Agenda packet — Porterville City Council, October 1, 2024 (part 5 of 7)

32.2 31.5 9.73 68.8 0.05 0.07 2.94 3.01 0.07 0.75 0.81— 5,248 5,248 1.37 0.79 14.6 5,532 Industrial
Park

21.4 20.9 6.47 45.7 0.03 0.05 1.95 2.00 0.04 0.50 0.54— 3,487 3,487 0.91 0.52 9.69 3,676 Regional
Shopping
Center

74.3 72.4 24.9 181 0.18 0.21 11.6 11.8 0.20 2.95 3.15— 17,996 17,996 3.25 2.04 57.6 18,742 Superma
rket
117 114 37.5 269 0.24 0.30 14.8 15.1 0.28 3.77 4.05— 24,150 24,150 5.05 3.06 73.7 25,261 Strip Mall 28.7 28.0 8.65 61.2 0.05 0.06 2.61 2.67 0.06 0.66 0.72— 4,665 4,665 1.22 0.70 13.0 4,917 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.91 0.80 5.51 5.15 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.43 0.03 0.11 0.14— 1,439 1,439 0.09 0.22 5.02 1,510 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 275 268 92.8 631 0.56 0.72 34.3 35.1 0.67 8.74 9.41— 56,985 56,985 11.9 7.32 174 59,638 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Office
Building

27.8 26.8 11.0 88.0 0.05 0.07 2.94 3.01 0.07 0.75 0.81— 4,981 4,981 1.81 0.86 0.38 5,283 Industrial
Park

18.5 17.8 7.32 58.5 0.03 0.05 1.95 2.00 0.04 0.50 0.54— 3,310 3,310 1.20 0.57 0.25 3,510 Regional
Shopping
Center

64.2 61.8 28.3 217 0.16 0.21 11.6 11.8 0.20 2.95 3.15— 16,857 16,857 4.24 2.22 1.49 17,625 Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 48 / 73
Superma 101 97.4 42.5 332 0.22 0.30 14.8 15.1 0.28 3.77 4.05— 22,729 22,729 6.63 3.33 1.91 23,888 rket
Strip Mall 24.7 23.9 9.80 78.2 0.04 0.06 2.61 2.67 0.06 0.66 0.72— 4,428 4,428 1.60 0.76 0.34 4,696 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.81 0.70 5.85 5.54 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.43 0.03 0.11 0.14— 1,447 1,447 0.10 0.22 0.13 1,515 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 237 228 105 779 0.53 0.73 34.3 35.1 0.68 8.74 9.42— 53,751 53,751 15.6 7.96 4.50 56,517 Annual——————————————————
General
Office
Building

3.90 3.78 1.41 10.4 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.41 0.01 0.10 0.11— 629 629 0.20 0.10 0.78 664 Industrial
Park

3.01 2.92 1.09 8.01 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09— 485 485 0.15 0.08 0.61 513 Regional
Shopping
Center

9.17 8.87 3.63 26.3 0.02 0.03 1.49 1.52 0.03 0.38 0.41— 2,062 2,062 0.47 0.26 2.94 2,155 Superma
rket

15.6 15.1 6.10 44.2 0.04 0.05 2.38 2.42 0.04 0.60 0.65— 3,343 3,343 0.80 0.44 4.69 3,499 Strip Mall 4.61 4.47 1.67 12.2 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.48 0.01 0.12 0.13— 742 742 0.23 0.12 0.93 785 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.15 0.13 1.04 0.97 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.02— 239 239 0.02 0.04 0.36 250 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 36.5 35.3 14.9 102 0.08 0.11 5.11 5.22 0.10 1.30 1.40— 7,500 7,500 1.87 1.04 10.3 7,866 Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 49 / 73

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21,425 21,425 1.33 0.16 — 21,507 Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 45,801 45,801 2.84 0.34 — 45,975 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6,053 6,053 0.38 0.05 — 6,076
Superma
rket
— — — — — — — — — — — — 12,696 12,696 0.79 0.10 — 12,744 Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,024 2,024 0.13 0.02 — 2,031 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,128 5,128 0.32 0.04 — 5,147
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 93,127 93,127 5.78 0.70 — 93,480 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 50 / 73
General———————————— 21,425 21,425 1.33 0.16— 21,507
Office
Building
Industrial
Park
———————————— 45,801 45,801 2.84 0.34— 45,975
Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————— 6,053 6,053 0.38 0.05— 6,076
Superma
rket
———————————— 12,696 12,696 0.79 0.10— 12,744
Strip Mall———————————— 2,024 2,024 0.13 0.02— 2,031
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
———————————— 5,128 5,128 0.32 0.04— 5,147
Total———————————— 93,127 93,127 5.78 0.70— 93,480
Annual——————————————————
General
Office
Building
———————————— 3,547 3,547 0.22 0.03— 3,561
Industrial
Park
———————————— 7,583 7,583 0.47 0.06— 7,612
Regional
Shopping
Center
———————————— 1,002 1,002 0.06 0.01— 1,006
Superma
rket
———————————— 2,102 2,102 0.13 0.02— 2,110
Strip Mall———————————— 335 335 0.02 < 0.005— 336
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 51 / 73
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 849 849 0.05 0.01 — 852
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 15,418 15,418 0.96 0.12 — 15,477

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.83 0.41 7.52 6.32 0.05 0.57 — 0.57 0.57 — 0.57 — 8,971 8,971 0.79 0.02 — 8,996 Industrial
Park

1.77 0.88 16.1 13.5 0.10 1.22 — 1.22 1.22 — 1.22 — 19,178 19,178 1.70 0.04 — 19,231 Regional
Shopping
Center

0.07 0.04 0.65 0.55 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 781 781 0.07 < 0.005 — 783 Superma
rket

0.14 0.07 1.28 1.08 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,531 1,531 0.14 < 0.005 — 1,535 Strip Mall 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 261 261 0.02 < 0.005 — 262 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 2.83 1.42 25.7 21.6 0.15 1.96 — 1.96 1.96 — 1.96 — 30,722 30,722 2.72 0.06 — 30,807 Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 52 / 73
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.83 0.41 7.52 6.32 0.05 0.57 — 0.57 0.57 — 0.57 — 8,971 8,971 0.79 0.02 — 8,996 Industrial
Park

1.77 0.88 16.1 13.5 0.10 1.22 — 1.22 1.22 — 1.22 — 19,178 19,178 1.70 0.04 — 19,231 Regional
Shopping
Center

0.07 0.04 0.65 0.55 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 781 781 0.07 < 0.005 — 783 Superma
rket

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 2.83 1.42 25.7 21.6 0.15 1.96 — 1.96 1.96 — 1.96 — 30,722 30,722 2.72 0.06 — 30,807 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.15 0.08 1.37 1.15 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,485 1,485 0.13 < 0.005 — 1,489 Industrial
Park

0.32 0.16 2.93 2.46 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,175 3,175 0.28 0.01 — 3,184 Regional
Shopping
Center

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 — 130 Superma
rket

0.03 0.01 0.23 0.20 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 253 253 0.02 < 0.005 — 254 Strip Mall < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 43.2 43.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.3 Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 53 / 73
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.52 0.26 4.70 3.95 0.03 0.36 — 0.36 0.36 — 0.36 — 5,086 5,086 0.45 0.01 — 5,100

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 68.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 4.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

24.6 22.7 1.17 138 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.19 — 0.19 — 570 570 0.02 < 0.005 — 572 Total 24.6 95.8 1.17 138 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.19 — 0.19 — 570 570 0.02 < 0.005 — 572 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 54 / 73
Consum — 68.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 4.46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 73.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.81 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.22 2.05 0.10 12.5 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 46.5 46.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 Total 2.22 15.4 0.10 12.5 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 46.5 46.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 259 783 1,042 26.6 0.64 — 1,899
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 722 2,174 2,896 74.1 1.77 — 5,278 Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 55 / 73
Regional
Shopping
Center
——————————— 57.2 175 232 5.88 0.14— 421
Superma
rket
——————————— 60.6 183 244 6.22 0.15— 444
Strip Mall——————————— 19.1 58.4 77.5 1.97 0.05— 141
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 2.84 2.84 < 0.005 < 0.005— 2.85
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 8.21 8.21 < 0.005 < 0.005— 8.25
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 30.7 30.7 < 0.005 < 0.005— 30.8
Total——————————— 1,118 3,415 4,533 115 2.75— 8,223
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Office
Building
——————————— 259 783 1,042 26.6 0.64— 1,899
Industrial
Park
——————————— 722 2,174 2,896 74.1 1.77— 5,278
Regional
Shopping
Center
——————————— 57.2 175 232 5.88 0.14— 421
Superma
rket
——————————— 60.6 183 244 6.22 0.15— 444
Strip Mall——————————— 19.1 58.4 77.5 1.97 0.05— 141
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 2.84 2.84 < 0.005 < 0.005— 2.85
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 8.21 8.21 < 0.005 < 0.005— 8.25
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 56 / 73
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 30.7 30.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.8 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,118 3,415 4,533 115 2.75 — 8,223 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 42.9 130 173 4.41 0.11 — 314
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 119 360 479 12.3 0.29 — 874
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.48 28.9 38.4 0.97 0.02 — 69.7
Superma
rket
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.0 30.4 40.4 1.03 0.02 — 73.5
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 3.17 9.66 12.8 0.33 0.01 — 23.3 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.47 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 1.36 1.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.37 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 5.08 5.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 185 565 751 19.0 0.46 — 1,361

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 57 / 73
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
General
Office
Building
——————————— 382 0.00 382 38.2 0.00— 1,336
Industrial
Park
——————————— 1,088 0.00 1,088 109 0.00— 3,807
Regional
Shopping
Center
——————————— 228 0.00 228 22.8 0.00— 798
Superma
rket
——————————— 779 0.00 779 77.9 0.00— 2,727
Strip Mall——————————— 76.3 0.00 76.3 7.62 0.00— 267
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 2,554 0.00 2,554 255 0.00— 8,935
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Office
Building
——————————— 382 0.00 382 38.2 0.00— 1,336
Industrial
Park
——————————— 1,088 0.00 1,088 109 0.00— 3,807
Regional
Shopping
Center
——————————— 228 0.00 228 22.8 0.00— 798
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 58 / 73
Superma——————————— 779 0.00 779 77.9 0.00— 2,727
rket
Strip Mall——————————— 76.3 0.00 76.3 7.62 0.00— 267
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 2,554 0.00 2,554 255 0.00— 8,935
Annual——————————————————
General
Office
Building
——————————— 63.2 0.00 63.2 6.32 0.00— 221
Industrial
Park
——————————— 180 0.00 180 18.0 0.00— 630
Regional
Shopping
Center
——————————— 37.8 0.00 37.8 3.78 0.00— 132
Superma
rket
——————————— 129 0.00 129 12.9 0.00— 451
Strip Mall——————————— 12.6 0.00 12.6 1.26 0.00— 44.2
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 423 0.00 423 42.3 0.00— 1,479
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 59 / 73

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.85 1.85
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 424 424
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.94 1.94
Superma
rket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 53,157 53,157
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.84 0.84
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 53,585 53,585
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.85 1.85
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 424 424
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.94 1.94
Superma
rket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 53,157 53,157
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 60 / 73
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.84 0.84
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 53,585 53,585
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.31 0.31
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 70.2 70.2
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.32 0.32
Superma
rket
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8,801 8,801
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.14 0.14
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8,872 8,872

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 61 / 73
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 62 / 73
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 63 / 73
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 64 / 73
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2024 10/4/2024 5.00 200 — Grading Grading 10/05/2024 3/21/2025 5.00 120 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/22/2025 2/6/2037 5.00 3,100 — Paving Paving 3/22/2025 1/23/2026 5.00 220 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/3/2036 3/6/2037 5.00 220 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 65 / 73
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 4.00 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 66 / 73
Site Preparation Hauling 62.5 0.50 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 4.00 0.50 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 4.00 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 4.00 0.50 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 1,182 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 522 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 4.00 0.50 HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 4.00 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 4.00 0.50 HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 236 0.50 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 4.00 0.50 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 0.50 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 4.00 0.50 HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 67 / 73
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 4,776,600 1,592,200 327,814

