used during construction. CalEEMod default equipment assumptions for construction equipment and equipment activity are based on surveys of construction projects of various sizes. The full modeling assumptions are provided as part of Appendix A of this report. CalEEMod contains an inventory of construction equipment that incorporates estimates of the number of equipment, age, horsepower, and equipment emission, and control level or tier from which rates of emissions are developed. The CalEEMod default equipment assumptions were used in this analysis for the estimation of emissions from on-site construction equipment. As previously noted, equipment usage was proportionally modified to retain the overall HP hours in instances where the CalEEMod default schedule was modified. CalEEMod’s off-road emission factors and load factors are from the ARB OFFROAD model.

Operation
Operational emissions are those emissions that occur when development contemplated by the Master Plan is occupied by the future businesses and residents. The major sources are summarized below.

Model Vehicles
Motor vehicle emissions refer to exhaust and road dust emissions from the automobiles that would travel to and from the plan area/project site. Project trip generation rates were obtained from the project Traffic Impact Study.

A pass-by trip accounts for vehicles already on the roadway network that stop at the project site as they pass-by; the pass-by trips are existing vehicle trips in the community. CalEEMod default rates of three percent pass-by trips were used in this analysis for the commercial shopping center. The pass-by trips for the fast-food land uses were adjusted to match project-specific values provided in the project Traffic Impact Study.

The vehicle fleet mix is defined as the mix of motor vehicle classes active during the operation of the project.

Emission factors are assigned to the expected vehicle mix as a function of vehicle class, speed, and fuel use (gasoline

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 53 and diesel-powered vehicles). The CalEEMod default vehicle fleet mixes were used to estimate emissions for commercial uses. The SJVAPCD-approved Residential Fleet Mix was used in the analysis for the residential land uses.

Architectural Coatings (Painting)
Paints release VOC emissions during application and drying. The buildings in the project would be repainted on occasion. The project is required to comply with the SJVAPCD Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The rule required flat paints to meet a standard of 50 grams per liter (g/l) and gloss paints 100 g/l by 2012 for an average rate of 65 g/l. Most of the coatings used for residential and shopping center/nonresidential painting are flat paints. Effective January 1, 2022, nonflat gloss and semi-gloss paints are required to meet the 50 g/l standard, providing lower VOC emissions for buildings constructed after that date.

Customer Products
Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications, which emit VOCs during their product use. “Consumer Product” means a chemically formulated product used by household and institutional consumers, including but not limited to: detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. It does not include other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings. CalEEMod includes default consumer product use rates based on building square footage. The default emission factors developed for CalEEMod were used for consumer products.

Landscape Equipment
CalEEMod estimated the landscaping equipment using the default assumptions in the model.

Electricity
Electricity used by the project (for lighting, etc.) would result in emissions from the power plants that would generate electricity distributed on the electrical power grid. Electricity emissions estimates are only used in the GHG analysis. CalEEMod was used to estimate these emissions from the proposed Master Plan.

Electricity Consumption
CalEEMod has three categories for electricity consumption: electricity that is impacted by Title 24 regulations, nonTitle 24 electricity, and lighting. The Title 24 uses are defined as the major building envelope systems covered by California’s Building Code Title 24 Part 6, such as space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation.

Lighting is separate since it can be both part and not part of Title 24. Since lighting is not considered as part of the building envelope energy budget, CalEEMod does not consider lighting to have any further association with Title 24 references in the program. Non-Title 24 includes everything else such as appliances and electronics. Total electricity consumption in CalEEMod is divided into the three categories. The percentage for each category is determined by using percentages derived from the CalEEMod default electricity intensity factors. The percentages are then applied to the electricity consumption to result in the values used in the analysis.

Natural Gas
The development under the proposed Master Plan would generate emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water heaters, heat, etc. CalEEMod has two categories for natural gas consumption: Title 24 and non-Title 24.

CalEEMod defaults were used in the analysis.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 54 Water and Wastewater
GHG emissions are emitted from the use of electricity to pump water to the plan area/project site and to treat wastewater. CalEEMod defaults were used.

Refrigerants
During operation, air conditioners and refrigeration systems may leak refrigerants (hydrofluorocarbons).

Hydrofluorocarbons are typically used for refrigerants, which are long-lived GHGs. Regional and neighborhood commercial uses and residential uses of refrigerants are minor; however, CalEEMod default values were retained for all land uses analyzed to present a conservative estimate of GHG emissions.

Solid Waste
GHG emissions would be generated from the decomposition of solid waste generated by implementation of the proposed Master Plan. CalEEMod was used to estimate the GHG emissions from this source.

Vegetation
There is currently carbon sequestration occurring on-site from existing vegetation in the form of existing agricultural uses. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would plant trees and integrate landscaping into the project design, which would provide carbon sequestration. However, the number of trees to be planted is unknown and data are insufficient to accurately determine the impact that existing plants have on carbon sequestration. For this analysis, it was assumed that the loss and addition of carbon sequestration that are due to the proposed Master Plan would be balanced; therefore, emissions due to carbon sequestration were not included.

4.3.3 Early Consultation
Early consultation was received from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District (“SJVAPCD” or “District”) on July 26, 2023. The feedback received is included as Appendix G.

City of Porterville 2030 General Plan
The General Plan established the following policies to reduce air quality impacts.

Guiding Policy 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.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-58 Continue to assess air quality impacts through environmental review and require developers to implement best management practices to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-59 Require preparation of a Health Risk Assessment for any development subject to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-60 Require dust control measures as a condition of approval for subdivision maps, site plans, and all grading permits.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-61 Coordinate air quality planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 55 Implementation Policy OSC-I-62 Be proactive in educating the public about the linkages between land use, transportation and air quality.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-63 Notify local and regional jurisdictions of proposed projects that may affect regional air quality.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-64 Investigate replacing City vehicles with low-emission technology.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-65 When asbestos has been identified in the preliminary soils report, require all new development and public works projects to comply with all provisions of State and regional ATCM regulations for control of airborne asbestos emissions relating to construction, road maintenance, and grading activities.

4.3.4 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Impact. 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 air quality plan (AQP). An additional criterion regarding the project’s implementation of control measures was assessed to provide further evidence of the project’s consistency with current AQPs. This document proposes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current AQPs:

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

2. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? The primary control measures applicable to development projects include Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions and Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review.

Contribution to Air Quality Violations
A measure for determining if the project is consistent with the air quality plans is if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air quality plans.

Regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of the cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin. Individual projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation of air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project is based on its cumulative contribution. Because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10—if project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds—then the project would be considered to contribute to violations of the applicable standards and conflict with the attainment plans.

As discussed in criteria b) below, emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the operations of buildout under the proposed Master Plan would exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. Although

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 56 the proposed Master Plan would exceed the criteria pollutant thresholds for several pollutants, the proposed Master Plan would facilitate future growth. The proposed Master Plan would provide residential uses that will be designed to satisfy existing and future demand for quality housing in the area and would provide conveniently located commercial development to serve Porterville residents and the SoTu Master Plan development in a growing area near and in the City of Porterville. Several goals and policies contained in the City of Porterville’s General Plan promote walkable mixed-use development. As a mixed-use project located adjacent to developed areas of a builtup city, the proposed Master Plan would create a considerable amount of internal capture among its components to reduce VMT compared to the same level of development built with land uses geographically separated from each other. Nonetheless, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable under this criterion.

Compliance with Applicable Control Measures
The AQP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A description of rules and regulations that apply to this project is provided below.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review (ISR) is a control measure in the 2006 PM10 Plan that requires NOX and PM10 emission reductions from development projects in the San Joaquin Valley. The NOX emission reductions help reduce the secondary formation of PM10 in the atmosphere (primarily ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate) and also reduce the formation of ozone. Reductions in directly emitted PM10 reduce particles such as dust, soot, and aerosols. Rule 9510 is also a control measure in the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Developers of projects subject to Rule 9510 must reduce emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures or pay off-site mitigation fees. The project is required to comply with Rule 9510.

Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions is a control measure that is one main strategy from the 2006 PM10 for reducing the PM10 emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Residential projects over 10 acres and non‐residential projects over 5 acres are required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. The project, or individual developments contemplated under the proposed Master Plan, will be required to prepare a DCP to comply with Regulation VIII.

Other control measures that apply to the project are Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operation that requires reductions in VOC emissions during paving and Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings that limits the VOC content of all types of paints and coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These measures apply at the point of sale of the asphalt and the coatings, so project compliance is ensured without additional mitigation measures.

The Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. Therefore, the Project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan under this criterion.

Conclusion
The project’s emissions are significant for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 and would be considered inconsistent with the AQP for this criterion. The project complies with applicable control measures of the AQP. Because the combined emissions from operations of development under the proposed Master Plan would continue to exceed at least one regional threshold after compliance with regulations and incorporation of mitigation, the impact would be significant.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 57 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? Potentially Significant Impact. To result in a less than significant impact, emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the SJVAPCD in its GAMAQI.

To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be met:

1. Regional analysis: emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the SJVAPCD in its GAMAQI.

2. Summary of projections: the project must be consistent with current air quality attainment plans including control measures and regulations. This is an approach consistent with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Criterion 1: Regional Emissions
Air pollutant emissions have both regional and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the project. Localized emissions from project construction and operation are assessed under Impact AIR-3.

The primary pollutants of concern during construction and operation of implementation of the proposed Master Plan are ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOX, ROG, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the state and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants. The SJVAPCD’s annual emission significance thresholds used for the project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
• 100 tons per year CO
• 10 tons per year NOX
• 10 tons per year ROG
• 27 tons per year SOX
• 15 tons per year PM10
• 15 tons per year PM2.5
The project does not contain sources that would produce substantial quantities of SOX emissions during construction and operation. Modeling conducted for the project show that SOX emissions are well below the SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds, as shown in the modeling results contained in Appendix A. No further analysis of SOX is required.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions were modeled using the CalEEMod version 2022.1. The results of the modeling are presented in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7. For large plan areas, individual residential tracts and commercial projects are constructed gradually with the various construction activities happening throughout the buildout period. The

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 58 specific timing of individual development projects contemplated under the proposed Master Plan is unknown and are dependent on market demand and other factors; therefore, the annual average construction emissions were calculated for comparison to the annual threshold of significance (see Table 4-6). In addition, the highest annual emissions are presented and compared to the applicable thresholds in Table 4-7.

The emissions reflect compliance with SJVAPCD regulations that apply to construction activities. For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Section 4, Modeling Parameters and Assumptions. As shown in Table 4-6Table 4-6, the annual average emissions are below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. The highest annual emissions exceed the applicable threshold for regional emissions of NOX (see Table 4-7Table 4-7).

Table 4-6 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary – Annual Average (Unmitigated) Construction Year
Emissions (tons per construction period)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Annual Emissions (2024) 1.46 12.09 13.13 3.24 1.48 Total Annual Emissions (2025) 2.70 13.58 23.38 3.88 1.22 Total Annual Emissions (2026) 2.14 9.52 19.40 3.26 0.93 Total Annual Emissions (2027) 1.78 7.43 16.63 2.84 0.75 Total Annual Emissions (2028) 1.70 7.02 15.81 2.83 0.74 Total Annual Emissions (2029) 1.59 6.68 14.96 2.82 0.73 Total Annual Emissions (2030) 1.51 6.45 14.29 2.81 0.72 Total Annual Emissions (2031) 1.37 6.17 13.56 2.80 0.71 Total Annual Emissions (2032) 1.31 5.95 12.99 2.80 0.69 Total Annual Emissions (2033) 7.86 4.69 10.44 2.62 0.61 Total Annual Emissions (2034) 2.36 2.77 5.39 1.55 0.37
Total Annual Emissions (2035) 0.51 2.62 4.98 1.44 0.35
Total Annual Emissions (2036) 6.98 2.66 5.25 1.69 0.39
Total Annual Emissions (2037) 1.78 0.28 0.59 0.21 0.05
Grand Total for All Construction Activities 35.05 87.91 170.8 34.79 9.74 Annual Average Emissions (Tons/Year)
Average Annual Construction Emissions* 2.66 6.66 12.94 2.64 0.74 Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant impact? No No No No No
Notes: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.
* Calculated using 13.2 years, consistent with the assumptions used to estimate emissions (see Appendix A).

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A).

Table 4-7 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary – Maximum Annual Emissions by Development Year (Unmitigated) Construction Year
Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Total Annual Emissions (2024) 1.46 12.09 13.13 3.24 1.48 Total Annual Emissions (2025) 2.70 13.58 23.38 3.88 1.22 Total Annual Emissions (2026) 2.14 9.52 19.40 3.26 0.93 Total Annual Emissions (2027) 1.78 7.43 16.63 2.84 0.75 Total Annual Emissions (2028) 1.70 7.02 15.81 2.83 0.74 Total Annual Emissions (2029) 1.59 6.68 14.96 2.82 0.73 Total Annual Emissions (2030) 1.51 6.45 14.29 2.81 0.72 Total Annual Emissions (2031) 1.37 6.17 13.56 2.80 0.71 Total Annual Emissions (2032) 1.31 5.95 12.99 2.80 0.69 Total Annual Emissions (2033) 7.86 4.69 10.44 2.62 0.61

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 59 Total Annual Emissions (2034) 2.36 2.77 5.39 1.55 0.37
Total Annual Emissions (2035) 0.51 2.62 4.98 1.44 0.35
Total Annual Emissions (2036) 6.98 2.66 5.25 1.69 0.39
Total Annual Emissions (2037) 1.78 0.28 0.59 0.21 0.05
Maximum Annual Emissions 7.86 13.58 23.38 3.88 1.48
Significance threshold (tons/year) 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant impact? No Yes No No No
Notes: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

Calculations use unrounded numbers; therefore, totals may not appear to sum exactly due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A).

As shown in Table 4-6, annual average emissions are below the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds; however, construction of the project exceeds the regional threshold for NOX under the unmitigated scenario presented in Table 4-7. Therefore, the regional construction emissions have potentially significant impact on a project basis and mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2a requires the project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor for individual development projects under the Master Plan to provide documentation to the City of Porterville that the construction fleet meet the following requirement: all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 75 horsepower meet EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards.

Impacts would be less than significant on a project-level basis after incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2a.

Therefore, regional construction emissions would have a less-than-significant impact on a project basis with the incorporation of mitigation.

Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the project and are from four main sources: area sources, energy consumption, motor vehicles (or mobile sources), and permitted sources. Area and mobile sources are nonpermitted sources, while gasoline fueling activities are permitted sources. The SJVAPCD considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations. Furthermore, the SJVAPCD considers permitted and non-permitted emission sources separately when making significance determinations related to criteria pollutants. For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Section 4, Modeling Parameters and Assumptions. Emissions resulting from non-permitted and permitted sources during project operations are discussed separately below.

Non-permitted Sources: The emissions modeling results for non-permitted sources from project operation are summarized in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8 Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Non-permitted Sources) Phase and Year
Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
SoTu Master Plan Residential and Public Land Uses
Area 12.69 0.79 10.86 0.06 0.06
Energy 0.13 2.22 0.98 0.18 0.18
Mobile 10.68 11.78 94.08 18.57 4.81
Residential and Public Uses Total 23.50 14.79 105.92 18.81 5.05 SoTu Master Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Uses
Area 15.37 0.10 12.46 0.02 0.02
Energy 0.26 4.70 3.95 0.36 0.36

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 60 Mobile 42.51 62.58 255.49 49.77 13.46
Commercial and Industrial Uses Total 58.14 67.38 271.9 50.15 13.84 Combined (Full Buildout of the Proposed Master Plan in the Earliest Operational Year) Area 28.06 0.89 23.32 0.08 0.08
Energy 0.39 6.92 4.93 0.54 0.54
Mobile 53.19 74.36 349.57 68.34 18.27
Total Proposed Master Plan Emissions (NonPermitted Sources)

81.64 82.17 377.82 68.96 18.89
Significance threshold 10 10 100 15 15
Exceed threshold—significant impact? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Notes:ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A).

As shown in Table 4-8, the operational emissions for full buildout of the proposed Master Plan in the earliest operational year exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, project operational emissions would result in a potentially significant impact prior to the incorporation of mitigation. MM AIR-2b through MM AIR-2d are recommended to reduce operational emissions from all development under the proposed Master Plan. Projects subject to project-level review would be required to assess residual impacts after incorporation of all applicable measures; however, it is not anticipated that all future development would be subject to discretionary review. These measures would help reduce operational emissions; however, at the time of this analysis, the precise emission reductions associated with these measures cannot be accurately determined because of a lack of sufficient information about how the proposed Master Plan would operate and to what extent the measures would affect those activities. Therefore, the project may continue to exceed the applicable thresholds of significance even after incorporation of mitigation. This represents a significant and unavoidable impact.

Permitted Sources: The SJVAPCD GAMAQI recommends assessing the emissions from permitted sources of emissions separate from non-permitted sources. The SJVAPCD’s permitting process ensures that emissions of criteria pollutants from permitted equipment and activities at stationary sources are reduced or mitigated to below the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. SJVAPCD implementation of New Source Review (NSR) ensures that there is no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified Stationary Sources subject to the rule for all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. Permitted sources emitting more than the NSR Offset Thresholds for any criteria pollutant must, in general, offset all emission increases in excess of the thresholds.

It is anticipated that individual development projects that would be allowed under the proposed Master Plan could include stationary sources to support project operations that would require SJVAPCD permits; however, any details regarding potential permitted sources are currently unknown. The SJVAPCD will prepare an engineering evaluation of all permitted equipment to determine the controls required to achieve best available control technology (BACT) requirements. The permitted emissions are dependent on the control technology selected and any process limits included in the permit conditions.

Permitted sources will be required to comply with SJVAPCD BACT requirements. Compliance with regulations would ensure that the project’s stationary sources would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance; therefore, the project’s estimated permitted emissions would be less than significant.

Criterion 2: Plan Approach

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 61 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15130(b), this analysis of cumulative impacts is based on a summary of projections analysis. The SJVAPCD attainment plans are based on a summary of projections that accounts for projected growth throughout the Air Basin, and the controls needed to achieve ambient air quality standards. This analysis considers the current CEQA Guidelines. The Air Basin is in nonattainment or maintenance status for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), which means that concentrations of those pollutants currently exceed the ambient air quality standards for those pollutants, or that the standards have recently been attained in the case of pollutants with maintenance status. When concentrations of ozone, PM10, or PM2.5 exceed the ambient air quality standard, then those sensitive to air pollution (such as children, the elderly, and the infirm) could experience health effects such as: decrease of pulmonary function and localized lung edema in humans and animals; increased mortality risk; and risk to public health, implied by altered connective tissue metabolism, altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures, and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans. See Appendix A Section 2.3—Existing Air Quality Conditions for additional correlation of the health impacts with the existing pollutant concentrations experienced in the Porterville area.

Under the CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts may be analyzed using other plans that evaluate relevant cumulative effects. The geographic scope for cumulative criteria pollution from air quality impacts is the Air Basin because that is the area in which the air pollutants generated by the sources within the Air Basin circulate and are often trapped. The SJVAPCD is required to prepare and maintain air quality attainment plans and a State Implementation Plan to document the strategies and measures to be undertaken to reach attainment of ambient air quality standards. While the SJVAPCD does not have authority over land use decisions, it is recognized that changes in land use and circulation planning would help the Air Basin achieve clean air mandates. The SJVAPCD evaluated emissions from land uses and transportation in the entire Air Basin when it developed its attainment plans. Emission inventories used to predict attainment of NAAQS must be based on the latest planning assumptions for mobile sources. The plan area is located directly southwest of the city limits of the City of Porterville in the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare, California. The site is generally bound to the north by the Tule River, to the south by State Route 190, to the east by State Route 65, and to the west by Westwood Street, consisting of 19 parcels that total approximately 447.30 gross acres. The proposed Master Plan project site has a City of Porterville General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, Parks, Public Institutional, and Retail Center. The City of Porterville proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to various land uses, as shown in the Master Plan Land Use Map.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, subdivision (h)(3), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program.

The history and development of the SJVAPCD’s current Ozone Attainment Plan is described in Section 2.4, Air Quality Plans. The 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan contains measures to achieve reductions in emissions of ozone precursors, and sets plans towards attainment of ambient ozone standards by 2023. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan and the 2015 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard require fewer NOX reductions to attain the PM2.5 standard than the Ozone Plan, so the Ozone Plan is considered the applicable plan for reductions of the ozone precursors NOX and ROG. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan requires reductions in directly emitted PM2.5 from combustion sources, such as diesel engines and fireplaces, and from fugitive dust to attain the ambient standard and is the applicable plan for PM2.5 emissions. PM2.5 is also formed in secondary reactions in the atmosphere involving NOX and ammonia to form

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 62 nitrate particles. Reductions in NOX required for ozone attainment are also sufficient for PM2.5 attainment. As discussed in Impact AIR-1, the proposed Master Plan is consistent with all applicable control measures in the air quality attainment plans. The proposed Master Plan would comply with any District rules and regulations that may pertain to implementation of the AQPs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with regard to compliance with applicable rules and regulations.

In conclusion, the growth resulting from the project is generally accounted for in the General Plan and the applicable AQP, and the project will comply with applicable rules and regulations implementing the AQP; however, the project exceeds SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 and has the potential to continue to exceed thresholds after implementation of applicable mitigation measures; therefore, the project is considered significant for this criterion.

Conclusion
The proposed Master Plan would incorporate design features and required mitigation measures that reduce air quality impacts. In addition, regulations adopted by the SJVAPCD and the State of California provide emission reductions that would align with requirements of the mitigation measures included in the EIR and relevant General Plan policies. For example, Rule 9510 ISR, adopted in 2006, requires projects subject to the Rule to reduce operational NOX emissions by 33 percent and PM10 emissions by 50 percent through the implementation of design features or payment of off-site mitigation fees. Rule 4901 regulates the installation of wood burning devices in project residences. Rule 9401 Employee Trip Reduction requires large employers to prepare plans to reduce employee trips with measures listed in the mitigation measure, among others. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and require increasingly stringent energy efficiency measures over time.

Solar panels continue to be required under 2022 Title 24 standards that became effective on January 1, 2023.

Individual development projects will be subject to the most recent Title 24 in effect that building permits are issued, which will ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful or inefficient. Buildout of the proposed Master Plan would provide future residents, visitors, and employees connectivity within the plan area/project site and to adjoining land uses through pedestrian and bicycle connections. The proximity of the proposed new development to existing buildout in the City of Porterville, coupled with the design features of the proposed Master Plan, would increase would improve mobility and connectivity within the plan/project area. Overall, the proposed Master Plan would create a considerable amount of internal capture between its components to reduce VMT compared to the same level of development built with land uses geographically separated from each other.

The project’s operational emissions exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, this is considered a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AIR-2a: The following measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Master Plan to reduce emissions from construction.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project, the project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor shall provide reasonably detailed compliance with the following requirements to the City of Porterville Planning Department:

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 63 • Where portable diesel engines are used during construction, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards except as otherwise specified herein. If engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of offroad equipment (e.g., Tier 4 Interim) that is commercially available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the equipment at issue is available taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the project site of equipment.

If the relevant equipment is determined by the project applicant to not be commercially available, the contractor can confirm this conclusion by providing letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that is at issue.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2b: Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and mixed-use residential development projects in the proposed Master Plan planning area, the project applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Porterville prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
• Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). • Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2c: Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects in the planning area, project applicants shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Porterville prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • For buildings with more than 10 tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
• Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2d: The following measure shall be applied to all non-residential development under the proposed Master Plan during construction to facilitate the use of electric landscaping equipment during project operations:
• Provide electrical outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of electrically powered landscape equipment.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 64 Potentially Significant Impact. Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools.

The closest off-site sensitive receptors include existing residences located within approximately 220 feet from the plan area boundary to the north, east, south, and west.

Depending on the order of buildout of development contemplated under the proposed Master Plan, the nearest sensitive receptors for project activities are expected to change as newly developed uses included in plan area would begin to be occupied prior to full buildout.

The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will “help keep California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution” (ARB 2005), including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. In the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369 (2015) (Case No. S213478) the California Supreme Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment’s impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” Although the Court ruled that impacts from the existing environment on projects are not required to be addressed under CEQA, land uses such as gasoline stations, dry cleaners, distribution centers, and auto body shops can expose residents to high levels of TAC emissions if they are close to sensitive receptors.

Localized Air Pollutant Emissions and Toxic Air Contaminants Construction activities are expected to occur over several years as the Project Site and individual developments are gradually built out. For each area, most emissions are expected to occur during the initial site preparation and grading activities and to a lesser extent during ground-up construction. Emissions occurring at or near the plan area have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard.

The SJVAPCDs GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an Ambient Air Quality Analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO.

Localized emissions from full build out of the proposed Master Plan are provided in Appendix A. The combined localized emissions from buildout of the proposed Master Plan are well over the applicable SJVAPCD-recommended 100-pounds-per-day screening thresholds for several pollutants; however, it is not appropriate to combine all emissions to compare against the screening thresholds as the plan area totals 447.30 gross acres. Localized analyses are only informative when they are conducted at a project level; therefore, a meaningful quantification of localized

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 65 impacts is not applicable for this program-level environmental analysis. Therefore, MM AIR-3a is required for implementing developing projects.

Toxic Air Contaminants and Health Risk Impacts
During construction and operation, the development contemplated under the proposed plan would result in emissions of several Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) that could potentially impact existing and future sensitive receptors. For instance, project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. The SJVAPCD’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million).

Construction and operational health risk assessments are only informative when they are conducted at a project level; therefore, a meaningful quantification of health risk is not applicable for this program-level environmental analysis. Therefore, MM AIR-3b and MM AIR-3c would be required to ensure that individual development accommodated under the proposed Master Plan would minimize adverse impacts and limit the construction and operational health risks to nearby sensitive receptors under thresholds determined by SJVAPCD. In addition, implementation of MM AIR-2a (see Impact AIR-2) would limit health risk impacts from project construction.

Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions.

Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities.

The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. During 2000–2018, a total of 65,438 coccidioidomycosis cases were reported in California; median statewide annual incidence was 7.9 per 100,000 population and varied by region from 1.1 in Northern and Eastern California to 90.6 in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, with the largest increase (15‐fold) occurring in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Incidence has been consistently high in six counties in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Tulare, and Merced counties) and Central Coast (San Luis Obispo County) regions. California experienced 6,490 new cases of Valley fever in 2020. A total of 195 Valley fever cases were reported in Tulare County in 2020.

The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1) Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C. immitis, perhaps because temperatures are more moderate and humidity higher than on the ground surface)
2) Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire pits
3) Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
4) Areas with high salinity soils
5) Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual moisture may be available) 6) Packrat middens

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 66 7) Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon, especially in virgin undisturbed soils 8) Sandy, well-aerated soil with relatively high water-holding capacities Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1) Cultivated fields
2) Heavily vegetated areas (e.g. grassy lawns)
3) Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
4) Areas where commercial fertilizers (e.g. ammonium sulfate) have been applied 5) Areas that are continually wet
6) Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
7) Soils containing abundant microorganisms
8) Heavily urbanized areas where there is little undisturbed virgin soil (USGS 2000).

The proposed plan includes urbanization of a site that was formerly used for agricultural purposes.

Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. Development contemplated under the proposed plan will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with the District’s Regulation VIII. Therefore, this regulation, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores, would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant.

During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, because most of the developed plan area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This condition would preclude the possibility of individual projects providing habitat suitable for C. immitis spores and for generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur (U.S. Geological Survey 2011), there are no such areas in the plan area. Ultramafic rock that contains asbestos is located at various locations in the foothills of Tulare County, but are not near the plan area. Therefore, development of the proposed Mater Plan is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The plan area is not in an area with suitable habitat for Valley fever spores and is not in area known to have naturally occurring asbestos. Individual development projects under the proposed Master Plan would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR-3a to ensure localized impacts would not result in significant adverse impacts for any criteria pollutant. Similarly, individual development projects under the proposed Master Plan would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR-3b and Mitigation Measure AIR-3c to minimize health risk impacts.

However, because impacts may remain significant after individual development projects identify all feasible and enforceable mitigation measures required to reduce impacts, the impact from the proposed Master Plan remains significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 67 Mitigation Measure AIR-3a: Prior to future discretionary approval for proposed implementing development projects, the City of Porterville shall evaluate potential impacts from localized emissions of criteria pollutants. The project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor shall submit an analysis demonstrating that the project would not result in a localized impact from criteria pollutants that follows SJVAPCD guidance. Options for relevant analyses to fulfill this mitigation measure are provided below:
• Provide a localized screening analysis demonstrating the project would not exceed 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant.
• Provide an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for the proposed project. An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SJVAPCD recommends an AAQA be performed for the Project if emissions exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant. • Supporting documentation approved by the SJVAPCD demonstrating that the proposed project would not have the potential to result in a significant impact from localized criteria pollutant emissions.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3b: Prior to future discretionary approval for commercial or commercial mixed-use projects, the City of Porterville shall evaluate potential health risk impacts from new development proposals for any individual development projects within 1,000 feet of an existing or planned sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, day cares, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit the following to the City of Porterville Planning Department:
• A Health Risk Prioritization Screening Analysis or a Health Risk Assessment for the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of Toxic Air Contaminants during project construction and operations prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance. If the Health Risk Assessment shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant shall be required to identify and incorporate commercially feasible mitigation including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level.

The City of Porterville shall submit each Health Risk Screening Analysis or Health Risk Assessment to the SJVAPCD for review. Development projects that exceed the applicable thresholds established by the SJVAPCD shall implement mitigation sufficient to reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3c: To identify potential implementing development project-specific impacts resulting from the use of diesel trucks, proposed implementing development projects that include an excess of 10 dock doors for a single building, a minimum of 100 truck trips per day, 40 truck trips with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) per day, or TRU operations exceeding 300 hours per week, and that are with 1,000 feet from existing or planned sensitive land uses; shall have a facility-specific Health Risk Assessment performed to assess the diesel particulate matter impacts from mobile source traffic generated by that implementing development project. If applicable, the results of the Health Risk Assessment shall be included in the CEQA documentation for each implementing development project. Development projects that exceed the applicable thresholds established by the SJVAPCD shall implement mitigation sufficient to reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 68 Less than Significant Impact. Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

Two situations create a potential for odor impact. The first occurs when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor. The second occurs when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. According to the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, impacts of existing sources of odors on the project are not subject to CEQA review. The SJVAPCD has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Table 4-9.

Table 4-9 Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: SJVAPCD 2015.

According to the SJVAPCD GAMAQI, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:
• Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and • Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people located near existing odor sources.

Project as a Generator
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 proposed Master Plan is not anticipated to facilitate any development projects that engage in any of these activities. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan would not be considered a generator of objectionable odors during operations.

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 immediate area where construction would be occurring. Therefore, potential for odor impacts from construction of development of the proposed Master Plan would be less than significant.

Project as a Receiver

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 69 The buildout of the proposed Master Plan would include the development of sensitive receptor land uses, including schools, parks, and residential uses. With the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling, analysis of odor impacts on receivers is not required for CEQA compliance unless the project would exacerbate an existing impact. As noted above, the proposed Master Plan would not result in odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Therefore, no further analysis of the proposed Master Plan’s as a receiver is required.

4.3.5 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Air Quality related mitigation measures as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 70

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
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 US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan.

X

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 71

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
A biological reconnaissance evaluation of the Project site was conducted on April 27, 2023, by Argonaut Ecological Consulting, Inc. The full report is provided in Appendix B. The biological assessment included assessing the types of habitats present and sensitive species associated with those habitats. The biological evaluation focused on mapping existing habitat types based on a site reconnaissance and reviewing public and commercial databases, aerial photographs (current and historical), and other published information and available data. A summary of the Biological Assessment Report is provided below. Overall, the Biological Assessment Report concludes:
• The majority of the Project Site has historically been used for agricultural crops (orchards and row crops) continuously for at least the last 50 years. The remainder of the Project Site supports ruderal/non-native and riparian habitats.
• An emergent wetland and a forested shrub wetland mapped by the National Inventory Wetland Inventory are located near the center of the Project Site within an agricultural field. Future development would require additional investigation of this area to determine if the wetland feature is intact (based on soils, hydrology, and vegetation).
• There are suitable nesting trees for raptors and migratory birds within the Project Site. • The agricultural lands generally do not support special status species breeding or nesting habitats. However, the Project Site could provide some foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, other raptors, and other species.

Regulatory Jurisdiction and Background
Several agencies share regulatory jurisdiction over biological resources. The following briefly describes the primary agencies and their respective jurisdiction.

Wetland Protection
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Wetlands are a type of Waters of the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate the placement of fill into the Waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act.

For this purpose, the term "Waters of the U.S." is legally defined under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and includes interstate streams, creeks, and adjacent wetlands. Waters of the United States (WOTUS) does not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency for the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with EPA.
• California State Water Resources Control Board: In 2020 California adopted the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The State definition of wetland differs from the Federal definition in that the state definition includes areas with no vegetation, assuming the other criteria are met. Wetlands of the State include 1) natural wetlands, 2) wetlands created by modification of water of the state (at any point in history), and 3) artificial wetlands that meet specific criteria. The State definition only exempts a few types of waters. Examples of water features excluded from the state's definition include industrial or municipal wastewater, certain stormwater treatment facilities, agricultural crop irrigation, industrial processing or cooling, and fields flooded for rice growing.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 72 Listed Protected Species and Habitat Protection
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):
o The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) was first enacted in 1918 to protect migratory birds between the United States and Great Britain (acting on behalf of Canada). The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, transport, purchase, barter, offer for sale, or purchase any migratory birds, nests, or eggs unless a federal agency has issued a permit. In January 2021, the USFWS published a new rule in the Federal Register. Under the rule change, the unintentional killing of migratory birds does not violate the MBTA. Only the intentional "pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same ... directed at migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs" would be illegal under the changes.
o The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) prohibits "take" "of any federally listed wildlife species (the destruction of federally listed plants on private property is not prohibited and does not require a permit). "Take" under the federal definition means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Incidental take" is harm or death that may occur during the implementation of an otherwise lawful activity. "Candidate species" do not have the full Protection of FESA. However, the USFWS advises project applicants that it is prudent to address these species since they could be elevated to "listed status" before the completion of projects with long planning or development schedules. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): The CDFW is a Trustee Agency responsible under CEQA to review and evaluate projects impacts on plant and wildlife resources. Game Code Section 1802, the CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, Protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations. The California Fish and Game Code also provides authority for the CDFW to regulate projects that could result in the "take" of any species listed by the state as threatened or endangered (Section 2081). CDFW also has authority over all state streams. • California Endangered Species Act (CESA): The CESA protects candidate plants and animal species and those listed under CESA as rare, threatened, or endangered. This Act prohibits the take of any such species unless authorized. Section 2081 authorizes the state to issue incidental take permits. The state definition of taking applies only to acts that result in death or adverse impacts on protected species. The CESA mirrors the federal regulation as it relates to "take"; however, there is no state equivalent definition of "harm" or "harass." Incidental take is also not defined by the CESA statute or regulation. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA does qualify that incidental take" "is not prohibited "if it is the result of an act that occurs on a farm or ranch in the course of an otherwise lawful routine and ongoing agricultural activity." Where disagreement occurs (and in some cases, this has been the subject of court cases) is in the common understanding of “routine and ongoing agricultural activity."
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA Guidelines require a review of projects to determine their environmental effects and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Guidelines state that an effect may be significant if it affects rare and endangered species. Section 15380 of the Guidelines defines rare to include listed species and allows agencies to consider rare species other than those designated as State or Federal threatened or endangered but that meet the standards for rare under the Federal or State endangered species acts. On this basis, plants

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 73 designated as rare by non-regulatory organizations (e.g., California Native Plant Society), species of special concern as defined by CDFW, candidate species as defined by USFWS, and other designations need to be considered in CEQA analyses.

Physical Resources
Topography and Drainage
The Project Site lies within the San Joaquin Valley and is nearly level. In 1923 the topography of the site was at roughly an elevation of 130 mean sea level. The topography has remained relatively unchanged, but the site has been leveled for agricultural use. Historically, an agricultural ditch (Poplar Ditch) crossed through the southwest corner of the Project Site. The Tule River forms the northern boundary of the Project site.

Soils
The site comprises eight soil types, as shown in Table 4-10. The soils are primarily sandy loam, loam, and silt sand, and these soils are generally well-drained. The riverwash soils within the Tule River are hydric, and two other soil types are partially hydric, which means there is a higher potential for wetland formation within these soils. The pits appear to be excavated features that have been filled in. The predominant soil type, Nord fine sandy loam, is located on the west end of the Project Site, along S. Westwood Street.

Table 4-10 Soil Types Within the Project Site
Soil Type Classified as Hydric? % of Project Site
Nord fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes No 125.2
Tujunga sand No 73.4
San Emigdio loam No 50.3
Yettem sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes No 41.5
Pits No 25.9
Tagus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Partially 25.4
Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Partially 23.2 Riverwash Yes 39.3
Land Use
The Project Site is in a historically rural, agricultural area of Tulare County. The Project Site is located immediately west of the urbanized area of Porterville. The Project Site is composed of crops and a few rural residences. The cropping pattern has been relatively unchanged since the 1990s, and no lands have been taken out of production since then. The area north of the Project Site has become more densely populated, but the lands south of the Project Site have remained relatively unchanged.

Habitat
There are several California habitat classification systems. Most classification systems describe natural communities without established developed or agricultural habitat classifications. CalVeg is a USDA Forest Service product providing a comprehensive spatial dataset of existing vegetation cover over California. The data were created using a combination of automated systematic procedures, remote sensing classification, photo editing, and field-based observations. Analyses are based “on a crosswalk of the CalVeg classifications to the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR).”

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 74 Figure 4-3 shows the areas included within the survey boundary and depicts the habitat types in the Project Site.

The Project Site has been in agricultural production (orchards and row crops) for at least 50 years, if not longer.

CalVeg includes a dataset that shows fallow agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley by year. From 2011 to 2016, some fallow agricultural land was within the Project Site. The fallow agricultural land was on the west side and in the area shown as “ruderal” in Figure 4-3. CalVeg also shows portions of the Project Site as Prime Farmland. The agricultural habitat provides some wildlife habitat but is subject to frequent habitat disturbance. There are nest trees throughout the agricultural lands.

Other habitats within the Project Site include the riparian habitat along the Tulare River (Figure 4-3Figure 4-3). This habitat supports mature trees (including sycamore), shrubs, and ground cover. The riparian habitat provides important nesting and breeding habitat for wildlife and a vital movement corridor through the region.

There is also an area of ruderal habitat on the eastern side of the Project Site that is composed of non-native grasses surrounding a farm/ranch home and buildings. Additional ruderal habitat surrounds other residential homes and along the surrounding roadways. Ruderal habitat provides some wildlife habitat but is subject to more frequent human disturbance.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 75 Figure 4-3 Habitat Map
Waters/Wetland
According to the National Wetland Inventory Map (Figure 4-4), an emergent wetland and a forested shrub wetland are located near the center of the Project Site within an agricultural field. The emergent wetland and forested shrub wetland have been put into agricultural production since approximately 2007. Prior to that, the wetlands were within an area that appears to be used for pastureland. Agricultural production does not always remove a wetland feature, depending on the remaining crops, plowing technique, and topography. The feature appears to be a topographic depression that may have historically been part of a former tributary to the Tule River. The NWI mapping cannot be used to verify that a wetland is still present but only indicates that a wetland was historically present. A formal wetland delineation would need to be performed to confirm whether a wetland is still present. A formal wetland delineation involves evaluating the plant community, subsurface soils, and hydrology.

The NWI maps also show that the area along the Tule River is mapped as riverine wetland habitat, which supports the river, adjacent wetlands, and riparian habitat.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 76 Special Status Species
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the USFWS IPaC databases were queried to determine which special status species could be present within the Project Site. The database query is summarized in Table 4-11. No critical habitat exists for any species within or near the Project Site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC list includes numerous migratory birds for the region, including Beldings savannah sparrow, California gull, common yellowthroat, and Nuttal’s woodpecker. These strictly migratory species are not included in Table 4-11 but should be considered during future biological evaluations. The CNDDB Bios mapping is shown in Figure 4-5. The BIOs maps show the location of known records of special status species near the Project Site.

As described in Table 4-11, several species could occur within the Project Site based on habitat conditions. The species potentially present include the following:
• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)- nests in mature trees near suitable prey bases. It may occur within mature trees within the Project Site.
• San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)- highly mobile species. Dens and forages in a wide range of habitats.
• American badger (Taxidea taxus)- occurs in various habitats (cropland, grassland, etc.) • Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) – occurs in moist sandy soils and may occur within the riparian area or any seasonal wetland.
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)- occurs in seasonal wetland habitats. • San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Psuedobahia peirsonii)- plant species found in grasslands and other habitats (including ruderal or non-native grasslands).

The Project Site supports riparian, potential wetlands, ruderal/non-native grassland, and cropland. These habitats could support these species if other habitat conditions are intact. For example, the San Joaquin kit fox could forage on the site if there is a suitable prey base and denning habitat, as could the American badger. Future projects within the Project Site would need to evaluate each parcel to determine whether species are present based on individual parcel habitat conditions.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 77 Figure 4-4 National Wetland Inventory Map

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 78 Figure 4-5 CNDDB BIOS Map of Special Status Species Records

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 79 Table 4-11 Summary of Special Status Species, Potential Occurrence, and Impact within the SoTu Project Site Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Effects2 Occurrence in the Project Site 3 Birds
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni --/CT ME
Potentially Present. Nests in mature trees. Suitable nest trees within the Project Site, especially along the riparian corridor. May occasionally forage within the area.

Mammals
Tipton kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys nitratoides
nitratoides

FE/-- NE
Absent. Grassland and alkali desert scrub habitat. Suitable habitat is not present.

San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis
mutica

FE/CT ME
Potentially Present. Could occasionally forage on the site if the species is in the area. Nomadic species that require underground denning habitat. The CNDDB habitat prediction model shows potentially suitable habitats within the Porterville area and the Project Site. Four records for species occurrence are identified in the CNDDB from the 1970s-1980s and include denning habitat.

Buena Vista Lake
ornate shrew
Sorex ornatus relictus FE/-- NE
Absent. Requires moist soils and dense vegetative cover below an elevation of 350 msl near the Tulare Basin. Project Site at an elevation above 400 and not near the Tulare Basin.

American badger Taxidea taxus --/-- ME
Potentially Present. Species occur in a variety of habitats and dig underground burrows.

Amphibians, Reptiles, and Invertebrates
Northern California
legless lizard
Anniella pulchra --/-- ME
Potentially Present. A small, slender lizard with no legs, eyelids, a shovelshaped snout, smooth, shiny scales, and a blunt tail. Lives mostly underground, burrowing in loose, moist sandy soil in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. Available records in Porterville are from 1939 and 1940. The CNDDB habitat prediction model shows some potential habitat within the Project Site (in the emergent/forested wetland in the center of the site). Other predicted habitat

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 80 occurs along Deer Creek to the southeast and immediately north of the Tule River below Lake Success.

Blunt-nosed
leopard lizard
Gambelia silus FE/CE NE
Absent. Occurs in non-cultivated land in sparsely vegetated alkali and desert scrub habitats. Suitable habitat is not present.

Morrison’s blister
beetle
Lytta orrisoni --/CE NE
Likely Absent. Occurs in Valley and Foothill grasslands. One occurrence within Tulare County, near Plano, was in 1939.

Crotch bumble bee Bombus cortchii FC/-- NE
Absent. One record within the region from 1959-1963, and the exact location is unknown.

Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus FC/-- NE
Likely Absent. Species cover a widespread region and wherever suitable feeding, breeding, and overwintering habitat exists. Monarchs feed exclusively on milkweed leaves and wildflowers in the genus Asclepia. It is unknown if this species occurs within the Project Site but given the amount of planted land within the Project Site, it is unlikely the species is present.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi FT/-- ME
Potentially Present. Occurs in vernal pools and seasonal wetlands. The species could be present if there is emergent wetland habitat within the Project Site.

Plants
Springville clarkia Clarkia springvillensis
-T/--
1B.2
NE
Absent. Found in Chaparral, Cismontane woodland Valley & foothill grassland.

One record northeast of Porterville near the Lewis Hill preserve. Suitable habitats are likely, not present within the Project Site because of the extensive agricultural areas.

Striped adobe-lily Frittillaria strriata --/CT NE
Absent. Occurs only within heavy adobe clay soils. Only one occurrence record from 1927. The Project Site does not support adobe clay soils.

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
Psuedobahia peirsonii FT/CE ME
Likely Absent. Occurs within cismontane and foothill grasslands. Project Site has large tracks of cultivated land and some ruderal habitat. The likelihood of presence is low but cannot be ruled out without additional surveys. 1 Status= Listing of special status species, unless otherwise indicated CE: California listed as Endangered
CT: California listed as Threatened
SSC: California Species of Special Concern
FE: Federally listed as Endangered
FT: Federally listed as Threatened
1B.1, 1B.2, 2B.2, 2B.3: California Native Plant Society Ranking Source: CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database provided by CDFG and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Information for Planning and Consultation. (IPaC). Accessed online April 23, 2023.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 81 2 Effects = Effect determination
NE: No Effect
ME: May Effect, not likely to adversely effect
3 Definition of Occurrence Indicators:

Present/Potentially: Species recorded in the area and some habitat elements in the Project Site similar to known occurrences.

Absent/Likely Absent: Species not recorded in Project Site and/or suitable habitat or critical habitat components not present.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 82 Recommendations
The following measures are recommended before approval of any development within the Project Site. • Conduct parcel species biological evaluation(s) to determine the project-specific impacts. The evaluation(s) may require foot surveys and detailed habitat mapping, wetland delineation, special status plant survey(s), and protocol-level surveys for species of concern.
• Incorporate avoidance and minimization measures to protect species of concern and common wildlife as part of the Master Plan design. These design features may include the creation of a buffer zone to protect the riparian habitat from urban development, tree preservation, clustered development, and establishing wildlife movement corridors through the Project Site.
• Incorporate avoidance and minimization measures in conditions of approval for construction. Such measures may include but are not limited to, pre-construction surveys, construction crew environmental awareness training, biological monitoring during construction (if needed), the inclusion of avoidance and minimization measures for San Joaquin kit fox following the USFWS Standard Recommendations for the Protection of the San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance (USFWS 2011).

SoTu Master Plan
The proposed SoTu Master Plan designates land use within the floodplain of the Tule River as Open Space. This area is generally consistent with existing riparian habitat as delineated in Figure 4-3. As such, the designated land use creates a buffer zone to protect the riparian habitat from urban development, tree preservation, clustered development, and establishes wildlife movement corridors through the Project Site, as recommended in the Biological Assessment Report. In addition, the Master Plan also includes goals and policiesto conserve and minimize impacts to the natural environment and wildlife habitat as listed below.

1. Identify critical areas, such as wetlands and wildlife habitats, and develop zoning regulations that restrict development in said areas.

2. Require additional biological assessment for any development proposed in sensitive areas, including the emergent wetlands and forested shrub wetlands.

3. Prior to any tree removal, require additional biological assessment to ensure that trees

4. Incorporate avoidance and minimization measures (AMM) to protect species of concern and common wildlife.
a. AMMs shall include:
i. For Wildlife: creating a buffer zone to protect the riparian habitat from urban development, tree preservation, clustered development, and establishing movement corridors through the Project Site.
ii. For construction: require pre-construction surveys, construction crew environmental awareness training, biological monitoring during construction, and requiring USFWA Standard Recommendations for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox prior to ground disturbance. These Master Plan policies have also been incorporated into Mitigation Measures BIO-1 – BIO-5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 83 Porterville Municipal Code
The Porterville Municipal Code (PMC) establishes regulations for the removal of trees, plants, and shrubs, as described below.

Section 7-48: REMOVAL OF TREES; NOTICE REQUIRED: In the event that the moving of any building for which a permit shall have been granted pursuant to this article makes it necessary to trim, move, remove or replant any tree, plant or shrub belonging to or under the control of the city, the person to whom such permit has been granted, or his authorized representative, shall notify the director of parks and leisure services at least forty eight (48) hours prior to the time that the moving of such building will necessitate the removal of such obstructions.

Section 7-49: REMOVAL OF TREES; AUTHORIZATION: The person to whom such permit is granted as required in this article for the removal of buildings shall not, at the expiration of such time of notice or at any time, trim, move, remove, replant or otherwise disturb such trees, plants or shrubs; and such work shall be done only by the authorized workmen of the city unless otherwise approved and so ordered by the director of parks and leisure services.

Section 7-50: REMOVAL OF TREES; PAYMENT OF COSTS: The person to whom such permit is granted as required in this article for the removal of buildings shall pay to the city any and all costs or expense for the trimming, moving, removing or replanting of any trees, plants or shrubs or of any damage thereto.

4.4.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The majority of the Project Site has historically been used for agricultural crops (orchards and row crops) continuously for at least the last 50 years. The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined as agricultural (orchards and row crops), ruderal/non-native, and riparian habitats. There are nest trees throughout the agricultural lands. According to the NWI, an emergent wetland and a forested shrub wetland are located near the center of the Project site within an agricultural field.

According to USFWS IPaC databases, there are numerous migratory birds for the region, including Beldings savannah sparrow, California gull, common yellowthroat, and Nuttal’s woodpecker. It is recommended in the biological assessment that these migratory species be considered during future biological evaluations.

The CNDDB database shows the location of known records of special status species near the Project site. As analyzed in Table 4-11, several species could occur within the Project Site based on habitat conditions. The species potentially present include the following:
• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)- nests in mature trees near suitable prey bases. It may occur within mature trees within the Project Site.
• San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)- highly mobile species. Dens and forages in a wide range of habitats.
• American badger (Taxidea taxus)- occurs in various habitats (cropland, grassland, etc.)

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 84 • Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) – occurs in moist sandy soils and may occur within the riparian area or any seasonal wetland.
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)- occurs in seasonal wetland habitats. • San Joaquin adobe sunburst (Psuedobahia peirsonii)- plant species found in grasslands and other habitats (including ruderal or non-native grasslands).

Since there is no development proposed at this time, it is recommended that further biological evaluations and subsequent specific avoidance and minimization measures are incorporated before approval of any development within the Project site. As such, future development within the Project site should incorporate Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 to avoid or minimize adverse effect on raptors/migratory birds and special status species that are potentially present.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Special-Status Species Surveys and Avoidance. The Project shall implement the following measures to avoid and minimize for impacts on special-status species due to construction activities. • Pre-Construction Surveys. The Project shall conduct parcel species biological evaluation(s) to determine the project-specific impacts. The evaluation(s) may require foot surveys and detailed habitat mapping, wetland delineation, special status plant survey(s), and protocol-level surveys for species of concern, including American badger, Northern California legless lizard, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, and San Joaquin adobe sunburst. Any special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) using the field survey form or mailed electronically. • Environmental Awareness Training. A qualified biologist shall conduct tailgate meeting to train construction staff on special status species that occur/may occur on the project site. • Biological Monitoring During Construction: In case of the accidental death or injury of a special-status species during construction-related activities, USFWS and CDFW will be contacted immediately by phone and notified in writing within three working days.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. The Project shall implement the following measures to mitigate for loss of nesting habitat of the Project in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant Fish and Game Codes:
• Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, the Project will be constructed, if feasible, from September 16th and January 31st, which is outside the avian nesting season. • Preconstruction Surveys. If Project activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1-September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of these activities. The qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys per the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (2000). The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory birds. If no active nests are found within the survey area, no further mitigation is required. Any special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) using the field survey form or mailed electronically.
• Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be discovered near proposed work areas, no disturbance buffers of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and 500 feet around active nests of non-listed

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 85 raptors will be established. If work needs to occur within these no disturbance buffers, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week, and thereafter once a week, throughout the duration of construction activity. Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then resume the once-a-week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that the nest site is no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Swainson’s Hawk Surveys and Avoidance. If Project activities must occur during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (February 15 to August 31), pre-construction surveys shall be conducted for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley, Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (CDFG, 2000). The surveys would be conducted on the Project site plus a 0.5-mile buffer. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys shall be conducted during at least two survey periods.

1. If no Swainson’s hawk nests are found, no further action is required.

2. If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest.

The assessment would consider the type of construction activities, the location of construction relative to the nest, the visibility of construction activities from the nest location, and other existing disturbances in the area that are not related to the construction activities of this Project. Based on this assessment, the biologist will determine if construction activities can proceed and the level of nest monitoring required. Construction activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest, but this distance may be reduced depending upon conditions at the site. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks may be required. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

Any special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) using the field survey form or mailed electronically.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys and Avoidance. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 10 days prior to the start of any construction activities. Qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys in accordance with USFWS Standard Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011).

1. If no active or potential den is detected in or adjacent to work area during the survey, no further action is required.

2. If active or potential den is detected in or adjacent to work area during the pre-construction survey, the den shall not be disturbed or destroyed. Compliance with USFWS Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) required. USFW and CDFW will be immediately contacted to determine best course of action. Construction activities shall be carried out in a manner that minimizes disturbance to kit foxes.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 86

3. In case of the accidental death or injury of a San Joaquin kit fox during construction-related activities, USFWS and CDFW will be contacted immediately by phone and notified in writing within three working days.

Any special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) using the field survey form or mailed electronically. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the Biological Assessment Report, The Project site supports riparian, potential wetlands, ruderal/non-native grassland, and cropland, as delineated in Figure 4-3. The proposed SoTu Master Plan designates land use within the floodplain of the Tule River as Open Space. This area is generally consistent with existing riparian habitat as delineated in Figure 4-3. As such, the designated land use creates a buffer zone to protect the riparian habitat from urban development, tree preservation, clustered development, and establishes wildlife movement corridors through the Project Site. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat within the Project site. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the NWI, an emergent wetland and a forested shrub wetland are located near the center of the Project site within an agricultural field (see Figure 4-4). The emergent wetland and forested shrub wetland have been put into agricultural production since approximately 2007. Prior to that, the wetlands were within an area that appears to be used for pastureland. Agricultural production does not always remove a wetland feature, depending on the remaining crops, plowing technique, and topography. The feature appears to be a topographic depression that may have historically been part of a former tributary to the Tule River. The NWI mapping cannot be used to verify that a wetland is still present but only indicates that a wetland was historically present. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 incorporates a formal wetland delineation to confirm whether a wetland is still present. A formal wetland delineation involves evaluating the plant community, subsurface soils, and hydrology.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Wetland Delineation. Prior to the start of ground disturbance activities on APN 256-040- 044, the applicant shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the U.S.

Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conduct a formal Wetland Delineation.

The NWI maps also show the area along the Tule River as freshwater forested shrub wetland and riverine wetland, which supports the river, adjacent wetlands, and riparian habitat. As discussed in criteria b), the Master Plan designates the riparian habitat area along the Tule River as Open Space land use to protect the riparian habitat from urban development, tree preservation, clustered development, and establishes wildlife movement corridors through the Project Site. As such, the NWI-identified wetlands along Tule River would have a less than significant impact from future development of the proposed Project.

Overall, the Project would have a less than significant impact with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 87 d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are linear habitats that function to connect two (2) or more areas of significant wildlife habitat. These corridors may function on a local level as links between small habitat patches (e.g., streams in urban settings) or may provide critical connections between regionally significant habitats (e.g., deer movement corridors). Wildlife corridors typically include vegetation and topography that facilitate the movements of wild animals from one area of suitable habitat to another, in order to fulfill foraging, breeding, and territorial needs. These corridors often provide cover and protection from predators that may be lacking in surrounding habitats. Wildlife corridors generally include riparian zones and similar linear expanses of contiguous habitat.

According to the biological assessment, the riparian habitat along the Tulare River provides important nesting and breeding habitat for wildlife and a vital movement corridor through the region. As discussed in criteria b), the Master Plan designates the riparian habitat area along the Tule River as Open Space land use to protect the riparian habitat from urban development, tree preservation, clustered development, and establishes wildlife movement corridors through the Project Site. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact on interfering with the movement of wildlife.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. PMC Section 7-48, Section 7-49, and Section 7-50 establishes standards and regulations related to the noticing, authorization, and removal of any tree, plant, or shrub in the City of Porterville. Trimming, moving, removing, and replanting of existing trees on the Project site would be subject to compliance with these standards and regulations during the city’s permitting process. There are no other local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources applicable to the Project. Through compliance, the Project would have no impact. 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. There are three (3) habitat conservation plans in Tulare County, including Kern Water Habitat Conservation Plan, Recovery Plan for Upland Species in the San Joaquin Valley (Recovery Plan) 5, and PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) 6. The Kern Water Habitat Conservation Plan does not include the Project site.

The Recovery Plan covers 34 species of plants and animals that occur in the San Joaquin Valley of California, including five (5) endangered plants (California jewelflower, palmate-bracted bird's-beak, Kern mallow, San Joaquin woolly-threads, and Bakersfield cactus), one (1) threatened plant (Hoover's woolly-star), five (5) endangered 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998). Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Accessed on July 6, 2023, https://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/recoveryplan.php 6 PG&E. PG&E’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). Accessed on July 6, 2023, https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/promoting-stewardship/habitat-conservationplan.page

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 88 animals (giant kangaroo rat, Fresno kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and San Joaquin kit fox) and , 23 candidates or species of concern are addressed. According to the Recovery Plan, the majority of these species occur in arid grasslands and scrublands of the San Joaquin Valley and the adjacent foothills and valleys.

As described in the Biological Assessment Report, the Master Plan designates the riparian habitat area along the Tule River as Open Space land use to protect the riparian habitat from urban development, tree preservation, clustered development, and establishes wildlife movement corridors through the Project Site. In addition, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 are incorporated to avoid or minimize adverse effects on special status species that are potentially present.

The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and maintenance activities and minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands owned by PG&E. The Project would not conflict or interfere with HCP. The City, County, and Regional Planning Agency do not have any other adopted or approved plans for habitat or natural community conservation. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Biological Resources related mitigation measures as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 89

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?

X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?

X

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

X

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
A Cultural Resource Overview of the Project site was conducted on July 26, 2023, by Peak & Associates, Inc. The full report is provided in Appendix C. The Cultural Resource Overview report is summarized and incorporated in the analysis below.

Regulatory Context
State historic preservation regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines). CEQA Section 15064.5 requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. Public Resources Code Section 21098.1 further cites: A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

An “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources Code Section 5020.1).

Advice on procedures to identify such resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effects is given in several agency publications such as the series produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CEQA and Archaeological Resources, 1994. The technical advice series produced by OPR recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities, including, but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associations, and societies be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of the antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Codes Sections 5097.94 et al).

Soils Research
The Project site contains a mosaic of approximately a dozen soil series that are all derived from alluvial and deposited relatively recently. The period of deposition overlaps with prehistoric period occupation in the region so

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 90 that the potential for encountering buried prehistoric period deposits is thought to be generally “very high” for the overall Project site (Rosenthal and Meyer 2004).

CHRIS Record Search
A record search was conducted for the project area at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) on June 26, 2023. There is one (1) recorded site partially in the Project Site: P-54-002208, the Poplar Ditch. This ditch is still in use, and a previous recorder of a segment of the ditch believes this structure is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources.

There are no other resources recorded within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Seven surveys have been undertaken within the Project site; thirteen (13) other surveys have been undertaken within one quarter mile of the Project site.

Map Research
The earliest map of the area by the General Land Office in 1855 is a plat for Township 21 South Range 27 East showing the layout of the land sections in the area, is difficult to coordinate with modern maps, showing part of the route of the Tule River in section 33 is a dry ravine. No buildings appear on the Project site on this map.

There are several other County maps dating to the early years (1867, 1876, 1883, 1884, 1901) but the small scale (3 miles:1 inch or 2 miles:1 inch), river course changes and lack of detail such as building locations make them difficult to use. The 1892 map by Thomas Thompson provides one (1) building location in the Project site as well as land ownership.

There are four (4) older Porterville USGS topographic maps with the potential to identify locations of buildings and structures over fifty years in age: 1929, 1942, 1951 and 1969. Two (2) buildings are mapped on the 1929 maps are no longer extant today. In 1942, an additional five (5) buildings were present, now no longer extant. Two (2) other buildings appear first on the 1951 map; and are still present on recent maps.

Summary of Existing Resources and Recommendations
Prehistoric Period Resources
The course of the Tule River has changed over time, but the presence of alluvial soils suggests that sites may have been present along the river in the past and been buried during flood events. Archeological field surveys in advance are important, and it may be appropriate to monitor construction in parts of the plan area near the river course.

Local Native American groups should be consulted about their concerns with the future projects.

Historic Period Resources
There is only one (1) recorded site in the Project site, the Poplar Ditch, thought to be important under the criteria of the California Register. Older maps show locations of older houses. For the former locations, there may be archeological values associated with the use and occupancy of these sites. A field survey should be a necessary first step before any plans for development are finalized for the Project site. Flooding and the movement of the Tule River may have buried other historic period resources. Should historic period artifacts, deposits or building remnants, research will be greatly aided by the historical maps with identification of ownership.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 91 California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
A consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within Tulare County was requested and received from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 27, 2023. The listed tribes include Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians, Tule River Indian Tribe, and Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. The NAHC also conducted a Sacred Lands File (SFL) check which received negative results.

Correspondence is provided in Appendix D.

AB 52 and SB 18 Tribal Consultation
The City of Porterville conducted formal tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) and SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes 2004) on March 31, 2023, utilizing the consultation list of tribes received from the City of Porterville in correlation with the list of tribes received from NAHC. All five tribes listed above were included in the formal consultation. Consultation for AB 52 and SB 18 ended on June 29, 2023. On April 27, 2023, a representative of the Tule River Tribe expressed interest in continued consultation pursuant to SB18. Although the tribal representative did not have knowledge of specific cultural resources or sites within the Project Site, they did request the results of the any record searches and cultural resource surveys; both the results from the SLF search and the cultural resource report have been provided to the tribe as requested.

City of Porterville General Plan
The Porterville General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element identifies the following policiesrelated to historic, archeological, and paleontological resources. There are three (3) National Historic Register resources, including Zalud House, U.S. Post Office - Porterville Main, and First Congregational Church, and two (2) State Historic Register resource, including Tule River Stage Station and First Tule River Reservation. None of the resources are within or adjacent to the Project site. The General Plan established policies to protect these cultural resources, as listed below.

Guiding Policy OSC-G-11 Identify and protect archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources.

Implementing Policy OSC-I-71 Update the City’s inventory of historic resources to determine sites or buildings of federal, State, or local historic significance.

Implementing Policy 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.

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

In the event that historical or archaeological resources are accidentally discovered during construction, the City will require that grading activity in the immediate area cease. A qualified archaeologist will then be required to make an immediate evaluation and recommend avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 92

4.5.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on June 26, 2023, there is one (1) recorded site partially in the Project site: P-54-002208, the Poplar Ditch. In addition, the Cultural Resource Overview report identified two (2) buildings on the 1951 map that currently exists on the Project site. In order to ensure that the existing structures are not of historical significance at the time of demolition, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to mitigate the destruction or alternation of any potential historical structures.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to permit approval for development on sites with existing buildings and/or structures that are 45 years or older, a historical resources evaluation shall be completed for that individual site to confirm if the existing buildings and/or structures within these sites qualify as historical resources as defined by Section 15064.5(a) of CEQA Guidelines. The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify any potential historical resources within the proposed project area. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence.

Any relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be implemented consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR Section 15126.4[b][1]).

Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence, in addition to the historical resources evaluation.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not feasible, the applicant or developer shall provide a report explaining why compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not feasible for the city’sreview and approval. Site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken, including, but not limited to, documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Buildings Survey-Like report. The report shall be commissioned by the project applicant or their consultant to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the Historic American Buildings Survey Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 93 historian or historian who meets the PQS and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

The Cultural Resource Overview report also recognized that the flooding and movement of the Tule River over a long period of time could result in buried historic period resources. The soils research assessed a “very high” potential that prehistoric period resources are buried due to the period of deposition that overlaps with the prehistoric period occupation in the region. As such, there is a high possibility that hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence that may be impacted by future physical development of the site. While the Project does not propose development, future redevelopment may include typical construction activities such as demolition of existing buildings, grading, trenching, excavation, etc. In the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of previously unknown historical resources before or during construction activities, the Project shall also incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-2 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential historical resources discovered below ground surface. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In order to avoid the potential for impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:
a. Cultural Resources Alert on Project Plans. The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources. b. Stop Work Near any Discovered Cultural Resources. Should previously unidentified cultural resources be discovered during construction of the project, the project proponent shall cease work within 50 feet of the resources, and City of Porterville shall be notified immediately. The project archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archeology shall immediately evaluate the find pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. c. Mitigation for Discovered Cultural Resources. If the professional archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource, he/she shall notify the project proponent and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommended mitigation measures to mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. If the archaeologist and, if applicable, a Native American monitor or other interested tribal representative determine it is appropriate, cultural materials collected from the site shall be processed and analyzed in a laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of the materials shall be determined using radiocarbon dating and/or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the site(s) shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR and if applicable, NRHP.

The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource Management Reports:

Recommended Content and Format (1990 or latest edition).” Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery, among other options. Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the City of Porterville. The archaeologist shall document the resources using DPR 523 forms and file said forms with the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 94 (SSJVIC). The resources shall be photo documented and collected by the archaeologist for submittal to the City of Porterville. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the City of Porterville for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. This report shall be submitted to the SSJVIC after completion. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout the remainder of ground disturbance activities. Further grading or sitework within the area of discovery shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken. d. Data Recovery. Should the results of item c. yield resources that meet CRHR significance standards and if the resource cannot be avoided by project construction, the project applicant shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of archaeological impacts are incorporated into the final design and approved by the City prior to construction. Any necessary data recovery excavation, conducted to exhaust the data potential of significant archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archeology. Data recovery shall be conducted in accordance with a research design reviewed and approved by the City, prepared in advance of fieldwork, and using the appropriate archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5, Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with the City and local California Native American tribe(s). As applicable, the final Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities. Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and/or measures for unanticipated discoveries. The final report shall be submitted to the SSJVIC upon completion. e. Disposition of Cultural Resources. Upon coordination with the City of Porterville, any pre-historic archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate Tribal custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines. f. Cultural Resources Monitoring. If mitigation measures are recommended by reports written under item c. or d., the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor project-related, grounddisturbing activities which may include the following but not limited to: grubbing, vegetation removal, trenching, grading, and/or excavations. The archaeological monitor shall coordinate with any Native American monitor as required. Monitoring logs must be completed by the archaeologist daily. Cultural resources monitoring may be reduced for the project if the qualified archaeologist finds it appropriate to reduce the monitoring efforts. Upon completion of ground disturbance for the project, a final report must be submitted to the City for review and approval documenting the monitoring efforts, cultural resources find, and resource disposition. The final report shall be submitted to the SSJVIC. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on June 26, 2023, there are no known archeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 on the Project site. While there is no evidence that archeological resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that existing structures qualify as historical resources or hidden, and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence that may be impacted by future physical development of the site. In the event of the accidental discovery and recognition of

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 95 previously unknown historical resources before or during construction activities, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-2 as described under criterion a) to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential archeological resources discovered above or below ground surface. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that human remains exist on the Project site. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non-visible buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. If any human remains are discovered during construction, then the Project would be subject to CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Regulations contained in these sections address and protect human burial remains. Compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries are less than significant.

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 96

4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Appendix A of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. According to Appendix A of the CEQA Guidelines, the goal of energy conservation implies the “wise and efficient use” of energy through 1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, 2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil, and 3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Per Appendix A, a project would be considered inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary if it violated existing energy standards, had a negative effect on local and regional energy supplies and requirements for additional capacity, had a negative effect on peak and base period demands for electricity and other energy forms, and effected energy resources. Appendix A includes the following criteria to determine whether a threshold of significance is met:

1. The project energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed.

2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.