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation 50,000 50,000 300 0.00 —
Grading — — 360 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 125

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Office Building 0.00 0%
Industrial Park 0.00 0%
Regional Shopping Center 0.00 0%
Supermarket 0.00 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 68 / 73
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 8.53 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 24.7 100%
Parking Lot 92.2 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2030 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2031 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2032 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2033 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2034 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2035 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2036 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2037 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 69 / 73
General Office 8,257 1,683 533 2,268,295 4,128 842 267 1,134,147 Building
Industrial Park 5,487 4,136 2,019 1,751,477 2,743 2,068 1,010 875,739 Regional Shopping
Center
14,922 18,789 7,649 5,268,922 11,717 16,316 6,642 4,251,784 Supermarket 24,227 29,781 21,761 9,003,847 20,861 14,890 10,880 6,782,433 Strip Mall 7,340 7,340 7,340 2,679,100 3,670 3,670 3,670 1,339,550 Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
928 928 928 338,768 464 464 464 169,384
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 4,776,600 1,592,200 327,814

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 70 / 73

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Office Building 14,700,146 532 0.0330 0.0040 27,992,282 Industrial Park 31,424,771 532 0.0330 0.0040 59,839,612 Regional Shopping Center 4,152,886 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,436,261 Supermarket 8,710,912 532 0.0330 0.0040 4,777,098
Strip Mall 1,388,415 532 0.0330 0.0040 814,504
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 3,518,181 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Office Building 135,379,796 1,648,928
Industrial Park 376,544,375 3,524,944
Regional Shopping Center 29,866,041 872,847
Supermarket 31,605,970 555,055
Strip Mall 9,984,976 291,815
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 804,238
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 2,329,048
Parking Lot 0.00 8,694,245
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 71 / 73

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Office Building 708 —
Industrial Park 2,019 —
Regional Shopping Center 423 —
Supermarket 1,446 —
Strip Mall 142 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Industrial Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Supermarket Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 72 / 73
Supermarket Supermarket
refrigeration and
condensing units
R-404A 3,922 26.5 16.5 16.5 18.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation
Commercial and Industrial Uses - Localized Analysis Custom Report, 8/17/2023 73 / 73

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Default phase durations.

The SoTu Master Plan is intended to be a guiding document for future development. There are no individual projects proposed at this time.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip generation rates adjusted to match rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, 11th Edition - consistent with the project-specific traffic study.

Operations: Fleet Mix Truck fleet mix applied to the non-asphalt land use to account for truck trips from the industrial use.

Fleet mix based on the CalEEMod default proportions.

Construction: Trips and VMT Construction trip lengths updated to 0.5 mile to account for on-site and localized emissions from on-road sources.

SoTu Master Plan—City of Porterville Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis Report Appendix B: Energy Calculations
Construction Vehicle Fuel Calculations (Page 1 of 2)
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled Region Type: County FE = Fuel Economy
Region: Tulare
Calendar Year: 2023
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Class Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT
(mi/day)
Fuel
Consumption
(1000
gallons/day)
FE
(mi/gallon) VMT*FE
Tulare 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1.54970655 46.293347 0.014304312 3.23632114 149.8201 Tulare 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5221.84185 738312.92 125.5857963 5.8789524 4340507 Tulare 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 158118.586 6491689.4 219.6650576 29.5526718 1.92E+08 Tulare 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 384.149892 12142.554 0.280343597 43.3131127 525931.8 Tulare 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 15857.3496 513272.46 21.34216622 24.0496889 12344043 Tulare 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 10.6516961 178.98541 0.007008468 25.5384492 4571.01 Tulare 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 67885.9374 2693221.2 113.8810344 23.6494272 63693140 Tulare 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 166.198415 7236.2356 0.219675726 32.9405336 238365.5 Tulare 2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 7343.52005 256425.3 28.05468024 9.14019686 2343778 Tulare 2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8303.00088 296659.93 18.79451052 15.7843924 4682597 Tulare 2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1118.53274 38674.934 4.763202236 8.11952387 314022.1 Tulare 2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2789.63445 102156.22 7.87710403 12.9687539 1324839 Tulare 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 78873.2804 2872062.8 151.1282564 19.0041417 54581088 Tulare 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1210.67366 48889.896 2.023324036 24.1631567 1181334 Tulare 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 405.111362 18171.796 3.924545838 4.6302926 84140.73 Tulare 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3939.62675 186485.68 21.5511825 8.65315289 1613689 Worker
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 25.66842
Vendor
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 8.982482
Haul
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 5.878787
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2022. EMFAC2021 Web Database. Website: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Accessed June 2023.

Given Calculations
Construction Vehicle Fuel Calculations (Page 2 of 2)
Construction Schedule
Source: CalEEMod Output
CalEEMod Run Phase Name Start Date End Date
Num Days
Week Num Days
01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Site Preparation 1/01/2024 9/6/2024 5 180 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Grading 9/7/2024 6/19/2026 5 465 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Building Construction 9/7/2024 8/5/2033 5 2,325 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Paving 9/7/2024 4/25/2025 5 165 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Architectural Coating 1/1/2033 4/7/2034 5 330 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Site Preparation 1/1/2024 10/4/2024 5 200 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Grading 10/05/2024 3/21/2025 5 120 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Building Construction 3/22/2025 2/6/2037 5 3,100 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Paving 3/22/2025 1/23/2026 5 220 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Architectural Coating 5/3/2036 3/6/2037 5 220 Construction Trips and VMT
Total Trips
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling
Trip
Number
Worker
Trips
Vendor
Trips
Hauling
Trips Worker Trips Vendor Trips Hauling Trips
01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Site Preparation 17.5 4 0 7.7 6.8 20 180 3,150 720 0 24,255 4,896 0 944.94 545.06 0.00 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Grading 20 4 0 7.7 6.8 20 465 9,300 1,860 0 71,610 12,648 0 2,789.81 1,408.07 0.00 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Building Construction 1290.29526 226.7495217 0 7.7 6.8 20 2,325 2,999,936 527,193 0 23,099,511 3,584,910 0 899,919.62 399,100.16 0.00 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Paving 15 4 0 7.7 6.8 20 165 2,475 660 0 19,058 4,488 0 742.45 499.64 0.00 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Architectural Coating 258.059052 4 0 7.7 6.8 20 330 85,159 1,320 0 655,728 8,976 0 25,546.11 999.28 0.00 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Site Preparation 18 4 63 7.7 6.8 20 200 3,500 800 12,500 26,950 5,440 250,000 1,049.93 605.62 42,525.78 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Grading 20 4 0 7.7 6.8 20 120 2,400 480 0 18,480 3,264 0 719.95 363.37 0.00 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Building Construction 1,182 522 0 7.7 6.8 20 3,100 3,663,698 1,617,962 0 28,210,473 11,002,140 0 1,099,034.45 1,224,844.14 0.00 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Paving 15 4 0 7.7 6.8 20 220 3,300 880 0 25,410 5,984 0 989.93 666.19 0.00 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Architectural Coating 236 4 0 7.7 6.8 20 220 52,001 880 0 400,407 5,984 0 15,599.20 666.19 0.00 Total Phase 1 Project Construction VMT (miles)
67,440,611
Total Phase 1 Project Fuel Consumption (gallons)
3,719,560
VMT per Phase Fuel Consumption (gallons)
CalEEMod Run Phase Name
Trips per Day Construction Trip Length in Miles
Number of
Days per
Phase
Trips per Phase
Construction Equipment Fuel Calculation
Source: CalEEMod Output
Construction Schedule
Construction Area Phase Type Start Date End Date
Num Days
Week
Num
Days
01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Site Preparation 1/01/2024 9/6/2024 5 180 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Grading 9/7/2024 6/19/2026 5 465 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Building Construction 9/7/2024 8/5/2033 5 2,325 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Paving 9/7/2024 4/25/2025 5 165 01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Architectural Coating 1/1/2033 4/7/2034 5 330 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Site Preparation 1/1/2024 10/4/2024 5 200 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Grading 10/05/2024 3/21/2025 5 120 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Building Construction 3/22/2025 2/6/2037 5 3,100 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Paving 3/22/2025 1/23/2026 5 220 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Architectural Coating 5/3/2036 3/6/2037 5 220 Construction Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
Number of
Days HP Hours
Fuel
(gallons/HPhour)Diesel Fuel
Usage
01 - SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.40 180 634,176.00 0.021 13,009.03 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 180 179,020.80 0.019 3,406.15 Grading Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 465 101,779.20 0.020 2,010.88 Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.41 465 225,729.60 0.021 4,788.80 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40 465 546,096.00 0.021 11,202.22 Grading Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 465 1,510,617.60 0.025 37,594.36 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 465 231,235.20 0.019 4,399.62 Building Construction Cranes 2 7 367 0.29 2,325 3,464,296.50 0.015 51,565.56 Building Construction Forklifts 6 8 82 0.20 2,325 1,830,240.00 0.021 38,077.63 Building Construction Generator Sets 2 8 14 0.74 2,325 385,392.00 0.042 16,324.28 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 7 84 0.37 2,325 3,034,962.00 0.019 57,744.97 Building Construction Welders 2 8 46 0.45 2,325 770,040.00 0.026 19,902.35 Paving Pavers 4 8 81 0.42 165 179,625.60 0.022 3,866.84 Paving Paving Equipment 4 8 89 0.36 165 169,171.20 0.018 3,101.34 Paving Rollers 4 8 36 0.38 165 72,230.40 0.019 1,401.57 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 330 35,164.80 0.028 968.94 02 - SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.40 200 704,640.00 0.021 14,454.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 200 198,912.00 0.019 3,784.62 Grading Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 120 26,265.60 0.020 518.94 Grading Graders 1 8 148 0.41 120 58,252.80 0.021 1,235.82 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40 120 140,928.00 0.021 2,890.90 Grading Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 120 389,836.80 0.025 9,701.77 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 120 59,673.60 0.019 1,135.38 Building Construction Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 3,100 2,309,531.00 0.015 34,377.04 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8 82 0.20 3,100 1,220,160.00 0.021 25,385.09 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 3,100 256,928.00 0.042 10,882.85 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 3,100 2,023,308.00 0.019 38,496.64 Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.45 3,100 513,360.00 0.026 13,268.23 Paving Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 220 119,750.40 0.022 2,577.89 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 220 112,780.80 0.018 2,067.56 Paving Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 220 48,153.60 0.019 934.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 220 23,443.20 0.028 645.96 Total Master Plan Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption (gallons) 431,722.08 Notes:

Equipment assumptions are provided in the CalEEMod output files.

Source of usage estimates: California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2021. OFFROAD2017 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory for Tulare County Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/orion/.

Construction Equipment Fuel Calculation
OFFROAD2017 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Tulare
Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2017 Equipment Types
Units: Emissions: tons/day, Fuel Consumption: gallons/year, Activity: hours/year, HP-Hours: HP-hours/year Region Vehicle Class Model Year HP_Bin Fuel
Fuel
(gallons/year)
Horsepower
Hours (HPhours/year)
Fuel
(gallons/HPhour)
Tulare Construction and Mining - Cranes Aggregated 300 Diesel 52657.01958 3537623.546 0.014884857 Tulare Construction and Mining - Excavators Aggregated 175 Diesel 156561.5672 7924249.896 0.019757273 Tulare Construction and Mining - Graders Aggregated 175 Diesel 95622.48553 4507357.533 0.021214755 Tulare Construction and Mining - Misc - Cement And Mortar Mixers Aggregated 25 Diesel 518.3 16275.35 0.031845705 Tulare Construction and Mining - Misc - Concrete/Industrial Saws Aggregated 50 Diesel 266.45 6383.85 0.041738136 Tulare Construction and Mining - Pavers Aggregated 175 Diesel 20697.09983 961439.2328 0.021527205 Tulare Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment Aggregated 175 Diesel 8797.729977 479896.0688 0.018332574 Tulare Construction and Mining - Rollers Aggregated 100 Diesel 49945.71939 2573962.798 0.019404212 Tulare Construction and Mining - Rough Terrain Forklifts Aggregated 100 Diesel 128035.0445 6154134.122 0.020804721 Tulare Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregated 300 Diesel 6934.526078 338050.6038 0.020513278 Tulare Construction and Mining - Scrapers Aggregated 300 Diesel 57538.0011 2311993.759 0.024886746 Tulare Construction and Mining - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregated 300 Diesel 84418.89908 4436891.503 0.019026586 Tulare Light Commercial - Misc - Air Compressors Aggregated 50 Diesel 8584.8 311560.35 0.027554212 Tulare Light Commercial - Misc - Generator Sets Aggregated 50 Diesel 23662.95 558647.1 0.042357599 Tulare Light Commercial - Misc - Welders Aggregated 50 Diesel 39441.9 1526043.1 0.025845862 Operational Fuel Calculation—SoTu Master Plan (Page 1 of 3) California Air Resource Board (CARB). EMFAC2021. Website: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/. Accessed June 2023.

Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled Region Type: County FE = Fuel Economy
Region: Tulare
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Class Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Fuel
Consumption FE VMT*FE
TULARE 2025 LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 222536.1496 8512710.095 230.5383502 36.92535359 314334830.2 TULARE 2025 LDA Aggregated Aggregated DSL 2295.945912 93041.05039 1.518572624 61.26875258 5700509.096 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 37.18854217
TULARE 2025 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 22012.4842 767399.5265 24.52414241 31.29159477 24013155.01 TULARE 2025 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 6.704360376 152.8578107 0.005142286 29.72565449 4543.798467 TULARE 2025 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 70891.29355 2510680.417 83.3882196 30.10833459 75592406.03 TULARE 2025 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 533.0785838 21101.42774 0.460836335 45.78941839 966222.1037 TULARE 2025 MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 62764.35932 2014585.21 86.99223733 23.15821816 46654203.79 TULARE 2025 MDV Aggregated Aggregated DSL 1725.129862 62029.85827 1.928525265 32.16440012 1995153.181 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 27.7580155
TULARE 2025 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 4985.276035 162387.983 18.03399088 9.00455058 1462230.807 TULARE 2025 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 6485.731697 199698.4277 10.55506194 18.91968317 3778230.983 TULARE 2025 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 817.2007649 25761.31277 3.310487626 7.781727552 200467.5173 TULARE 2025 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 2215.698325 69776.78433 4.106999097 16.98972478 1185488.362 TULARE 2025 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 443.5446338 23385.76792 4.371925712 5.349077149 125092.2768 TULARE 2025 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 4854.605014 262147.3245 25.48753433 10.28531521 2696267.864 TULARE 2025 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 1.151547416 178.4372094 0.035652049 5.004963687 893.0717536 TULARE 2025 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 6865.87503 904737.6549 115.8518106 7.80943906 7065493.581 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 10.02028279
TULARE 2025 MCY Aggregated Aggregated GAS 9632.162233 62531.06947 1.645102286 38.0104447 2376833.758 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 38.0104447
TULARE 2025 MH Aggregated Aggregated GAS 801.9109609 7291.458097 1.391960961 5.238263357 38194.57777 TULARE 2025 MH Aggregated Aggregated DSL 509.9160188 3978.694297 0.388309084 10.24620454 40766.51556 TULARE 2025 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 134.1242322 5615.136961 1.07538596 5.221508529 29319.48553 TULARE 2025 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 136.3628056 9465.786392 1.081486004 8.752574102 82849.99682 TULARE 2025 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 93.12572978 4355.457417 0.458880543 9.491484178 41339.75516 TULARE 2025 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 484.9933028 15013.33067 1.77410944 8.462460281 127049.7144 TULARE 2025 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 80.41065879 7250.013897 1.483175359 4.888170405 35439.30336 TULARE 2025 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 24.20862518 2327.398767 0.238533101 9.757131204 22708.73513 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 7.553140232
Given Calculations
Operational Fuel Calculation—SoTu Master Plan (Page 2 of 3) Operational Fuel Calculation—SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Operational Trips Total Operational VMT (SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses) Annual VMT
(miles)
Total VMT from Residential Land Uses 47,602,619
Total VMT from Non-residential Land Uses 5,391,879
Total VMT (Residential + Public Land Uses) 52,994,498
By Vehicle Type
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Residential Land Uses (2025) 0.524400 0.212000 0.167700 0.056300 0.000800 0.000900 0.007600 0.021200 0.000000 0.004300 0.002500 0.000100 0.002200 Non-residential Land Uses (2025) 0.456464 0.039415 0.192207 0.206184 0.039404 0.010023 0.012285 0.015324 0.000631 0.000454 0.021881 0.001925 0.003802912 SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Residential Land Uses Fraction of 1
Percent of
Vehicle Trips Annual VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Average Daily
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Cars (LDA) 0.5244 52.4 24,962,813 37.19 1839.0 671,250 Light Trucks and Medium Vehicles (LDT1, LDT2, and MDV) 0.4360 43.6 20,754,742 27.76 2048.5 747,703 Light-Heavy to Heavy-Heavy Diesel Trucks 0.0305 3.1 1,451,880 10.02 397.0 144,894 Motorcycles 0.0025 0.3 119,007 38.01 8.6 3,131
Other 0.0066 0.7 314,177 7.55 114.0 41,596
Total — 100 47,602,619 — — 1,608,573
SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Non-residential Land Uses Fraction of 1
Percent of
Vehicle Trips Annual VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Average Daily
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Cars (LDA) 0.4565 45.6 2,461,200 37.19 181.3 66,182 Light Trucks and Medium Vehicles (LDT1, LDT2, and MDV) 0.4378 43.8 2,360,594 27.76 233.0 85,042 Light-Heavy to Heavy-Heavy Diesel Trucks 0.0770 7.7 415,371 10.02 113.6 41,453 Motorcycles 0.0219 2.2 117,980 38.01 8.5 3,104
Other 0.0068 0.7 36,735 7.55 13.3 4,863
Total — 100 5,391,879 — — 200,644
SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Summary
Annual VMT
Residential Land Uses 47,602,619 1,608,573
Non-residential Land Uses 5,391,879 200,644
Subtotal 52,994,498 1,809,217
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Operational Fuel Calculation—SoTu Master Plan (Page 3 of 3) Operational Fuel Calculation—SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Operational Trips Total Operational VMT (Phase 2)
Annual VMT
(miles)
Total VMT from Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Trips 118,632,766 Total VMT from Industrial Park Truck Only Trips 16,938,391 Total VMT (Phase 2) 135,571,157
By Vehicle Type
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Residential Land Uses (2025) 0.456464 0.039415 0.192207 0.206184 0.039404 0.010023 0.012285 0.015324 0.000631 0.000454 0.021881 0.001925 0.003802912 Truck Only Fleet Mix (2025) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.511501 0.130113 0.159465 0.198921 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Trips
Fraction of 1
Percent of Vehicle
Trips Annual VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Average Daily
Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Cars (LDA) 0.4565 45.6 54,151,618 37.19 3989.4 1,456,137 Light Trucks and Medium Vehicles (LDT1, LDT2, and MDV) 0.4378 43.8 51,938,064 27.76 5126.3 1,871,101 Light-Heavy to Heavy-Heavy Diesel Trucks 0.0770 7.7 9,139,040 10.02 2498.8 912,054 Motorcycles 0.0219 2.2 2,595,808 38.01 187.1 68,292
Other 0.0068 0.7 808,237 7.55 293.2 107,007
Total — 100.0000004 118,632,766 — — 4,414,591
Industrial Park Truck Only Trips
Fraction of 1
Percent of Vehicle
Trips Annual VMT
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Average Daily
Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Cars (LDA) 0.0000 0.0 0 37.19 0.0 0
Light Trucks and Medium Vehicles (LDT1, LDT2, and MDV) 0.0000 0.0 0 27.76 0.0 0 Light-Heavy to Heavy-Heavy Diesel Trucks 1.0000 100.0 16,938,391 10.02 4631.3 1,690,410 Motorcycles 0.0000 0.0 0 38.01 0.0 0
Other 0.0000 0.0 0 7.55 0.0 0
Total — 100 16,938,391 — — 1,690,410
SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Summary
Annual VMT
Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Trips 118,632,767 4,414,591 Industrual Park Truck Only Trips 16,938,391 1,690,410
SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses 135,571,158 6,105,002 Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
Project Operations Natural Gas Use
Source: CalEEMod Output
kBTU/yr = kilo-British Thermal Units/year
SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Natural Gas Use (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 19,679,429
Apartments Low Rise 26,748,148
City Park 0
Elementary School 1,683,691
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Parking Lot 0
Subtotal 48,111,267 kBTU/yr
SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Natural Gas Use (kBTU/yr) General Office Building 27,992,282
Industrial Park 59,839,612
Regional Shopping Center 2,436,261
Supermarket 4,777,098
Strip Mall 814,504
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Parking Lot 0
Subtotal 95,859,757 kBTU/yr
Summary Natural Gas Use (kBTU/yr)
SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses 48,111,267
SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses 95,859,757
Total Master Plan 143,971,024
Project Operations Electricity Use
Source: CalEEMod Output
kWh/yr = kilowatt hours per year
SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses Electricity Use (kWh/yr) Single Family Housing 19,679,429
Apartments Low Rise 26,748,148
City Park 0
Elementary School 1,683,691
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Parking Lot 0
Subtotal 48,111,267 kWh/yr
SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses Electricity Use (kWh/yr) General Office Building 14,700,146
Industrial Park 31,424,771
Regional Shopping Center 4,152,886
Supermarket 8,710,912
Strip Mall 1,388,415
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0
Parking Lot 3,518,181
Subtotal 63,895,311 kWh/yr
Summary Electricity Use (kWh/yr)
SoTu Residential + Public Land Uses 48,111,267
SoTu Commercial + Industrial Land Uses 63,895,311
Total Master Plan 112,006,579

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 218

7.2 Appendix B: Biological Assessment Report
Prepared by Argonaut Ecological Consulting, Inc., dated April 27, 2023.

Page 1 ends

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
SoTu Master Plan Area; 421.89 Acres, City of Porterville, CA APN: 259-150-001; 259-030-031 and -011; 259-270-004; 259-040-041, -044, -028,027,026,025, -043,-042; -045,046, 010, -039, 259-320-001, 259-370-058, -002

Prepared for:

April 27, 2023

Page 1 ends

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION..................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 REGULATORY JURISDICTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 4 WETLAND PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 LISTED PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITAT PROTECTION............................................................................ 5 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ..................................................................................................... 6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ............................................................................................. 7 LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 8

2.0 RESOURCES CONSULTED, METHODS.............................................................................. 9

2.1 DATA AND LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................ 9

2.2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND WETLAND MAPPING .......................................................... 9

2.3 FIELD INVESTIGATION................................................................................................................ 9

03.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................ 10

3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES AND ELEMENTS............................................................................. 10 CLIMATE ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE, SOILS ......................................................................................................... 10 LAND USE..................................................................................................................................................... 11 HABITAT....................................................................................................................................................... 11 WATERS/WETLAND ...................................................................................................................................... 13 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ............................................................................................................................ 13

3.2 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................. 19 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................20 List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Zoning Map.................................................................................................3 Figure 2: 1924 Topographic Map ................................................................................................10 Figure 3: Habitat Map..................................................................................................................12 Figure 4: NWI Wetland Map .......................................................................................................14 Figure 5: CNDDB Bios Map .......................................................................................................15 List of Tables
Table 1: Soils...............................................................................................................................11 Table 2: Summary of Special Status Species...............................................................................17 Attachments
Attachment A: Photographs

Page 1 ends

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Argonaut Ecological, Inc. conducted a biological reconnaissance evaluation of the SoTu Master Plan Area proposed by the City of Porterville. The Master Plan Area encompasses approximately 421.89 acres to facilitate future growth. Although no physical development is proposed with the SoTu Master Plan, the goal is to provide the necessary framework to guide development in this area.