3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.

4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.

5. The effects of the project on energy resources.

6. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

Building Energy Efficiency Standards – Title 24
California’s energy code is designed to reduce wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption in newly constructed and existing buildings. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 of the California Code of Regulations) are updated by the California Energy Commission every three years. The Standards relate to various energy efficiency measures including but not limited to ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards became effective in January 2023. The state’s “green building code” (i.e., CALGreen) is contained within the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24, Part 11. The CALGreen standards address

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 97 environmental and sustainable practices during building construction including energy efficiency. CALGreen applies to the planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure and additions and alterations on a statewide basis. Compliance with these energy efficiency regulations and programs reduces wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy sources.

City of Porterville 2030 General Plan
The General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element established policies to reduce energy consumption and increase the rate of using renewable sources of energy, as listed below.

Guiding Policy OSC-G-10 Reduce and conserve energy use in existing and new commercial, industrial, and public structures.

Implementing Policy OSC-I-66 Adopt guidelines and incentives for using green building standards in new construction.

Green building design guidelines may include required and recommended “green” design and construction strategies including: Building Site and Form, Natural Heating or Cooling, Transportation, Building Envelope and Space Planning, Building Materials, Water Systems, Electrical Systems, HVAC Systems, Construction Management, and Commissioning.

Implementing Policy OSC-I-67 Incorporate cost-effective energy conservation measures into all building programs owned by the City, including construction, operations, and maintenance.

Strategies will include conducting periodic energy audits of public buildings.

Implementing Policy OSC-I-68 Publish best practices guide to saving energy on the City’s website and other City publications.

Implementing Policy OSC-I-69 Establish regulations to allow flexibility in site planning, solar orientation, roof design, and landscaping to decrease summer cooling and winter heating needs.

Implementing Policy OSC-I-70 Ensure City codes allow for environmentally acceptable alternative forms of energy production and green building techniques.

Energy Analysis Report
An Energy Analysis of the Project site was conducted on August 17, 2023, by Johnson, Johnson, and Miller Air Quality Consulting Services. The full report is provided in Appendix A. The report is incorporated in the analysis below.

4.6.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Appendix A does not prescribe a threshold for the determination of significance.

Rather, Appendix A focuses on reducing and minimizing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact to energy would result if the project would:

1. Result in the wasteful and inefficient use of nonrenewable resources during its construction.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 98

2. Result in the wasteful and inefficient use of nonrenewable resources during long-term operation.

3. Be inconsistent with Adopted Plans and Policies.

Construction Energy Consumption
Project construction associated with buildout of the proposed Master Plan is anticipated to be completed over several years. Construction activities would consume energy through the operation of heavy off-road equipment, trucks, and worker traffic. Construction equipment fuel consumption for each of was based on equipment lists generated using CalEEMod default values and the horsepower, usage hours, and load factors from CalEEMod model runs prepared for the project’s air quality analysis. Equipment fuel consumption was calculated using Offroad2017 v1.0.1 for Tulare County. Fuel consumption was estimated assuming all equipment would be diesel-powered.

Based on the anticipated hours of use, off-road construction equipment would result in the consumption of approximately 431,722.08 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction period.

Worker, vendor, and haul trips would result in approximately 67,440,611 VMT over the entire construction period.

Fuel consumption averages were calculated for worker, vendor, and haul trips separately and per phase based on data from EMFAC 2021 for Tulare County. The results indicate that construction trips would consume approximately 3,719,560 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined over the entire construction period.

Although implementation of the proposed Master Plan would result in the consumption of an estimated 431,722 gallons of diesel from off-road equipment and 3,719,560 gallons of motor vehicle fuels during construction, the project is expected to achieve energy efficiencies typical for mixed-use projects in the City of Porterville and the larger Tulare County area. Construction equipment fleet turnover and increasingly stringent state and federal regulations on engine efficiency, combined with local, state, and federal regulations limiting engine idling times and requiring recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during project construction. Considering these reductions in transportation fuel use, the proposed Master Plan would not result in the wasteful and inefficient use of energy resources during construction, and impacts would be less than significant. Detailed modeling results are provided in Appendix A of this technical report. Construction energy use is summarized in Table 4-12Table 4-12.

Table 4-12 Construction Energy Consumption
Activity Energy Consumption Activity Consumption Amount Project Construction (Buildout of the Proposed Master Plan) Construction Equipment
Diesel Fuel Use
Off-road Construction
Equipment fuel
21,575,701
Horsepower Hours (total) 431,722 gallons (diesel)
On-road Construction
Vehicle Fuel
Worker 52,551,881 VMT (miles) 2,047,336 gallons (gasoline and diesel combined)
Vendor 14,638,730 VMT (miles) 1,629,698 gallons (gasoline and diesel combined)
Haul 250,000 VMT (miles) 42,526 gallons (diesel)
Project On-road
Construction Vehicle
Fuel Subtotal
67,440,611 VMT (miles) 3,719,560 gallons (gasoline and
diesel combined)
Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source of data for construction and VMT: CalEEMod 2022.1.

Source of data for consumption rates: EMFAC 2021.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 99 Operation Energy Consumption
Long-term energy consumption associated with the implementation of the proposed Master Plan includes electricity and natural gas consumption by residents and businesses, energy required for water supply, treatment, distribution, and wastewater treatment, and motor vehicle travel.

Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption
During operations, individual developments contemplated under the proposed Master Plan would consume natural gas for space heating, water heating, and cooking associated with the land uses within the plan area. The natural gas consumption was estimated using the CalEEMod default values and results. The results of the analysis indicate that the buildout under the proposed Master Plan would consume approximately 143,971,024 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas per year during operation.

In addition to the consumption of natural gas, the development built out under the proposed Master Plan would use electricity for lighting, appliances, and other uses associated with the individual developments. Electricity use during operations was estimated using CalEEMod default values. The results of the modeling indicate that the buildout of the development contemplated under the Master Plan would use approximately 112,006,579 kilowatt‐ hours (kWh) of electricity per year. Title 24 (2022 standards) requires the installation of solar panels in commercial developments, including most newly constructed shopping center developments. Title 24 (2022 standards) also requires the installation of solar panels in residential developments, including most newly constructed single-family homes and low-rise multi-family developments. Variations in the amount of solar installed can be due to local conditions and project design. In addition, some projects may use community solar instead of rooftop solar installations. Although the energy estimates show total consumption, a portion of the electricity used by the development contemplated under the proposed Master Plan is expected to be generated by zero emission renewable sources. In addition, additional solar panels may be installed voluntarily to take advantage of energy cost savings that are increasingly possible as the cost of solar has declined over time.

As described above, the development under the proposed Master Plan would result in a long-term increase in demand for electricity from Southern California Edison (SCE). However, individual development projects built out under the Master Plan would be designed to meet the most recent Title 24 standards in effect at the time building permits are issued. Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. Title 24 is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies.

Therefore, impacts from the wasteful or inefficient use of electricity or natural gas during operation of development under the Master Plan would be less than significant.

Fuel Consumption
During operation of the development built out under the proposed Master Plan, vehicle trips would be generated by the individual developments. Build out of the proposed Master Plan was modeled with CalEEMod using projectspecific trip generation rates and default trip lengths (with longer trip lengths applied to the truck trips associated with the industrial park land use). The results show that the vehicle trips generated would result in approximately 188,565,656 annual VMT from build out of the proposed Master Plan. As shown in Table 4-13Table 4-13, the proposed Master Plan would result in the consumption of an estimated 7,914,219 gallons per year of transportation fuel.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 100 Table 4-13 Long-term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption Vehicle Type Annual VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Cars (LDA) 81,575,631 37.19 2,193,569
Light Trucks and Medium Duty Vehicles (LDT1, LDT2, MDV) 75,053,399 27.76 2,703,846 Light-Heavy to Heavy-Heavy Diesel Trucks (LHD1, LHD2,

MHDT, HHDT)
27,944,682 10.02 2,788,812
Motorcycles (MCY) 2,832,794 38.01 74,527
Other (OBUS, UBUS, SBUS, MH) 1,159,149 7.55 153,466
Mater Plan Total 188,565,655 — 7,914,220
Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled
“Other” consists of buses and motor homes.

Source of data for vehicle trips and VMT: Appendix A.

Source of Tulare County miles/gallon for an early operational year (2025): EMFAC 2021.

Various federal and state regulations including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program would serve to reduce the projects’ transportation fuel consumption progressively into the future. In addition, the proposed Master Plan would locate a mix of commercial and residential uses, providing connectivity within the community. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan would be designed to avoid the wasteful and inefficient use of transportation fuel during operations, and impacts would be less than significant.

State and federal regulatory requirements addressing fuel efficiency are expected to increase fuel efficiency over time as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are retired. The efficiency standards and light/heavy vehicle efficiency/hybridization programs contribute to increased fuel efficiency and therefore would reduce vehicle fuel energy consumption rates over time. While build out of the proposed Master Plan would increase the consumption of gasoline and diesel proportionately with projected population growth, the increase would be accommodated within the projected growth as part of the energy projections for the State and the region and would not require the construction of new regional energy production facilities. Therefore, energy impacts related to fuel consumption/efficiency during project operations would be less than significant.

Impact Summary
As described above, the proposed Master Plan would result in less than significant impacts on the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to project design features that will comply with the City’s design guidelines and regulations that apply to the project such as Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code that apply to newly constructed commercial and residential buildings. The installation of solar panels required by 2022 Title 24 standards is expected to offset some of the electricity used by the development under the proposed Master Plan. Furthermore, various federal and state regulations—including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program—would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand by the development under the proposed Master Plan.

With the adherence to the increasingly stringent building and vehicle efficiency standards as well as implementation of design features that would reduce energy consumption, the proposed Master Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact to the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. As such, the proposed Master Plan would not result in a significant environmental impact, due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during construction or operation of buildout of the proposed Master Plan. A summary of estimated operational energy consumption from build out of the proposed Master Plan is provided in Table 4-14.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 101 Table 4-14 Summary of Estimated Operational Annual Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Project Operations
Electricity Consumption 112,006,579 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 143,971,024 kBTU/year
Total Vehicle Fuel Consumption 7,914,219 gallons/year (gallons of gasoline and diesel) Notes: kWh = kilowatt-hour; kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit; VMT = vehicle miles traveled b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact.

The City of Porterville General Plan includes goals and strategies related to energy efficiency. The following policies relate to energy efficiency and are relevant to the proposed Master Plan:

OSC‐G‐10: Reduce and conserve energy use in existing and new commercial, industrial, and public structures.

OSC‐I‐66: Adopt guidelines and incentives for using green building standards in new construction. Green building design guidelines may include required and recommended “green” design and construction strategies including: Building Site and Form, Natural Heating or Cooling, transportation, Building Envelope and Space Planning, Building Materials, Water Systems, Electrical Systems, HVAC Systems, Construction Management, and Commissioning.

OSC‐I‐70: Ensure City codes allow for environmentally acceptable alternative forms of energy production and green building techniques.

Construction
As discussed under Impact ENERGY-1, the proposed Master Plan would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Individual development under the proposed Master Plan would comply with these regulations. Consistent with required regulations, buildout of the proposed Master would increase the use of energy conservation features and renewable sources of energy within the City of Porterville and Tulare County due to the previously discussed design features. Thus, the proposed Master Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, construction-related energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Master Plan would be served with electricity provided by SCE. SCE’s 2019 Green Rate 50 percent option includes 67.5 percent eligible renewable resources, including wind, geothermal, solar, eligible hydroelectric, and biomass and biowaste; 4 percent large hydroelectric; 8.1 percent natural gas; 4.1 percent nuclear; 0.1 percent other; and 16.3 percent unspecified sources of power SCE’s 2019 Green Rate 100 percent option includes 100 percent eligible renewable resources, composed entirely of solar. Approximately 43 percent of the electricity that SCE delivered in 2020 was a combination of renewable and GHG-emissions-free resources. SCE was ahead of

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 102 schedule in meeting the California’s RPS 2020 mandate of serving their load with at least 33 percent RPS-eligible resources. SCE would be required to meet California’s RPS standards of 60 percent by 2030 and carbon-free sourced-electricity by 2045.

Part 11, Chapter 4 and 5, of the State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards establishes mandatory measures for residential and nonresidential buildings, including solar, electric vehicle (EV) charging equipment, bicycle parking, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency.

Development under the proposed Master Plan would be required to comply with these mandatory measures. The proposed Master Plan would locate housing next to jobs in order to reduce or eliminate motor vehicle travel for home-to-work trips and provide connectivity through pedestrian and bicycle connections. In addition, the proposed Master Plan’s location adjacent to an existing community (built up areas the City of Porterville) allows future development to provide further connectivity. Compliance with the mandatory measures previously mentioned would ensure that the development built out under the proposed Master Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, operational energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Master Plan was reviewed for consistency with local and State of California plans that aim to reduce GHG emissions in GHG impact analysis. These plans also serve as the applicable energy plans. The ARB 2008 Scoping Plan, the ARB 2017 Scoping Plan, and the ARB 2022 Scoping Plan provide the State’s strategy for achieving legislated GHG reduction targets. Although the primary purpose of the Scoping Plans is to reduce GHG emissions, the strategies to achieve the GHG reduction targets rely on the use of increasing amounts of renewable fuels under the LCFS and RPS, and energy efficiency with updates to Title 24 and the CalGreen Code. Buildings constructed under implementation of the proposed Master Plan will meet the latest efficiency standards in effect that building permits are issued. In addition, vehicles and equipment will continue to become cleaner over time as new vehicles and equipment are required to adhere to the latest fuel efficiency standards. For instance, vehicles and equipment associated with build out of the proposed Master Plan will use fuels subject to the LCFS.

The proposed Master Plan is consistent with applicable plans and policies and would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of nonrenewable energy sources; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 103

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or Indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the
area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking? X
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction? X
iv. Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X
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?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 104

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Porterville is located 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 city is within the Sierra Nevada geomorphic province, which is primarily composed of cretaceous granitic plutons and remnants of Paleozoic and Mesozoic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cenozoic volcan and sedimentary rocks. The city’s Planning Area elevation ranges between 400 and 800 feet, with the eastern portion that is within the Sierra Nevada foothills reaching almost 1,800 feet. Geographically, the city, inclusive of the Project site, has stable geological formation and is in a seismically inactive region.
7 A brief discussion of the likelihood of such activities occurring in or affecting the city’s Planning Area, inclusive of the Project site, is provided below. The discussion is based on the 2018 Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) as well as the City of Porterville 2030 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
8 Faulting
There are no known active faults in the city’s Planning Area. 9 No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zoning has been
established for the city’s Planning Area. The nearest active faults to the Planning Area are the Owens Valley fault group, 40 miles to the east, and White Wolf fault, 56 miles to the south. 10 Due to the distance from an active fault,
there is low potential for ground rupture in the city.

Ground Shaking
The City of Porterville is in Seismic Risk Zone III, which is a zone expected to experience moderate effects from earthquakes. Major historical earthquakes, including the 1906 San Francisco, 1952 Kern County, and 1983 Coalinga, were felt by residents and caused minor to moderate property damage in the city. According to the HMP’s hazards ranking, there is a low significance for ground shaking in the city. Earthquake-related damage is often the result of liquefaction.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction primarily occurs in areas of recently deposited sands and silts and in areas of high groundwater levels (where the water table is 30 feet below the surface). Susceptible areas include sloughs and marshes that have been filled in and developed over. Since the city is far from faults and consists of a stable geological formation, the city is in an area with low susceptibility to liquefaction. However, the EIR identifies that liquefaction could occur near the Tule River that is water saturated and loose, sandy soils exist. 7 City of Porterville. (2007). Draft Environmental Impact Report 2023 General Plan (SCH No. 2006011033). 8 Tulare County Office of Emergency Services. (2018). Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed on August 2, 2023, https://oes.tularecounty.ca.gov/oes/mitigation/tulare-county-mjlhmp/ 9 According to the California Department of Conservation, “An active fault, for the purposes of the Alquist-Priolo Act, is one that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years.”
10 California Department of Conservation. “CGS Seismic Hazard Program: Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones.” Accessed on August 3, 2023, https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731d3245ed9f53/explore?location=37.213952%2C117.946341%2C7.19

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 105 Erosion
The primary types of erosion identified by the HMP are coastal cliff and shoreline erosion. The city is not susceptible to these erosion types in all sea level rise scenarios (i.e., sea level rise at 25 cm, 75 cm, 200 cm).

Ground Subsidence
Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of surface soil deposits with little or no horizontal motion. Soils with high silt or clay content are subject to subsidence. According to the HMP, the city is not exposed to earthquake induced landslide risk.

Subsurface Soils
The site comprises eight (8) soil types, as shown in Table 4-10 in Section 4.4. The soils are primarily sandy loam, loam, and silt sand, and these soils are generally well-drained. The riverwash soils within the Tule River are hydric, and two other soil types, Tagus loam (map unit symbol: 137) and Tujunga loamy sand (map unit symbol: 138) are partially hydric, which means there is a higher potential for wetland formation within these soils. The pits appear to be excavated features that have been filled in. The predominant soil type, Nord fine sandy loam, is located on the west end of the Project Site, along South Westwood Street. Figure 4-6 shows the location of all soil composition within the Project site from the Web Soil Survey by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 11 California Building Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code (CBC) incorporates by reference the International Building Code with necessary California amendments. About one-third of the text within the California Building Standards Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions. These standards are applicable to all new buildings and are required to provide the necessary safety from earthquake related effected emanating from fault activity.

City of Porterville 2030 General Plan
The General Plan includes objectives and policies relevant to natural hazards in the Public Health & Safety Element since to minimize risks from geologic and seismic hazards:

Guiding Policy PHS-G-1 Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic hazards.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for a geologic hazards abatement district for hillside areas to ensure that geologic hazards are properly mitigated by developers or avoided prior to, or during, development.

Implementing Policy 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.
11 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed on April 6, 2023, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 106 Implementing Policy PHS-I-3 Provide information and incentives for property owners to rehabilitate existing buildings using construction techniques to protect against seismic hazards.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-4 Support continued investigation by State agencies of geologic conditions within the City’s Planning Area to promote public awareness of potential geologic and seismic hazards.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-5 Require, as part of the preliminary soil report, a construction dust management plan when it has been determined that soils contain naturally-occurring asbestos.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-6 If asbestos is present require construction work be done when soil moisture is sufficient to adequately compact the tread and prevent visible dust, which may contain airborne asbestos emissions.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 107 Figure 4-6 Soils Map

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 108

4.7.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults in the city’s Planning Area, inclusive of the Project site, nor is city within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. The nearest active fault to the city is located 40 miles to the east. Due to the distance from an active fault, there is low potential for ground rupture. In addition, the likelihood of the Project rupturing due to an earthquake would be reduced through compliance with current seismic protection standards in the CBC which would significantly limit potential seismic-related hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in a zone with low seismic risk. In addition, future development of the Project site would be required to comply with current seismic protection standards in the CBC which would significantly limit potential damage to structures and thereby reduce potential impacts including the risk of loss, injury, or death. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in an area with low susceptibility to liquefaction with no known geologic hazards or unstable soil conditions. Due to the distance from an active fault, there is low potential for ground rupture. Further, the site is primarily made up of loam and sand soils that are well drained, which are less susceptible to liquefaction than silt or sands. Future development of the site would require compliance with the city’s grading and drainage standards that would reduce the likelihood of settlement or bearing loss. In addition, future development would be required to comply with CBC and specific requirements that address liquefaction.

For these reasons, the Project does not have any aspect that could result in seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project. iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. The topography of the Project site is relatively flat with stable, native soils. According to the HMP, the city is in a zone with low risk of landslides and mudslides. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be caused by natural factors, such as wind and flowing water, and human activity. Future development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short-term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Excessive soil erosion could cause damage to existing structures and roadways. In the case of urban

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 109 development, erosion would most likely occur during the construction phase and would be reduced once the site is graded and paved or landscaped. According to the General Plan, the Project site mostly consists of moderate erosion susceptibility land.

The likelihood of erosion occurring during construction would be reduced through site grading and surfacing, which would be subject to review and approval by the city for compliance with applicable standards. Future development of the Project site would be required to comply with PMC Section 25-32.A.10 – Grading Design Plan, Section 7-142.7 – Floodways, Section 501.10 – Landscaping and Irrigation, and Section 407.03 – Design and Construction Standards, which includes standards to prevent soil erosion and to keep debris and dirt out of the city’s storm drain system.

The likelihood of erosion would be further reduced through compliance with regulations set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Namely, the SWRCB requires sites larger than one (1) acre to comply with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). The General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. With these provisions in place, impacts to soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. 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? Less than Significant Impact. Ground subsidence is the settling or sinking of surface soil deposits with little or no horizontal motion. Soils with high silt or clay content are subject to subsidence. Subsidence typically occurs in areas with groundwater withdrawal or oil or natural gas extraction. The topography of the site is relatively flat with stable, native soils and no apparent unique or significant landforms. Future development of the Project site would be required to comply with current seismic protection standards in the CBC which would significantly limit potential seismic-related hazards such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Compliance with the CBC would ensure a less than significant impact.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is relatively flat with primarily native soils of loam, loamy sand, and sandy loam, which are not expansive. According to the General Plan, the Project site is not located in an area with high soil expansion potential. As such, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Project Site is currently outside of city limits but would require annexation into the City of Porterville when development is proposed. At the time of development, individual parcels would be required to connect to city utility services. Future development would also connect to the city’s wastewater services. Thus, no permanent septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed, and no impact would occur. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 110 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section above, there are no known paleontological resources or unique geological features known on this site. In addition, the Project site is heavily disturbed as it has been previously developed. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried resource, site. or feature may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. To further assure future development does not result in significant impacts to any potential resources, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measures CUL-2 as described in Section 4.5. Additionally, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires that if unknown paleontological resources are discovered during construction activities, work within a 25-foot buffer would cease util a qualified paleontologist determined the appropriate course of action. Therefore, if any paleontological resources or geologic features were discovered, implementation of CUL-2 and GEO-1 would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: If any paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbance activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or another appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations, and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance.

If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the City of Porterville, Community Development Department.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 111

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

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

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis of the Project was conducted on August 17, 2023, by Johnson Johnson and Miller, Inc. The full report is provided in Appendix A. Background information on climate change and modeling parameters and assumptions within the GHG analysis is provided below.

Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance, specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from

1.1 degrees Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios. The report also concluded that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” An individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to cause a discernible change in global climate.

However, the project participates in the potential for global climate change by its incremental contribution of GHGs—and when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs—constitute potential influences on global climate change.

Consequences of Climate Change in California
In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following:
• A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier,

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 112 reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies. It can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower. • Increased risk of large wildfires. If rain increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant “fuel” available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. • Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
• A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
• An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California. More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness. • A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species.

Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, NOX, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. It is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.

Climate change is driven by forcings and feedbacks. Radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming energy and outgoing energy in the climate system. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. Radiative forcing values are typically expressed in watts per square meter. A feedback is a climate process that can strengthen or weaken a forcing. For example, when ice or snow melts, it reveals darker land underneath which absorbs more radiation and causes more warming. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The global warming potential of a gas is essentially a measurement of the radiative forcing of a GHG compared with the reference gas, CO2.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 113 Individual GHG compounds have varying global warming potential and atmospheric lifetimes. CO2, the reference gas for global warming potential, has a global warming potential of one. The global warming potential of a GHG is a measure of how much a given mass of a GHG is estimated to contribute to global warming. To describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, the carbon dioxide equivalent is used. The calculation of the carbon dioxide equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent reference gas, CO2. For example, CH4’s warming potential of 25 indicates that CH4 has 25 times greater warming effect than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. A carbon dioxide equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its global warming potential. GHGs defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (see the Climate Change Regulatory Environment section for a description) include CO2, CH4, NOX, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. They are described in Table 4-15. A seventh GHG, nitrogen trifluoride, was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. The global warming potential amounts are from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The AR4 GWP amounts, incorporated into CalEEMod, are used in this analysis. Although the newer IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) includes new global warming potential amounts, ARB continues to use AR4 rates for inventory purposes. Until such time as ARB updates its Scoping Plan inventories to utilize AR5 GWPs, it is appropriate to continue using AR4 GWPs for CEQA analyses, which are based on Scoping Plan consistency.

Table 4-15 Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) is a colorless GHG. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its
global warming potential is 298.

Microbial processes in soil and water, fuel combustion, and industrial processes.

Methane Methane is a flammable gas and is the
main component of natural gas. It has a
lifetime of 12 years. Its global warming
potential is 25.

Methane is extracted from geological deposits (natural
gas fields). Other sources are landfills, fermentation of manure, and decay of organic matter.

Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless,
colorless, natural GHG. Carbon dioxide’s
global warming potential is 1. The
concentration in 2005 was 379 parts per
million (ppm), which is an increase of
about 1.4 ppm per year since 1960.

Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic
matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and
fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic
outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning
coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

Chlorofluorocarbons These are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane
or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine
atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble, and chemically unreactive in
the troposphere (the level of air at the
earth’s surface). Global warming
potentials range from 124 to 14,800.

Chlorofluorocarbons were synthesized in 1928 for use
as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning
solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone. The
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987.

Perfluorocarbons Perfluorocarbons have stable molecular structures and only break down by
ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers
above Earth’s surface. Because of this,
they have long lifetimes, between 10,000
and 50,000 years. Global warming
potentials range from 7,390 to 12,200.

Two main sources of perfluorocarbons are primary
aluminum production and semiconductor
manufacturing.

Sulfur hexafluoride Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic,
This gas is man-made and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 114 nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of
3,200 years. It has a high global warming
potential of 22,800.
industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a
tracer gas.

Nitrogen trifluoride Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was added to Health and Safety Code section
38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. It has a
high global warming potential of 17,200.

This gas is used in electronics manufacture for
semiconductors and liquid crystal displays.

Sources: Compiled from a variety of sources, primarily Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a and 2007b.

The State has begun addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants. Senate Bill (SB) 605, approved by the governor on September 14, 2014 required the ARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants by January 1, 2016. ARB was required to complete an emission inventory of these pollutants, identify research needs, identify existing and potential new control measures that offer co-benefits, and coordinated with other state agencies and districts to develop measures. The Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy was approved by the ARB on March 24, 2017. The strategy calls for reductions of 50 percent from black carbon, 40 percent from methane, and 40 percent from HFCs from the 2030 Business as Usual (BAU) inventory for these pollutants.

The short-lived climate pollutants include three main components: black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane.

Fluorinated gases and methane are described in Table 4-15 and are already included in the California GHG inventory. Black carbon has not been included in past GHG inventories; however, ARB will include it in its comprehensive strategy.

Ozone is another short-lived climate pollutant that will be part of the strategy. Ozone affects evaporation rates, cloud formation, and precipitation levels. Ozone is not directly emitted, so its precursor emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) on a regional scale and CH4 on a hemispheric scale will be subject of the strategy.

Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter. Black carbon is formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. Sources of black carbon within a jurisdiction may include exhaust from diesel trucks, vehicles, and equipment, as well as smoke from biogenic combustion. Biogenic combustion sources of black carbon include the burning of biofuels used for transportation, the burning of biomass for electricity generation and heating, prescribed burning of agricultural residue, and natural and unnatural wildfires. Black carbon is not a gas but an aerosol—particles or liquid droplets suspended in air. Black carbon only remains in the atmosphere for days to weeks, whereas other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for years. Black carbon can be deposited on snow, where it absorbs sunlight, reduces sunlight reflectivity, and hastens snowmelt. Direct effects include absorbing incoming and outgoing radiation; indirectly, black carbon can also affect cloud reflectivity, precipitation, and surface dimming (cooling).

Global warming potentials for black carbon were not defined by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report. The ARB has identified a global warming potential of 3,200 using a 20-year time horizon and 900 using a 100-year time horizon from the IPCC Fifth Assessment. Sources of black carbon are already regulated by ARB, and air district criteria pollutant and toxic regulations that control fine particulate emissions from diesel engines and other combustion sources. Additional controls on the sources of black carbon specifically for their GHG impacts beyond those required for toxic and fine particulates are not likely to be needed.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 115 Water vapor is also considered a GHG. Water vapor is an important component of our climate system and is not regulated. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other GHGs, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

Emissions Inventories
An emissions inventory is a database that lists, by source, the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere of a geographic area during a given time period. Figure 4-7 shows the contributors of GHG emissions in California between years 2000 and 2019 by Scoping Plan category. The main contributor was transportation. The second highest sector in 2019 was industrial, which includes sources from refineries, general fuel use, oil and gas extraction, cement plants, and cogeneration heat output. Emissions from the electricity sector account for 14 percent of the inventory and have shown a substantial decrease in 2019 due to increases in renewables. ARB reported that California’s GHG emissions inventory was 418.2 MMTCO2e in 2019.

Figure 4-7 Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Scoping Plan Category in California

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 116

Regulatory Setting
See plans, regulations, and policies related the GHG emissions including California (California Air Resources Board Scoping Plans, Building Codes, California Supreme Court GHG Ruling), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Climate Change Action Plan), and the City of Porterville (General Plan) detailed in Appendix A Section 3.3.

4.8.2 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
Greenhouse Gases Assessed
This analysis is restricted to GHGs identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide, methane, NOX, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The project would generate a variety of GHGs, including several defined by AB 32 such as carbon dioxide, methane, and NOX.

The project may emit GHGs that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the project may generate aerosols through emissions of DPM from the vehicles and trucks that would access the project site. Aerosols are short-lived particles, as they remain in the atmosphere for about one week. Black carbon is a component of aerosol. Studies have indicated that black carbon has a high global warming potential; however, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it has a low level of scientific certainty.

Water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for landscaping, but this is not a significant impact because water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project-related activities.

The project would emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are ozone precursors. Ozone is a GHG; however, unlike the other GHGs, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis. Stratospheric ozone can be reduced through reactions with other pollutants.

Certain GHGs defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the project. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride.

See Section 4.3.2 for modeling assumptions.

4.8.3 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines’ 2018 amendments for GHG emissions states that a lead agency may take into account the following three considerations in assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions.
• Consideration #1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
• Consideration #2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 117 • Consideration #3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides guidance for preparing a ‘business as usual’ (BAU) analysis. Under the SJVAPCD guidance, projects meeting one of the following would have a less than significant impact on climate change:
• Exempt from CEQA;
• Complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program; • Project achieves 29 percent GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards; and • Project achieves AB 32 targeted 29 percent GHG reductions compared with “business as usual.” The SJVAPCD has not yet adopted BPS for development projects. For development projects, BPS means, “Any combination of identified GHG emission reduction measures, including project design elements and land use decisions that reduce project-specific GHG emission reductions by at least 29 percent compared with business as usual.”
The 29 percent GHG reduction level is based on the target established by ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008. The GHG reduction level for the State to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 was reduced to 21.7 percent from BAU in 2020 in the 2014 First Update to the Scoping Plan to account for slower than projected growth after the 2008 recession. First occupancy at the project site is expected to occur in 2024, which is after the AB 32 target year. The SJVAPCD has not updated its guidance to address SB 32 2030 targets or AB 1279 2045 targets.

The analysis also addresses consistency with the SB 32 targets and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update with an assessment of the project’s reduction from BAU based on emissions in 2030 compared with the 21.7 percent reduction and with a consistency analysis. This approach provides estimates of project emissions in the new 2030 milestone year with the existing threshold to address Considerations 1 and 2 above. Therefore, whether the project’s GHG emissions would result in a significant impact on the environment is determined by assessing consistency with relevant GHG reduction plans.

The following analysis assesses the proposed Master Plan’s compliance with Consideration #3 regarding consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions. The City of Porterville has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, the City has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018. The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 118 applicable to the proposed Master Plan. Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the proposed Master Plan. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the proposed Master Plan is assessed for its consistency with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plans.

Consistency with ARB’s Adopted Scoping Plans
The State’s regulatory program implementing the 2008 Scoping Plan is now fully mature. All regulations envisioned in the Scoping Plan have been adopted, and the effectiveness of those regulations has been estimated by the agencies during the adoption process and then tracked to verify their effectiveness after implementation. The combined effect of this successful effort is that the State now projects that it will meet the 2020 target and achieve continued progress toward meeting post-2020 targets. Governor Brown, in the introduction to Executive Order B30-15, stated “California is on track to meet or exceed the current target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).” Consistency with SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan
Table 4-16 provides an analysis of the proposed Master Plan’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. The 2017 Scoping Plan addresses SB 32 and California's 2030 GHG reduction goals. Since build out of the Project would begin prior to 2030, the project is assessed for consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan. There are several relevant measures from the 2017 Scoping Plan that are relevant to the project.

Table 4-16 Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 50% Renewable Mandate. Utilities subject to the
legislation will be required to increase their renewable energy mix from 33% in 2020 to 50% in 2030.

Consistent: The individual development projects built out under the proposed Master Plan will purchase electricity from a utility subject to the SB 350 Renewable Mandate.

SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030. This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from 2014 building energy usage compared to current projected 2030 levels
Not Applicable. This measure applies to existing buildings.

New structures are required to comply with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected to increase in
stringency until new development achieves zero net energy.

While there are currently existing structures in the plan area, they are not a part of the individual development projects that would be built out under the proposed Master Plan.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires fuel
providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in carbon
content by 2030.

Consistent. Vehicles accessing the plan area will use fuel containing lower carbon content as the fuel standard is implemented.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels
Scenario) Vehicle manufacturers will be required to meet existing regulations mandated by the LEV III and HeavyDuty Vehicle programs. The strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million ZEVs on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and buses.