The SoTu Master Plan is intended to be a guiding document for future development. No individual projects are proposed; no additional conditional use permits, site plan reviews, or annexations are proposed. It is anticipated that projects will be reviewed individually.

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.

The majority of the Master Plan Area has been in agricultural production for several decades but also has riparian and ruderal/non-native grassland habitats. The conclusions of the biological reconnaissance study include the following:
• An emergent wetland and a forested shrub wetland mapped by the National Inventory Wetland Inventory are located near the center of the Master Plan area 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 Master Plan area. • Agricultural lands generally do not support special status species breeding or nesting habitats. However, the Study Area could provide some foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, other raptors, and other species, such as the San Joaquin kit fox or the other special status species.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The SoTu Master Plan encompasses 421.89 acres adjacent to City limits to facilitate future growth. Although the Plan Area is not within City Limits, it is the typical practice of the City to “pre-zone” properties (See Figure 1 – Conceptual Zoning Map). As such, the parcels within the Plan Area have been pre-zoned to the following zone districts:
• RS-1 – Very Low-Density Residential
Figure 1 – Conceptual Zoning Map

Page 4 ends

•

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES
This report provides an overall assessment of the biological resources within and adjacent to the Study Area, describes the area's biological characteristics, and evaluates the Study Area's likelihood to support sensitive biological resources (such as wetlands, creeks/drainages, and special status species). This evaluation used available literature, aerial photography, historic topographic and aerial maps, and a site visit. For this study, wetland habitat includes those areas possibly considered "waters of the U.S." as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) or Waters of the State of California. Section 1.2.1 describes wetlands as a subset of "Waters of the U.S.” under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA).

This report assesses the Project's potential effects on biological resources and evaluates whether any associated regulatory approvals or permits are required. This report also evaluates potential impacts site development may have on protected habitat, species protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or those protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

1.3 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. The Army Corps defines wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). In California, seasonally inundated areas that meet the criteria of all three wetland parameters (soils, hydrology, and vegetation), as defined in the recently issued Wetland Delineation Manual for the Arid West (USACE 2006), are also considered jurisdictional wetlands.

Since 2001, several U.S. Supreme Court rulings regarding the regulation of isolated, intrastate waters by the Army Corps have limited the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Federal Clean Water Act and excluded many California wetlands from federal regulation.

In December 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army published the final rule to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The "Clean Water Rule” clarified what constitutes waters of the U.S., and presumably, more precisely define and make permitting more predictable, thus less costly, and more straightforward.

Page 5 ends

After several challenges to the “Clean Water Rule,” a revised rule became effective on June 22, 2020; but in 2021the Clean Water Rule was rescinded, and the regulations in effect before 2015 were restored. On November 18, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army proposed the pre-2015 (pre-Obama-era rules) definition of “waters of the United States,” updated to reflect consideration of Supreme Court decisions.

On December 30, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S.

Department of the Army (the agencies) announced a final rule establishing a durable definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) to reduce uncertainty from changing regulatory definitions, protect people’s health, and support economic opportunity. The final rule restores essential water protections in place before 2015 under the CWA for traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, and upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters. The rule will be effective 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. However, several industries filed a challenge on January 19, 2023. The industry complaint alleges that the rule “effectively reads the term ‘navigable waters’ out of the CWA,” that it “asserts improperly vague and malleable jurisdiction,” violates principles of federalism, “exceeds the Agencies’ delegated authority under the Commerce Clause,” and violates other constitutional principles.

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 CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with EPA.

California State Water Resources Control Board
Since 1993, California has had a Wetlands Conservation Policy (a.k.a. Executive Order W-51 59- 93) commonly called the No Net Loss policy for wetlands. This order establishes a state mandate for developing and adopting a policy framework and strategy to protect wetland ecosystems. The policy was to be implemented voluntarily and was expressly not to be implemented on a "projectby-project" basis (See EO W-59-93, Section III).

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.

Listed Protected Species and Habitat Protection
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Page 6 ends

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implements the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC Section 703-711), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 United States Code [USC] Section 668), and Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA; 16 USC § 153 et seq.).

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. The USFWS has statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing the MBTA. The MBTA was reformed in 2004 to include all species native to the U.S. or its territories due to natural biological or ecological processes (70 FR 12710, March 15, 2005). The Act does not include non-native species whose occurrences in the U.S. result solely from intentional or unintentional human introduction. The USFWS maintains a list of bird species not protected under the MBTA.

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.

The Federal Endangered Species Act 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.

Projects that would result in "take" "of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species can obtain authorization from the USFWS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation) or Section 10(a) (incidental take permit) of FESA. The authorization process determines if a project would jeopardize a listed species' continued existence and what mitigation measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species.

An Incidental Take Permit or Take Permit is required when an activity would either kill, harm, harass or interrupt a listed species' breeding or nesting. The ESA definition of "harm" is somewhat less definitive since it includes ubiquitous activities. In 1999 the USFWS clarified the term "harm" as it applies to the ESA in the Federal Register. As stated, the final rule defined the term "harm" "to include any act which causes actual harm (kills or injures fish or wildlife) and emphasizes that such actions may have significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a Trustee Agency responsible under CEQA to review and evaluate projects impacts on plant and wildlife resources. Under the Fish and

Page 7 ends

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, as described below.

Perennial and intermittent streams also fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW according to Sections 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements). CDFW'sjurisdictional extent includes work within the stream zone, including the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel, bed, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Before issuing a 1601 or 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement, the CDFW must demonstrate compliance with CEQA.

In most cases, CDFW relies on the CEQA review performed by the local lead agency. However, in cases where no CEQA review was required for the project, CDFW would act as the lead agency under CEQA.

The CDFW also has authority for the Protection of state-listed species issues under Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit if a project has the potential to negatively affect state-protected plant or animal species or their habitats, either directly or indirectly. Protected species include those "listed" by the state as endangered or threatened. Besides listed species, other species protection categories include "fully protected" and California Species of Special Concern (CSC). Adverse impacts to species that are "fully protected" are prohibited.

Under the California Fish & Game Code (FGC Section 3503), "it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird…." Birds of prey (falcons, hawks, owls, and eagles) get extra Protection under the law (FGC Section 3503.5).

As with USFWS, CDFW does not have the authority to require a landowner to apply for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) authorizing take. Instead, the landowner is legally obligated to avoid taking state-listed species if it does not seek an ITP. CDFW (and USFWS) can initiate an enforcement action if they believe that an illegal take has occurred or will occur.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (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."

Page 8 ends

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 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.

Land Use Entitlements
City of Porterville
The City of Porterville is responsible for all local land-use decisions within its jurisdiction and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As the lead agency under CEQA, the City will consider other responsible agencies' recommendations during the CEQA review.

Page 9 ends

2.0 RESOURCES CONSULTED AND METHODS
The following section describes the methods used to assess the Study Area and includes data review and evaluation, field studies, and aerial photograph interpretations.

2.1 DATA AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Documents and sources of information used to prepare this evaluation include the following:
• Aerial photography (Google Earth®, Bing®, and historic aerials). • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB/RareFind - Recent version with updates)
• Conservation Biology Institute. Data Basin. Tulare County Data Sets. 2023 • EcoAtles 2023.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Fresno County (Soils mapper).
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Map. • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) query, March 3, 2023.
• U.S. Geological Survey, Historical Topographic Map, Porterville Quadrangle, 1923, University of Texas, Austin, Perry-Castañeda Map Collection The California Natural Diversity Database/ RareFind (CNDDB) and the USFWS IPaC were consulted to determine the species potentially present within the Study Area based on location.

The review assessed the likelihood of special status species being present based on the site's distance from documented species occurrences and the presence or absence of habitat types used by such species. The CNDDB includes records of reported observations for special status plant and animal species and is queried based on a search radius of USGS quadrangle maps. Before conducting the fieldwork, high-resolution aerial photographs were also reviewed to determine if any areas on the site supported the presence of WOTUS.

2.2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND WETLAND MAPPING
Historical aerial photographs dating back to the 1980s of the Study Area were reviewed to identify site features and determine land-use changes over time. Also reviewed were wetland mapping and aerial photographs to determine if the Study Area recently supported wetlands.

2.3 FIELD INVESTIGATION
A site review was completed on April 1, 2023. The entire Study Area was reviewed on a reconnaissance level. Detailed field mapping was not conducted. Photographs are included in Attachment A.

Page 10 ends

3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Section 3.1, below, describes the physical features (i.e., land use, soils, vegetation, hydrology, etc.) and the study area's biological features. The physical components and land use strongly influence the types of plants and animals present. This section also describes the habitats present and the specific biological resources observed during the site review.

Section 3.2 presents our conclusions, and Section 3.3 contains recommended avoidance and minimization measures to avoid potential impacts.

The following is not an exhaustive inventory of plants and animals present. Instead, the discussion provides sufficient information to characterize the habitat and habitat components present on site.

This field survey identified the biological resources present. The biological evaluation discusses the habitat present and the potential for that habitat to support any species considered unique, sensitive, or protected by current law. The conclusion section (3.2) summarizes the results of the data review, fieldwork, and evaluation of biological resources and potential impacts. The conclusion sections also include recommendations for measures to minimize any potential impacts.

3.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Climate
The Study Area climate is typical of the central San Joaquin Valley, with long, hot, and dry summers and mild winters, and rainfall averages approximately 9.99 inches per year, falling mainly between November and April (Western Regional Climate Center, 2004).

Topography, Drainage, and Soils
Topography and Drainage:

The Study Area 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 Study Area. The Tule River
forms the northern boundary of the
Study Area.

Soils:

Page 11 ends

The site comprises eight soil types, as shown in Table 1. 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 Study Area, along S. Westwood Street.

Table 1
Soil Types Within the Study Area
Soil Type Classified as
Hydric? % of Study Area
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 Study Area is in a historically rural, agricultural area of Tulare County. The Study Area is located immediately west of the urbanized area of Porterville.

The Study Area 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 Study Area has become more densely populated, but the lands south of the Study Area 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).”
Figure 3 shows the areas included within the survey boundary and depicts the habitat types in the Study Area. The Study Area has been in agricultural production (orchards and row crops) for at Figure 3 Habitat Map
Nonvegetated/disturbed
Master Plan Area
Ruderal
Orchards
Riparian
Vineyards
Row Crops
Legend
Fallow

Page 13 ends

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 Study Area. The fallow agricultural land was on the west side and in the area shown as “ruderal” in Figure 3. CalVeg also shows portions of the Study Area 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 Master Plan Area include the riparian habitat along the Tulare River (Figure 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 Master Plan Area 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.

Waters/Wetland
According to the National Wetland Inventory Map (Figure 4), an emergent wetland and a forested shrub wetland are located near the center of the Master Plan area 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 features appear 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.

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 Study Area. The database query is summarized in Table 2. No critical habitat exists for any species within or near the Study Area. 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 2 but should be considered during future biological evaluations. The CNDDB Bios mapping is shown in Figure 5.

The BIOs maps show the location of known records of special status species near the Study Area.

As described in Table 2, several species could occur within the Master Plan Area based on habitat conditions. The species potentially present include the following:

Figure 4 National Wetland Inventory Map
Nonvegetated/disturbed
Fallow
Figure 5 CNDDB BIOS Map of
Special Status Species Records
Nonvegetated/disturbed
Fallow
Morrison’s blister beetle
Northern California legless lizard
striped adobe-lily
American badger
San Joaquin kit fox
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
San Joaquin kit fox

Page 16 ends

• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)- nests in mature trees near suitable prey bases. It may occur within mature trees within the Master Plan area.
• 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 Master Plan area 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 Master Plan area would need to evaluate each parcel to determine whether species are present based on individual parcel habitat conditions.

Page 17 ends

Table 2
Summary of Special Status Species, Potential Occurrence, and Impact within the SoTu Master Plan Area
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Effects2 Occurrence in the Study Area3 Birds
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni --/CT ME Potentially Present. Nests in mature trees. Suitable nest trees within the Study Area, especially along the
riparian corridor. May occasionally forage within the
area.

Absent. No raptor nests were observed. Species may
use the site for foraging, but future nesting cannot be ruled out.

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 Study Area.

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. Study Area 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 shovel-shaped 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 Study Area (in the
emergent/forested wetland in the center of the site).

Other predicted habitat 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.

Page 18 ends

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

Crotch bumble bee Bombus cortchii --/CE 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 Study Area, but given the amount of planted
land within the Study Area, 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 Study
Area.

Plants
Springville clarkia Clarkia springvillensis - T/-- NE
1B.2
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 Master Plan area 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 Study
Area does not support adobe clay soils.

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
Psuedobahia peirsonii FT/CE ME Likely Absent. Occurs within cismontane and foothill grasslands. Master Plan 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
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 Study Area similar to known occurrences. Absent/Likely Absent: Species not recorded in Study Area and/or suitable habitat or critical habitat components not present.

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.

Page 19 ends

3.2 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS
• The majority of the Master Plan Area has historically been used for agricultural crops (orchards and row crops) continuously for at least the last 50 years. The remainder of the Study Area 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 Master Plan area 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 Master Plan area. • The agricultural lands generally do not support special status species breeding or nesting habitats. However, the Study Area could provide some foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, other raptors, and other species.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The following measures are recommended before approval of any development within the Master Plan Area.
• 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 Master Plan area.
• 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).

Page 20 ends

References
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Online. Subscription with updates. Available at: URL https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB Brian L Cypher and Kenneth A. Spencer. Competitive Interactions between Coyotes and San Joaquin Kit Foxes. Published in Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 79, Issue 1, 20 February 1998, Pages 204– 214, https://doi.org/10.2307/1382855
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soils Survey.

Available at: URL
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC).

Available at URL: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Maps. Available at URL: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
USFWS. 2011. Standard recommendations for the Protection of the San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, January 2011.

U.S. Geologic Survey, Historic topographic Map, Travis Quadrangle, 1919, University of Texas, Austin, Perry-Castañeda Map Collection. Available at: URL: https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/
Attachment A: Photographs
Photographic Documentation
Photographs: April 2023
Project: SoTu Master Plan area

Page 1 ends

Photograph 1
View of Master Plan Area, looking
north at planted cover crop
Photograph 2
View of orchards (east side) and
ruderal habitat near home site, looking
north.

Photographic Documentation
Photographs: April 2023
Project: SoTu Master Plan area

Page 2 ends

Photograph 3
View of ranch site, looking
north.

Photograph 4
View of northeast portion of
Master Plan Area, looking
east.

Photographic Documentation
Photographs: April 2023
Project: SoTu Master Plan area

Page 3 ends

Photograph 5
View of Tule River, looking
east along northern
boundary of Master Plan
Area.

Photograph 6
View of riparian habitat at
north end of Master Plan
Area. Shows typical riparian.

River under flood stage.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 219

7.3 Appendix C: Cultural Resource Overview Report
Prepared by Peak & Associates, Inc., dated July 26, 2023.

CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW

FOR THE SOUTH OF TULE RIVER PROJECT,

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
Melinda A. Peak
Peak & Associates, Inc.
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405
Prepared for
Precision Engineering
(559) 449-4500 ext. 118
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
July 26, 2023
(Job #22-083)
1 INTRODUCTION
The project site is directly southwest of the city limits of the City of Porterville in the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare, California (Figure 1). 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. Figure 2 shows the aerial image of the site. The site is identified by the Tulare County Assessor as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 259-150001, 259-030-031,259-270-004, 259-030-011, 259- 040-041, 259-040-044, 259-040-028, 259-040-027, 259-040-026, 259-040-025, 259-040-043, 259-040-042, 259-040-045, 259-040-046, 259-040-010, 259040-039, 259-320-001, 259-370- 058, and 259-370-002 (see Figure 3).

The conditional use permit facilitates the adoption of the SoTu Master Plan. The general plan amendment requests amendment of the existing land use designations to the mix of 10 different land uses proposed in the SoTu Master Plan. Also requested is a prezone from the existing zoning districts to zoning districts that are consistent with the proposed land use designation. No physical development is proposed.

Density Residential, Parks, Public Institutional, and Retail Center (see Figure 4). The City of Porterville proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to various land uses.

This Project is funded by LEAP funding for the purpose of providing 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. Currently, the site is primarily occupied by agricultural operations with a few single-family residential dwellings.

Although no physical development is proposed by the Project, the Initial Study analyzes the potential buildout of the Project site 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. However, depending on the final design of future physical development, additional project specific CEQA review may be required as determined by the City through the entitlement review and approval process.

The Project site is in portions of Sections 33 and 34, Township 21 south, Range 27 east, mapped on the Porterville United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 5).

Melinda A. Peak, senior historian/archeologist with Peak & Associates, Inc. served as principal investigator for the study (resume, Appendix 1).

Figure 4
6 FEDERAL REGULATORY CONTEXT
At this time, in future projects proposed for the Project site include bridges over the Tule River, which will be subject to federal review. The Section 106 review process is implemented using a five step procedure: 1) identification and evaluation of historic properties; 2) assessment of the effects of the undertaking on properties that are eligible for the National Register; 3) consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other agencies for the development of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that addresses the treatment of historic properties; 4) receipt of Advisory Council on Historic Preservation comments on the MOA or results of consultation; and 5) the project implementation according to the conditions of the MOA.

The Section 106 compliance process may not consist of all the steps above, depending on the situation. For example, if identification and evaluation result in the documented conclusion that no properties included in or eligible for inclusion are present, the process ends with the identification and evaluation step.

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). 7 The California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.)
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Properties listed, or formally designated as eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

For the purposes of CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. When a project will impact a site, it needs to be determined whether the site is an historical resource. The criteria are set forth in Section 15064.5(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and are defined as any resource that does any of the following:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition, the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) (4) states:

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, And 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains, as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
8 California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(e)
This law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. The section establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission as the entity responsible to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts. AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.

AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects. AB 52 also requires that consultation address project mitigation measures for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation be concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Under AB 52, such measures shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and adopted mitigation monitoring program if determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource.

CULTURAL SETTING
Archeology
The Central Valley region was among the first in the state to attract intensive fieldwork, and research has continued to the present day. This has resulted in a substantial accumulation of data, but the emphasis has been in the northern portion of the valley. In the early decades of the 1900s, E.J. Dawson explored numerous sites near Stockton and Lodi, later collaborating with W.E. Schenck (Schenck and Dawson 1929).

By 1933, the focus of work was directed to the Cosumnes locality, where survey and excavation were conducted by the Sacramento Junior College (Lillard and Purves 1936). Excavation data from the stratified Windmiller site (CA-Sac-107), suggested two temporally distinct cultural traditions. Later work at other mounds by Sacramento Junior College and the University of California, Berkeley, enabled the investigators to identify a third cultural tradition, intermediate between the previously postulated Early and Late Horizons.

The three-horizon sequence, based on discrete changes in ornamental artifacts and mortuary practices, as well as on observed differences in soils within sites (Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga 1939), was later refined by Beardsley (1954). An expanded definition of artifacts diagnostic of each time period was developed, and its application extended to parts of the central California 9 coast. Traits held in common allow the application of this system within certain limits of time and space to other areas of prehistoric central California.

In the southern San Joaquin Valley, he foci of early investigations have been the old shorelines of the interior lakes; Tulare, Kern, and Buena Vista, except for Hewes’s excavation at CA-Fre-48 (the Tranquility Site). In 1899, Dr. P. M. Jones directed fieldwork in the Buena Vista-Tulare Lake area of Kern County. Jones investigated 150 mounds and conducted trenching of several sites including CA-Ker-53. In 1909, N. C. Nelson investigated prehistoric Site CA-KER-49, which is located to the west of Buena Vista Lake. Later, four surveys and excavations were conducted in the same locale under the auspices of the University of California. A compilation of these investigation results was published in 1926 by Gifford and Schenck.

As a result of this early work, an elaborate culture complex was defined for the late prehistoric period. This complex can be ascribed probably to the Yokuts and their direct ancestors. The material culture of this late temporal period complex included steatite vessels and beads, finelymade projectile points, pottery, shaped stone mortars, Tivela disc beads, use of asphaltum, and the presence of metates and manos. Flexed burials were the predominant interment mode.

Earlier complexes underlying the late cultural expressions were represented by chipped stone crescents, large projectile points, atlatl spurs, and weights. Mortuary practices, generally thought to be related, include extended rather than flexed burial position, a situation analogous to that of the northern valley (Gifford and Schenck 1926; Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga 1939; Moratto 1972).

Presence of “Early Man,” although not found in direct association with extinct animals, is demonstrated by the frequency of chipped stone crescents and fluted points like those of the Clovis-Folsom Complex in the American Southwest. Although fluted points have been found near the shores of Tulare Lake, an area that has also produced surface finds of extinct mammal bone of Pleistocene age, the association is not substantiated by controlled excavations and remains speculative (Riddell and Olsen 1969). Most of the point collection had been acquired by D. Witt over a period of 30 years.

Under the direction of Wedel (1941), the Civil Works Administration, in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution, initiated the first major excavations using stratigraphic controls.

Investigations of CA-Ker-39 and CA-Ker-60 as well as several smaller sites near Buena Vista Lake produced evidence of two distinct cultural entities or occupation periods. Wedel lacked methods for dating these two entities by cross-comparison of the assemblages, he tentatively stated that the early occupation at Buena Vista Lake appeared to be temporally older and less developed than the Early Horizon (Windmiller Pattern) of the Delta region. He compared this early component to the Oak Grove or Milling Stone culture of the Santa Barbara area (Rogers 1939). He divided the later cultural entity into two distinct phases, both clearly distinguished from the earlier cultural phase by artifact types. Wedel (1941:144-145) estimated that neither of these cultural periods exceeded 1500 B.P. (years Before the Present). Later, other investigators proposed far earlier ages for these early occupations, with dates ranging from 2000 to 7000 B.P. (Baumhoff and Olmstead 1963, 1964; Heizer 1964; Meighan 1959). 10 Later investigations in 1963 and 1964 at CA-Ker-116 near Buena Vista Lake produced cultural materials like those of Wedel’s early occupation. These materials occurred in the lower levels of the "upper deposit," while an even deeper cultural deposit yielded materials that appear similar to those of the San Dieguito Complex. Artifacts included a chipped stone crescent, crude point fragments, and an atlatl spur. Radiocarbon age determinations on shell from the lowest cultural levels returned a date of circa 8200 B.P. (Fredrickson and Grossman 1966, 1977; Fredrickson 1967).

Despite the previously mentioned investigations, the prehistory of the southern San Joaquin remains poorly understood, without a tightly defined chronological sequence of cultural development.

Ethnology
Ethnographic literature is often uncertain in definition of cultural boundaries for Indian groups.

Early displacement by white intrusion resulted in population shifts to avoid conflict with the Spanish, and later with the miners and settlers. The ravages of disease and warfare decimated the native people, further weakening cultural identity. Informants were often uncertain of original territories of the various tribal groupings.

The Foothill Yokuts were members of the Penutian language family group which held all the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and the Pacific Coast from Marin County to near Point Sur. The Yokuts differed from other ethnographic groups in California as they had true tribal divisions with group names (Kroeber 1925). Each tribe spoke a particular dialect, common to its members, but similar enough to other Yokuts that they were mutually intelligible (Kroeber 1925).