Consistent. Future project occupants and visitors can be expected to purchase increasing numbers of more fuel
efficient and zero emission cars and trucks each year. The 2022 CALGreen Code requires commercial developments to
include EV infrastructure and requires electrical service in new single-family housing to be EV charger-ready. In
addition, deliveries will be made by increasing numbers of ZEV delivery trucks.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan The plan’s target is to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent by increasing the value of goods and services produced from the freight sector, relative to the amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This would be achieved by deploying over
100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero
emission operation and maximize near-zero emission
Not Applicable. The measure applies to owners and
operators of trucks and freight operations. Deliveries to the proposed commercial development are expected to be
made by increasing number of ZEV delivery trucks.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 119 freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable
energy by 2030.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy.

The strategy requires the reduction of SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and the reduction of black
carbon by 50 percent from 2013 levels by 2030.

Consistent. The future Master Plan residences will include only natural gas hearths that produce very little black carbon compared to woodburning fireplaces and heaters.

Additionally, commercial uses contemplated as part of the proposed Master Plan are not expected to be sources of
black carbon.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies. Requires
Regional Transportation Plans to include a sustainable
communities strategy for reduction of per capita vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. The proposed Master Plan will provide mixeduse residential and commercial development in the region that is consistent with the Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) strategy to increase development densities to reduce VMT. The
proposed Master Plan includes mixed-use development
including schools, residential, and commercial within the same area, which will also contribute to reductions in VMT.

Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post 2020 Capand-Trade Program continues the existing program for another 10 years. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies to
large industrial sources such as power plants, refineries, and cement manufacturers.

Consistent. The post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program indirectly affects people who use the products and services produced by the regulated industrial sources when increased cost of products or services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity
consumed in California, whether generated in-state or
imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel
suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and
transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the program’s first compliance period.

Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB is
working in coordination with several other agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, stakeholders, and with the public, to develop measures as outlined in the Scoping
Plan Update and the governor’s Executive Order B-30-15
to reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net carbon
sequestration potential for California’s natural and
working land.

Not Applicable. The proposed Master Plan includes a mix of residential and commercial development and will not be
considered natural or working lands.

Source: ARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

As described in Table 4-16, the proposed Master Plan would be consistent with applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures and would not obstruct the implementation of others that are not applicable. The State’s regulatory program is able to target both new and existing development because the two most important strategies, motor vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions from electricity generation, obtain substantial reductions from both existing sources and new sources. This is because all vehicle operators use cleaner low carbon fuels and buy vehicles subject to the fuel efficiency regulations and all building owners or operators purchase cleaner energy from the grid that is produced by increasing percentages of renewable fuels. This includes regulations on mobile sources such as the Pavley standards that apply to all vehicles purchased in California, the LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 120 Standard) that applies to all fuel sold in California, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Renewable Energy Standard under SB 100 that apply to utilities providing electricity to all California end users.

Moreover, the Scoping Plan strategy will achieve more than average reductions from energy and mobile source sectors that are the primary sources related to development projects and lower than average reductions from other sources such as agriculture. Operational GHG emissions from development projects contemplated under the proposed Master Plan would principally be generated from electricity consumption and vehicle use (including heavy trucks), which are directly under the purview of the Scoping Plan strategy and have experienced reductions above the State average reduction. Considering the information summarized above, the proposed Master Plan would be consistent with the State’s AB 32 and SB 32 GHG reduction goals. As such, the proposed Master Plan’s GHG impacts would be less than significant.

Consistency Regarding GHG Reduction Goals for 2050 under Executive Order S‐3‐05 and GHG Reduction Goals for 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S‐3‐05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the development projects built out under the proposed Master Plan would comply with whatever measures are enacted that State lawmakers decide would lead to an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. In its 2008 Scoping Plan, ARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.” In the First Scoping Plan Update; however, ARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large scale electrification of on‐road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” The ARB recognized that AB 32 established an emissions reduction trajectory that will allow California to achieve the more stringent 2050 target: “These [greenhouse gas emission reduction] measures also put the State on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. This trajectory is consistent with the reductions that are needed globally to stabilize the climate.” In addition, ARB’s First Update “lays the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050,” and many of the emission reduction strategies recommended by ARB would serve to reduce the proposed project’s post-2020 emissions level to the extent applicable by law:
• Energy Sector: Continued improvements in California’s appliance and building energy efficiency programs and initiatives, such as the State’s zero net energy building goals, would serve to reduce the proposed project’s emissions level. Additionally, further additions to California’s renewable resource portfolio would favorably influence the project’s emissions level.
• Transportation Sector: Anticipated deployment of improved vehicle efficiency, zero emission technologies, lower carbon fuels, and improvement of existing transportation systems all will serve to reduce the project’s emissions level.
• Water Sector: The project’s emissions level will be reduced as a result of further desired enhancements to water conservation technologies.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 121 • Waste Management Sector: Plans to further improve recycling, reuse and reduction of solid waste will beneficially reduce the project’s emissions level.

For the reasons described above, the project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets. The trajectory required to achieve the post-2020 targets is shown in Figure 4-8Figure 4-8Figure 4-8 California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target.

Figure 4-8 California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target In his January 2015 inaugural address, former Governor Brown expressed a commitment to achieve “three ambitious goals” that he would like to see accomplished by 2030 to reduce the State’s GHG emissions:
• Increasing the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard from 33 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030; • Cutting the petroleum use in cars and trucks in half; and • Doubling the efficiency of existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner.

These expressions of executive branch policy may be manifested in adopted legislative or regulatory action through the state agencies and departments responsible for achieving the State’s environmental policy objectives, particularly those relating to global climate change. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could allow the State to meet the 2050 target.

Given the proportional contribution of mobile source-related GHG emissions to the State’s inventory, recent studies also show that relatively new trends—such as the increasing importance of web-based shopping, the emergence of different driving patterns, and the increasing effect of web-based applications on transportation choices—are beginning to substantially influence transportation choices and the energy used by transportation modes. These factors have changed the direction of transportation trends in recent years and will require the creation of new models to effectively analyze future transportation patterns and the corresponding effect on GHG emissions. For

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 122 the reasons described above, the proposed Master Plan future emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets.

The 2017 Scoping Plan provides an intermediate target that is intended to achieve reasonable progress toward the 2050 target. In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan outlines objectives, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure that outlines how the State can achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045.

Accordingly, taking into account the proposed Master Plan’s design features (including strategically planning new mixed-use development in such a way that minimizes VMT) and the progress being made by the State towards reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the proposed Master Plan would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, carbon neutral by 2045, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The following analysis assesses the proposed Master Plan’s compliance with Consideration #3 regarding consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions. The City of Porterville has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, the City has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018. The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are applicable to the project. Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the project. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the project is assessed for its consistency with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plans. This assessment is included under criteria a) above. As demonstrated in the analysis contained under Impact GHG-1, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

4.8.4 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 123

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” refers to "injurious substances," which include flammable liquids and gases, poisons, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers, radioactive materials, and medical supplies and waste. These materials are either generated or used by various commercial and industrial activities. Hazardous

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 124 wastes are injurious substances that have been or will be disposed. Potential hazards arise from the transport of hazardous materials, including leakage and accidents involving transporting vehicles. There also are hazards associated with the use and storage of these materials and wastes. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories based on their properties:
• Toxic: causes human health effect
• Ignitable: has the ability to burn
• Corrosive: causes severe burns or damage to materials • Reactive: causes explosions or generates toxic gases
“Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that: “…because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.” Hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20‐24 contains technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.

Hazardous waste generators may include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households.

Federal, state, and local agencies maintain comprehensive databases that identify the location of facilities using large quantities of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. The release of hazardous materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations and is similar to the transport, use, and disposal of hazard materials.

Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was established in 1991 to protect the environment.

CalEPA oversees the Unified Program through Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs), which consolidates six (6) environmental programs to ensure the handling of hazardous waste and materials in California. The local CUPA in Tulare County Environmental Health Division (TCEHD) is responsible for inspecting facilities that handle hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste, treat hazardous waste, own/operate underground storage tanks, own/operate aboveground petroleum storage tanks, or handle other materials subject to the California Accidental Release Program. 12 TCEHD inspects businesses for compliance with the Hazardous Waste Control Act through their Hazardous Waste Generator Program. TCEHD also issues permits to businesses that handle hazardous materials or waste no less than 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, whichever larger. These businesses are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) to assess inventory of hazardous 12 Tulare County Environmental Health Division. Hazardous Materials/Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Accessed on August 3, 2023, https://tularecountyeh.org/eh/our-services/hazardous-materials-cupa/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 125 materials, hazardous waste, and provide emergency response related to incidents involving these hazardous materials/waste.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is another agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, conducts inspections, provide emergency response for hazardous materials-related emergencies, protect water resources from contamination, removing wastes, etc. DTSC acts under the authority of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and California Health and Safety Code. The DTSC implements California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Division 4.5 to manage hazardous waste. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that DTSC shall compile and update at least annually a list of:
(1) All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code (“HSC”).
(2) All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land. (4) All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code. (5) All sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program.

This list of hazardous waste sites in California, referred to as the Cortese List, is then distributed to each city and county. According to the CCR Title 22, soils excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is considered hazardous waste, and remediation actions should be performed accordingly. Cleanup requirements are determined case-by-case by the jurisdiction.

Record Search
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)13, California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database 28F 14 , and the State Water Resources Control Board’s
GeoTracker database29F
15 include hazardous release and contamination sites. A search of each database was conducted on August 3, 2023. The searches revealed no hazardous material release sites on the Project site or within the vicinity of the Project site.

City of Porterville 2030 General Plan
The General Plan Public Health & Safety Element included policies to protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials. Policies that could be applicable to the Project are listed below. 13 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund National Priorities List. Accessed August 3, 2023, https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d416956c41f1 14 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor. Accessed August 3, 2023, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
15 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Accessed August 3, 2023, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 126 Implementing Policy PHS-I-17 Require remediation and cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-19 Ensure that all specified hazardous facilities conform to the Tulare County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-20 Prohibit specified hazardous waste residual repositories and onsite facilities utilizing incineration methods unless the facility demonstrates that it will produce insignificant levels of emissions.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-23 Require applicants of projects in areas of known or suspected hazardous materials occurrences such as petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, CAM 17 metals, USTs, location of asbestos rocks and other such contamination to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with regulatory agency testing standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the project applicant to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of appropriate agencies, such as Tulare County Department of Environmental Heath, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Implementing Policy C-I-28 Designate specific truck routes to provide for the safe movement of goods and hazardous materials throughout the City, ensure that adequate pavement depth, lane widths, and turn radii are maintained on the designated truck routes, and prohibit commercial trucks from non-truck routes except for deliveries.

The Porterville 2030 General Plan also includes policies to reduce the potential impact on adopted emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans, as listed below.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-29 Maintain and periodically update the City’s Emergency Management Plan.

This plan will be updated as necessary in consultation with City departments, community leaders, the school districts, Sierra View District Hospital, SCE, and relevant regional and State agencies.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-30 Initiate periodic public information programs that explain the City’s emergency preparedness programs and evacuation routes and encourage each household to be selfsufficient for 72 hours after a manmade or natural disaster.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-31 Maintain multi-jurisdictional communication systems and cooperation for emergency training, planning and management.

Implementing Policy PHS-I-32 Work with owners and operators of critical use facilities to ensure that they can provide alternate sources of electricity, water, and sewerage in the event that regular utilities are interrupted in a disaster.

Public utilities are lifeline services for Emergency Command Centers, police and fire departments, and hospitals. Keeping them open and operative is especially crucial in the 72 hours after a major disaster.

Implementing Policy C-I-3 Provide for greater street connectivity by:
• Incorporating in subdivision regulations requirements for a minimum number of access points to existing local or collector streets for each development;

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 127 • Encouraging roundabouts over signals, where feasible and appropriate; • Requiring the bicycle and pedestrian connections from cul-de-sacs to nearby public areas and main streets; and
• Requiring new residential communities on undeveloped land planned for urban uses to provide stubs for future connections to the edge of the property line. Where stubs exist on adjacent properties, new streets within the development should connect to these stubs.

Emergency Operations Plan
The city adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in 2004, pursuant California Government Code Section 8550- 8668, California Emergency Services Act, which requires all cities to prepare and maintain an emergency plan for natural and manmade emergencies. The EOP works in conjunction with the Tulare County Emergency Operations Plan and the State Emergency Plan. In addition, the city’s Fire Department includes specific procedures for emergency response to incidents involving hazardous materials and waste.

Porterville Municipal Airport
The Porterville Municipal Airport is owned by the City of Porterville and occupies 940 acres with one (1) runway, Runway 12-30, measuring 5,908 feet long and 150 feet wide. The Airport Layout Plan Narrative Report in 2006 proposed to extend Runway 12-30 to the northeast by 1,742 feet and relocated by 650 feet to the southeast for a total length of 7,000 feet. The Airport Layout Plan also proposed to acquire 206 acres of land and over 30 acres of avigation easements for this future extension. The applicable airport land use plan is the 2012 Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP) adopted by the Tulare County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on November 28, 2012.31F
16 The CALUP identifies Airport Influence Area (AIA), Safety Zones, Height Restriction Zones, Noise Restriction Zones, Aircraft Overflight Zones, and provides a Land Use Compatibility Matrix to establish compatible and prohibited land use categories within the AIA and Safety Zones. A portion of the Matrix is shown in Table 4-17.

Table 4-17 Tulare County Airport Land Use Compatibility (portion) Land Use Category
Safety
Zone 11
Safety
Zone 21
Safety
Zone 31
Safety
Zone 41
Safety
Zone 51
Safety
Zone 62
Remainder Areas
within AIA3
Residential
4 Single-Family P P P P P C 5 C
5 Multi-Family, Mobile Home Parks P P P P P P C
5 Group Homes, Nursing Homes P P P P P P C
5 Granny Flat (1,200 sf. or less) P P P P P P C
5 Caretaker Residence (1,200 sf. or
less) P C 5 C 5 C 5 C 5 C 5 C
5 Institutional, Public, and Quasi-Public
Schools and Hospitals P 6 P 6 P 6 P 6 P 6 C 6 C 6
Libraries, Day Care Centers, Social
Clubs/Lodges, Churches P P P P P P C
Parks, Playgrounds, Picnic Areas P C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 16 Tulare County Airport Land Use Commission. (2012). Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. Accessed on August 4, 2023, https://tularecounty.ca.gov/rma/rma-documents/planning-documents/tulare-county-comprehensiveairport-land-use-plan/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE– South of Tule River Master Plan | 128 Athletic FieldsP C
7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7
Cemeteries - People or PetsPCCCCCC
Public Utility Facilities (except
Electric Plants)
P C
8 C 8 C 8
PCC
Electric Power Plants (including
wind turbines and solar) and
overhead transmission lines

PPPPPCC
Correctional FacilitiesPPPPPCC
Communications
Broadcast StudiosPCCCPCC
Transmission Stations, Towers,
Antennas
PPPPPC
9 C
Commercial Recreational
Arcades, Bowling Alleys, Skating
Rinks, Dance and Pool Halls, Card
Rooms, Gaming Facilities, Gyms,
Health Spas, Indoor Theaters and
Auditoriums, Go-cart track, Dirt
track
PP C
7 C 7
P C
7 C
Outdoor Theaters, Amusement
Parks, Carnivals, Fairs

PCCCCCC
Golf Courses, Tennis CourtsPPPPPCC
Multi-Use Stadium/Motor
Speedway

PPPPP C
7 C
Swimming Pools, Water SlidesPP C
7 PPCC
Retail Commercial
Aircraft Fuel, Aircraft Sales, Aircraft
Repairs and Aircraft Flying Schools
PPPPC P 10C
Vehicles and Parts Sales, Building
Materials, Food and Beverage
Sales
P C
5 C 5 C 5
P C
5 C
Shopping CentersPPPPP C
5 C
BanksPPPPP C
5 C
Small Retail Commercial CenterPP C
5 C 5
P C
5 C
Gasoline Service StationsPPCCPCC
Restaurant and Food Take-Out,
General Retail Stores, Tasting
Rooms
PP C
5 C 5
P C
5 C
Convention and Conference
Centers
PP C
5 PP C
5 C
Fuel Dealers, Fuel StorageP C 11 C 11 C 11P C 11C
Service Commercial
Office Buildings, Public Buildings,
Research Laboratories
P C
5 C 5 C 5 C 5
CC
Appliance and Equipment Repair,
Car Wash

PCCCPCC
Personal Services, Health ClinicsP C
5 C 5 C 5
P C
5 C
RecyclingP C 8,1
1 C 8,11 C 8,11
PCC
Transient Lodgings
Hotels and Motels, Bed and
Breakfast
PP C
4 C 4 C 4 C 4
C

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 129 RV Parks P P C 4 C 4 C 4 C 4 C
Wholesale & Storage
Mini-Storage P P P P C C C
Ammonium Nitrates P P P P P P P
Warehouse, Wholesale and
Distributing P C 12 C C 12 C 13 C C
Landfills P P P P P P P
Petroleum and Chemical Products
– Bulk Storage P P C 11 C 11 C C C
Manufacturing & Processing
Indoor Processes P C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C
Industrial Manufacturing P C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C
Warehousing & Distribution P C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C 14 C Transportation
Vehicle Storage and Parking C 12 C C 12 C C C C
Taxi Stands, Bus Stations/Terminals P C 15 C 15 C 15 C 15 C C Truck Terminals P C C C C 13 C C
Land uses are identified as being “C” – compatible, or “P” – prohibited based upon the following interpretations:
• Compatible - Compatible land uses are designated by the symbol “C”. This designation means associated land use groups are at a level of intensity or density, or location, which does not present a significant risk to the safety of persons on the ground or to persons in aircraft over-flying the proposed use, nor is the land use type sensitive to anticipated aircraft noise or frequent aircraft over-flights.
• Prohibited - Prohibited land uses are designated by the symbol “P”. The associated land use groups are at a level of intensity or density, or location, which presents a significant risk to the safety of persons on the ground or to persons in aircraft over-flying the proposed use, or the land use groups are sensitive to anticipated aircraft noise or frequent aircraft over-flights.

The land use categories illustrated provide a representative sample of land uses found in Tulare County for the purpose of identifying any associated noise, safety, height, or overflight issues within the various zones of the Airport Influence Area.

Other land use types that exhibit functional characteristics similar to the uses listed are likely to receive a similar compatibility rating. When it is not clear how a particular land use type might be rated for compatibility the referring agency, landowner or developer should contact ALUC Staff.

1. Safety Zones 1 through 5 represent areas of greatest risk with respect to aircraft accidents. All uses that constitute a hazard to flight, including physical objects in the navigable airspace, activities that create a glare or visual interference to a pilot, or electronic interference with aircraft operations are specifically excluded from these zones regardless of whether they meet other qualifying criteria, unless such prohibition is precluded by applicable state statutes. Land use development that may cause the attraction of birds is also prohibited. In locations under portions of established instrument approach or departure routes, object heights may be restricted to less than that indicated by FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces. An FAA aeronautical study may be required. All new development within Safety Zones 1 through 6 must dedicate an avigation easement to the airport sponsor.

2. Safety Zone 6 includes considerable overflight activity and although safety concerns are diminished, aircraft noise and objects within the navigable airspace are of primary concern.

3. The Airport Influence Area is defined by the outer edge of the conical surface as described in FAR Part 77, plus aircraft noise areas outside the conical surface that exceed 60 dB CNEL. The Remainder areas include portions of the FAR Part 77 horizontal surface not included within the safety zones, together with the conical surface and any 60 dB CNEL noise zones that project beyond the conical surface.

4. As a general policy, new residential development is an undesirable land use within Safety Zones 1 to 5. It is the intent of the ALUC to prohibit further residential subdivision of land within these Safety Zones, or to allow changes to land use or zoning in a manner that would accommodate additional dwelling units. Dwelling units already approved in accordance with current General Plans or Zoning and property owners allowed development of a single-family house by right are not affected.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 130

5. In areas where aircraft noise is expected to exceed 60dB CNEL; inhabited residential structures must meet California Noise Standards and be designed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL or less. Non-residential structures such as offices, restaurants and retail stores must meet an interior noise level of 50 dB CNEL or less.

6. No local schools (K-12) or hospitals are permitted in Safety Zones 1 to 6. School locations must meet California Education Code standards.

7. Any activities located in Safety Zones 1 through 6 must meet nonresidential intensity standards – See Table 4-18Table 4-18 below.

8. No structures, congregations of equipment or vehicles, or public venues shall be located within 500 feet of runway centerline.

9. Subject to location and height limits.

10.Retail Commercial (Aircraft Fuel, Aircraft Sales, Aircraft Repairs and Aircraft Flying Schools) are a compatible use on airport property within Safety Zone 6.

11.For otherwise acceptable land uses, the limit for aboveground storage of hazardous materials is 2,000 gallons.

12.Allowed as a temporary use of Airport lands provided the activity does not attract birds or interfere with Airport operations.

13.A compatible use only when the activity is an integral part of an acceptable on-Airport use.

14.Allowed if dust, fumes, and other aspects of the process are carried out in a controlled environment.

15.Allowed only to the extent that such uses support the flow of passengers to and from the Airport.

Table 4-18 Maximum Allowed Densities
Current Setting
Safety
Zone 1
Safety
Zone 2
Safety
Zone 3
Safety
Zone 4
Safety
Zone 5
Safety
Zone 6
Remainder Areas
within AIA
Maximum Residential Densities (average number of dwelling units per gross acre) Rural 0 Note A Note A Note A Note A
No Limit
Note B
No Limit
Note B
Suburban 0
1 per
10-20 ac
1 per
2-5 ac
1 per
2-5 ac
1 per
1-2 ac
No Limit
Note B
No Limit
Note B
Urban 0 0 Note C Note C Note C No Limit
Note B
No Limit
Note B
Dense Urban 0 0 Note C Note C Note C No Limit
Note B
No Limit
Note B
Maximum Nonresidential Intensities (average number of people per gross acre) Rural
0 Note D 10-40 50-70 70-100 50-70 150-200 No Limit
Suburban
0 Note D
40-60 70-100 100-150 10-100 200-300 No Limit
Urban
0 Note D
60-80 100-150 150-200 100-150 No Limit
Note E
No Limit
Dense Urban
0 Note D
Note F Note F Note F Note F
No Limit
Note E
No Limit
Maximum Single Gross Acre Intensity (numbers of people) Rural 0
50-80
Note G
150-210
Note H
210-300
Note H
150-210
Note H
600-800
Note I No Limit
Suburban 0
80-120
Note G
210-300
Note H
300-450
Note H
210-300
Note H
800-1200
Note I No Limit
Urban 0
120-160
Note G
300-450
Note H
450-600
Note H
300-480
Note H
No Limit
Note E
No Limit
Dense Urban 0 Note F Note F Note F Note F
No Limit
Note E
No Limit
A Maintain current zoning if less than density criteria for suburban setting.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 131 B Noise and overflight should be considered. Affected jurisdictions may impose greater density restrictions through their general plan and/or zoning.

C Allow infill at up to the average density of surrounding residential area.

D Exceptions can be permitted for agricultural activities, roads and automobile parking provided that FAA criteria are satisfied.

E Large stadiums and similar uses should be prohibited.

F Allow infill at up to the average intensity of comparable surrounding uses.

G Based on 2x the Maximum Nonresidential Density.

H Based on 3x the Maximum Nonresidential Density.

I Based on 4x the Maximum Nonresidential Density.

The General Plan also established the following policy related to the ALUC.

Implementing Policy LU-I-13 Discourage residential development within the Airport Safety Zone. If residential development is approved in the County within the Airport Safety Zone, it must comply with Tulare County Airport Land Use Commission’s land-use compatibility standards and density restrictions.

4.9.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site resulting from Project implementation would result in various land uses, including residential, commercial, office, institutional, industrial, recreational uses, etc. Of these uses, industrial development and gas stations could include production or services that would require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Transportation of hazardous materials during operations are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Future development or businesses that would involve use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to hazardous materials programs administered by the Tulare County Environmental Health Division, including review for compliance with the Hazardous Waste Control Act, providing a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), and obtaining permits. In addition, the General Plan includes policies PHS-I-19 and PHSI-20 to ensure that hazardous facilities do not pose significant impacts to the environment. Compliance would ensure that operational-related impacts would be less than significant.

Future demolition and construction activities that includes temporary transport, storage, use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, solvents, etc.) would be regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control through the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and Hazardous Waste Control Regulations. Compliance would ensure that construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

For these reasons, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and a less than significant impact would occur. 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. As described under criterion a), the Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 132 foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, during the incidents involving hazardous materials and waste, the Fire Department would respond with specific procedures. Due to the Fire Department emergency response, a less than significant impact would occur. 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. There are no existing schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Buildout of the proposed Master Plan would result in increased population, including the increase of students. As such, the Master Plan anticipates the need to construct additional school facilities, including approximately 15.9 acres for a future elementary school within the Porterville Unified School District. This site is planned for in the City’s 2030 General Plan. At full build out, the future school site is anticipated to be surrounded by low and medium density residential, as well as professional office to the north; low density residential to the east; and industrial park and neighborhood commercial to the west. Future school acquisition and development projects funded under the State School Facilities Program are subject to specific requirements established under the California Education Code and California Code of Regulations, including addressing potential school hazards relating to soils, seismicity, hazards and hazardous materials, and flooding during the school site selection process. Compliance with these requirements will address hazardous conditions associated with the siting of new public schools within the Master Plan. In addition, the Master Plan includes policies to ensure that new school sites are not located within onequarter of an existing or proposed potentially hazardous site. Under compliance with the existing regulations and Master Plan policies, buildout of the Project would not expose hazardous, 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? No Impact. According to NPL, EnviroStor, and GeoTracker, the Project site does not include any hazardous material release sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public of the environment and no impact would occur. 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest public airport or public use airport is the Porterville Municipal Airport located approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project site. According to CALUP, the southwest corner of the Project site is located within the Safety Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone, and the whole Project site is within the Airport Influence Area. According to the Matrix shown in Table 4-17Table 4-17, multi-family residential, schools (K-12), hospitals, libraries, daycare, churches, etc., are prohibited within Zone 6. In accordance with California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b), prior to the adoption or amendment of general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or building regulation that affects lands within the AIA defined in the CALUP, the referring agency shall first refer the proposed action to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The ALUC will make a finding of whether the action is consistent with the CALUP. As such, the SoTu Master Plan would also be subject to review of the ALUC to ensure land use consistency with the CALUP.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 133 Regarding future development within the Project site, any changes to the land use map proposed by the SoTu Master Plan would be subject to review for compliance by the ALUC.

Since the SoTu Master Plan would be reviewed by the ALUC to ensure compliance with the CALUP, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project site and a less than significant impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is proposed at this time, buildout of the Project would result in the construction of public roadways within the Project site that connects to existing roadways. Implementation of the Project would increase the number of vehicle trips within the Project Site, which could lead to deterioration in the level of service (LOS) of existing roadways. However, as described in Section 4.17, the LOS would remain at an acceptable standard under the planned roadway improvements, project design, and mitigation measures. In addition, future development of the Project site would be reviewed and conditioned to compliance with applicable standards for on-site emergency access including turn radii and fire access, including the Porterville Fire Department requirement to provide a mandatory secondary vehicular access point between Newcomb Street and SR65. This mandatory access point would be required to support a fire apparatus and ensure that emergency vehicle access is provided for the entirety of the Project site. Future developments would also be required to comply with General Plan Policy C-I-3, which establishes that greater street connectivity be provided by incorporating subdivision regulations for a minimum number of access points, encouraging roundabouts, requiring bicycle and pedestrian to main streets, and providing stubs for future connections. For these reasons, it can be determined that Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not identified by Cal Fire to be in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The Project site is adjacent to the city’s urbanized area primarily surrounded by agricultural and residential uses. Future development of the site would result in the construction of structures and installation of infrastructure that would be reviewed and conditioned by the city and Porterville Fire Department for compliance with all applicable standards, specifications, and codes. In addition, any structure occupied by humans would be required to be constructed in adherence to the Wildland Urban Interface Codes and Standards of the CBC Chapter 7A. Compliance with such regulations would ensure that future development of the Project site meets standards to help prevent loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 134

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
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 a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site; X
ii. Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site:

X
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
X
iv. Impede or redirect flood
flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 135

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is outside of city limits of Porterville but within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and currently city municipal services infrastructure is available in the area for connection through the annexation process. This service area is classified as having a semi-arid Mediterranean climate which results in moderate rainfall, cold winters, and warm summers17. The city’s water and stormwater services are described as follows.

Water
The City of Porterville’s water system is municipally owned. The Porterville Public Works Department maintains and operates the City’s water system. The City’s water system consists of about 276 miles of distribution pipeline ranging from four-inches to 16-inches in diameter, 36 active municipal wells, and three hillside reservoirs with a total of 6,300,000 gallons of capacity. The City has purchased a site for an additional three million gallon reservoir.

The City has approximately has a service 11,904 acres.
18 Porterville meets its demand for domestic water entirely from groundwater sources, which is recharged from the Tule Basin Aquifer, which gets water from the Tule River. Rainfall also contributes to groundwater recharge at an annual average rainfall of 11.63 inches. The City does not receive raw or potable water, either by import or purchase, to supply their municipal distribution system. Although the City doesn’t purchase water to service their system, the City has acquired water rights for approximately 900-acre feet annually from the Pioneer Ditch Company and Porter Slough Ditch Company. 19
Porterville’s 2030 General Plan establishes a goal of reducing groundwater pumping to match the aquifer safe yield.

Additionally, the General Plan aims to reduce per capita demand by ten percent. The current per capita demand per day figure of 250 gallons was established in the 2001 Water System Master Plan and aims to be reduced to 225 gallons per capita per day. The General Plan includes the following goals and policies in its Open Space and Conservation Element and Public Utilities Element to promote water quality and conservation, as listed below.

Guiding Policy OSC-G-8: Ensure adequate water quality and supply for the entire Porterville community.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-37: Establish watershed protection standards and review procedures in the Zoning Ordinance to protect groundwater resources.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-40: Support the identification of degraded surface water and groundwater resources and promote restoration where appropriate.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-45: 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.

Guiding Policy PU-G-1: Ensure an adequate supply of fresh water to serve existing and future needs of the City. 17 City of Porterville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2022. 2020 Urban Water Management Plant (revize.com).

Accessed January 17, 2024.
18 City of Porterville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2022. 2020 Urban Water Management Plant (revize.com).

Accessed January 17, 2024.
19 INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 136 Guiding Policy PU-G-2: Promote the conservation of water within Porterville.

Implementation Policy PU-I-3: Periodically review and update development impact fees, water connection charges, and monthly service charges to ensure that adequate funds are collected to operate and maintain existing facilities and to construct new facilities.

Implementation Policy PU-I-4: Support efforts to expand surface water supply and storage that benefits the City.

Implementation Policy PU-I-5: Require that necessary water supply infrastructure and storage facilities are in place coincident with new development, and approve development plans only when a dependable and adequate water supply to serve the development is assured.

Implementation Policy PU-I-7: Continue to require water meters in all new development.

Stormwater
Within the City of Porterville, storm water runoff drainage is provided by natural watercourses, such as streams and rivers, reservoirs, ditches, and discharge locations. The City’s Public Works Department manages drainage facilities on city-owned property such as public right-of-way, public easements, city-owned property. Drainage on private property or within privately held easements are typically managed by the underlying property owner. The stormwater collection system in the City is separated from its sanitary sewer collection system. The City’s stormwater system consists of a system of natural water channels, drains, and ponding basins located throughout the City.

The City owns approximately 25 stormwater basins that provide groundwater recharge and are currently sized to only accept floodwater. The City’s storm water system operates by conveying captured runoff to recharge basins or directly to flood channels throughout the City. However, it should be noted that stormwater has minimal benefit to the City’s water supply and as a result is not reused for potable water supply20.

4.10.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would require grading, excavation, and loading activities associate with construction to facilitate future residential and commercial development. If a future development on the Project site is greater than one (1) acre in size, the developer would be required to prepare a SWPPP (Section 4.7) in compliance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (i.e., General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ).

The SWPPP estimates the sediment risk associated with construction activities and includes best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMPs specific to erosion control cover erosion, sediment, tracking, and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the Project to result in substantial 20 City of Porterville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2022. 2020 Urban Water Management Plant (revize.com).

Accessed January 17, 2024

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 137 soil erosion or loss of topsoil. These provisions minimize the potential for future development of the Project site to violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Further, runoff resulting from future development would be managed in compliance with approved grading and drainage plans in addition to the City of Porterville’s Storm Water Management Program. Thus, compliance with regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans, and Storm Water Management Program would reduce potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge to less than significant levels.
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 Imppact. The City’s long-term water resource planning for existing and future demand is addressed in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).21 The City’s sole source of water supply is the underlying groundwater basin, Tule Basin Aquifer, which gets water from the Tule River. This groundwater is extracted through the City’s existing 36 wells throughout the community which distribute water to meet the current demands of the City. As of 2020, the City had 17,093 water connections and 98.5%, or 16,814, were metered connections.

Existing and future population projections as well as current and projected water use are shown in Table 4-19. As shown, the City anticipates a population of 87,901 to be supported by 5,731 million gallons per year.

Table 4-19 City of Porterville – Current and Projected Population and Total Water Use Use Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Served 74,907 87,901 99,452 112,521 127,307
Total Water Use 3,647 5,731 6,497 7,337 8,322
Source: City of Porterville, 2020 UWMP, Table 3.2 Retail Population – Current and Projected; Table 4.3 – Total Gross Water Use (Potable and Non-Potable)
It is important to note that although the growth projections are based on a 2.5% growth however, the City has not grown as quickly as projected. According to the U.S. Department of Finance, the City of Porterville has an estimated population of 62,588 in 2023, with a total of 19,212 housing units and an average household size of 3.32.22 This figure is significantly less than the projected population identified by the City’s UDWM. This would indicate that even with the increase in population and density anticipated by the Project at full buildout, it would not increase the water demand beyond the projections considered in the UWMP.

As population and development within the city increases, the UWMP indicates that additional wells and storage tanks will be added to the water system to meet the growing demand. These increases are accounted for in the UWMP projections, which are based on the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Simplified California Urban Water Service Area Population Methodology. However, the DWR population estimates projected atypical persons per connection at 4.98 persons per each water connection. The reflect the historical population growth in 21 City of Porterville 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2022. 2020 Urban Water Management Plant (revize.com).