The Foothill Yokuts were a group of about 15 named tribes who occupied the western Sierra Nevada foothills from the Fresno River to the Kern River. A further subdivision separated the groups into northern, central, and southern groups. The area controlled by individual groups varied over time. There is no information to indicate that there was a village in the project vicinity, but this does not preclude the possibility.

Trade was well developed, with mutually beneficial interchange of needed or desired goods.

Obsidian, rare in the San Joaquin Valley, was obtained by trade with Paiute and Shoshoni groups on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, where numerous sources of this material are located, and to some extent from the Napa Valley to the north. Shell beads, obtained by the Yokuts from coastal people, and acorns, rare in the Great Basin, were among many items exported to the east by Yokuts traders (Davis 1961).
11 Economic subsistence was based on the acorn, with substantial dependency on gathering and processing of wild seeds and other vegetable foods. The rivers, streams, and sloughs which formed a maze within the valley provided abundant food resources such as fish, shellfish, and turtles. Game, wild fowl, and small mammals were trapped and hunted to provide protein augmentation of the diet. In general, the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley provided a lush environment of varied food resources, with the estimated large population centers reflecting this abundance (Cook 1955; Baumhoff 1963).

Settlements were oriented along the water ways, with their village sites normally placed adjacent to these features for their nearby water and food resources. House structures varied in size and shape (Latta 1949; Kroeber 1925). Housepit depressions ranged in diameter from between 3 to 18 meters.

Latta (1949:99) reported that a village of 200 to 300 Yokuts might have four or five large houses that were used for ten or twelve years or until a family member died, at which time the Indians burned the house in which the death had occurred. If a sick or aged person died outside the dwelling, the family did not burn the house. When a Northern Yokuts died, his body was cremated or buried in a flexed position. Southern tribes normally buried their dead, although they did cremate shamans, persons who died away from their village and, among the Tachi, persons of great importance.

The Yokuts experienced severe depopulation after contact with the Spanish and subsequent explores. The most devastating impacts of the Spanish colonization effort were not the result of military conflicts, but came from Old World diseases newly introduced to the native people.

The City of Porterville is located on or near the reported site of a Yokuts village, spelled alternatively Chokowishu or Chokoweshu (Wallace 1978: 448).

Historical Background
The Project site lies within the City of Porterville. Settlement in the region began with the establishment of the Butterfield Overland Stage stop at Tule River Station in the 1850s. Peter Goodhue erected the first building here, a shake house with a fireplace at each end and a porch on the south side. The site of the stage station is at the foot of Scenic Hill on the north side of Porterville. The station is commemorated at a State Historic Landmark.

In 1859, a man named Porter Putnam arrived at the Lawless Ranch, a stage stop located to the north of Tule River Station. He worked there caring for horses. Soon afterward, he relocated to the Tule River Station and bought out Goodhue and developed the Station into a popular stopping place and hotel that came to be known as Porter’s Station. The town that grew up around the Station came to be known as Portersville and later Porterville.

Cattle grazing served as the primary industry in the early years, followed by grain crops. Oranges were introduced in the region in 1879 (Menifee and Dodge 1913). 12 After the railroad came through the area in the late 1880s, the population of the town increased in prosperity. The town lies in the heart of what is know as the “thermal belt” where high-grade oranges are grown (Hoover, Rensch and Rensch 1970: 562-563).

During World War II, what is now the Porterville Municipal Airport, was established as the Porterville Army Airfield. The airport opened in September 1942 and used by the Army Air Forces Fourth Air Force as a training base, a sub-base to Lemoore, being used as a pilot training facility. At the end of the war, the airfield was determined to be excess property and turned over to the local government for civil use.

SOILS RESEARCH
The Project site contains a mosaic of approximately a dozen soil series that are all derived from alluvial and deposited relatively recently (www.usda.gov). The period of deposition overlaps with prehistoric period occupation in the region so 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).

RECORD SEARCH RESEARCH
A record search was conducted for the project area at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System in June 2023 (RS#23-232, Appendix 2). There is one 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 other surveys have been undertaken within one quarter mile of the Project site. Complete citations for all reports are included in the report list in Appendix 2.

TULARE COUNTY 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 in 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.
13 The 1892 map by Thomas Thompson provides one building location in the Project site as well as land ownership (Figure 5).

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP RESEARCH
There are four 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 buildings are mapped on the 1929 maps are no longer extant today. In 1942, an additional five buildings were present, now no longer extant. Two other buildings appear first on the 1951 map; and are still present on recent maps.

CONCLUSIONS
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 long 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 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.

15 REFERENCES
Baumhoff, Martin A.
1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2): 155-236.

Berkeley.

Baumhoff, Martin A., and David Olmsted
1963 Radiocarbon support for Glottochronology. American Anthropologist 65(2): 278- 284.
1964 Notes on Palaihnihan culture history: glottochronology and archaeology. Studies in California linguistics, edited by William Bright, pp. 1-12. University of California Publications in Linguistics 34. Berkeley.

Beardsley, Richard K.
1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archeology (parts 1 and 2). University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24, 25. Berkeley.

Cook, Sherburne F.
1960 Colonial expeditions to the interior of California: Central Valley 1800-1820.

University of California Anthropological Records 16(6): 239-292. Berkeley. 1955a The Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Press Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley. 1955b The Epidemic of 1830-33 in California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3): 303-326. Berkeley.

Davis, James T.
1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California.

University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 54:1-71. Berkeley.

Fredrickson, David A.
1967 Additional C-14 dates for water resources investigations at Buena Vista Lake.

Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 1(5).

Fredrickson, David A., and J. Grossman
1966 Radiocarbon Dating of an Early Site at Buena Vista Lake, California. Paper read before the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Reno. 1977 A San Dieguito Component at Buena Vista Lake, California. The Journal of California Anthropology 4(2): 173-190.
16 Gifford, E. W., and W. E. Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 23, No.

1. Berkeley.

Hoover, Mildred, Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch and William N. Abeloe 1970 Historic Spots in California (Third Edition). Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin

78. Washington, D.C.

Latta, Franklin F.
1949 Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.

Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.

Lillard, Jeremiah B., and William K. Purves
1936 The Archeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1.

Meighan, Clement W.
1959 California Cultures and the Concept of an Archaic Stage. American Antiquity 24(3): 289-318.

Menefee, Eugene L. and Fred A. Dodge
1913 History of Tulare and Kings County. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Riddell, Francis A., and William H. Olsen
1969 An Early Man Site in the San Joaquin Valley, California. American Antiquity 34(2): 121-131. Washington, D.C.

Rogers, Malcolm J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers 3. San Diego.

Rosenthal, Jeffery S., and Jack Meyer
2004 Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 10 Rural Conventional Highways, Volume III: Geoarchaeological Study Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record of Central California. Ms. on file, Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus 17 Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4): 289-413. Berkeley.

Thompson, Thomas H.
1892 Official Historical Atlas Map of Tulare County. Compiled, drawn from personal observations, and published by Thomas H. Thompson.

Wallace, William J.
1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians (vol. 8), edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Wedel, Waldo R.
1941 Archaeological Investigations at Buena Vista Lake, Kern County, California.

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 130. Washington, D.C. 18 APPENDIX 1
Resume
19 PEAK & ASSOCIATES, INC.

RESUME
MELINDA A. PEAK January 2023
Senior Historian/Archeologist
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20 #329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Peak has served as the principal investigator on a wide range of prehistoric and historic excavations throughout California. She has directed laboratory analyses of archeological materials, including the historic period. She has also conducted a wide variety of cultural resource assessments in California, including documentary research, field survey, Native American consultation, and report preparation.

In addition, Ms. Peak has developed a second field of expertise in applied history, specializing in site-specific research for historic period resources. She has completed a number of historical research projects for a wide variety of site types.

Through her education and experience, Ms. Peak meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for historian, architectural historian, prehistoric archeologist, and historic archeologist.

EDUCATION
M.A. - History - California State University, Sacramento, 1989 Thesis: The Bellevue Mine: A Historical Resources Management Site Study in Plumas and Sierra Counties, California
B.A. - Anthropology - University of California, Berkeley

PROJECTS
In recent months, Ms. Peak has completed several determinations of eligibility and effect documents in coordination with the Corps of Engineers for projects requiring federal permits, assessing the eligibility of many varying types of sites for the National Register of Historic Places.

She has also completed historical research projects on a wide variety of topics for numbers of projects including the development of navigation and landings on the Napa River, wineries, farmhouses dating to the 1860s, bridges, an early roadhouse, Folsom Dam, and a section of an electric railway line.

In recent years, Ms. Peak has prepared many cultural resource overviews and predictive models for blocks of land proposed for future development for general and specific plans. She has been able to field direct several surveys of these areas, allowing the model to be tested. 20 She served as principal investigator for the multi-phase Twelve Bridges Golf Club project in Placer County. She served as liaison with the various agencies, helped prepare the historic properties treatment plan, managed the various phases of test and data recovery excavations, and completed the final report on the analysis of the test phase excavations of several prehistoric sites. She is has served as the principal investigator for several large excavations, coordinating contacts with Native Americans, the Corps of Engineers, and the Office of Historic Preservation.

Ms. Peak has served as project manager for other major survey and excavation projects, including the many surveys and site definition excavations for the 172-mile-long Pacific Pipeline proposed for construction in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties. She also completed an archival study in the City of Los Angeles for the project. She also served as principal investigator for a major coaxial cable removal project for AT&T.

Additionally, she completed a number of small surveys, served as a construction monitor at several urban sites, and conducted emergency recovery excavations for sites found during monitoring. She has directed the excavations of several historic complexes in Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties.

Ms. Peak is the author of a chapter and two sections of a published history (1999) of Sacramento County, Sacramento: Gold Rush Legacy, Metropolitan Legacy. She served as the consultant for a children’s book on California, published by Capstone Press in 2003 in the Land of Liberty series. 21 APPENDIX 2
Record Search
6/26/2023

Robert Gerry
Peak & Associates, Inc.
3941 Park Drive Ste 30-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Re: South of Tule Unit (SOTU)
Records Search File No.: 23-232
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Porterville USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.25 mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS data
Resources within project area: P-54-002208
Resources within 0.25 mile radius: None
Reports within project area: TU-00102, 00259, 00283, 00445, 00759, 01251, 01713 Reports within 0.25 mile radius: TU-00419, 00446, 00600, 00751, 00952, 00953, 01135, 01136, 01169, 01201, 01406, 01498, 01602
NOTE:

Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Jeremy E David
Assistant Coordinator
<Double-click here to enter title>
SSJV Information Center Record Search 23-232
Requester: Robert Gerry; Peak & Associates, Inc.

Project Name: South of Tule Unit (SOTU)
USGS 7.5' Quad(s): Porterville
County: Tulare
T
U-014
0 6
TU-01498
TU-00952
T
U-014
0 6
TU-00283
TU-00600
TU-00102
TU-01251
TU-01135
TU-01169
TU-00953
TU-00751
TU-00159 TU-01136
TU-01713
TU-01602
TU-00445
TU-00759 P-54-002208
Project Area
Record Search radius . 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles
0 0.0750.15 0.3 Kilometers
May depict confidential cultural resource locations. Do not distribute.

Map pages depicting no data have been excluded.
<Double-click here to enter title>
SSJV Information Center Record Search 23-232
Requester: Robert Gerry; Peak & Associates, Inc.

Project Name: South of Tule Unit (SOTU)
USGS 7.5' Quad(s): Porterville
County: Tulare
T
U-014
0 6
TU-01498
TU-00952
T
U-014
0 6
TU-00283
TU-01135
TU-01169
TU-00953
TU-00751
TU-01201
TU-01136
TU-00419
TU-01713
TU-00446
TU-01602
P-54-002208
Project Area
Record Search radius . 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles
0 0.0750.15 0.3 Kilometers
May depict confidential cultural resource locations. Do not distribute.

Map pages depicting no data have been excluded.