Accessed January 17, 2024
22 U.S. Department of Finance (2023). E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Accessed on January 16, 2024, https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-thestate-2020-2023/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 138 the City of 2.2% annual growth, the persons per connection number was modified to 4.39 which was determined to be an acceptable modification based on DWR’s population tool guidelines.

Overall, based on the information collected from the UWMP and the City of Porterville 2030 General Plan, the proposed Project would not generate significantly greater water demand than would otherwise occur with a higher intensity land use. As a result, it can be presumed that the existing and planned water distribution system and supplies should be adequate to serve the Project, and the Project would thereby not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. In addition, adherence to connection requirements and recommendations pursuant to the City’s water supply planning efforts (i.e., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact the City’s water provision. Lastly, compliance with approved grading and drainage plans would ensure impacts to groundwater recharge are less than significant. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur.
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? Less than Significant Impact. Erosion is a natural process in which soil is moved from place to place by wind or from flowing water. The effects of erosion within the Project site can be accelerated by ground-disturbing activities associated with development. Siltation is the settling of sediment to the bed of a stream or lake which increases the turbidity of water. Turbid water can have harmful effects to aquatic life by clogging fish gills, reducing spawning habitat, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth.

Soil erosion and loss of topsoil can be caused by natural factors, such as wind and flowing water, and human activity.

Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site would require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short-term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Soil disturbance during construction is largely caused by the use of water. Excessive soil erosion could cause damage to existing structures and roadways.

The likelihood of erosion occurring during construction would be reduced through site grading and surfacing, which would be subject to review and approval by the City for compliance with applicable standards. The likelihood of erosion would be further reduced through compliance with regulations including the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans, and MS4 Permit as described under criterion a). As discussed in Section

4.7, all new construction requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which would reduce the likelihood of soil erosion and its impacts. With these provisions in place, the impact to soil and topsoil by the Project would be considered less than significant. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site resulting from implementation of the Project would be subject to the entitlement review and approval process through the City of Porterville. Through the entitlement review and approval process, future development would be reviewed and conditioned for compliance with the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans,

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 139 and MS4 Permit as described under criteria a) and c)-i. Further, if onsite retention facilities are required to manage surface runoff so as not result in flooding on- or off-site, then the size and capacity of such facilities would be determined through the site design, review, and conditioning of future development. Therefore, the entitlement review and approval process conducted by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not result in flooding on- or off-site. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
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? Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site resulting from implementation of the Project would be subject to the entitlement review and approval process through the City of Porterville. Through the entitlement review and approval process, future development would be reviewed and conditioned for compliance with the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans, and MS4 Permit as described under criteria a) and c)-ii. Further, if onsite retention facilities are required to manage surface runoff so as not result in exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the entitlement review and approval process conducted by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not exceed capacity or contribute to additional sources of polluted runoff. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located directly adjacent to the Tule River which is designated by FEMA as a regulatory floodway. However, the lands immediately adjacent to the Tule River within the floodway are designated as Open Space land use, thus would not be subject to future urban development since this land use largely prohibits the type of development that could occur in this land use designation. In the event the limited development did occur in the open space land use, it may require the approval from CDFW prior to any entitlement approval. The remainder of the Project site is located in a 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard or 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard. Given the existing stormwater drainage systems surrounding the site, future development of the site is not expected to substantially change the topography of the site and therefore would not be expected to impede or redirect flood flows.

Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project site resulting from implementation of the Project would be subject to the entitlement review and approval process through the City of Porterville.

Through the entitlement review and approval process, future development would be reviewed and conditioned for compliance with the General Construction Permit, BMPs, approved grading and drainage plans, and MS4 Permit as described under criteria a) and c)-ii. Further, if onsite retention facilities are required to manage surface runoff so as not to impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the entitlement review and approval process conducted by the City would ensure that surface runoff is controlled in a manner which would not impede or redirect flood flows. For this reason, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is designated as Zone X on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06107C1637E and 06107C1637E dated June 16, 2009 (see Figure 4-9). Although the 2022-2023 rainfall

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 140 year resulted in record breaking annual rainfall that caused the Tule River to flood, Zone X is a flood hazard area with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard and one (1) precent annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one (1) square mile. Furthermore, the Project site is not in a tsunami or seiche zone (i.e., standing waves on rivers, reservoirs, ponds, and lakes), therefore the risk of inundation is unlikely. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 141 Figure 4-9 Flood Zone Map

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 142 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 entirely within the Tule Subbasin. The Tule Subbasin has been identified by the California Department of Water Resources as a high-priority groundwater basin, which is subject to the provisions of the Sustainable Groundwaters Management Act (SGMA) and required to be managed through a groundwater sustainability plan. The City of Porterville is a member agency of the Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (ETGSA), which has an adopted Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Plan (ETGSP). 23 Generally, the GSPs outline how groundwater sustainability will be achieved in 20 years and then maintained for an additional 30 years.

The ETGSP has existing monitoring programs for groundwater level, reductions in groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, groundwater quality, land subsidence, and interconnected surface water carried out by the Tule Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans which municipal and community water purveyors are required to comply with in order to fulfill groundwater quality regulatory requirements. Compliance with the existing GSPs would ensure the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater resources. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
23 Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainability Agency (2023). Eastern Tule Groundwater Sustainable Plan 2022 Amended GSP.

Accessed on February 15, 2024, https://easterntulegsa.com/gsp/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 143

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
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?
X

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located outside of Porterville’s city limits and within Porterville’s General Plan Planning Area, or the city’s Urban Area Boundary (UAB). The eastern half of the site is within the city’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB) while the western half of the site is outside of the UDB. The site is currently planned for primarily Low Density Residential with Retail Centers, Elementary School, and Parks and Recreation on the eastern portion. The Project proposes a Master Plan, including a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Pre-zone/Rezone (RZ) to change the land use designation and zoning to a mix of 10 different land uses. The Project does not include annexation into the city.

No physical development is proposed.

4.11.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact. Typically, physical division of an established community would occur if a project introduced new incompatible uses inconsistent with the planned or existing land uses or created a physical barrier that impeded access within the community. Typical examples of physical barriers include the introduction of new, intersecting roadways, roadway closures, and construction of new major utility infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines, storm channels, etc.). The surrounding land uses, proposed roadways, and proposed utility infrastructure is described below.

Surrounding Land Uses: Currently, the site is occupied primarily by agricultural and rural residential uses. The Project, the adoption of the SoTu Master Plan, is being initiated by the City of Porterville to guide future development in the area. Although there is no physical development proposed with the SoTu Master Plan, the Project’s goal is to provide the necessary framework to guide development in this area as it transitions from agricultural land to a vibrant, distinct, and multi-modal district of mixed densities and uses that is attractive to residential and visitors to live, work, explore, and shop. Implementation of the Project would thereby facilitate future development in line with the envisioned transformation of the Project site. The Project proposes to utilize existing development standards and zoning regulations, including height, parking, building setbacks, right-of-way dedications, and open space, etc. As such, the Project would be consistent and therefore compatible with the existing surrounding uses of the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would be consistent with existing planned land uses of the surrounding area and a less than significant impact would occur.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 144 Circulation System: The Project is being proposed in compliance with the Porterville 2030 General Plan Circulation Diagram with the addition of two (2) new collector streets within Project site that would result in a physical barrier.

Proposed A Street is configured to be similar to the General Plan’s existing 2030 Circulation Network. Proposed B Street is on the west of the site, with access to Westwood Street and Proposed A Street. While no development is proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development of the Project site with a mix of urbanized uses. In addition to the collector streets, future development of the Project is expected to construct local roadways to connect to the collector streets. Additionally, the Master Plan considers and includes all planned improvements in or adjacent to the Project site outlined in the Porterville 2030 General Plan Circulation Element, which include widening SR 65 to a 4-lane expressway/freeway from city limits to SR 190, widening Westwood Street to a 4-lane arterial from Olive Avenue to SR 190, interchange improvements at the SR 190 and Westwood Street intersection, and a grade separation at SR 190 and Newcomb Street. Although implementation of the Project may require road closures associated with construction, these closures would be temporary and obtain the necessary encroachment permits from the City and Caltrans and therefore would result in a less than significant impact.

Utility Infrastructure: Future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to connect to the city’s water, sewer, stormwater, and wastewater services at the time of annexation and development with urbanized uses in accordance with the proposed SoTu Master Plan. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications would be provided by private companies. Utility systems are described and analyzed in Section 4.10 and Section

4.15. The Project is being proposed in compliance with existing land use, circulation and utility policies. As such, the Project is compatible with surrounding uses and existing development and would not result in the division of an established community. An established community refers to a group of people with an accepted commonality such as norms, religion, values, customs, or identity that is situated within a geographic area. The existing character of the site does not include an established community since the site is primarily agricultural operations with only several single-family residences on the south of the site along SR 190. As a result, the Project would facilitate development in a currently underutilized and undeveloped portion of the City’s planning area. Therefore, the Project would not result in the physical separation of the established community. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
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? Less than Significant Impact. Generally, policy conflicts are environmental impacts when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this document under specific topical sections, such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project includes the adoption of a Master Plan, including a General Plan Amendment and Pre-zone/Rezone to provide guidance for the development of a mix of urbanized uses in the future. Although no development is proposed, future development of the Project would result in a mix of urbanized uses in the City of Porterville. During the entitlement process of the SoTu Master Plan, the Project is reviewed and conditioned to be generally compliant with General Plan land use policies. A discussion of land use land use policies that are applicable to the Project are included in Table 4-20. As discussed below, the Project is generally consistent with the General Plan.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 145 Table 4-20 General Plan Policy and Project Consistency
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU-G-1. Promote a sustainable, balanced
land use pattern that responds to existing needs
and future needs of the City.

Consistent. The Project proposes a mix of uses in an
underutilized and undeveloped portion of the City’s
planning area to meeting current and future needs of the City.

LU-G-7. Guide new development into compact
neighborhoods with a defined, mixed-use center
including public open space, a school or other
community facilities, and neighborhood
commercial.

Consistent. The Project includes a mix of residential
densities, as well as non-residential uses such as
commercial, office, and industrial. There is also a school site planned within the Project site to serve the area.

Further, the Project utilizes the Tule River to create a trail feature that connects the area and provides protected
open space for the proposed compact neighborhoods.

LU-G-9. Provide sufficient land with appropriate
parcel sizes to support a full range of housing types
and prices.

Consistent. The Project proposes a variety of residential densities that range six maximum dwelling units an acre to 24 maximum units an acre to support a full range of types of housing provided as well as price points and levels of affordability.

LU-G-19. Provide sufficient land for parks and open
space to meet future demand.

Consistent. The Project proposes approximately 110 acres of land for parks and recreation. Some of this land is in the floodplain of the Tule River and not developable and some of it is intended for future trails. Additional ‘pocket parks’ or neighborhood parks may also be included on a projectby-project basis to ensure adequate open space is provided.

C-G-1. Promote safe and efficient vehicular
circulation.

Consistent. The proposed Circulation Plan for the Project has been routed to Caltrans, Tulare County, and the City of Porterville to ensure that vehicular circulation is safe and efficient and does not conflict with any existing safety standards.

C-G-9. Promote the use of bicycles to alleviate
vehicle traffic and improve public health.

Consistent. The Project proposes an integrated trail
system that not only promotes safe and efficient vehicular traffic, but also encourages and protects alternative
modes of transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian
transportation.

C-G-10. Promote pedestrian activity.

The SoTu Master Plan also includes several policies that future development in the area is required to comply with, including those established for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Through the entitlement process, future development would be reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations, including the Porterville 2030 General Plan and the SoTu Master Plan, inclusive of those adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Overall, the entitlement process would ensure that the Project complies with the General Plan, PMC, and any other applicable policies and regulations. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 146

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
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?
X

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
For the purposes of CEQA, mineral resources are land areas or deposits deemed significant by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). Mineral resources include oil, natural gas, and metallic and nonmetallic deposits, including aggregate resources.

Mineral Resources
The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies and designates areas within California that contain or potentially contain significant mineral resources. Lands are classified into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify known or inferred significant mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, CGS’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal, the Mineral Land Classification Map in 1997 identified areas along the Tule River and the historical emergent wetland and forested shrub wetland that has been under agricultural production since 2007 (APN 259-040-044) is in the MRZ-3a zone.
24 The MRZ-3a is considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of mineral deposits due to surface geologic evidence that are known to contain mineral resources elsewhere, but has not been sampled at the current location. Figure 4-10 shows the Mineral Land Classification Map with the Project site identified.

According to the Porterville 2030 General Plan, the most economically significant mineral resources in Tulare County are sand, gravel, and crushed stone. These sources are usually alluvial deposits found in riverbeds and floodplains, and hard rock quarries. There are currently three (3) active construction grade sand and gravel mining sites in the city’s Planning Area along the Tule River (not within the Project site). The General Plan established the following policies to protect mineral resources in the city’s Planning Area.

Guiding Policy OSC-G-6 Protect significant mineral resources.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-24 Require all mining and sand extraction operations to mitigate completely environmental impacts, including operations affecting water quality, habitat preservation, aesthetics and 24 California Department of Conservation. (1997). Mineral Lands Classification. Accessed on August 10, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 147 bridge undermining, and to submit reclamation and ultimate use plans for City approval prior to initiating operations.

Implementation Policy OSC-I-25 Work with Tulare County to ensure that reclamation and ultimate use plans for mining operations land are consistent with the General Plan.

Oil/Gas Wells
The Geologic Energy Management Division’s (CalGEM) has an online mapping application, Well Finder, that presents California’s oil and gas industry information, including the location of oil/gas wells, geothermal wells, gas/oil facilities (i.e., tank, vessel, sump), underground gas storage, as well as the boundaries of CalGEM-recognized oil/gas fields. According to Well Finder, the Project site is not within a CalGEM-recognized oil/gas field. There is one (1) existing dry hole well (API 0410720146) on APN 259-270-004 that is currently plugged. 25 25 California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division. Well Finder. Accessed on August 10, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 148 Figure 4-10 Mineral Lands Classification Map

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 149

4.12.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Portions of the Project site is classified as MRZ-3a, which may contain significant aggregate deposit. Implementation of the proposed Porterville 2030 General Plan as well as the SoTu Master Plan would result in the development of urbanized uses within the Project site, which are mostly adjacent to the Tule River. However, the lands immediately adjacent to the Tule River within the floodplain are designated as Open Space land use, thus would not be subject to future urban development since this land use largely prohibits the type of development that could occur in this land use designation. In the event the limited development did occur in the open space land use, it may require the approval from Department of Conservation prior to any entitlement approval. The Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure MIN-1 to mitigate the potential loss of availability of a known mineral resource.

In addition, development of the Project would not impede existing mining activities on the three (3) active mines since these mines are not located in or adjacent to the project site, nor would it result in the loss of availability of significant mineral resources. Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), Porterville is responsible for designating Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource Areas and identifying mineral resources to be conserved. The Project would not impede the implementation of the SMARA and the city’s policies for the conservation of mineral resources. As a result, the Project would not 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. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

Mitigation Measure MIN-1: If development is proposed within the Project site designated as MRZ-3a, a soils reports and investigation shall be prepared prior to the approval of building permits to ensure that availability of valuable aggregate deposit will not decrease. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As described above, portions of the Project site are in the MRZ-3a area, which may contain significant aggregate deposits. The site does not currently contain active mining activities. As a result, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. The site is not delineated in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, thus it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Mineral Resources related mitigation measures as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 150

4.13 NOISE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
X
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?
X

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
An Acoustical Analysis of the Project was conducted on August 2, 2023, by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA). The full report is provided in Appendix E. A summary of the Acoustical Analysis is provided below.

City of Porterville 2030 General Plan
The City of Porterville Noise Element of the General Plan (adopted 2008) sets noise compatibility standards for transportation noise sources in terms of the Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn). The Ldn is the time‐weighted average noise level for a 24‐hour day with a penalty of 10 dB added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.).

The Noise Element establishes a land use compatibility criterion of 60 dB Ldn for exterior noise levels in outdoor activity areas of residential developments. Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single‐family residences and outdoor common use areas as well as individual patios or decks of multi‐family developments. The intent of the exterior noise level requirement is to provide an acceptable noise environment for outdoor activities and recreation.

The City of Porterville 2030 General Plan Noise Element provides land use compatibility guidelines for community noise exposure levels. Table 4-21 below (Table 9‐1 in the General Plan Nosie Element) summarizes these land use compatibility guidelines for various noise exposure levels within the community. An exterior noise level up to 60 dB Ldn is considered “Normally Acceptable” and an exterior noise level between 60 dB Ldn and 70 dB Ldn is considered

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 151 “Conditionally Acceptable” for residential land uses within the City of Porterville. Exterior noise levels above 70 dB Ldn are generally considered unacceptable for residential land uses.

Table 4-21 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments City of Porterville Municipal Code
Section 18‐90.4 (Exterior Noise Standards) of the City of Porterville Municipal Code establishes hourly acoustical performance standards for non‐transportation noise sources. The standards, provided in Table 4-22, are made more restrictive during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 152 Table 4-22 Non-transportation Noise Level Standards, dBA Daytime (7 am – 10 pm) Nighttime (10 pm – 7 am)
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
50 70 45 65
Source: City of Porterville Municipal Code
The municipal code states that “In the event the measured ambient noise level without the alleged offensive source in operation exceeds the applicable noise level standard in either category above, the applicable standard or standards shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.” Additionally, the municipal code states that “Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by five (5) dB for pure tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises.” Construction Noise and Vibration
Section 18‐90.6 (Noise Source Exemptions) provides the following stipulations that may be applicable to the project.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this article:
• Activities conducted in public parks, public playgrounds and public or private school grounds, including, but not limited to, school athletic and school entertainment events, except as otherwise noted in this article • Noise sources associated with construction, whether private or public, within five hundred feet (500') of the uses mentioned in subsection 18‐90.4 of this article, provided such activities do not take place before six o'clock (6:00) A.M. or after nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. or after five o'clock (5:00) P.M. on Saturday or Sunday.

There are no state or federal standards that specifically address construction vibration. Some guidance is provided by the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. The Manual provides guidance for determining annoyance potential criteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table 4-23 and Table 4-24, and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec).

Table 4-23 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: Caltrans
Table 4-24 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile, historic buildings, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 153 Source: Caltrans
Background Noise Level Measurements
Existing noise levels in the project vicinity are dominated by traffic noise along local roadways and noise associated with various agricultural land uses near and within the Project site, as well as occasional aircraft overflights.

Measurements of existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity were conducted on June 27, 2023 and June 28, 2023.

Long-Term Noise Measurement
Long‐term (24‐hour) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at three (3) locations. Ambient noise levels were measured for a period of 24 continuous hours at each of the three (3) locations. All three sites were exposed to noise associated with vehicle traffic on roadways as well as periodic agricultural activities. The locations and noise measurement results of the three (3) sites are:
• Site LT‐1 is located within the western portion of the project site, along S. Westwood Street. Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) changed from a low of 61.0 dB between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. to a high of 71.9 dBA between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels ranged from 80.1 to 96.1 dBA. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 37.2 to 53.3 dBA. 26 The measured Ldn value at site LT‐1 was 74.3 dB Ldn. • Site LT‐2 is located within the southern portion of the project site, along SR 190 (W. Poplar Avenue).

Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) ranged from a low of 63.6 dB between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. to a high of 74.1 dBA between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. as well as between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels ranged from 81.6 to 94.9 dBA. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 40.2 to 59.0 dBA. The measured Ldn value was 76.6 dB Ldn.
• Site LT‐3 is located within the eastern portion project site, along SR 65. Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) ranged from a low of 60.2 dB between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. to a high of 69.1 dBA between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels ranged from 73.2 to 93.2 dBA.

Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 41.7 to 61.2 dBA. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐was 72.6 dB Ldn.

Short-Term Noise Measurement
Short‐term noise measurements were conducted for 15‐minute periods at each of the six (6) sites. Table 4-25 summarizes short‐term noise measurement results. The noise measurement data included energy average (Leq) maximum (Lmax) as well as five (5) individual statistical parameters. Observations were made of the dominant noise sources affecting the measurements. The statistical parameters describe the percent of time a noise level was exceeded during the measurement period. For instance, the L90 describes the noise level exceeded 90 percent of 26 The L90 is a statistical descriptor that defines the noise level exceeded 90% of the time during each hour of the sample period. The L90 is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sources.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 154 the time during the measurement period and is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sources.

Table 4-25 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data Site Time
A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA
Sources
Leq Lmax Lz Lg L25 L50 L90
ST-1 8:30 am 55.2 72.0 67.4 55.6 45.7 42.7 39.2 TR, C
ST-1 4:15 pm 48.9 68.4 59.2 50.5 44.3 41.0 39.6 TR, V
ST-2 8:50 am 41.5 52.9 46.8 44.4 42.0 40.1 38.2 TR, B, D, V ST-2 4:35 pm 49.2 71.2 53.8 50.7 44.1 41.1 39.2 TR, V
ST-3 9:10 pm 43.3 51.1 46.6 45.4 44.0 43.0 40.4 TR, L
ST-3 5:00 pm 45.5 60.8 50.0 47.4 45.5 43.8 41.6 TR, AC
ST-4 9:30 am 48.3 57.5 54.2 52.4 49.1 46.1 42.6 TR, B, D ST-4 5:20 pm 52.9 70.3 56.6 53.8 50.4 47.7 43.1 TR, V
ST-5 9:55 am 64.2 74.2 72.5 69.7 65.6 61.1 52.1 TR, AG
ST-5 6:10 pm 65.0 76.1 73.0 68.8 65.5 62.3 53.7 TR
ST-6 10:20 am 55.8 59.5 58.7 57.8 56.8 55.6 52.5 TR, L, C ST-6 5:45 pm 56.1 62.2 59.0 58.1 57.3 55.5 53.1 TR, AC
TR: Traffic AC: Aircraft AG: Agricultural Activities C: Construction Activities B: Birds D: Barking Dogs V: Voices L: Landscaping Activities
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.

Methodology
WJVA utilized the FHWA Traffic Noise Model to quantify expected project‐related increases in traffic noise exposure along roadways in the project vicinity. The FHWA Model is a standard analytical method used by state and local agencies for roadway traffic noise prediction. The model is based upon reference energy emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks (2 axles) and heavy trucks (3 or more axles), with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions and is generally considered to be accurate within ±1.5 dB. To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution of traffic for a typical day and adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume.

Traffic volumes for the analyzed receptor locations were provided by the project traffic engineer, JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Truck percentages for SR 190 were provided by Caltrans. Truck percentages (for non‐SR 190 traffic) and the day/night distribution of traffic were estimated by WJVA, based upon previous studies conducted in the project vicinity since project‐specific data were not available from government sources.

Traffic noise exposure levels for Existing, Existing Plus Project, 2046 Cumulative No Project and 2046 Cumulative Plus Project traffic scenarios were calculated based upon the FHWA Model and the above‐described model inputs and assumptions. Project‐related significant impacts would occur if an increase in traffic noise associated with the project would result in noise levels exceeding the City’s applicable noise level standards at the location(s) of sensitive receptors. For the purpose of this analysis a significant impact was also assumed to occur if traffic noise levels were to increase by 3 dB at sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s applicable noise level standards (without the project), as 3 dB generally represents the threshold of perception in change for the human ear.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 155 The City’s exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 60 dB Ldn. Traffic noise was modeled at 12 receptor locations. The twelve modeled receptors are located at roadway setback distances representative of the sensitive receptors (residences) along each analyzed roadway segment. See Figure 4-11 for receptor locations.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 156 Figure 4-11 Modeled Traffic Noise Receptor Locations

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 157

4.13.2 Impact Assessment
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 in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. While no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development that would have noise generating activities.

Traffic Noise Exposure to Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
Existing Conditions: Table 4-26 provides existing traffic noise exposure levels at the 12 analyzed representative receptor locations and provides what the Project contribution would be to existing traffic conditions.

Table 4-26 Project Contribution to Future Traffic Noise, dB, Ldn – Existing Traffic Conditions Modeled Receptor
Existing Without Project
Contribution
Existing Plus Project Project Contribution Significant Impact? R-1 62 64 +2 No
R-2 60 60 0 No
R-3 63 65 +2 No
R-4 63 65 +2 No
R-5 58 59 +1 No
R-6 59 61 +2 Yes
R-7 60 65 +5 Yes
R-8 50 50 0 No
R-9 63 65 +2 No
R-10 63 64 +1 No
R-11 64 66 +2 No
R-12 60 60 0 No
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc., JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. 2046 Cumulative Conditions: Table 4-27 provides 2046 Cumulative traffic noise exposure levels at the twelve analyzed representative receptor locations and provides what the project contribution would be to 2046 Cumulative traffic conditions.

Table 4-27 Project Contribution to Future Traffic Noise, dB, Ldn – 2046 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Modeled Receptor
2040 Conditions Without
Project Contribution
2046 Conditions
Plus Project
Project Contribution Significant Impact?
R-1 63 65 +2 No
R-2 60 60 0 No
R-3 64 66 +2 No
R-4 64 65 +1 No
R-5 58 59 +1 No
R-6 59 61 +2 Yes
R-7 61 65 +4 Yes
R-8 50 50 0 No
R-9 63 65 +2 No
R-10 63 64 +1 No
R-11 64 66 +2 No
R-12 60 60 0 No
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc., JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 158 Reference to Table 4-26 and Table 4-27 indicate that the Project’s contribution could result in significant impacts at sensitive receptor (residential) locations along Newcomb Street, both north and south of Olive Avenue. However, the noise levels provided in Table 4-26 and Table 4-27 do not consider any localized acoustic shielding provided by existing houses or sound walls. The exterior noise level compatibility standards are applied to outdoor activity areas.

Outdoor activity areas are generally considered backyards of single‐family residential land uses and outdoor common use areas (pools, BBQ/Picnic areas, playgrounds, etc.) as well as individual patios and balconies of multi‐ family residential land uses.

Most of the existing residential land uses located along Newcomb Street either front the roadway (in which case the homes provide acoustic shielding to the backyard areas) or they have existing 6‐foot sound walls. In these situations, exterior noise levels would not be expected to exceed 60 dB Ldn, and the project would not result in a noise impact to these homes.

Future development of the Project site could result in a noise impact at a handful of existing residential land uses along Newcomb Street. This would only be the case at residential land uses along Newcomb Street that either 1) do not have existing sound walls, or 2) do not have homes that face the roadway. An example of one such home would be the residence indicated as R‐7 on Figure 4-11, located on the corner of Newcomb Street and Clare Avenue.

Possibilities for exterior noise mitigation at existing noise‐sensitive uses include the construction of effective sound walls. Due to the many complications of working with individual landowners to implement such measures, it may not be feasible to achieve successful noise mitigation for all existing noise‐sensitive uses that could be impacted by the project. For that reason, this impact could remain significant and unavoidable. However, the City of Porterville considers exterior noise levels up to 70 dB Ldn to be conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. This is generally considered when a good faith effort to reduce exterior noise levels to 60 dB Ldn cannot be feasibly achieved, and the interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn is maintained. Therefore, noise levels would be at or below conditionally acceptable levels and would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation.

Traffic Noise Exposure to Proposed On-Site Sensitive Receptors The City of Porterville 2030 General Plan Noise Element establishes an exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn for outdoor activity areas of residential uses. An exterior noise level up to 60 dB Ldn is considered “Normally Acceptable” and an exterior noise level up to 70 dB Ldn is considered “Conditionally Acceptable” for residential land uses.

Outdoor activity areas generally include backyards of single‐family residences and individual patios or decks and common outdoor activity areas of multi‐family developments. The noise element also requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dB Ldn.

The proposed project would include new sensitive receptors (residential land uses) that could be impacted by traffic noise exposure adjacent to or near arterial roadways and highways. Such roadways include Westwood Street, SR 190 (W. Poplar Avenue), Newcomb Street and SR 65. WJVA used the above‐described FHWA traffic noise model and traffic noise modeling assumptions to determine the distances from the center of the roadways to the 60 dB Ldn and 70 dB Ldn noise exposure contours. Table 4-28 provides the distances from the center of each roadway to these noise exposure contours. Table 4-28 provides the contour distances for 2046 Cumulative conditions as they represent a worst‐case assessment of noise exposure at proposed sensitive receptor locations. Distances to the SR 65 contours are based upon existing traffic volumes as 2046 Cumulative volumes were not available at the time this analysis was prepared.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 159 Table 4-28 Distances to Traffic Noise Contours – 2046 Conditions Roadway Segment (Description)
Distance (Feet) From Roadway
Centerline to Contour
60 dB Ldn 70 dB Ldn
Westwood Street 157 34
SR 190 (Poplar Avenue) 409 88
Newcomb Street 137 23
SR 65 * 674 145
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc., JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. * based upon existing traffic volumes as future projected volumes were not available It should be noted, contour distances provided in Table 4-28 are based upon unattenuated traffic noise levels, and do not consider any localized acoustical shielding that may be provided by elevational/toparchic changes between the receptor and the roadway, existing buildings, or walls. Therefore, these setback distances should be considered a worst‐case assessment of traffic noise impacting the project site. Once site specific plans and details are developed, project site noise exposure may be re‐evaluated based upon site‐specific conditions.

A noise impact could occur if new proposed sensitive receptors (residential land uses) are located within the cumulative 60dB Ldn traffic noise contours. Table 4-28 provides the setback distances from the centerline of each of the four (4) site‐adjacent arterial roadways and highways to the 60 dB Ldn exterior nose level contour.

Noise levels from transportation noise sources may be effectively mitigated by incorporating noise mitigation measures into the project design that consider the geographical relationship between the noise sources of concern and potential receptors, the noise‐producing characteristics of the sources and the path of transmission between noise sources and sensitive receptors. As such, the Project incorporates Mitigation Measure NOI-1 which mitigates traffic noise, including the use of building setbacks or the construction of berms and sound walls.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to project approval of residential development within the SoTu Master Plan, the City of Porterville shall ensure that proposed residential structures are located at least 157 feet from the centerline of Westwood Street, 409 feet from the centerline of SR 190 (Poplar Avenue), 137 feet from the centerline of Newcomb Street, and 674 feet from SR 65. If the project does not provide the listed setback for residential structures, sound walls shall be proposed to ensure that exterior noise of the residential site would not exceed 60 dB Ldn. If the project proposes sound walls in place of setbacks from roadway centerlines, a noise study shall be conducted as evidence that the sound wall is sufficient to maintain an exterior noise of 60 dB Ldn or 70 dB Ldn.

Stationary Noise Exposure
The proposed Project would include several land use designations with the potential to result in noise impacts to existing noise‐sensitive (residential) land uses. These land uses include Commercial Mixed Use (32.99 acres), Retail Centers (24.35 acres), Neighborhood Commercial (8.61 acres) and Industrial Park (59.61 acres).

The noise level standards applicable to these proposed land uses are provided above in Table 4-21 (Municipal Code standards for non‐transportation noise sources). The noise standards become 5 dB more restrictive during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

A wide variety of noise sources can be associated with such commercial, retail and light industrial land uses. The noise levels produced by such sources can also be highly variable and could potentially impact existing off‐site and

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 160 proposed on‐site sensitive receptors. Typical examples of stationary noise sources associated with such land uses include:
• HVAC/Mechanical equipment
• Truck movements
• Parking lot activities (closing of car doors and trunks, stereos, alarms etc.) • Drive‐Through operations
• Loading Dock Activities
• Car Wash Operations
• Refuse/Cardboard Compactor
The exact quantity, type and location of such noise‐producing sources were not known at the time of this analysis.

These potential noise sources are discussed in general terms below.

HVAC Mechanical Equipment
It is assumed that various components of the above‐described land uses would include ground‐ or roof‐mounted HVAC units for interior spaces. WJVA has conducted reference noise level measurements at numerous commercial and retail buildings with roof‐mounted HVAC units, and associated noise levels typically range between approximately 45‐50 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the building façade.

Truck Movements
Truck movements and deliveries would likely be associated with these land uses. Additionally, the Industrial Park land use designation could potentially include warehousing and/or distribution centers, which would involve associated truck movements.

WJVA has conducted measurements of the noise levels produced by slowly moving trucks for a number of studies.

Such truck movements would be expected to produce noise levels in the range of 65 to 71 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. The range in measured truck noise levels is due to differences in the size of trucks, their speed of movement and whether they have refrigeration units in operation during the pass‐by.

Parking Lot Activities
Noise due to traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and is not usually considered to be significant.

Human activity in parking lots that can produce noise includes voices, stereo systems and the opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. Such activities can occur at any time. The noise levels associated with these activities cannot be precisely defined due to variables such as the number of parking movements, time of day and other factors. It is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a maximum noise level of 60‐65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which is comparable to the level of a raised voice.

Drive‐Through Retail
The proposed project could include multiple retail areas that could include drive‐through quick-service restaurant operations. In order to assess potential noise levels associated with drive-through operations, WJVA reviewed reference noise levels measured at a Wendy’s drive‐through restaurant located on South Mooney Boulevard in Visalia. Measurements were conducted during the early afternoon of July 11, 2011 between 12:45 p.m. and 1:45 p.m. using the previously described noise monitoring equipment.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 161 The microphone used by customers to order food and the loudspeaker used by employees to confirm orders are both integrated into a menu board that is located a few feet from the drive-through lane at the approximate height of a typical car window. Vehicles would enter the drive-through lane from the west and then turn to the north along the east side of the restaurant.

Reference noise measurements were obtained at a distance of approximately 40 feet from the menu board containing the microphone/loudspeaker system at an angle of about 45° toward the rear of the vehicle being served. This provided a worst‐case exposure to sound from the loudspeaker system since the vehicle was not located directly between the loudspeaker and measurement location. Cars were lined up in the access lane during the noise measurement period indicating that the drive‐through lane was operating at or near a peak level of activity.