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
SSJVIC Record Search 23-232
P-54-002208 CA-TUL-003230H Resource Name - Poplar Ditch; Other - PL-POR-001H;
OHP Property Number - 118907;
OTIS Resource Number -
551060;
Other - CWA20-172-1
TU-00419, TU01251, TU-01886Structure,
Site
Historic AH02; AH04; AH06;
HP20
1996 (R.E. Parr, D. Schuldies,
Center for Archaeological
Research);
2005 (M. O'Neill and M. Elliott,
Pacific Legacy Inc.);
2009 (S. Melvin, R. Flores, JRP
Historical Consulting, LLC.);
2016 (Shannon E. Foglia, Rachel
Droessler, AECOM);
2020 (R. Azpitarte, S. Escamilla,
ASM Affiliates, Inc.)

Page 1 of 1 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SSJVIC Record Search 23-232
TU-00102 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Hatoff, Brian, Voss, Barb,
Waechter, Sharon, Wee,
Stephen, and Benté,
Vance
NADB-R - 1140863 54-002160
TU-00159 1976 Archaeological Survey Report for Road 260 (Hillcrest)
Cantwell, R.J. Individual Consultant
TU-00283 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the River Ranch Estates, Tulare County, California
California State University,
Fresno
Cursi, Kathi and Varner,
Dudley M.

TU-00419 1996 Archaeological Assessment of the Tule River Parkway (Phase I) In the City of Porterville,
Tulare County, California
Center for Archaeological
Research, California State
University, Bakersfield
Parr, Robert E. 54-002205, 54-002206, 54-002207,
54-002208
Submitter - CAR-96-
06 TU-00445 1992 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposal to Replace and Extend the
Bridge Rails for the Tul-190 Crossing at the
Friant-Kern Canal, Poplar Ditch, and South
Fork of the Tule River
California Department of
Transportation
Riley, Lynn and
Waterhouse, Dan
Caltrans - 06-TUL190 PM 12.0/23.9
CU 820 EA 312700;
NADB-R - 1140211
TU-00446 1992 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposal to Widen, Rehabilitate, and
Upgrade the Bridge Rails on the Tule River
Bridge Crossing at Route 65
California Department of
Transportation
Caltrans - 06-TUL-65 Riley, Lynn
PM 18.8 CU 820 EA
359100;
NADB-R - 1140904
TU-00600 1991 Cultural Resource Assessment of God's
House of Prayer
Weinberger, Gay Individual Consultant
TU-00751 1998 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Widening of Route 190 Between P.M. 8.0
and P.M. 15.0.

California Department of
Transportation
Binning, Jeanne Day,
Marine, Mandy, and
Osborne, Richard H.

Caltrans - 06-TUL190 PM 8.0/15.0 CU
168 EA 337300
TU-00759 1992 Bridge Improvements in the Vicinity of
Porterville, Tulare County 06-TUL-190 P.M.

12.0/23.9; 06-312700
California Department of
Transportation
Riley, Lynn M. and
Snyder, John W.

TU-00952 1997 Supplemental Negative Archaeological
Survey Report for 06-TUL-190 P.M. 7.9/15.0
EA 337300
California Department of
Transportation
Osborne, Richard and
Binning, Jeanne
Caltrans - 06-TUL190 P.M. 7.9/15.0 EA
337300
TU-00953 1997 Historic Resource Evaluation Report for the Poplar Ditch Near Porterville, Tulare County
California Department of
Transportation
Fisher, Jim 54-003993, 54-003994, 54-003995,
54-003996, 54-003997
Caltrans - 06-TUL190 PM 8.0/15.0 EA
06-337300
TU-01135 2001 Historic Property Survey Report Rehabilitation and Widening of State Route 190 Between
Tipton and Porterville in Tulare County: 06-
TUL-190, K.P. 12.5/24.0 (P.M. 7.8/15.0); E.A.
337320
California Department of
Transportation
Dodd, Douglas

Page 1 of 2 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SSJVIC Record Search 23-232
TU-01136 1997 Historic Resource Evaluation Report (HRER) 06-TUL-190 P.M. 8.0/15.0; E.A. 06-337300
JRP Historic Consulting
Services
Herbert, Rand 54-003993, 54-003994, 54-003995,
54-003996, 54-003997
TU-01169 1998 Negative Archaeological Survey Report to
Widen and Construct New Highway Along
Route 190 Between P.M. 8.0 and P.M. 15
California Department of
Transportation
Caltrans - 06-TUL- Binning, Jeanne Day
190 P.M. 8.0/15.0
CU 168 EA 337300
TU-01201 2004 A Cultural Resources Assessment of 75
Acres of Land for the Porterville River Walk
Commercial Center Project in the City of
Porterville, Tulare County, California
Center for Archaeological
Research, California State
University, Bakersfield
Submitter - CAR Gardner, Jill K.

Project No. 04-09
TU-01251 2005 Reconnaissance Report for the Vandalia
12kV Circuit Reconductoring Project on
Private Lands, Tulare County, California
O'Neill, Mary M. Pacific Legacy, Inc. 54-002208
TU-01406 2010 An Archaeological Assessment for Newcomb
Street and Beverly Street Shoulder
Stabilization Project In City of Porterville
Tulare County, California
Submitter - RSOC Orfila, Rebecca S. RSO Consulting, Inc.

Project No. 201005
TU-01498 2010 Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans
District 6 Rural Conventional Highways in
Fresno, Western Kern, Kings, Madera, and
Tulare Counties.

Far Western
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.

Leach-Palm, Laura,
Brandy, Paul, King, Jay,
Mikkelsen, Pat, Seil,
Libby, Hartman, Lindsay,
and Bradeen, Jill
54-000580, 54-001091, 54-001479,
54-004595, 54-004611, 54-004614,
54-004619, 54-004629, 54-004630
Submitter - Contract
No. 06A1106;
Submitter -
Expenditure
Authorization No. 06-
0A7408
TU-01602 2007 Archaeological Survey for the Southern
California Edison Company Replacement of
Thirteen Deteriorated Power Poles, Tulare
County, California
Center for Archaeological
Research, California State
University, Bakersfield
Orfila, Rebecca S.

TU-01713 2015 Historic Property Survey Report for the
Porterville Intersection Improvement Project
Tulare County, California
California Department of
Transportation
Caltrans - 06-TUL- Miller, Michelle
190 PM 13.1/17.3 EA
06-0Q431;
Caltrans - ID 06-
1400-0004
TU-01713A 2015 Archaeological Survey Report for the
Porterville Intersection Improvement Project,
Tulare County, California
Miller, Michelle Cal Trans
TU-01713B 2015 Extended Phase I Report for the Porterville Intersection Improvement Project, Tulare
County, California
Miller, Michelle Cal Trans

Page 2 of 2 ends

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 220

7.4 Appendix D: NAHC Correspondence
Prepared by NAHC dated April 8, 2022.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 2 ends

April 27, 2023
Kelsey George
City of Porterville
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, SoTu (South of Tule River) Master Plan Project, Tulare County Dear Ms. George:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.

Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

Page 2 of 2 ends

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 221

7.5 Appendix E: Noise Assessment
Prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc., on August 2, 2023.
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 1
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
SOUTH OF TULE RIVER MASTER PLAN
PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
WJVA Report No. 23‐22
PREPARED FOR
PRECISION ENGINEERING
1234 O STREET
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721
PREPARED BY
WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2, 2023
113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 ∙ 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 2

1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description:

South of Tule River (SoTu) Master Plan, including entitlements for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) General Plan Amendment (GPA), and Pre‐zone/Rezone (PZ), is filed by the City of Porterville (Applicant) and pertain to 19 parcels that is located directly southwest of the city limits of the City of Porterville in the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare, California. The SoTu Master Plan 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 (“Project site”). The site totals approximately 447.30 gross acres. The CUP facilitates the adoption of the SoTu Master Plan. The GPA requests amendment of the existing land use designations to the mix of 10 different land uses proposed in the SoTu Master Plan. The PZ requests a prezone from the existing zoning districts to zoning districts that are consistent with the proposed land use designation. No physical development is proposed.

Although no physical development is proposed by the Project, this acoustical analysis analyzes the potential noise impacts associated with buildout of the Project site at a programmatic level, using reasonable assumptions so that future development of the site can tier from the Initial Study pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1) and 15168(d) for evaluations of environmental issues associated with later activities/subsequent projects. However, depending on the final design of future physical development, additional project specific CEQA review may be required as determined by the City through the entitlement review and approval process.

For the purposes of this analysis, Table I provides the assumption of the Project buildout. As shown in the table, the Project assumes the development of 2,213 dwelling units, 2,873,801 square feet of mixed‐use, and 1,821,492 square feet of employment uses. 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 3
Table I: Project Buildout Assumption for Impact Analysis Land Use
Designation Acreage
Permitted
Intensity/Densit
y
Average Density Assumed
Residential
Low Density
Residential

51.37 7.5 du/ac 5.35 du/ac 5.35 du/ac
Medium Density
Residential

43.72 15.0 du/ac 6.0 du/ac for Single Family
Residential

6.0 du/ac for Single
Family Residential

11.30 du/ac for Multi‐family
Residential

11.30 du/ac for Multi‐
family Residential
High Density
Residential

35.08 30.0 du/ac 22.55 du/ac 22.55 du/ac
Mixed‐Use
Commercial Mixed
Use

32.99 30.0 du/ac 20.0 du/ac 2.0 FAR 20.0 du/ac 2.0 FAR
Employment
Retail Centers 24.35 0.35 FAR 0.35 FAR 0.35 FAR
Neighborhood
Commercial

8.61 0.30 FAR 0.30 FAR 0.30 FAR
Professional Office 32.83 0.50 FAR 0.30 FAR 0.30 FAR
Industrial Park 59.61 0.60 FAR 0.35 FAR 0.35 FAR
Public Uses and Open Space
Public/Institutional 15.81 0.25 FAR 0.25 FAR 0.25 FAR
Parks 30.79 0.10 FAR 0.10 FAR 0.10 FAR
Right‐of‐Way (ROW) 30.79
Total 447.30
Environmental Noise Assessment:

This environmental noise assessment has been prepared to determine if significant noise impacts will be produced by the project and to describe mitigation measures for noise if significant impacts are determined. The environmental noise assessment, prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA), is based upon the project Land Use Map provided by Precision Engineering, dated 05/19/23 (Figure 1), traffic data provided by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc., a project site visit on June 27 & 28, 2023.

Revisions to the Land Use Map, project traffic information or other project‐related information available to WJVA at the time the analysis was prepared may require a reevaluation of the findings and/or recommendations of the report.

Appendix A provides definitions of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A‐weighted sound pressure levels in decibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighted sound levels, as they correlate well with public reaction to noise. Appendix B provides examples of sound levels for reference.
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 4

2. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The CEQA Guidelines apply the following questions for the assessment of significant noise impacts for a project:
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a. Noise Level Standards
CITY OF PORTERVILLE
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 General Plan Noise Element provides land use compatibility guidelines for community noise exposure levels. Table II 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 “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. 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 5
Table II: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 6
Implementation Policy N‐I‐1 states:
”Use the community noise exposure level standards, shown in Table 9‐1, as review criteria for new land uses and require a noise study and mitigation measures for all projects that have noise exposure greater than “normally acceptable” levels.”
These measures will include, but are not limited to, the following actions:
 Screen and control noise sources, such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment;
 Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings;  Retain fences, walls, and landscaping that serve as noise buffers;  Use soundproofing materials and double‐glazed windows; and  Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.

The need for mitigation of exterior noise exposure for other development will be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. Within urban residential neighborhoods where medium and high density residential development and mixed‐use development is planned, the City will balance the need for noise mitigation with urban design considerations, and may not require exterior walls along streets where an attractive pedestrian‐oriented environment with porches and front stoops is desired.