Each ordering cycle was observed to take approximately 60 seconds including vehicle movements. A typical ordering cycle included 5‐10 seconds of loudspeaker use with typical maximum noise levels in the range of 60‐62 dBA at the 40 foot‐reference location. Vehicles moving through the drive‐through lane produced noise levels in the range of 55‐60 dBA at the same distance. Vehicles parked at the ordering position (between the menu board and measurement site) were observed to provide significant acoustic shielding during the ordering sequence. The effects of such shielding are reflected by the noise measurement data. Noise levels were measured to approximately 60 dB Leq at the measurement site, and included noise from all sources, including the loudspeaker, vehicle movements and HVAC equipment.

Loading Dock Activities
Noise sources typically associated with loading dock activities include truck engines, the operation of truck‐ mounted refrigeration units, fork lifts, the banging of hand carts and roll‐up doors, noise from P.A. systems, and the voices of truck drivers and store employees. Truck engines and/or refrigeration units are typically turned off while trucks are in loading dock areas to reduce noise and save energy. Based upon noise level measurements conducted by WJVA for other studies, loading dock noise levels would be expected to be in the range of approximately 60 to 75 dBA at a distance of 100 feet.

Compactor
Retail and commercial land uses often include exterior‐located compactors. Based upon noise studies conducted by WJVA for other projects, the maximum noise level produced by a typical unenclosed trash compactor (Hydra‐ Fab Model 1200) is approximately 74 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the equipment.

Car Wash
Commercial/Retail land use designations could potentially include automated car wash operations. Noise levels associated with automated car wash operations vary widely, based upon car wash type, enclosure type, equipment type and orientation. WJVA has prepared numerous noise studies for various car wash projects. Noise levels associated with automated car wash operations are generally in the range of 83‐87 dB at a distance of twenty feet from the source.

Noise levels from new stationary noise sources cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time since specific uses have not yet been proposed and the locations of stationary noise sources relative to the locations of new noise

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 162 sensitive uses are not known. However, under some circumstances there is a potential for such uses exceed the City’s noise standards for stationary noise sources at the locations of sensitive receptors.

Noise levels from new stationary noise sources may be effectively mitigated by incorporating noise mitigation measures into the project design that consider the geographical relationship between the noise sources of concern and potential receptors, the noise‐producing characteristics of the sources and the path of transmission between noise sources and sensitive receptors. Options for noise mitigation include the use of building setbacks, the construction of sound walls and the use of noise source equipment enclosures.

When specific uses within the Project Site are proposed (and their locations are defined) that could result in a noise‐ related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source and project proposed sensitive receptors, an acoustical analysis should be required that quantifies project‐related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards. The acoustical analysis should be the responsibility of the project applicant.

Construction Noise Exposure
Construction noise would occur at various locations within and near the project site through various phases. Existing sensitive receptors could be located as close as 100 feet from construction activities. Table 4-29 provides typical construction‐related noise levels at distances of 100 feet, 200 feet, and 300 feet.

Construction noise is not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to the allowed hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled. The City of Porterville limits hours of construction to occur only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends. Any construction activities occurring outside of these hours would be subject to the City’s stationary noise standards provided above in Table 4-22. Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents if nighttime operations were to occur or if equipment is not properly muffled or maintained.

Table 4-29 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, dBA Type of Equipment 100 ft. 200 ft. 300 ft.

Concrete Saw 84 78 74
Crane 75 68 65
Excavator 75 69 65
Front End Loader 73 67 63
Jackhammer 83 77 73
Paver 71 65 61
Pneumatic Tool 79 73 69
Dozer 76 70 66
Rollers 74 68 64
Trucks 80 72 70
Pumps 74 68 64
Scrapers 81 75 71
Portable Generators 74 68 64
Backhoe 80 74 70
Grader 80 74 70
Source: FHWA, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 163 A noise impact could occur if construction activities do not incorporate appropriate best management practices in regards to construction‐related noise. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 incorporates best management practices that should be implemented to minimize the potential for noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors in the Project area during project construction.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Prior to ground disturbing activities for projects within the SoTu Master Plan, the City of Porterville shall ensure the following with the Project proponent:
• Per the City of Porterville Municipal Code, construction activities should not occur outside the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during weekdays and 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends. Construction activities that occur outside these hours would be subject to the stationary noise standards as set forth in the City of Porterville Municipal Code Section 18-90.4.
• All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and muffled as to minimize noise generation at the source.
• Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating, running, or idling while not in immediate use by a construction contractor.
• All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be located and operated, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive land uses. • Locate construction staging areas, to the extent possible, at the greatest possible distances from any noise‐ sensitive land uses.
• Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling. Vibration from construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses, especially during movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if they were to occur). Typical vibration levels at distances of 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table 4-30. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage, as provided above in Table 4-23 and Table 4-24.

Table 4-30 Typical Vibration Levels During Construction Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
At 100 feet At 300 feet
Bulldozer (Large) 0.011 0.006
Bulldozer (Small) 0.0004 0.00019
Loaded Truck 0.01 0.005
Jackhammer 0.005 0.002
Vibratory Roller 0.03 0.013
Caisson Drilling 0.01 0.006
Source: Caltrans
As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 164 c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest public airport or public use airport is the Porterville Municipal Airport located approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project site. According to CALUP, the southwest corner of the Project site is located within the Safety Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone, and the whole Project site is within the Airport Influence Area. In accordance with California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b), prior to the adoption or amendment of general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or building regulation that affects lands within the AIA defined in the CALUP, the referring agency shall first refer the proposed action to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The ALUC will make a finding of whether the action is consistent with the CALUP. As such, the SoTu Master Plan would also be subject to review of the ALUC to ensure land use consistency with the CALUP.

Regarding noise, the Project site is not within the airport’s 55, 60, or 65 CNEL contour. Since the Project site not located within a noise contour and the SoTu Master Plan would be reviewed by the ALUC to ensure compliance with the CALUP, the Project would not result in exposing people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Noise related mitigation measures as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 165

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that a CEQA document discuss the ways in which the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The CEQA Guidelines provide an example of a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant that may allow for more construction within the service area. The CEQA Guidelines also note that the evaluation of growth inducement should consider the characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Direct and Indirect Growth Inducement consists of activities that directly facilitate population growth, such as construction of new dwelling units. A key consideration in evaluating growth inducement is whether the activity in question constitutes “planned growth.” Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG)
The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Tulare County, inclusive of the City of Porterville. In 2022, TCAG adopted the long-term transportation planning document, 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) that sets forth a forecasted development pattern, providing population and employment forecasts for the region between 2021 and 2046. 27 Tulare County is projected to increase by 85,734 people, build over 40,774 housing units, and add 31,709 jobs between 2021 and 2046, for a total population of 567,383, 195,210 total housing units, and 218,846 total jobs by 27 AMBAG. (2022). 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Accessed August 11, 2023, https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp-2022/

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 166 2046. According to the City of Porterville Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), the City of Porterville is projected to grow by 23,788 people between 2020 and 2040 from 63,505 to 87,293. 28 U.S. Census Bureau
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Porterville has a population of 62,623 in 2020, with a total of 18,931 housing units and an average household size of 3.73.
29 Depart of Finance (DOF)
According to the U.S. Department of Finance, the City of Porterville has an estimated population of 62,588 in 2023, with a total of 19,212 housing units and an average household size of 3.32. 30 City of Porterville Housing Element
The City of Porterville 2015-2023 Housing Element identifies the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City of Porterville as determined by TCAG. The RHNA for 2014-2023 is 3,196 units. 31 The RHNA for the City of
Porterville as determined by Tulare County Association of Governments is 4,064.

4.14.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the existing planned land use from low density residential, retail, education, and open space to a mix of 10 different land uses including residential, commercial/retail, industrial, mixed use, institutional, and open space.

Although no physical development is proposed, the Project would facilitate future urbanized development containing residential, commercial/retail, industrial, mixed-use, institutional, and open space uses. Future buildout of the SoTu Master Plan is expected to consist of 516 single-family residential units, 1,697 multi-family residential units, 3,357,576 sf. of commercial space, 1,337,717 sf. of employment space (i.e., industrial and office space), 15.81 acres of public/semi-public uses, and 112.14 acres of parks and recreational facilities. Based on an average household size of 3.73, the 2,213 units (516 single-family units + 1,697 multi-family units) could generate approximately 8,254 new residents, thereby increasing the city’s population from 62,623 to 70,877. The 2,213 units would also increase the total number of housing units from 18,931 to 21,144 which would result in a population increase of approximately 10.5% at full buildout beyond the standard projected growth in the City of 2.5% annual 28 City of Porterville. (2018). Short Range Transit Plan. Accessed August 11, 2023, https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp2022/appendices/appendix-1-s-porterville-short-range-transit-plan/ 29 U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). Porterville city, California. Accessed on August 11, 2023, https://data.census.gov/profile/Porterville_city,_California?g=160XX00US0658240 30 U.S. Department of Finance (2023). E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Accessed on January 16, 2024, https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-thestate-2020-2023/ 31 City of Porterville. (2015). 2015-2023 Housing Element. Accessed on August 11, 2023, https://cms9files.revize.com/PortervilleCA/Document_Center/Department/Community%20Development/Planning/Documen ts/20151216HousingElementFinal.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 167 growth. The commercial and employment space could generate approximately 323 employees, increasing the number of employees citywide from 68,879 to 69,202.
32 Overall, the population, housing units, and employees generated by the proposed Project would be within the TCAG projections for the region and city. The new units would also assist the city with meeting its RHNA. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and a less than significant impact would occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant Impact. There are approximately eight (8) existing single-family residences on the site which results in approximately 26 residents based on the estimated 3.32 persons per household. Although no physical development is proposed, the Project would facilitate future development which could result in the demolition of these existing residences. However, this demolition would occur at the decision of the property owner and none of the Master Plan is anticipated to exercise eminent domain to acquire property for the buildout of the master plan.

All current property and land uses would retain their property rights and can continue their existing operations as legal non-conforming uses. Since the Project would not cause the displacement of a substantial number of existing people or housing and would provide an increased number of housings as a replacement, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
32 Southern California Association of Governments. (2001). Employment Density Study Summary Report. Accessed on August 11, 2023, https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3D

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 168

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

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

i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other public facilities? X

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located outside of Porterville’s city limits and within Porterville’s General Plan Planning Area, or the city’s Urban Area Boundary (UAB). The eastern half of the site is within the city’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB) while the western half of the site is outside of the UDB. While no development is proposed, future development of the Project would be required to be annexed into the City of Porterville. As such, future development of the Project would be subject to fees for the construction, acquisition, and improvements for public services and facilities. Public services and facilities within Porterville’s General Plan Planning Area are further described below.

Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services in the city are provided by the Porterville Fire Department (PFD). Fire protection services for the unincorporated areas within the city’s Planning Area, inclusive of the Project site, are provided by Tulare County Fire Department and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Future implementation of the Project would require annexation of properties into the city, thus be served by the PFD. The PFD operates a total of three (3) fire stations that serve the city, with Fire Station 73 closest to the Project site at 1062 South Jaye Street, Porterville, CA 93257. Fire Station 73 is located approximately 1.0 miles southeast of the Project site. The total authorized staffing for PFD includes 42 sworn, full-time professional firefighters and administrative staff. In 2022, PFD responded to 5,453 calls for service and 519 calls for fires, which is a 19% increase in call volume over the last 10 years. The response time goal for fire protection and emergency services is to provide service within five

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 169 (5) minutes of the 911 call for 80% of the time. The General Plan Public Health & Safety Element includes the following goals and policies to ensure reductions in the potential for fire hazards and fire demand:

Guiding Policy PHS-G-3 Protect Porterville’s residents and businesses from potential fire hazards.

Implementation Policy PHS-I-13 Maintain automatic and/or mutual aid agreements with surrounding jurisdictions for fire protection.

Implementation Policy PHS-I-14 Enforce weed abatement programs and building and fire code requirements to assure adequate fire protection.

Implementation Policy PHS-I-15 Develop and expand existing public fire safety and emergency life support education programs in order to promote public awareness of fire hazards and emergency procedures.

Implementation Policy PHS-I-16 Establish fire hazard standards and review procedures at least equivalent to State requirements to protect new development on or adjacent to the hillsides.

The Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance standards will require new development on the urban fringe to incorporate fuel breaks, fuel reduction and buffer zones to minimize potential fire losses.

Further, projects are subject to review by the PFD and to regulations and standards such as the California Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which includes regulations on construction, maintenance and building use. The UFC addresses fire department access, fire hydrants, sprinklers, fire alarm system, etc., for new buildings.

Police Protection Services
Police protection services in the city are provided by the Porterville Police Department (PPD). The PPD is located at 350 North D Street, Porterville, CA 93257, which is approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the Project site. According to the General Plan, there are 57 peace sworn officers and 22 civilian staff members employed, which provides a ratio of approximately 1.3 officers per thousand residents. According to the PPD, a ratio of 1.2 police officers per thousand residents would support adequate law enforcement efforts at buildout of the General Plan.

Educational Services
Educational services within the City of Porterville are provided by Porterville Unified School District, Burton School District, and Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE). The five (5) school districts operate 28 public schools within the city’s Planning Area. The Project site is located within the Porterville Unified School District (PUSD), which includes 11 elementary schools, five (5) middle schools, eight (8) high schools, adult school, preschool programs, and a community day school. PUSD schools within a one (1)-mile radius of the Protect site includes West Putman Elementary School.

The Porterville 2030 General Plan projected the generation of 13,069 new students at buildout of the General Plan, resulting in a total of 30,814 students, which would produce a demand of 12 new elementary schools, two (2) new middle schools, and three (3) new high schools. The General Plan Parks, Schools & Community Facilities Element includes the following policy for educational facilities:

Guiding Policy PSCF-G-4 Support efforts to provide superior public and private educational opportunities for all segments of the population.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 170 Guiding Policy PSCF-G-5 Place schools at the core of new neighborhoods and co-locate parks and school sites where possible.

Guiding Policy PSCF-G-6 Advocate the development of post-secondary education institutions.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-19 Cooperate with local school districts to ensure that educational facilities with sufficient permanent capacity are constructed to meet the needs of current and projected student enrollment and required infrastructure is constructed when needed.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-20 Amend the Subdivision Ordinance to require reservation of school sites, as shown on the General Plan Land Use Diagram, for school district acquisition for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed five years.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-21 Establish zoning and development incentives for developers who provide sites to accommodate higher education institutions.

Parks and Recreation
Park and recreation facilities are overseen by the City of Porterville Parks & Leisure Services Department. According to the General Plan, there are 15 planned and existing parks within the city, totaling 295 acres of parkland, which provides a parkland to population ratio of 4.7 acres of parkland per thousand people in 2020. This meets the 1975 Quimby Act, which requires a minimum of three (3) acres per thousand residents. However, it does not meet the city’s park standard for neighborhood and community parks, which requires five (5) acres per thousand residents.

This could be provided through in-lieu fees that would be used for any capacity-building park and recreation facility improvements. The City of Porterville 2030 General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element includes the following goals and policies related to park and recreational facilities and services:

Guiding Policy OSC-G-1 Protect the Tule River Corridor and Rocky Hill as significant open space resources.

Guiding Policy OSC-G-2 Use the open space system to meet multiple needs, including bike and trail linkages, storm water drainage and treatment, wildlife habitat, and active and passive recreation.

Guiding Policy OSC-G-3 Design public open spaces as sustainable systems.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-2 Work with the County with the objective of:
• Retaining agriculture and open space areas around the City, consistent with the General Plan; and • Notifying the City of development applications to areas adjacent to the City’s Planning Area.

Joint planning agreements or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) have been used successfully in many jurisdictions. This policy is intended to create a mechanism to protect the open space, wetlands, and creeks that form the backdrop for the City, so that the City can keep a distinct urban edge.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-3 Establish a secure funding source for open space acquisition and management.

Options to be evaluated may include, but are not limited to: a dedication by future private development; an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax; a Utility User’s Tax or a Property Transfer Tax. These latter options would require voter approval.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 171 Implementing Policy OSC-1-4 Establish standards for the management and maintenance of open space within subdivisions, and require formation of open space acquisition and maintenance districts where necessary and appropriate, to protect open space resources.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-7 Use native vegetation, drought tolerant plants, recycled water irrigation, other water-saving devices drainage swales and water percolation systems, and recycled building materials in public open spaces for ease of maintenance and environmental sustainability.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-8 Provide a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities through improvements to open space and parks, construction of facilities, and sponsoring of programsthat stimulate active resident participation.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-9 Require degraded open space areas be restored to an environmentally sustainable condition as part of development approval where these lands are proposed as permanent open space in new development.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-10 Work with property owners, law enforcement officials, and the public to protect open space resources. These efforts will include, but are not limited to:
• Soliciting volunteers to remove invasive vegetation;
• Removing abandoned items and trash; and
• Ensuring no illegal encampments occur on open space areas.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-11 Support regional and subregional efforts to acquire, develop, and maintain, open space lands.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-12 Establish priorities for open space preservation and acquisition based on an evaluation of:
• Significant natural areas that are historically, ecologically, or scientifically unique or are outstanding, important or threatened;
• Wildlife habitats and fragile ecosystems in need of protection; • Watersheds or significant water recharge areas;
• Lands suitable for recreation such as biking, photography or nature study; and • Land suitable for agricultural production.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-14 Establish incentives to preserve open space in very low density residential areas.

One option will be to allow clustering of housing units on smaller lots in return for preservation of common area open space.

Implementing Policy OSC-1-15 Preserve open space designated for public safety to minimize damage to people and property resulting from potential hazards. Such hazards include, but are not limited to: quaking, slope collapse, liquefaction, fire, earth sliding, flooding, erosion and siltation, soil compression, lateral spreading, and subsidence.

An easement can be used to restrict development near safety hazards, travel networks such as bike or pedestrian paths, as well as near natural resources such as streams that require buffers for water quality

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 172 protection. The easement does not require the transfer of ownership of property but rather reduces the development potential of the land in order that it may continue to serve the necessary open space purpose.

The General Plan Parks, Schools & Community Facilities Element also established policies for parks and recreational facilities, as listed below.

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

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

Guiding Policy PSCF-G-3 Ensure adequate funding for park and recreation facilities acquisition, development, operations, maintenance, and enforcement of park rules.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-4 Establish additional funding for the acquisition and development of specialized park and recreation facilities to serve existing and future residents.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-5 Require developers for new neighborhoods to agree to the establishment of, or annexation into, a Park Maintenance District in new neighborhoods.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-6 Establish a program for contributions to the City’s park system by nonresidential developers, based on their proportional share of needs generated and use of facilities.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-8 Provide lighted facilities for active community recreation areas in order to extend usability, whenever possible.

Address compatibility with surrounding uses and use energy-efficient lighting design with limited glare and spillover.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-9 Design park and recreation facilities to be as flexible as possible, so that they may adapt to changes in the population served and in the recreation programs offered.

Changing neighborhood demographics can lead to different user requirements over the life of a park. By having flexible park facilities, this will enable the park to adapt to the changing needs of the adjacent neighborhood.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-10 Place neighborhood and community parks at the core of new neighborhoods and co-locate parks and school sites where possible, as depicted on the General Plan Land Use Diagram.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-11 Combine use of park, recreation, and open space lands with drainage facilities and school facilities, where feasible.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-14 Develop a safe and efficient trail network throughout the City that links parks and other key City destinations.

Implementing Policy PSCF-I-15 Continue to support the development of the Tule River Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian path and the Rails to Trails Project.

4.15.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 173 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits, future development would be required to annex into the City of Porterville and would be served by the Porterville Fire Department at that time. Therefore, future development in accordance with the proposed Project would be served by the PFD.

Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore could increase the demand for fire protection services. Porterville currently has three fire stations and utilized two Tulare County fire stations to service the City. Currently, the Porterville Fire Department responds to 60 percent of calls within five minutes which rated a Class 3 by the Insurance Service Office (ISO). This rating considers the fire defense against fire potential on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the lowest. The Porterville 2030 General Plan Implementation Policy PHS-I-25 requires that the City “maintain the City’s Class 3 ISO rating, or better, for fire protection”. However, the increase would be incremental and would be within the anticipated growth projections for the city (See Section 4.14). The Project’s proximity to the existing station would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for fire protection services. The City also has two planned fire stations: one on the west side of Newcomb Street, south of Scranton Avenue and another near the northwest corner of Jaye Street and Gibbons Avenue; both of which are less than two miles from the Project site. In addition, future development would be reviewed by the PFD for requirements related to water supply, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access. Further, future development would be subject to proportionate payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee for construction and acquisition costs for improvements to fire protection services and facilities. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would not result in the need for new or altered facilities that could have an environmental impact and a less than significant impact would occur.
ii. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits, future development would be required to annex into the City of Porterville and would be served by the Porterville Police Department at that time. Therefore, future development in accordance with the proposed Project would be served by the PPD.

Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore could increase the demand for police services. However, the increase would be incremental and would be within the anticipated growth projections for the city (See Section 4.14). The Project’s proximity to the existing station would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for police protection services. In addition, future development of the Project site would be reviewed by the PPD for requirements related to crime protection. Further, future development would be subject to proportionate payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee for construction and acquisition costs for improvements to police protection services and facilities. For these reasons, it can be determined that the Project would not result in the need for new or altered facilities that could have an environmental impact and a less than significant impact would occur.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 174 iii. Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is within the PUSD, although several schools are within a one-mile radius for both PUSD and Burton School District including Summit Charter Academy, Oakgrove Elementary, Burton Elementary, Jim Maples Academy, West Putnam Elementary, and Porterville High School. Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore could generate new students that would increase the school districts’ enrollment. An elementary school site is proposed within the Project site to accommodate the increase in students.

In addition, a School Impact Fee would be assessed for future development of the Project site based on the rates in place at the time payment is due. As stated in Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., payment of School Impact Fees is deemed full and complete mitigation for potential impacts to schools caused by development. Therefore, payment of the assessed School Impact Fee would reduce impacts related to new school facilities resulting from implementation of the Project and impacts would be less than significant. iv. Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from residential development. Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore increases the demand for and use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The nearest public parks to the Project site include the Burton Ballfields (0.8 miles north) and Veterans Park (1.2 miles north).

The SoTu Master Plan proposes 112.14 acres of parkland, including community parks and trails/parkway. The proposed Project anticipates future buildout of up to 2,213 single-family and multi-family residential units. Based on an average household size of 3.73, the 2,213 units could generate approximately 8,255 new residents. Based on the anticipated population within the SoTu Master Plan buildout and its proposed parkland, there would be a parkland to population ratio of 13.6 acres per thousand residents, which would exceed the city’s standard of five (5) acres per thousand residents. Therefore, residential demand associated with future development of the Project site would maintain the city’s performance standard.

In addition, future development would be subject to the applicable municipal code, including payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee in order to mitigate any potential impacts to the city’s park and recreation facilities generated by the incremental population increase. Compliance with these requirements would reduce any impacts resulting from increased residential demand for park and recreational facilities so as to not cause substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. v. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development is currently proposed, future development resulting from Project implementation could increase the demand for other public services, such as courts, libraries, hospitals, etc. Increased demand as a result of the continued implementation of the Project could result in development or expansion of public facilities. Typical environmental impacts associated with the development of these facilities include air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, etc. The expansion of these facilities would be subject to CEQA as they are proposed. In addition, future development would be subject to the payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee in order to mitigate any potential impacts to these public facilities. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 175

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 176

4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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?
X
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?
X

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
See Section 4.15.

4.16.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) 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. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from residential development. Although no specific development is proposed by the Project, the Project would facilitate future residential development that would introduce residents to the area and therefore increases the demand for and use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The nearest public parks to the Project site include the Burton Ballfields (0.8 miles north) and Veterans Park (1.2 miles north).

The SoTu Master Plan proposes 112.14 acres of parkland, including community parks and trails/parkway. The proposed Project anticipates future buildout of up to 2,213 single-family and multi-family residential units. Based on an average household size of 3.73, the 2,213 units could generate approximately 8,255 new residents. Based on the anticipated population within the SoTu Master Plan buildout and its proposed parkland, there would be a parkland to population ratio of 13.6 acres per thousand residents, which would exceed the city’s standard of five (5) acres per thousand residents. Therefore, residential demand associated with future development of the Project site would maintain the city’s performance standard.

In addition, future development would be subject to the applicable municipal code, including payment of the Public Facilities Impact Fee in order to mitigate any potential impacts to the city’s park and recreation facilities generated by the incremental population increase. Compliance with these requirements would reduce any impacts resulting from increased residential demand for park and recreational facilities so as to not cause substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 177 b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Future residential development resulting from the Project could include the construction of recreational facilities as required by the PMC. In such cases, development would be subject to compliance with the PMC and would be reviewed and conditioned by the City to ensure that physical effects on the environment are less than significant. Compliance would ensure that the facilities would not be in an area or be built to a scale that would cause an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur.

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 178

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
2022 Regional Active Transportation Plan for the Tulare County Region The 2022 Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP) for the Tulare County Region, approved April 18, 2022, was prepared as a response to recognition of the benefits of active transportation and a more diverse transportation for the county. The objective of the RATP is 1) provide a foundation for the pedestrian and bicycle component of the Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and 2) identify highpriority projects to better compete for federal, state, and regional funding. 33 The RATP provides assessment and identifies priority projects for the county as well as cities within the County, including the City of Porterville.

According to the RATP, 1.7% of commuters walked to work and 0.5% of commuters biked to work in the City of Porterville. Traffic collisions in the City includes 27 pedestrian victims (1 killed, 4 severely injured) and 24 bicyclist victims (0 killed, 1 severely injured) in 2019. The roads with the highest numbers of collisions in the City are Henderson Avenue, Morton Avenue, Olive Avenue, Putnam Avenue and Westfield Avenue. Priority projects in the City of Porterville includes:
• Morton Avenue crosswalk warning lights
• P-2 Orange Avenue crosswalk warning lights
• P-3 Main Street crosswalk warning lights
• P-4 Tule River Parkway multi-use trail, Phase IV
• P-5 Porterville citywide bikeway network
• P-6 Putnam and Elderwood Pedestrian Corridor
33 Tulare County Association of Governments. (2022). 2022 Regional Active Transportation Plan for the Tulare County Region.

Accessed January 10, 2024, https://tularecog.org/sites/tcag/assets/File/TCAG%202022%20RATP_.pdf

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 179 • P-7 Butterfield Stage Corridor
VMT Analysis
A vehicles miles traveled (VMT) analysis of the Project was conducted on August 4, 2023, by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. The full report is provided in Appendix F. Regulatory settings, criteria of significance, and methodology of the VMT analysis are provided below.

Regulatory Setting
Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as VMT instead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto the roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

The State CEQA Guidelines were amended to implement SB 743, by adding Section 15064.3. Among its provisions, Section 15064.3 confirms that, except with respect to transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
The City of Porterville has not yet adopted its own official VMT guidelines but uses the County of Tulare’s SB 743 Guidelines, referred to in this document as the County of Tulare’s VMT Guidelines. The County of Tulare’s VMT Guidelines were published on June 8, 2020 and are consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3 and 15064.7. The December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), was utilized as a reference and guidance document in the preparation of the County of Tulare’s VMT Guidelines.

Criteria of Significance
The County of Tulare’s VMT Guidelines adopted a screening standard and criteria that can be used to screen out qualified projects that meet the adopted criteria from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis. However, these screening criteria are generally applied to land development projects not general or community plans.

In terms of analyzing a plan, the County of Tulare’s VMT Guidelines states the following, “VMT analysis for the General Plan or Community Plans would generally be conducted by comparing the total VMT/capita of the Project Site with the plan in the planning horizon year to the VMT/capita of the Project Site in the base year. This analysis would be conducted using the TCAG regional travel for updates to the General Plan.” (County of Tulare, 2020).

However, as there is no existing development located within the Project Site, a comparison to this Project Site in the base year would not represent a comparison to any meaningful existing data. Consequently, this VMT Analysis compares the VMT of the Project Site, including the plan, in the horizon year to the VMT of the entire region in the

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 180 base year. For this particular Plan and VMT Analysis, the entire region utilized is the boundaries of the County of Tulare. The Technical Advisory (TA) recommends the following in regard to analyzing a plan, “Agencies should analyze VMT outcomes of land use plans across the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns, including beyond the boundary of the plan or the jurisdiction’s geography” (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018). Therefore, the Project Site with the plan in the horizon year and the VMT of the entire region in the base year are the two scenarios and study regions that will be compared. If the horizon year output is less than the base year output, then the VMT associated with the Plan is determined to have a less than significant impact.

Methodology
This VMT Analysis not only compares the VMT per capita, as stated in the County of Tulare’s VMT Guidelines, it also includes an analysis of the VMT per employee and VMT per service population. As recommended within the TA, these outputs contain both origin and destination VMT. The Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) model was utilized to output the baseline and horizon year VMT for the analysis. The VMT per capita, VMT per employee and VMT per service population were output for the base year scenario for the entire region and the horizon year scenario for the Project Site. If the VMT associated with the Plan is determined to have a significant impact, then VMT mitigations would be applied to the Plan in order to reduce the VMT in the horizon year in the Project Site. As there are no VMT mitigation measures listed in the County of Tulare’s VMT Guidelines, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) document Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (VMT Mitigation Guidelines) published in December 2021 was utilized to determine the effect of VMT mitigation measures.

4.17.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact. Although no development is proposed by the Project, future development of the Project site would be required by the City to comply with all project-level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, roadway, pedestrian and bicycle, and transit facilities.

The Project’s consistency for each facility type is addressed below.

Roadway Facilities
CEQA Guidelines no longer use motorist delays or level of service (LOS) to measure transportation impacts.

However, in evaluating Project consistency with the General Plan, a comparison of LOS is required per General Plan Guiding Policy C-G-6 and Implementing Policy C-I-8. Therefore, a LOS analysis is provided for informational purposes.

Guiding Policy C-G-6 Maintain acceptable levels of service and ensure that future development and the circulation system are in balance.

Implementing Policy C-I-8 Develop and manage the roadway system to obtain LOS D or better during the peak hour for all major roadways and intersections in the City. This policy does not extend to residential streets (i.e., streets with direct driveway access to homes) or state highways and their intersections, where

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 181 Caltrans policies apply. Exceptions to LOS D policy may be allowed by the City Council in areas such as downtown and at highway interchanges, where allowing a lower LOS would result in clear public benefits.

Implementing Policy C-I-10 Require traffic impact studies for all General Plan amendments that will generate more than 100 peak hour trips.

Although no physical development is proposed, the Project is anticipated to increase multimodal transportation activity and would be required to comply with the Porterville Circulation Element’s three Guiding Principles:
• Land use and the circulation system are interactive and interrelated; • The City’s traffic circulation planning efforts are integrated with those of the County and Caltrans in a cooperative, regional planning effort; and
• State-of-the-art traffic engineering is used to bring planned improvements to reality.

Porterville’s existing roadway network is set up in hierarchical order ranging from Freeways to Local Streets. The roadway classifications surrounding and within the Project site includes State highways, major arterials, collectors, and local streets. The functional classification for each roadway type is defined below:
• Highways. Highways are designed to carry heavy traffic volumes and should serve longer distance intra-city travel as well as linking the City with other nearby urban areas. Access is limited, crossings are generally signalized at grade, parking is not allowed, and a continuous median separates lanes moving in opposite directions. State routes 65 and 190 are regional State Highways, with portions designated as freeways. o State Route (SR)190. The Project site is bounded by SR 190 to the south and SR 65 to the east, which is classified as regional state highways, although portions are designated as freeway.

Although SR 190 is currently a 2-lane roadway, with one travel lane per direction, the segment adjacent to the Project site has an annual average daily trip (AADT) of 5,700 and operates at a level of service (LOS) A, indicating the roadway has a free flow of traffic with insignificant delays. o State Route (SR) 65. The Project site is bounded by SR 65 to the east, which is also classified as regional state highways with portions designated as freeway. SR 65 is currently a 4-lane separated highway with an AADT of 25,000 and operation at an LOS A level.34 • Arterials. Arterials are designed to move large volumes of traffic between freeways/highways and other arterials in Porterville and to adjacent jurisdictions. Major arterials are four- or six-lane, access-controlled roadways emphasizing mobility between major portions of the city and to regional freeways and highways.

On-street parking may be restricted on major arterials to maintain traffic levels of service. Major east-west arterials will be Reid, Henderson, Morton, Olive, and Teapot Dome avenues. Westwood, Newcomb, Prospect, Indiana, Jaye, Main, Plano and Hillcrest streets will provide major north-south access. o Westwood Street. Westwood Street is a north/south arterial that bounds the Project site on the west side. The General Plan Circulation Element outlines the planned improvements to this roadway segment from SR 190 to Olive Ave, which encompasses the entire roadway segment adjacent to the Project site. These planned improvements include widening the roadway to a 4- 34Porterville General Plan Circulation Element
http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/communitydevelopment/documents/Chapter4Circulation_000.pdf, Accessed February 2, 2024.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 182 lane arterial. The segment adjacent to the Project site is currently a 2-lane roadway. With the proposed improvements, Westwood Street has an anticipated daily vehicle volume of 9,550 and would operate at an LOS B; with the current condition of the roadway, Westwood Street has a daily volume of 12,030 with a resulting LOS B.
o Newcomb Street. Newcomb Street is another north/south arterial that would provide connection between the Project site and the rest of the City. It also has planned improvements that would change the current 2-lane roadway to a 4-lane arterial; although none of the roadway segment is built through the Project site at this time. Additionally, there is a planned vehicular bridge over the Tule River that would connect vehicular traffic to the north. Both of these features have been incorporated into the Project to be consistent with the General Plan. With the planned improvements, Newcomb Avenue will expect a daily volume of 12,750 and operate at LOS B. • Collectors. Collector streets provide a link between neighborhood streets and arterials. Collectors provide two travel lanes and bike lanes. On-street parking may be provided if sufficient width is available. Collectors also provide access to adjacent properties, so driveway access should be discouraged but need not be restricted (subject to accepted engineering practice). Bike lanes, landscaped parkstrips, sidewalks, and transit facilities may also be accommodated.
o There is an unnamed planned collector within the Project site that travels east from Westwood Street and jogs north at the Prospect Avenue alignment. It is planned to connect to Prospect Avenue on the north side of the Tule River via a pedestrian bridge. Both the collector and the bridge have been incorporated into the Project to maintain consistency with the General Plan. • Local Streets. The primary function of local streets is to provide direct access to adjacent properties.

Neighborhood streets should provide two travel lanes, landscaped parkstrips, and sidewalks. On-street parking may be regulated. Bike lanes are usually not needed because neighborhood streets carry low traffic volumes and all neighborhood streets are considered to be bicycle friendly. o Although not specifically designated in the Circulation Element or the Project, it is assumed that local streets will be required on a project-by-project basis and required to provide two points of ingress/egress. The Project site will provide both local residential streets and local commercial streets pursuant to the existing City standards.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Although the Project Site is located outside of City boundaries, the Porterville 2030 General Plan Circulation Element identifies several planned and proposed bicycle facilities. A proposed Class I bicycle facility is planned for the northern boundary of the Project Site, along the Tule River. At full build out, this bike facility will provide 10 miles of protected bike lane in the east/west direction. This trail segment is also identified as a priority project for Porterville in the 2022 Regional Active Transportation Plan for the Tulare County Region (ATP). This Class I facility would function as a multi-purpose trail and will include solar lighting fixtures, bridges, retaining walls and trail signage and markings. Additionally, Caltrans has requested this project address crossing design details at SR 65, which is a Caltrans facility.

Additionally, there is a proposed Class II along Newcomb Street and a Class III along Westwood Street. These facilities would connect to existing on planning facilities to connect non-vehicular traffic to the rest of the City. As new development is proposed, the bike network will be expanded as projects are reviewed and approved by the

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 183 City. Future development will be required to comply with the Circulation Element and ATP. Further, all future development will be subject to the Transportation Impact Fee program per PMC Section 20-60 whereby all new development is required to contribute its proportionate share of the costs of new public facilities intended to serve the development. Through compliance with all applicable plans and programs, including payment of the Transportation Impact Fee, impacts to bicycle and transportation facilities would be less than significant.

Transit Facilities
The Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA) provides municipal transit services to the City of Porterville. The transit service. Local fixed routes within the City are provided Monday through Saturday from 7:00am to 7:00pm and on Sunday from 8:00am to 5:00pm. Although there are currently no bus facilities within the Project Site, there are routes along roadway segment outside the Project Site boundary. Olive Avenue, the next east/west major arterials north of the Project Site boundary and has an existing bus stop that links up to Porterville Transit Center and transfer to all the other available transit lines within city limits.

Although no development is currently proposed, future development of the Project site would result in an incremental increase in residents which could result in an increased demand for transit. The Project itself places an emphasis on Complete Neighborhoods, which increases access to services like housing, jobs, and education within walking or biking distances to decrease the total number and distance of vehicular trips. Further, the Project is proposed in compliance with the guiding circulation principles and incorporates existing and planned facilities to ensure no conflicts with adopted plans.

Therefore, through compliance with the programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system (inclusive of transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities), a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. A vehicles miles traveled (VMT) analysis of the Project was conducted on August 4, 2023, by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. The full report is provided in Appendix F. Regulatory settings, criteria of significance, and methodology of the VMT analysis are provided in the Environmental Setting above. The following provides the output and analysis of the Project’s VMT per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Table 4-31 displays the VMT per Capita, VMT per Employee and VMT per Service Population for the Base Year No Project (Entire Region) and the Horizon Year plus Project (Study Area) output by the TCAG model. The TCAG model outputs a Base Year No Project (Entire Region) of 14.51 VMT per Capita, 11.92 VMT per Employee, and 23.52 VMT per Service Population. The TCAG Base Year No Project (Entire Region) outputs act as the VMT Threshold. The TCAG model output a Horizon Year plus Project (Study Area) of 6.12 VMT per Capita, 11.74 VMT per Employee, and 23.52 VMT per Service Population. As can be seen in Table 4-31, before VMT mitigations or design features are considered, the Plan has a less than significant VMT impact in terms of VMT per Capita and VMT per Employee, but a significant VMT impact in terms of VMT per Service Population. As a result, the Project would need to implement design features to bring the Project to a less than significant impact, which have been incorporated into Section 3 of the SoTu Master Plan and are discussed below.

Table 4-31 VMT Output – Unmitigated
VMT Measurement TCAG Base Year No Project TCAG Horizon Year plus Project
Significant VMT Impact
Before

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 184 VMT Results (Entire
Region)
VMT Results (Study Area) Mitigations?
VMT per Capita 14.51 6.12 No
VMT per Employee 11.92 11.74 No
VMT per Service Population 23.52 24.48 Yes
The VMT design features considered for this Project include those appropriate for the Project Site. The VMT design features that were considered feasible for this Plan are Improve Street Connectivity (T-17), Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements (T-18), Construct or Improve Bike Facility (T-19-A), Expand Bikeway Network (T-20), and Implement Transit- Supportive Roadway Treatments (T-27). Appendix F presents a summary of the VMT reduction associated with each mitigation measure utilized in this Report. The following inputs were assumed to calculate the VMT reduction rates for the Plan were based on the CAPCOA VMT Mitigation Guidelines. • The Project Site will construct 55.8 intersections per square mile at buildout. (T-17) • There are 4.82 miles of existing sidewalk in Project Site. The Project Site will construct 7.32 miles of sidewalk at buildout. (T-18)
• 88% of the Project VMT is anticipated to occur within the roadway parallel to the bike facility. (T-19-A) • There are 2.75 miles of existing bikeway in Project Site. The Project has planned 5.05 miles of bikeway within the Project site. (T-20)
• 100% of transit routes will receive treatments. (T-27) The design features combine to reduce the Plan’s VMT by 10.15%, as shown in Table 4-32. Incorporation of these design features would reduce the Plan’s VMT output by 0.62 VMT per Capita, 1.19 VMT per Employee, and 2.48 VMT per Service Population. Therefore, the VMT of the Horizon Year plus Plan (Plan Area) would be 5.50 VMT per Capita, 10.55 VMT per Employee, and 22.00 VMT per Service Population after mitigation is incorporated.

Table 4-32 VMT Output with Design Features Incorporated VMT Measurement
TCAG Base Year No Plan
VMT Results (Entire
Region)
TCAG Horizon Year plus
Project
VMT Results (Study Area)
Significant VMT Impact
Before
Mitigations?
VMT per Capita 14.51 6.12 No
VMT per Employee 11.92 11.74 No
VMT per Service Population 23.52 24.48 Yes
As a result, the Plan is projected to have a less than significant VMT impact in terms of VMT per Capita, the VMT per Employee, and the VMT per Service Population with the design features included in Section 3 of the SoTu Master Plan incorporated.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project proposes to potential redistribute density and population, it does not propose to change land use types, meaning the Project will utilize existing General Plan land uses. Additionally, buildout of the Project would be in compliance with the existing Porterville 2030 General Plan Circulation Diagram and would be developed in accordance to all City standards and specifications, which will ultimately be incorporated into the Project. The following General Plan Policies would address design and safety issues:

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 185 C-G-1: Promote safe and efficient vehicular circulation.

Implementing Policy C-I-1: Adopt street standards that provide flexibility in design, especially in residential neighborhoods. Revise right-of-way and pavement standards to reflect adjacent land use and/or anticipated traffic, and permit reduced right-of-way dimensions where necessary to maintain neighborhood character.

Implementing Policy C-I-2: Require all new developments to provide right-of-way and improvements consistent with the General Plan street designations and City street section Standards.

Although no development is currently proposed, future development of the Project site would be subject to review and approval by the City through the entitlement process. Review by the City would ensure that project design does not include hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses and a less than significant impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. The Master Plan will also provide a mandatory secondary vehicular access point between Newcomb Avenue and SR 65 as well as assess points for development along the Tule River to ensure that the Project site has adequate access pursuant to Porterville Fire Department comments. In addition, although no development is currently proposed, future development of the Project site is subject to review by the City to ensure adequate site access including emergency access. In the case that future construction requires lane closures, access through existing roadways would be maintained through standard traffic control and therefore, potential lane closures would not affect emergency evacuation plans. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 186

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in PRC 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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in PRC
Section 5020.1(k), or,
X
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of PRC section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

X

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
See Section 4.5.

4.18.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) 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 Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the CHRIS Records Search conducted on June 26, 2023 there is one (1) recorded site partially located within the Project site. The site is identified as P-54-002208, the Poplar Ditch, which is still in use. There are no other resources recorded within one-quarter mile of the Project site.

While there is no evidence that historical resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that existing structures and the Poplar Ditch may qualify as historical resources or hidden, and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence that may be impacted by future physical development of the site. In the event of the accidental

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 187 discovery and recognition of previously unknown historical resources before or during construction activities, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential historical resources discovered above or below ground surface.

Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site and its resources have not been determined by the City to be significant pursuant to Section 5024.1. However, as discussed in Section 4.5, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which could constitute a significant impact. Therefore, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 to assure construction activities do not result in significant impacts to any potential resources of significance to a California Native American tribe discovered above or below ground surface. Thus, if such resources were discovered, implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 as identified above and in the MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM contained in SECTION 5.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 188

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
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?
X
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?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
X

4.19.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site would be annexed into Porterville city limits at the time physical development is proposed and thus, would be require city municipal services such as water, wastewater, and stormwater services. When future development is proposed for the Project site, it would also be required to connect to City utilities. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. Each utility system is described below.

Water
Water supply, usage, and services are described in Section 4.10.

Wastewater
The City of Porterville Public Works Department operates and maintains the City’s municipal wastewater facilities.

There is approximately 150 miles of sewer pipe with diameters between six inches to 36-inches; the majority of the

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 189 sewer pipe is 12-inch. The primary existing trunk line adjacent to the Project Site include a 24-inch pipe that makes up the Grand-Newcomb Pipe. This sewer system services with entire General Plan planning area which includes approximately 75.2% acres of the Project Site and all of the City’s Urban Development Boundary. The remaining Project Site area that is within the Urban Area Boundary, but outside the Urban Development Boundary, is supported by on-site private septic systems. 35
The City’s wastewater is processed through the Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), which has a capacity of eight million gallons per day. Due to the City’s flat topography, the sewers flows are conveyed via 18 different lift stations throughout the City.

Solid Waste
The Tulare County Consolidated Waste Management Authority (CWMA) provides solid waste collection services for residential, commercial, and industrial developments in the city, transporting waste to the Teapot Dome Landfill.

This landfill is permitted to receive a maximum of 600 tons per day and has a remaining capacity of 998,468 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date that lapsed in 2004. As of 2022, Teapot Dome was no longer taking nonrefuse disposal, nor is it open to the public. Once Teapot Dome reaches capacity, waste will be diverted to Woodville Landfill. 36
Stormwater
Stormwater services are described in Section 4.10.

Natural Gas and Electricity
According to the Porterville 2030 General Plan, Southern California Edison is the electricity service provider. Power is provided through both overhead and undergrounded lines with all new development required to underground power transmission lines. Natural gas is provided to residents through Southern California Gas Company.

Telecommunications Accordingly, telecommunications providers in the area incrementally expand and update their service systems in response to usage and demand. Upon request, the Project Site could be connected to existing broadband infrastructure and subject to applicable connection and service fees.

4.19.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
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?
35 2030 Porterville General Plan Public Utilities Element, http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/communitydevelopment/documents/Chapter8PublicUtilities_000.pdf, Accessed January 28, 2024.
36 2030 Porterville General Plan Public Utilities Element, http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/communitydevelopment/documents/Chapter8PublicUtilities_000.pdf, Accessed January 28, 2024.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 190 Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits, future development would be required to annex into the City of Porterville and would be required to connect to water, stormwater, and wastewater services, and utilize solid waste, collection services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications would be provided by private companies. The City has reviewed the Project to determine adequate capacity in these systems and ensure compliance with applicable connection requirements. In addition to connections to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services, the Project would be served by Southern California Gas Company for natural gas and Southern California Edison for electricity and by the appropriate telecommunications provider for the Project site. Therefore, all wet and dry public utilities, facilities, and infrastructure are in place and available to serve the Project site. While new utility and service connections would need to be extended to and from the Project site (e.g., sewer, stormwater runoff, electrical), these new connections would not result in a need to modify the larger off-site infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and as such, and impact would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in detail in Section 4.10, the city’s long-term water resource planning is addressed in the city’s UWMP. As concluded in Section 4.10, it can be presumed that that existing and planned water supplies should be adequate to serve the Project’s anticipated demand at maximum buildout.

Regarding water supply availability for the Project and future development, the UWMP indicates the City utilizes a figure of 179 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to project water demand. As identified in Section 4.14, the project is anticipated to support up to 8,054 people at full build out. Based on the conservative approach of 179 gpcd, the additional population is anticipated to increase water usage by approximately 526 million gallons a year (mgy).

However, as indicated in Table 4-33, the City has a total water use of 5,731 mgy to support a population of 87,901.

Additionally, as shown in Table 4-33, there is 1,217 million gallons a year surplus to through at least 2040 which is 691 mgy more than what would be required to support full buildout of the Project.

Table 4-33 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison – Potable and Non-Potable 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply Total 8,542 8,834 9,166 9,539
Demand Total 5,731 6,497 7,337 8,322
Difference 2,812 2,337 1,829 1,217
Source: Table 7.2 of the 2020 Porterville Urban Water Management Plan With the slow population growth and planned facilities for water supply, there is no indication the increased population would result in a water deficit and therefore the impact is less than significant. 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. Although no development is currently proposed, future development that results from the implementation of the Project would generate wastewater. Pursuant to the City’s UWMP, the City owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) which was built in 1954 with a capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The WWTF was upgraded in 1978 to support a capacity of 4.0 mgd and again in 1994 to support 8.0

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 191 mgd. The City also has a WWTF Waste Discharge Requirement Order (No. R5-2008-304) that restricts the average daily discharge of wastewater to 5.3 mgd. As of 2020, the total volume of wastewater collected was 1,712 million gallons for a total of 4.69 mgd. Under the existing Waste Discharge Requirement Order, the WWTF could support a total volume of daily discharge of 1,934 million gallons, which results in 5.3 mgd. To reach the total capacity of

8.0 mgd, total volume of wastewater generation would exceed 2,920 million gallons.

Additionally, at the time of development all projects will be reviewed by the City and required to comply with all applicable City WWTF policies, as well as pay any applicable development fees and service connection fees.

Therefore, the Project would not have a significant impact. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. Although no development is currently proposed, future development that results from the implementation of the Project would generate solid waste and recycling. future development would be served by the Tulare County Consolidated Waste Management Authority (CWMA).and would be required to comply with local and state law regarding solid waste and recycling. Pursuant to the Porterville 2030 General Plan, solid waste is generated at a rate of 2.0 pounds per resident per day. The Project is anticipated to support a total of 8,054 new residents which would generate 16,108 pounds of solid waste per day. Assuming a 50 percent diversion from landfills pursuant to AB 939, the Project would send approximately 1,469.9 tons per year of solid waste to the Teapot Landfill, which is nearing capacity. The Woodville Disposal site is expected to receive solid waste disposal from Porterville once Teapot Landfill reaches capacity. The Woodville Disposal site was recently expanded and has a total of 27.5 million cubic yard capacity. The additional solid waste anticipated by the Project (1,469.9 tons) would account for less than 6.3% of the landfill’s receiving maximum.

In addition, through the entitlement review process, future development would be required to comply with requirements outlined in PMC Chapter. 13. - Garbage and Refuse. Compliance with these requirements would ensure regular collection and recycling of materials based on the capacity of local infrastructure. Through compliance, future development would not 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. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion d), future development would be required to comply with state and local law which include management and reduction statutes and regulations to ensure that solid waste is handled, transported, and disposed accordingly. Through compliance with local and state law, it can be determined that future development would also comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As a result, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 192

4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility or
lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
According to the General Plan EIR, the center portion of Porterville is highly urbanized and is less susceptible to wildland fires. The risk of wildland fires increases in the grasslands and other vegetation cover outside of the city’s urban core. The area located in the northeast portion of the city’s Planning Area near Lake Success is considered to have a high to very high risk of fire since it is heavily vegetated. The Project site is not located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones as identified by CAL FIRE. 37 Rather, the Project site is within an “area of local responsibility” that is an area of low fire risk. As an area of local responsibility, the Porterville Fire Department is responsible for providing fire protection services (See Section

4.15).

4.20.2 Impact Assessment
If located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, Would the project:
37 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed on August 9, 2023, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 193 a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Project would not impair access to the existing roadway network. While no development is proposed by the Project, future construction due to the implementation of the Project may require lane closure; however, these activities would be short-term and access through South Westwood Street or West Poplar Avenue (SR 190) would be maintained through standard traffic control. Following construction, existing roadways would continue to provide access to the site. Safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian circulation would be provided in addition to adequate access for emergency vehicles. To determine and ensure adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation and emergency vehicle access, future development of the Project site would be reviewed and conditioned by the city for compliance with applicable code and regulations including applicable emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, the Project would not substantially impair any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impact would occur. 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? No Impact. The Project site is located on a relatively flat property with minimal slope and is not in an area that is subject to strong prevailing winds or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The site is highly disturbed and is not located within a wildland (i.e., wild, uncultivated, and uninhabited land), which precludes the risk of wildfire. Further, the Project site is within an LRA and is not identified by Cal Fire to be in a VHFHSZ. For these reasons, no impact would occur as a result of this Project. 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?
Less than Significant Impact. Pursuant to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. While no development is proposed by the Project, future development of the Project site would include the construction of new infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, and other utilities. Future development of the site would be reviewed and conditioned by the city and the Porterville Fire Department for compliance with applicable standards, specifications, and codes related to the installation and maintenance of the proposed infrastructure. Such infrastructure would be typical for urban uses and would not exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur. 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? No Impact. The Project site is not located in or near state responsibility or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The topography of the Project site is relatively flat with stable, native soils, and is not susceptible to landslides according to the HMP. Therefore, no impact would occur because of the Project.

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 194

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
X
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)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X

4.21.1 Impact Assessment
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project is not expected to have substantial impact on habitat of a fish or wildlife species. Standard requirements that will be implemented through the entitlement process and the attached

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 195 mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. 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.)
Potentially Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable.

As determined by the Initial Study, there may be potentially significant effects related to Air Quality which will be addressed in the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA §15063(c)(3), an EIR can focus on effects which are determined to be significant impacts in the Initial Study and scope out sections which are determined not to be significant. Focused EIRs, as defined in §21158, are EIRs on subsequent projects identified in the Master EIR. The City’s General Plan used a programmatic EIR approach, or PEIR, that specifically states that it does not assess site-specific impacts and that future development will be subject to environmental review. As such, a Focused EIR is being prepared that will focus on Air Quality since all other sections scope out, but project level analysis for each Appendix A impact area is provided in this initial study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the analysis included in the Initial Study, the Project may have potentially significant impacts on Air Quality, and as a result may have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. As such, a Focused EIR is being prepared with further analysis on Air Quality and any potential adverse effects on human beings.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 196 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting checklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the PRC (PRC). The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed. Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Porterville is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.

Mitigation Measures
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initials
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AIR-2a: The following measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Master Plan to reduce emissions from construction.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project, the project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor shall provide reasonably detailed compliance with the following requirements to the City of Porterville Planning Department:
• Where portable diesel engines are used during
construction, all off-road equipment with engines
greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that
meet either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission
standards except as otherwise specified herein. If
engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available, then the
construction contractor shall use the next cleanest
piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier 4 Interim) that is commercially available. For purposes of this
mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall
mean the equipment at issue is available taking into

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 197 consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the
project site of equipment. If the relevant equipment is determined by the project applicant to not be
commercially available, the contractor can confirm
this conclusion by providing letters from at least two
rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment
that is at issue.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2b: Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and mixed-use residential development projects in the proposed Master Plan planning area, the project applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Porterville prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
• Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen).
• Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the
CALGreen Code.
• Retrofit off-road diesel equipment with Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) like Diesel
Particulate Filters (DPF). Particulate Matter level 3
VDECS can provide at least an 85 percent reduction
(CARB 2015).

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 198 • Use alternatively fueled (e.g., natural gas) diesel
construction equipment, including all off-road and
portable diesel-powered equipment.
• Use electrically driven equipment that is not powered by a portable generator set.
• Limit the hours of operation for heavy-duty equipment and/or limit the quantity of heavy-duty equipment
operating at the same time.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2c: Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects in the
planning area, project applicants shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Porterville prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
• For buildings with more than 10 tenant-occupants,
changing/shower facilities shall be provided as
specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential
Voluntary Measures) of the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen).
• Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each nonresidential building with
30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 199 consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential
Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2d: The following measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Master Plan during construction to facilitate the use of electric landscaping equipment during project operations:
• Provide electrical outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of
electrically powered landscape equipment.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3a: Prior to future discretionary approval for proposed implementing development projects, the City of Porterville shall evaluate potential impacts from localized emissions of criteria pollutants. The project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor shall submit an analysis demonstrating that the project would not result in a localized impact from criteria pollutants that follows SJVAPCD guidance. Options for relevant analyses to fulfill this mitigation measure are provided below:
• Provide a localized screening analysis demonstrating
the project would not exceed 100 pounds per day of
any criteria pollutant.
• Provide an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for the proposed project. An AAQA uses air dispersion
modeling to determine if emission increases from a
project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
SJVAPCD recommends an AAQA be performed for the

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 200 Project if emissions exceed 100 pounds per day of any
pollutant.
• Supporting documentation approved by the SJVAPCD
demonstrating that the proposed project would not
have the potential to result in a significant impact from localized criteria pollutant emissions.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3b: Prior to future discretionary approval for commercial or commercial mixed-use projects, the City of Porterville shall evaluate potential health risk impacts from new development proposals for any individual development projects within 1,000 feet of an existing or planned sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, day cares, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit the following to the City of Porterville Planning Department:
• A Health Risk Prioritization Screening Analysis or a
Health Risk Assessment for the project’s potential to
expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of Toxic
Air Contaminants during project construction and
operations prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD
guidance. If the Health Risk Assessment shows that the
incremental health risks exceed their respective
thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time
a project is considered, the project applicant shall be required to identify and incorporate commercially
feasible mitigation including appropriate enforcement
mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. The

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 201 City of Porterville shall submit each Health Risk
Screening Analysis or Health Risk Assessment to the
SJVAPCD for review. Development projects that exceed
the applicable thresholds established by the SJVAPCD
shall implement mitigation sufficient to reduce
potential impacts to the extent feasible.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3c: To identify potential implementing development project-specific impacts resulting from the use of diesel trucks, proposed implementing development projects that include an excess of 10 dock doors for a single building, a minimum of 100 truck trips per day, 40 truck trips with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) per day, or TRU
operations exceeding 300 hours per week, and that are with 1,000 feet from existing or planned sensitive land uses; shall have a facility-specific Health Risk Assessment performed to assess the diesel particulate matter impacts from mobile source traffic generated by that implementing development project. If applicable, the results of the Health Risk Assessment shall be included in the CEQA documentation for each
implementing development project. Development projects
that exceed the applicable thresholds established by the SJVAPCD shall implement mitigation sufficient to reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible.

Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Special-Status Species Surveys and Avoidance. The Project shall implement the following
measures to avoid and minimize for impacts on special-status species due to construction activities.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 202 • Pre-Construction Surveys. The Project shall conduct
parcel species biological evaluation(s) to determine
the project-specific impacts. The evaluation(s) may
require foot surveys and detailed habitat mapping,
wetland delineation, special status plant survey(s),
and protocol-level surveys for species of concern,
including American badger, Northern California legless
lizard, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, and San Joaquin adobe sunburst. Any special-status species and natural
communities detected during surveys shall be reported
to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB)
using the field survey form or mailed electronically.
• Environmental Awareness Training. A qualified
biologist shall conduct tailgate meeting to train
construction staff on special status species that
occur/may occur on the project site.
• Biological Monitoring During Construction: In case of the accidental death or injury of a special-status
species during construction-related activities, USFWS
and CDFW will be contacted immediately by phone
and notified in writing within three working days.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Surveys and
Avoidance. The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for loss of nesting habitat of the Project in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant Fish and Game Codes:
• Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, the Project will be constructed, if

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 203 feasible, from September 16th and January 31st,
which is outside the avian nesting season.
• Preconstruction Surveys. If Project activities must
occur during the nesting season (February 1-
September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct
preconstruction surveys for active raptor and
migratory bird nests within 10 days prior to the start
of these activities. The qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys per the Recommended
Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting
Surveys in California’s Central Valley (2000). The
survey will include the proposed work area(s) and
surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible,
for all nesting raptors and migratory birds. If no active nests are found within the survey area, no further
mitigation is required. Any special-status species and
natural communities detected during surveys shall be
reported to the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDBB) using the field survey form or mailed
electronically.
• Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be
discovered near proposed work areas, no disturbance
buffers of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed
bird species and 500 feet around active nests of nonlisted raptors will be established. If work needs to occur within these no disturbance buffers, a qualified
biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week, and thereafter once a week, throughout the duration of
construction activity. Should the nature of
construction activity significantly change, such that a

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 204 higher level of disturbance will be generated,
monitoring will occur daily for one week and then
resume the once-a-week regime. If, at any time, the
biologist determines that construction activity may be
compromising nesting success, construction activity
within the designated buffer will be altered or
suspended until the biologist determines that the nest
site is no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Swainson’s Hawk Surveys and
Avoidance. If Project activities must occur during the
Swainson’s hawk nesting season (February 15 to August 31), pre-construction surveys shall be conducted for Swainson’s hawk nests in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley, Swainson’s Hawk Technical
Advisory Committee (CDFG, 2000). The surveys would be
conducted on the Project site plus a 0.5-mile buffer. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys shall be conducted during at least two survey periods.

1. If no Swainson’s hawk nests are found, no further
action is required.

2. If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is discovered at any time within 0.5 miles of active construction, a qualified biologist shall complete an assessment of the potential for current construction activities to impact the nest.

The assessment would consider the type of
construction activities, the location of construction
relative to the nest, the visibility of construction
activities from the nest location, and other existing

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 205 disturbances in the area that are not related to the
construction activities of this Project. Based on this
assessment, the biologist will determine if
construction activities can proceed and the level of
nest monitoring required. Construction activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest, but this
distance may be reduced depending upon conditions
at the site. Full-time monitoring to evaluate the effects of construction activities on nesting Swainson’s hawks
may be required. The qualified biologist shall have the authority to stop work if it is determined that Project construction is disturbing the nest. These buffers may
need to increase depending on the sensitivity of the
nesting Swainson’s hawk to disturbances and at the
discretion of the qualified biologist.

Any special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) using the field survey form or mailed electronically.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys and Avoidance. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 10 days prior to the start of any construction activities. Qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys in accordance with USFWS Standard Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San
Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011).

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 206

1. If no active or potential den is detected in or adjacent to work area during the survey, no further action is
required.

2. If active or potential den is detected in or adjacent to work area during the pre-construction survey, the den
shall not be disturbed or destroyed. Compliance with
USFWS Recommendations for Protection of the
Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During
Ground Disturbance (2011) required. USFW and CDFW
will be immediately contacted to determine best
course of action. Construction activities shall be
carried out in a manner that minimizes disturbance to
kit foxes.

3. In case of the accidental death or injury of a San
Joaquin kit fox during construction-related activities, USFWS and CDFW will be contacted immediately by
phone and notified in writing within three working
days.

Any special-status species and natural communities detected during surveys shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDBB) using the field survey form or mailed electronically.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Wetland Delineation. Prior to the start of ground disturbance activities on APN 256-040-044, the applicant shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conduct a formal Wetland
Delineation.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 207 The NWI maps also show the area along the Tule River as freshwater forested shrub wetland and riverine wetland, which supports the river, adjacent wetlands, and riparian habitat. As discussed in criteria b), the Master Plan designates the riparian habitat area along the Tule River as Open Space land use to protect the riparian habitat from urban
development, tree preservation, clustered development, and establishes wildlife movement corridors through the Project Site. As such, the NWI-identified wetlands along Tule River would have a less than significant impact from future
development of the proposed Project.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to permit approval for
development on sites with existing buildings and/or structures that are 45 years or older, a historical resources evaluation shall be completed for that individual site to confirm if the existing buildings and/or structures within these sites qualify as historical resources as defined by Section 15064.5(a) of CEQA Guidelines. The evaluation shall be prepared by a
qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify any potential historical resources within the proposed project area. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 208 Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence.

Any relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource shall be implemented consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR Section 15126.4[b][1]).

Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence, in addition to the historical resources evaluation.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not feasible, the applicant or developer shall provide a report explaining why compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not feasible for the city’s review and approval. Site-specific mitigation measures shall be
established and undertaken, including, but not limited to, documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Buildings Survey-Like report. The report shall be commissioned by the project applicant or their consultant to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 209 Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall
generally follow the Historic American Buildings Survey Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the PQS and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In order to avoid the potential for impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the Project:
a. Cultural Resources Alert on Project Plans. The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground
disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources.
b. Stop Work Near any Discovered Cultural Resources. Should previously unidentified cultural resources be discovered during construction of the project, the project proponent shall cease work within 50 feet of the resources, and City of Porterville shall be notified immediately. The project archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archeology shall immediately to evaluate the find pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
c. Mitigation for Discovered Cultural Resources. If the professional archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 210 resource and/or unique archaeological resource, he/she shall notify the project proponent and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommended mitigation measures to
mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. If the archaeologist and, if applicable, a Native American monitor or other interested tribal representative determine it is
appropriate, cultural materials collected from the site shall be processed and analyzed in a laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of the materials shall be determined using radiocarbon dating and/or other
appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the site(s) shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR and if applicable, NRHP. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource Management Reports:

Recommended Content and Format (1990 or latest edition).” Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation inplace, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery, among other options. Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the City of Porterville. The archaeologist shall document the resources using DPR 523 forms and file said forms with the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be photo documented and collected by the archaeologist for submittal to the City of Porterville. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the City of Porterville s for review and

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 211 approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. This report shall be submitted to the NWIC after completion. Recommendations contained
therein shall be implemented throughout the remainder of ground disturbance activities. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken.
d. Data Recovery. Should the results of item c. yield resources that meet CRHR significance standards and if the resource cannot be avoided by project construction, the project
applicant shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of archaeological impacts are incorporated into the final design and approved by the City prior to construction. Any necessary data recovery excavation, conducted to exhaust the data potential of significant archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI’s PQS for archeology. Data recovery shall be conducted in
accordance with a research design reviewed and approved by the City, prepared in advance of fieldwork, and using the appropriate archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5, Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with the City and local California Native American tribe(s). As applicable, the final Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit.

Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 212 throughout all ground disturbance activities.

Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to, Cultural Resources Monitoring, and/or measures for
unanticipated discoveries. The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC upon completion.
e. Disposition of Cultural Resources. Upon coordination with the City of Porterville, any pre-historic archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate Tribal custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines. f. Cultural Resources Monitoring. If mitigation measures are recommended by reports written under item c. or d., the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor project-related, ground-disturbing activities which may include the following but not limited to: grubbing, vegetation removal, trenching, grading, and/or excavations.

The archaeological monitor shall coordinate with any Native American monitor as required. Monitoring logs must be
completed by the archaeologist daily. Cultural resources monitoring may be reduced for the project if the qualified archaeologist finds it appropriate to reduce the monitoring efforts. Upon completion of ground disturbance for the
project, a final report must be submitted to the City for review and approval documenting the monitoring efforts, cultural resources find, and resource disposition. The final report shall be submitted to the NWIC.

Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: If any paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbance activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist as defined by the Society of Vertebrate

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 213 Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations
regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or another appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations, and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution.

Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the City of Kerman, Community Development Department.

Mineral Resources
Mitigation Measure MIN-1: If development is proposed within the Project site designated as MRZ-3a, a soils reports and investigation shall be prepared prior to the approval of building

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 214 permits to ensure that availability of valuable aggregate deposit will not decrease.

Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to project approval of
residential development within the SoTu Master Plan, the City of Porterville shall ensure that proposed residential structures are located at least 157 feet from the centerline of Westwood Street, 409 feet from the centerline of SR 190 (Poplar Avenue), 137 feet from the centerline of Newcomb Street, and 674 feet from SR 65. If the project does not provide the listed setback for residential structures, sound walls shall be proposed to ensure that exterior noise of the residential site would not exceed 60 dB Ldn. If the project proposes sound walls in place of setbacks from roadway centerlines, a noise study shall be conducted as evidence that the sound wall is sufficient to maintain an exterior noise of 60 dB Ldn or 70 dB Ldn.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Prior to ground disturbing activities for projects within the SoTu Master Plan, the City of Porterville shall ensure the following with the Project proponent:
• Per the City of Porterville Municipal Code, construction activities should not occur outside the hours of 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during weekdays and 7:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. on weekends. Construction activities that
occur outside these hours would be subject to the
stationary noise standards as set forth in the City of
Porterville Municipal Code Section 18-90.4.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 215 • All construction equipment shall be properly
maintained and muffled as to minimize noise
generation at the source.
• Noise‐producing equipment shall not be operating,
running, or idling while not in immediate use by a
construction contractor.
• All noise‐producing construction equipment shall be
located and operated, to the extent possible, at the
greatest possible distance from any noise‐sensitive
land uses.
• Locate construction staging areas, to the extent
possible, at the greatest possible distances from any
noise‐sensitive land uses.
• Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of
construction activities and providing the contact
phone number of a designated noise disturbance
coordinator.

Tribal Cultural Resources
See Cultural Resources

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 216 6 REPORT PREPARATION
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:

Lead Agency
Lead Agency
City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
Claudia Calderon, Acting
Community Development
Director,
Community Development
Department
Initial Study Consultant
Initial Study
Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Bonique Emerson, AICP, VP of
Planning
Technical Studies
Air Quality, Health Risk,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Energy Analysis
Technical Report
Johnson Johnson & Miller Air
Quality Consulting Services
(559) 392-3665
Biological Resource
Assessment
Argonaut Ecological Consulting,
Inc.
2377 Gold Meadow Way, Ste 100
Gold River, CA 95670
(916) 803-1454
Cultural Resource Overview
Report
Peak & Associates, Inc.
3941 Park Drive Ste 20-329
El Dorado Hills, 95762
Noise Assessment WJV Acoustics, Inc.
133 N. Church Street, Suite 203
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 627-4923
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Analysis
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
516 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 217 7 APPENDICES

7.1 Appendix A: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Prepared by Johnson, Johnson, and Miller Air Quality Consulting Services, dated August 17, 2023.

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report SoTu Master Plan
City of Porterville, California
Prepared for:

Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Contact: Bonique Emerson, MAUP, AICP
Prepared by:

Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting
Services
2618 Burl Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611
[email protected]
Contact: Richard Miller
Air Quality Specialist
August 17, 2023
SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report iii
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................v Section 1: Executive Summary......................................................................................................7

1.1— Purpose and Methods of Analysis ................................................................................... 7

1.2— Project Description .......................................................................................................... 7

1.3— Summary of Analysis Results ........................................................................................... 9

1.4— Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures Applied to the Project......................... 10 Section 2: Air Quality Setting......................................................................................................14

2.1— Environmental Setting.................................................................................................... 14

2.2— Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................... 15

2.3— Existing Air Quality Conditions....................................................................................... 24

2.4— Air Quality Plans and Regulations.................................................................................. 27 Section 3: Climate Change Setting...............................................................................................33

3.1— Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 33

3.2— Greenhouse Gases......................................................................................................... 34

3.3— Regulatory Environment ................................................................................................ 38 Section 4: Modeling Parameters and Assumptions......................................................................51

4.1— Model Selection and Guidance...................................................................................... 51

4.2— Air Pollutants and GHGs Assessed ................................................................................. 51

4.3— Construction Modeling Assumptions............................................................................. 52

4.4— Operation....................................................................................................................... 53 Section 5: Air Quality Impact Analysis.........................................................................................57

5.1— CEQA Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 57

5.2— Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 57 Section 6: Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis................................................................................77

6.1— CEQA Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 77

6.2— Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 77 Section 7: Energy .......................................................................................................................85

7.1— CEQA Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 85

7.2— Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................. 85 Appendix A: CalEEMod Modeling Assumptions and Results
Appendix B: Energy Calculations
SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Description of Air Pollutants....................................................................................................17 Table 2: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone ....................................................................24 Table 3: Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution ..................................................25 Table 4: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status......................................................................26 Table 5: Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses...........................................................32 Table 6: Description of Greenhouse Gases...........................................................................................35 Table 7: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary – Annual Average (Unmitigated)..................62 Table 8: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions Summary – Maximum Annual Emissions by Development Year (Unmitigated)......................................................................................63 Table 9: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (Non-permitted Sources)...............................................65 Table 10: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources.........................................................................75 Table 11: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update...............................................................79 Table 12: Construction Energy Consumption........................................................................................86 Table 13: Long-term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption ...............................................................87 Table 14: Summary of Estimated Operational Annual Energy Consumption .......................................89 List of Figures
Figure 1: Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends by Scoping Plan Category in California ............................38 Figure 2: California’s Path to Achieving the 2050 Target.......................................................................82 SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
BACT best available control technology
BAU Business as Usual
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COG Council of Governments
District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District DPM diesel particulate matter
EMFAC EMission FACtors Model
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG Rx Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange
GHG(s) greenhouse gas(es)
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HRA health risk assessment
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NOX nitrogen oxides
NSR New Source Review
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SCE Southern California Edison
SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report vi
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOX sulfur oxides
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
VOC volatile organic compounds
SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 7 SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1—Purpose and Methods of Analysis
The following air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy analyses were prepared to evaluate whether the estimated criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and GHG emissions generated from the SoTu Master Plan (proposed Master Plan) would cause significant impacts to air resources in the project area. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.). The methodology follows the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or District) for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources, 1 and the SJVAPCD’s
Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA.
2 An energy analysis was prepared to satisfy the requirements of CEQA Guidelines.

1.2—Project Description

1.2.1 - Project Location and Surrounding Land Use
The project is located near the City of Porterville, within Tulare County, California. This project lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Specifically, the SoTu Master Plan Area (Plan Area) consists of 19 parcels that total approximately 447.30 gross acres and are generally bound to the north by the Tule River, to the south by State Route 190, to the east by State Route 65, and to the west by Westwood Street
Descriptions of the land uses surrounding the project site are listed below. • North – The Tule River is the primary boundary directly north of the plan area. North of the Tule River is primarily residential subdivisions closest to the plan area with a mix of businesses, residences and schools continuing throughout West Porterville (west of Highway 65 which runs North and South and divides Porterville into east and west sides). • East – East of the plan area is primarily residential subdivisions closest to the plan area with a mix of businesses including Home Depot and Harbor Freight Tools. The developed area of East Porterville is approximately 3.5 miles from the project site. To the northeast is Downtown Porterville, Corona Heights, and Porterville Cemetery. Granite Hills High School is about 3 miles northeast of the plan area.
• South – South of the plan area is primarily agricultural farmland with a scattering of rural residences and businesses. Eagle Mountain Casino is approximately 1.4 miles southwest, and Porterville College is approximately 1.3 miles southeast. There is also a Walmart Distribution Center approximately one (1) mile southeast of the plan area. • West – West of the plan area is agricultural farmland with a scattering of rural residences, businesses, and dairies.
1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February

19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed July 2023. 2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009a. Guidance for Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Website: www.valleyair.org /programs/CCAP/11-05- 09/3_CCAP_FINAL_LU_Guidance_Nov_05_2009.pdf. Accessed July 2023.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 9 1.2.2 - Project Description
The City of Porterville is proposing a master plan, known as SoTu Master Plan, on approximately 447.30 acres adjacent to City limits to facilitate future growth. Although there is no physical development proposed with the SoTu Master Plan, the goal is to provide the necessary framework to guide development in this area as it transitions from agricultural land to a vibrant, distinct, and multimodal district of mixed densities and uses that is attractive to residential and visitors to live, work, explore, and shop. Although the Plan Area is not within City Limits, the planned landed for this area includes Low Density Residential, Retail Centers, Education (Public), and Parks and Recreation.

The SoTu Master Plan Area consists of 19 parcels that total approximately 447.30 gross acres and are generally bound to the north by the Tule River, to the south by State Route 190, to the east by State Route 65, and to the west by Westwood Street. The complete project description and the project buildout assumptions used for the impact analysis are provided as part of Appendix A.

1.3—Summary of Analysis Results
The following is a summary of the analysis results. As shown below, the project would result in significant impacts for air quality impacts and less than significant for the GHG and energy impact criteria analyzed.

Impact AIR-1: The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact AIR-2: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact AIR-3: The project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact AIR-4: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-1: The project would not generate direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-2: The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Less than significant impact.

Impact ENERGY-1: The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Less than significant impact.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 10 Impact ENERGY-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less than significant impact.

1.4—Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures Applied to the Project The following standard conditions are required by existing regulation:

SC AIR-1 New development under the proposed Master Plan would include installation of onsite charging units for electric vehicles. Plans for on-site electric vehicle charging shall demonstrate that proposed development projects would meet or exceed electric vehicle parking provisions required by California Green Building Standards.

SC AIR-2 Individual commercial projects subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9401 – Employee Trip Reduction, shall comply with this rule. Compliance with SJVAPCD 9401 will promote trip reductions through the use of strategies that may include, but are not limited to:
• Employee carpool/ride sharing program.
• Flex scheduling/compressed scheduling.
• Posting information about public transit, bicycling, and pedestrian facilities and programs in public areas and in employee breakrooms. • Promote available websites providing transportation options for residents and businesses.
• Create and distribute a “new resident” or “new tenant” information packet addressing alternative modes of transportation for residential residents and commercial employees.
• Providing incentives for carpooling/ride sharing, transit ridership, bicycling, walking, and other forms of non-single occupant vehicle travel. • Providing employee lockers.
• Providing preferential parking for carpool/ride share vehicles. • Providing bicycle storage facilities in convenient and secure locations.

The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts:

MM AIR-2a The following measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Master Plan to reduce emissions from construction.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project, the project applicant, project sponsor, or construction contractor shall provide reasonably detailed compliance with the following requirements to the City of Porterville Planning Department:
• Where portable diesel engines are used during construction, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 75 horsepower shall have engines that meet either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards except as otherwise specified herein. If engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier 4 Interim) that is SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 11 commercially available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the equipment at issue is available taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the project site of equipment. If the relevant equipment is determined by the project applicant to not be commercially available, the contractor can confirm this conclusion by providing letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment that is at issue.

MM AIR-2b Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and mixed-use residential development projects in the proposed Master Plan planning area, the project applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Porterville prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
• Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
• Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

MM AIR-2c Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects in the planning area, project applicants shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Porterville prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
• For buildings with more than 10 tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). • Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

MM AIR-2d The following measure shall be applied to all development under the proposed Master Plan during construction to facilitate the use of electric landscaping equipment during project operations:
• Provide electrical outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of electrically powered landscape equipment.

MM AIR-3a Prior to future discretionary approval for proposed implementing development projects, the City of Porterville shall evaluate potential impacts from localized emissions of criteria pollutants. The project applicant, project sponsor, or SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 12 construction contractor shall submit an analysis demonstrating that the project would not result in a localized impact from criteria pollutants that follows SJVAPCD guidance. Options for relevant analyses to fulfill this mitigation measure are provided below:
• Provide a localized screening analysis demonstrating the project would not exceed 100 pounds per day of any criteria pollutant.
• Provide an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) for the proposed project. An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emission increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SJVAPCD recommends an AAQA be performed for the Project if emissions exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant. • Supporting documentation approved by the SJVAPCD demonstrating that the proposed project would not have the potential to result in a significant impact from localized criteria pollutant emissions.

MM AIR-3b Prior to future discretionary approval for commercial or commercial mixed-use projects, the City of Porterville shall evaluate potential health risk impacts from new development proposals for any individual development projects within 1,000 feet of an existing or planned sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, day cares, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit the following to the City of Porterville Planning Department:
• A Health Risk Prioritization Screening Analysis or a Health Risk Assessment for the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of Toxic Air Contaminants during project construction and operations prepared in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance. If the Health Risk Assessment shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant shall be required to identify and incorporate commercially feasible mitigation including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. The City of Porterville shall submit each Health Risk Screening Analysis or Health Risk Assessment to the SJVAPCD for review. Development projects that exceed the applicable thresholds established by the SJVAPCD shall implement mitigation sufficient to reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible.

MM AIR-3c To identify potential implementing development project-specific impacts resulting from the use of diesel trucks, proposed implementing development projects that include an excess of 10 dock doors for a single building, a minimum of 100 truck trips per day, 40 truck trips with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) per day, or TRU operations exceeding 300 hours per week, and that are with 1,000 feet from existing or planned sensitive land uses; shall have a facility-specific Health Risk Assessment performed to assess the diesel particulate matter impacts from mobile source traffic generated by that implementing development project. If applicable, the results of SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 13 the Health Risk Assessment shall be included in the CEQA documentation for each implementing development project. Development projects that exceed the applicable thresholds established by the SJVAPCD shall implement mitigation sufficient to reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 14 SECTION 2: AIR QUALITY SETTING

2.1—Environmental Setting
Air quality impacts are both local and regional. Local and regional air quality is impacted by topography, dominant airflows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season. The project is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin), which experiences some of the most challenging environmental conditions for air quality in the nation. The following section describes these conditions as they pertain to the Air Basin. The information in this section is primarily from the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI.
3 2.1.1 - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Topography
The topography of a region is important for air quality because mountains can block airflow that would help disperse pollutants and can channel air from upwind areas that transports pollutants to downwind areas. The SJVAPCD covers the entirety of the Air Basin. The Air Basin is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).

Climate
The climate is important for air quality because of differences in the atmosphere’s ability to trap pollutants close to the ground, which creates adverse air quality; inversely, the atmosphere’s ability to rapidly disperse pollutants over a wide area prevents high concentrations from accumulating under different climatic conditions. The Air Basin has an “inland Mediterranean” climate and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, foggy winters. Sunlight can be a catalyst in the formation of some air pollutants (such as ozone); the Air Basin averages over 260 sunny days per year.

Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually encountered 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor.

Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The mountains surrounding the Air Basin form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The wind generally flows south-southeast through the valley, through the Tehachapi Pass and into the Mojave Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County. As the wind moves through the Air Basin, it mixes with the air pollution generated locally, generally transporting air pollutants from the north to the south in the summer and in a reverse flow in the winter. 3 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed July 2023.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 15 The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the San Joaquin Valley floor. This creates strong, lowlevel temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to Tule fog. Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.

2.2—Regulatory Setting
Air pollutants are regulated to protect human health and for secondary effects such as visibility and building soiling. The Clean Air Act of 1970 tasks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with setting air quality standards. The State of California also sets air quality standards, which are in some cases more stringent than federal standards, in addition to addressing additional pollutants. The following section describes these federal and state standards and the health effects of the regulated pollutants.

2.2.1 - Clean Air Act
Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970 and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA: particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA labels these pollutants as criteria air pollutants because they are regulated by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines), which sets permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards. Another set of limits intended to prevent environmental and property damage are called secondary standards.
4 The federal standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards. The criteria pollutants are:
• Ozone • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Lead • Sulfur dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.

2.2.2 - California Clean Air Act
The California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988 to address air quality issues of concern not adequately addressed by the federal CAA at the time. California’s air quality 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Clean Air Act Requirements and History. Website: https://www.epa.gov/cleanair-act-overview/clean-air-act-requirements-and-history. Accessed July 2023.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 16 problems were and continue to be some of the most severe in the nation and require additional actions beyond the federal mandates. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the 10 air pollutants designated in the CCAA.

The 10 state air pollutants are the six federal standards listed above as well visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The EPA authorized California to adopt its own regulations for motor vehicles and other sources that are more stringent than similar federal regulations implementing the CAA.

2.2.3 - Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. There are no ambient air quality standards for TAC emissions.

TACs are regulated in terms of health risks to individuals and populations exposed to the pollutants.

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly expanded the EPA’s authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lists 187 hazardous air pollutants to be regulated by source category. Authority to regulate these pollutants was delegated to individual states. ARB and local air districts regulate TACs and HAPs in California.

2.2.4 - Air Pollutant Description and Health Effects
The federal and state ambient air quality standards, relevant effects, properties, and sources of the pollutants are summarized in Table 1.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 17 Table 1: Description of Air Pollutants
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standarda
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm — Irritate respiratory system; reduce lung function; breathing pattern
changes; reduction of breathing
capacity; inflame and damage cells
that line the lungs; make lungs more
susceptible to infection; aggravate
asthma; aggravate other chronic
lung diseases; cause permanent
lung damage; some immunological
changes; increased mortality risk;
vegetation and property damage.

Ozone is a photochemical pollutant
as it is not emitted directly into the
atmosphere, but is formed by a
complex series of chemical reactions
between volatile organic compounds
(VOC), NOX, and sunlight. Ozone is a
regional pollutant that is generated
over a large area and is transported
and spread by the wind.

Ozone is a secondary pollutant;
thus, it is not emitted directly into
the lower level of the atmosphere.

The primary sources of ozone
precursors (VOC and NOX) are
mobile sources (on-road and offroad vehicle exhaust).
8 Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppmf
Carbon
monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Ranges depending on exposure:
slight headaches; nausea;
aggravation of angina pectoris
(chest pain) and other aspects of
coronary heart disease; decreased
exercise tolerance in persons with
peripheral vascular disease and lung
disease; impairment of central
nervous system functions; possible
increased risk to fetuses; death.

CO is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas.

CO is somewhat soluble in water;
therefore, rainfall and fog can
suppress CO conditions. CO enters
the body through the lungs,
dissolves in the blood, replaces
oxygen as an attachment to
hemoglobin, and reduces available
oxygen in the blood.

CO is produced by incomplete
combustion of carbon-containing
fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, and
biomass). Sources include motor
vehicle exhaust, industrial processes
(metals processing and chemical
manufacturing), residential wood
burning, and natural sources.
8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
dioxideb
(NO2)
1 Hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory
symptoms in sensitive groups; risk
to public health implied by
pulmonary and extra-pulmonary
biochemical and cellular changes
and pulmonary structural changes;
contribution to atmospheric
discoloration; increased visits to
hospital for respiratory illnesses.

During combustion of fossil fuels,
oxygen reacts with nitrogen to
produce nitrogen oxides—NOX (NO,
NO2, NO3, N2O, N2O3, N2O4, and
N2O5). NOX is a precursor to ozone,
PM10, and PM2.5 formation. NOX can
react with compounds to form nitric
acid and related small particles and
result in PM-related health effects.

NOX is produced in motor vehicle
internal combustion engines and
fossil fuel-fired electric utility and
industrial boilers. Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) forms quickly from NOX
emissions. NO2 concentrations near
major roads can be 30 to 100
percent higher than those at
monitoring stations.

Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 18 Table 1 (cont.): Description of Air Pollutants
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standarda
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Sulfur
dioxidec (SO2)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include
wheezing, shortness of breath and
chest tightness, during exercise or
physical activity in persons with
asthma. Some population-based
studies indicate that the mortality
and morbidity effects associated
with fine particles show a similar
association with ambient sulfur
dioxide levels. It is not clear
whether the two pollutants act
synergistically or one pollutant
alone is the predominant factor.

Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent
gas. At levels greater than 0.5 ppm,
the gas has a strong odor, similar to
rotten eggs. Sulfur oxides (SOX)
include sulfur dioxide and sulfur
trioxide. Sulfuric acid is formed from
sulfur dioxide, which can lead to acid
deposition and can harm natural
resources and materials. Although
sulfur dioxide concentrations have
been reduced to levels well below
state and federal standards, further
reductions are desirable because
sulfur dioxide is a precursor to
sulfate and PM10.

Human-caused sources include
fossil-fuel combustion, mineral ore
processing, and chemical
manufacturing. Volcanic emissions
are a natural source of sulfur
dioxide. The gas can also be
produced in the air by
dimethylsulfide and hydrogen
sulfide. Sulfur dioxide is removed
from the air by dissolution in water,
chemical reactions, and transfer to
soils and ice caps. The sulfur dioxide
levels in the State are well below
the maximum standards.
3 Hour — 0.5 ppm
24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14
(for certain
areas)
Annual — 0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)
Particulate
matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 • Short-term exposure
(hours/days): irritation of the
eyes, nose, throat; coughing;
phlegm; chest tightness;
shortness of breath; aggravates
existing lung disease, causing
asthma attacks and acute
bronchitis; those with heart
disease can suffer heart attacks
and arrhythmias.
• Long-term exposure: reduced
lung function; chronic bronchitis;
changes in lung morphology;
death.

Suspended particulate matter is a
mixture of small particles that
consist of dry solid fragments,
droplets of water, or solid cores with
liquid coatings. The particles vary in
shape, size, and composition. PM10
refers to particulate matter that is
between 2.5 and 10 microns in
diameter (1 micron is one-millionth
of a meter). PM2.5 refers to
particulate matter that is 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, about onethirtieth the size of the average human hair.

Stationary sources include fuel or
wood combustion for electrical
utilities, residential space heating,
and industrial processes;
construction and demolition; metals,
minerals, and petrochemicals; wood
products processing; mills and
elevators used in agriculture;
erosion from tilled lands; waste
disposal; and recycling. Mobile or
transportation-related sources are
from vehicle exhaust and road dust.

Secondary particles form from
reactions in the atmosphere.

Mean 20 µg/m3 —
Particulate
matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour — 35 µg/m3
Annual 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3
Visibilityreducing
particles
8 Hour See note belowd
SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 19 Table 1 (cont.): Description of Air Pollutants
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standarda
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 — (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) aggravation of asthmatic
symptoms;
(c) aggravation of cardio-pulmonary
disease;
(d) vegetation damage;
(e) degradation of visibility;
(f) property damage.

The sulfate ion is a polyatomic anion
with the empirical formula SO4
2−
.

Sulfates occur in combination with
metal and/or hydrogen ions. Many
sulfates are soluble in water.

Sulfates are particulates formed
through the photochemical
oxidation of sulfur dioxide. In
California, the main source of sulfur
compounds is combustion of
gasoline and diesel fuel.

Leade 30-day 1.5 µg/m3 — Lead accumulates in bones, soft tissue, and blood and can affect the
kidneys, liver, and nervous system.

It can cause impairment of blood
formation and nerve conduction,
behavior disorders, mental
retardation, neurological
impairment, learning deficiencies,
and low IQ.

Lead is a solid heavy metal that can
exist in air pollution as an aerosol
particle component. Leaded gasoline
was used in motor vehicles until
around 1970. Lead concentrations
have not exceeded state or federal
standards at any monitoring station
since 1982.

Lead ore crushing, lead-ore
smelting, and battery manufacturing
are currently the largest sources of
lead in the atmosphere in the
United States. Other sources include
dust from soils contaminated with
lead-based paint, solid waste
disposal, and crustal physical
weathering.

Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-
month
average
— 0.15 µg/m3
Vinyl
chloridee
24 Hour 0.01 ppm — Short-term exposure to high levels
of vinyl chloride in the air causes
central nervous system effects, such
as dizziness, drowsiness, and
headaches. Epidemiological studies
of occupationally exposed workers
have linked vinyl chloride exposure
to development of a rare cancer,
liver angiosarcoma, and have
suggested a relationship between
exposure and lung and brain
cancers.

Vinyl chloride, or chloroethene, is a
chlorinated hydrocarbon and a
colorless gas with a mild, sweet
odor. In 1990, ARB identified vinyl
chloride as a toxic air contaminant
and estimated a cancer unit risk
factor.

Most vinyl chloride is used to make
polyvinyl chloride plastic and vinyl
products, including pipes, wire and
cable coatings, and packaging
materials. It can be formed when
plastics containing these substances
are left to decompose in solid waste
landfills. Vinyl chloride has been
detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste sites.

Hydrogen
sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm — High levels of hydrogen sulfide can
cause immediate respiratory arrest.

It can irritate the eyes and
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a
flammable, colorless, poisonous gas
that smells like rotten eggs.

Manure, storage tanks, ponds,
anaerobic lagoons, and land
application sites are the primary
SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 20 Table 1 (cont.): Description of Air Pollutants
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standarda
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
respiratory tract and cause
headache, nausea, vomiting, and
cough. Long exposure can cause
pulmonary edema.
sources of hydrogen sulfide.

Anthropogenic sources include the
combustion of sulfur-containing
fuels (oil and coal).

Volatile organic compounds
(VOC)
There are no state or
federal standards for VOCs
because they are not
classified as criteria
pollutants.

Although health-based standards
have not been established for VOCs,
health effects can occur from
exposures to high concentrations
because of interference with oxygen
uptake. In general, concentrations
of VOCs are suspected to cause eye,
nose, and throat irritation;
headaches; loss of coordination;
nausea; and damage to the liver, the
kidneys, and the central nervous
system. Many VOCs have been
classified as toxic air contaminants.

Reactive organic gases (ROG), or
VOCs, are defined as any compound
of carbon—excluding carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic
acid, metallic carbides or carbonates,
and ammonium carbonate—that
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions. Although
there are slight differences in the
definition of ROG and VOCs, the two
terms are often used
interchangeably.

Indoor sources of VOCs include
paints, solvents, aerosol sprays,
cleansers, tobacco smoke, etc.

Outdoor sources of VOCs are from
combustion and fuel evaporation. A
reduction in VOC emissions reduces
certain chemical reactions that
contribute to the formulation of
ozone. VOCs are transformed into
organic aerosols in the atmosphere,
which contribute to higher PM10 and
lower visibility.

Diesel particulate matter
(DPM)
There are no ambient air
quality standards for DPM.

Some short-term (acute) effects of
DPM exposure include eye, nose,
throat, and lung irritation, coughs,
headaches, light-headedness, and
nausea. Studies have linked
elevated particle levels in the air to
increased hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, asthma
attacks, and premature deaths
among those suffering from
respiratory problems. Human
studies on the carcinogenicity of
DPM demonstrate an increased risk
of lung cancer, although the
increased risk cannot be clearly
attributed to diesel exhaust
exposure.

DPM is a source of PM2.5—diesel
particles are typically 2.5 microns
and smaller. Diesel exhaust is a
complex mixture of thousands of
particles and gases that is produced
when an engine burns diesel fuel.

Organic compounds account for 80
percent of the total particulate
matter mass, which consists of
compounds such as hydrocarbons
and their derivatives, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and their
derivatives. Fifteen polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons are
confirmed carcinogens, a number of
which are found in diesel exhaust.

Diesel exhaust is a major source of
ambient particulate matter
pollution in urban environments.

Typically, the main source of DPM is
from combustion of diesel fuel in
diesel-powered engines. Such
engines are in on-road vehicles such
as diesel trucks, off-road
construction vehicles, diesel
electrical generators, and various
pieces of stationary construction
equipment.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 21 Table 1 (cont.): Description of Air Pollutants
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Standarda
Most Relevant Effects from Pollutant
Exposure Properties Sources
Notes:
ppm = parts per million (concentration) µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Annual = Annual Arithmetic Mean 30-day = 30-day average Quarter = Calendar quarter a Federal standard refers to the primary national ambient air quality standard, or the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. All standards listed are primary standards except for 3 Hour SO2, which is a secondary standard. A secondary standard is the level of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
b To attain the 1-hour NO2 national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb) (0.100 ppm).
c On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. d Visibility-reducing particles: In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. e The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. f The EPA Administrator approved a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppb on October 1, 2015. The new standard went into effect 60 days after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015 and became effective on December 28, 2015.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 22 Several pollutants listed in Table 1 are not addressed in this analysis. Analysis of lead, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride are not included in this report because no new sources of these pollutant emissions are anticipated with the project. Visibility-reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed as PM10 and PM2.5.

Toxic Air Contaminants Health Effects
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. There are no ambient air quality standards for TAC emissions.

TACs are regulated in terms of health risks to individuals and populations exposed to the pollutants.

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly expanded the EPA’s authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lists 187 hazardous air pollutants to be regulated by source category. Authority to regulate these pollutants was delegated to individual states. ARB and local air districts regulate TACs and hazardous air pollutants in California.

Exposures to TACs emissions can have both chronic long-term (over a year or longer) and acute short-term (over a period of hours) health impacts. The TACs of greatest concern are those that cause serious health problems or affect many people. Health problems can include cancer, respiratory irritation, nervous system problems, and birth defects. Some health problems occur very soon after a person inhales a TAC. These immediate effects may be minor, such as watery eyes, or they may be serious, such as life-threatening lung damage. Other health problems may not appear until many months or years after a person’s first exposure to the TAC. Cancer is one example of a delayed health problem.

The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition5 presents the relevant concentration and cancer risk data for the ten TACs that pose the most substantial health risk in California based on available data. The ten TACs are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1.3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and diesel particulate matter (DPM).

DPM
Some studies indicate that DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs listed above. A 10- year research program6 demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increased risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause a cough, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, 5 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2009. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2009 Edition. Chapter 4, Air Basin Trends and Forecasts—Criteria Pollutants. Website: https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=4101. Accessed July 2023. 6 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 1998. The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Process: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov /toxics/dieseltac/factsht1.pdf. Accessed July 2023.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 23 emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems.

DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although DPM is emitted by diesel-fueled, internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies, depending on: engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. Unlike the other TACs, however, no ambient monitoring data are available for DPM because no routine measurement method currently exists. The ARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a DPM exposure method. This method uses the ARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of DPM.

Health risks attributable to the top 10 TACs listed above are available from the ARB as part of its California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. As shown therein for data collected at air monitoring stations in urban areas of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, cancer risks attributable to all of the listed TACs above with the exception of DPM have declined about 70 percent from the mid1990s to 2007. Risks associated with DPM emissions are provided only for the year 2000 and have not been updated in the Almanac. Although more recent editions of the Almanac do not provide estimated risk, they do provide emission inventories for DPM for later years. The 2013 Almanac provides emission inventory trends for DPM from 2000 through 2035. The same Almanac reports that DPM emissions were reduced in the SJVAB from 16 tons per day in 2000 to 11 tons per day in 2010, a 31 percent decrease. DPM emissions in the San Joaquin Valley are projected to decrease to 6 tons per day by 2015, a 62 percent reduction from year 2000 levels. ARB predicts a reduction to three tons per day by 2035, which would be an 81 percent reduction from year 2000 levels.

Continued implementation of the ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is expected to provide continued reductions in DPM well into the future.
7 Benzene
Out of the toxic compounds emitted from gasoline stations, benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene have cancer toxicity values. However, benzene is the TAC which drives the risk, accounting for approximately 85 percent of cancer risk from gasoline vapors. Furthermore, benzene constitutes more than three to four times the weight of gasoline than ethylbenzene and naphthalene, respectively.
8 Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that have been mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos is a health threat; exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the 7 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. The California Almanac of Air Quality and Emissions—2013 Edition. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm. Accessed July 2023. 8 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/appx_1401riskassessproc_071517nw.pdf. Accessed July 2023.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 24 lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings that were constructed prior to the 1977 ban on asbestos for use in buildings. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present. No naturally occurring asbestos is located near the project site/plan area.

2.3—Existing Air Quality Conditions
The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air. Table 2 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations.

Table 2: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 51–100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 55–70 ppb Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 71–85 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 151–200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 86–105 ppb Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 201–300—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 106–200 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 25 Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

Source: Air Now. 2021. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculatorconcentration/. Accessed July 2023.

The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered moderate and would be triggered by a 24-hour average concentration of 12.1 to 35.4 µg/m3. The relationship of the AQI to health effects in shown Table 3.

Table 3: Air Quality Index and Health Effects of Particulate Pollution Air Quality Index/
PM2.5 Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 51–100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: Some people who may be unusually sensitive to particle.

Concentration 12.1–35.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people: Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. These are signs to take it easier.

AQI 101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Sensitive Groups: Sensitive groups include people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and teenagers.

Concentration 35.5–55.4 µg/m2 Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms in sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly.

AQI 151–200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Everyone
Concentration 55.5–150.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; increased respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling. Everyone else: Reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. Take more breaks during outdoor activities.

AQI 201–300—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Everyone
Concentration 150.5–250.4 µg/m3 Health Effects Statements: Significant aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease and the elderly; significant increase in respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid all physical activity outdoors. Move activities indoors or reschedule to a time when air quality is better. Everyone else: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion.

Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling to a time when air quality is better.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 26 Source: Air Now. 2021. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-calculator-concentration/.

Accessed July 2023.

2.3.1 - Attainment Status
The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.

Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.

The current attainment designations for the Air Basin are shown in Table 4. The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

Table 4: San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone—One Hour Nonattainment/Severe No Standard
Ozone—Eight Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment/Extreme
Carbon monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Merced, Madera, and Kings Counties are unclassified; others are in Attainment
Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment No Designation/Classification
Source of State status: California Air Resources Board (ARB 2013). 9 Source of National status: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2021). 10 Source of additional status information (SJVAPCD 2017). 11 9
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Area Designation Maps/State and National. 2012 State Area Designations. Page last reviewed October 18, 2017. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov /resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. Accessed July 2023. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants as of September 30, 2021.

Website: https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed July 2023. 11 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2017. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed July 2023.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 27 2.4—Air Quality Plans and Regulations
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin or county level, and each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility: the EPA regulates at the national level, the ARB at the state level, and the SJVAPCD at the air basin level.

2.4.1 - San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The SJVAPCD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The SJVAPCD, in coordination with the eight countywide transportation agencies, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing air quality attainment plans for the Air Basin. The SJVAPCD also has roles under CEQA.

SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations
The SJVAPCD rules and regulations that may apply to projects that will occur during buildout of the project include but are not limited to the following:

Rule 4102—Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public, and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. This rule is enforced on a complaint basis.

Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emissions are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling. Only compliant components are available for purchase in the San Joaquin Valley.

Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641. This regulation is enforced on the asphalt provider.

Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011–8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.

Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOX and PM10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site District-administered projects, or a combination of the two. This project is subject to Rule 9510.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Report 28 CEQA
The SJVAPCD has three roles under CEQA:

1. Lead Agency: Responsible for preparing environmental analyses for its own projects (adoption of rules, regulations, or plans) or permit projects filed with the SJVAPCD where the SJVAPCD has primary approval authority over the project.

2. Responsible Agency: The discretionary authority of a responsible agency is more limited than a lead agency; having responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the environmental effects of those parts of the project which it decides to approve, carry out, or finance. The SJVAPCD defers to the lead agency for preparation of environmental documents for land use projects that also have discretionary air quality permits, unless no document is prepared by the lead agency and potentially significant impacts related to the permit are possible. The SJVAPCD regularly submits comments on documents prepared by lead agencies to ensure that the SJVAPCD’s concerns are addressed.

3. Commenting Agency: The SJVAPCD reviews and comments on air quality analyses prepared by other public agencies (such as the proposed project).

The SJVAPCD also provides guidance and thresholds for CEQA air quality and GHG analyses. The result of this guidance, as well as state regulations to control air pollution, is an overall improvement in the Air Basin. In particular, the SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI states the following:

1. The District’s Air Quality Attainment Plans include measures to promote air quality elements in county and city general plans as one of the primary indirect source programs.

The general plan is the primary long-range planning document used by cities and counties to direct development. Since air districts have no authority over land use decisions, it is up to cities and counties to ensure that their general plans help achieve air quality goals.

Section 65302.1 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend appropriate elements of their general plans to include data, analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality in their next housing element revisions.

2. The Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans (AQGGP), adopted by the District in 1994 and amended in 2005, is a guidance document containing goals and policy examples that cities and counties may want to incorporate into their General Plans to satisfy Section 65302.1.