Implementation Policy N‐I‐2 states:
“Require that all new residential development achieve interior noise level reductions through sound insulation and other measures to meet the land use compatibility standards by acoustical design and construction of the structure and building elements.” The Noise Element does not specially provide noise level criteria applicable to interior living spaces, however, an interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn is common practice. This standard is consistent with interior noise level criteria applied by the State of California and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The intent of the interior noise level standard is to provide an acceptable noise environment for indoor communication and sleep.

Implementation Policy N‐I‐3 states:
“Establish standards for the basic elements of noise reduction design for a new dwelling unit exposed to DNL above 65 dB, including the following:”
• All façades must be constructed with substantial weight and insulation; 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 7
• Sound‐rated windows providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the façade must be included for habitable rooms; • Sound‐rated doors or storm doors providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the façade must be included for all exterior entries; • Acoustic baffling of vents is required for chimneys, fans and gable ends; And
• Installation of a mechanical ventilation
Implementation Policy N‐I‐4 states:
“Require sound walls or other attenuation measures designed to reduce noise by a minimum of 10 dB in residential areas adjacent to State highways when additional lanes are added or when new residential development or sensitive receptors would be exposed to noise above 65 dB.” Implementation Policy N‐I‐5 states:
“Reduce noise intrusion generated by miscellaneous noise sources through conditions of approval to control noise‐generating activities.”
Implementation Policy N‐I‐6 states:
“Require new noise sources to use best available control technology (BACT) to minimize noise emissions.”
Implementation Policy N‐I‐7 states:
“Require noise from existing mechanical equipment to be reduced by soundproofing materials and sound‐deadening installation.”
Implementation Policy N‐I‐8 states:
“Work with the Tulare County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to prepare an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and updated airport noise contours, consistent with the new airport layout plan.”
Implementation Policy N‐I‐9 states:
“Require the disclosure of the noise environment to prospective homebuyers where noise levels exceed “normally acceptable” standards.”
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 8
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 III, are made more restrictive during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

TABLE III
NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS, dBA
CITY OF PORTERVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18-90.4
Daytime (7 a.m.‐10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m.‐7 a.m.)
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.”
State of California
There are no state noise standards that are applicable to the project.

Federal Noise Standards
There are no federal noise standards that are applicable to the project. b. 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
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 9
 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 Manual3 .

The Manual provides guidance for determining annoyance potential criteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table IV and Table V, and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec).

TABLE IV

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 V

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
Source: Caltrans
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 10

3. SETTING
The Project site is 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 (SR 190), to the east by State Route 65 (SR 65), and to the west by Westwood Street, consisting of 19 parcels that total approximately 447.30 gross acres.

The overall project site consists primarily of undeveloped land currently used for agricultural purposes. There are a few existing rural‐residential land uses located along SR 190 (Poplar Avenue) and Westwood Street.

a. 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 & 28, 2023. Long‐term (24‐hour) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at three (3) locations (sites LT‐1, LT‐2 and LT‐3). Ambient noise levels were measured for a period of 24 continuous hours at each of the three locations. Site LT‐1 was located within the western portion of the project site, along S. Westwood Street. Site LT‐2 was located within the southern portion of the project site, along SR 190 (W. Poplar Avenue). Site LT‐3 was located within the eastern portion project site, along SR 65. All three sites were exposed to noise associated with vehicle traffic on roadways as well as periodic agricultural activities. The locations of the ambient noise monitoring sites are provided on Figure 2.

Noise monitoring equipment consisted of Larson‐Davis Laboratories Model LDL‐820 sound level analyzers equipped with B&K Type 4176 1/2” microphones. The equipment complies with the specifications of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (Precision) sound level meters. The meters were calibrated with a B&K Type 4230 acoustic calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements.

Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐1 ranged 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 at site LT‐1 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. 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. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐1 was 74.3 dB Ldn. Figure 3 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at site LT‐1. Figure 4 provides a photograph of measurement site LT‐1.

Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐2 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 at site LT‐2 ranged from 81.6 to 94.9 dBA. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 40.2 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 11
to 59.0 dBA. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐2 was 76.6 dB Ldn. Figure 5 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at site LT‐2. Figure 6 provides a photograph of measurement site LT‐2.

Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐3 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 at site LT‐3 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. Figure 7 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at site LT‐3. Figure 8 provides a photograph of measurement site LT‐3.

Additionally, short‐term (15‐minute) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at six (6) locations (Sites ST‐1 through ST‐6). Two (2) individual measurements were taken at each of the six short‐term sites to quantify ambient noise levels in the morning and afternoon hours. The locations of the short‐term noise monitoring sites are provided on Figure 2.

Table VI 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 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.

Short‐term noise measurements were conducted for 15‐minute periods at each of the six sites.

Site ST‐1‐ST‐4, and ST‐6 were located just north of the Tule River, near existing sensitive receptor locations (residential land uses). These five short‐term ambient noise measurement sites were exposed to low levels of traffic noise from local roadways (predominantly River Springs Drive), as well as other noise sources common in urban/residential environments (construction activities, landscaping activities, barking dogs, human voices, etc.). Site ST‐6 was also exposed to traffic noise from SR 65. Site ST‐5 was located along the southern portion of the project site near SR 190 (Poplar Avenue), and was exposed primarily to traffic noise. The overall noise measurement data indicate that noise in the project vicinity is highly influenced by vehicular traffic along adjacent roadways. 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 12

TABLE VI

SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA

SOUTH OF TULE RIVER MASTER PLAN, PORTERVILLE
JUNE 27 & 28, 2023
Site Time A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA Sources
Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
ST‐1 8:30 a.m. 55.2 72.0 67.4 55.6 45.7 42.7 39.2 TR, C ST‐1 4:15 p.m. 48.9 68.4 59.2 50.5 44.3 41.0 39.6 TR, V ST‐2 8:50 a.m. 41.5 52.9 46.8 44.4 42.0 40.1 38.2 TR, B, D, V ST‐2 4:35 p.m. 49.2 71.2 53.8 50.7 44.1 41.1 39.2 TR, V ST‐3 9:10 p.m. 43.3 51.1 46.6 45.4 44.0 43.0 40.4 TR, L ST‐3 5:00 p.m. 45.5 60.8 50.0 47.4 45.5 43.8 41.6 TR, AC ST‐4 9:30 a.m. 48.3 57.5 54.2 52.4 49.1 46.1 42.6 TR, B, D ST‐4 5:20 p.m. 52.9 70.3 56.6 53.8 50.4 47.7 43.1 TR, V ST‐5 9:55 a.m. 64.2 74.2 72.5 69.7 65.6 61.1 52.1 TR, AG ST‐5 6:10 p.m. 65.0 76.1 73.0 68.8 65.5 62.3 53.7 TR ST‐6 10:20 a.m. 55.8 59.5 58.7 57.8 56.8 55.6 52.5 TR, L, C ST‐6 5:45 p.m. 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.
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 13

4. NOISE IMPACTS TO OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS, AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
a. Project Traffic Noise Impacts on Existing Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Outside Project Site
WJVA utilized the FHWA Traffic Noise Model4 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. The Noise modeling assumptions used to calculate project traffic noise are provided as Appendix C.

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.

The City’s exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 60 dB Ldn. Traffic noise was modeled at twelve (12) receptor locations. The twelve modeled receptors are located at roadway setback distances representative of the sensitive receptors (residences) along each analyzed roadway segment. The receptor locations are described below and provided graphically on Figure

9.  R‐1: Residential land use located approximately 90 feet from the centerline of Westwood St  R‐2: Residential land use located approximately 150 feet from the centerline of Olive Ave  R‐3: Residential land use located approximately 80 feet from the centerline of Westwood St  R‐4: Residential land use located approximately 85 feet from the centerline of Olive Ave  R‐5: Residential land use located approximately 230 feet from the centerline of Olive Ave 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 14
 R‐6: Residential land use located approximately 135 feet from the centerline of Newcomb St  R‐7: Residential land use located approximately 90 feet from the centerline of Newcombe St  R‐8: Residential land use located approximately 110 feet from the centerline of Prospect St  R‐9: Residential land use located approximately 135 feet from the centerline of SR 190  R‐10: Residential land use located approximately 215 feet from the centerline of SR 190  R‐11: Residential land use located approximately 175 feet from the centerline of SR 190  R‐12: Residential land use located approximately 120 feet from the centerline of Prospect St Existing Conditions
Table VII provides existing traffic noise exposure levels at the twelve analyzed representative receptor locations, and provides what the project contribution would be to existing traffic conditions.

TABLE VII
PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE, dB, Ldn

SOUTH OF TULE RIVER MASTER PLAN, PORTERVILLE

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
R‐13 62 64 +2 No
R‐14 60 60 0 No
R‐15 63 65 +2 No
R‐16 63 65 +2 No
R‐17 58 59 +1 No
Source:  WJV Acoustics, Inc.

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 15
2046 Cumulative Conditions
Table VIII 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 VIII
PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE, dB, Ldn

SOUTH OF TULE RIVER MASTER PLAN, PORTERVILLE
2046 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Modeled
Receptor
2046 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.

Reference to Table VII and Table VIII 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 VII and Table VIII 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. 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 16
Potential Impact
The project 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 9, located on the corner of Newcome Street and Clare Avenue.

Mitigation Measures:

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. It should be noted, 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. b. Proposed Impacts From Operational On-Site Sources
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 III (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 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. 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 17
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.

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. 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 18
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 un‐ enclosed 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.

Potential Impact:

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 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.

Mitigation Measures:

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.
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 19
When specific uses within the study area 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.
c. Noise from Construction
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 IX 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 III. 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 IX

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS, dBA
Type of Equipment 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 300 Ft.

Concrete Saw 84 78 74
Crane 75 69 65
Excavator 75 69 65
Front End Loader 73 67 63
Jackhammer 83 77 73
Paver 71 65 61
Pneumatic Tools 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 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 20
A noise impact could occur if construction activities do not incorporate appropriate best management practices in regards to construction‐related noise. The following best management practices should be implemented to minimize the potential for noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors in the project area, during project construction.

Best Management Practices:

Noise levels associated with construction activities may be effectively mitigated by incorporating noise mitigation measures and appropriate best management practices. The following best management practices should be applied during periods of project construction.  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.
d. Vibration Impacts
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 X. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significant threshold levels for annoyance or damage, as provided above in Table IV and Table V.
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 21

TABLE X

TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION
PPV (in/sec)
Equipment @ 100´ @ 300´
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 .03 0.013
Caisson Drilling .01 0.006
Source: Caltrans
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 22

5. NOISE IMPACTS TO PROPOSED ON-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS,

AND MITIGATION MEASURES
a. Traffic Noise Impacts To Proposed On-Site Receptors
The City of Porterville 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 XI provides the distances from the center of each roadway to these noise exposure contours. Table XI 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.

TABLE XI

DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS

SOTU MASTER PLAN, PORTERVILLE
CUMULATIVE 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 651 674 145
Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1 based upon existing traffic volumes as future projected volumes were not available It should be noted, contour distances provided in Table XI 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 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 23
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.

Potential Impact:

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

Mitigation:

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. Options for noise mitigation include the use of building setbacks and the construction of berms and sound walls.
b. Noise Impacts from Operational On-Site Sources
As described above, the proposed Project would include several land use designations with the potential to result in noise impacts to proposed 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).

These same noise sources could potentially result in noise impacts at proposed (on‐site) residential land uses.
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 24
Potential Impact:

Mitigation Measures:

When specific uses within the study area 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.
c. Noise Impacts from Nearby Airports or Airstrips
The Project site is located approximately one (1) mile north of the Porterville Municipal Airport.

WJVA reviewed the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan5 , and determined that no
portion of the project site lies within any of the Porterville Municipal Airport noise contours. The Porterville Municipal Airport noise contours are provided as Figure 10. 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 25

6. IMPACT SUMMARY
This impact summary addresses only the noise impacts determined to be “potentially significant” and summarizes the appropriate measures that would be required to reduce noise levels to a “less than significant” level, if applicable.
 Potential Impact: Noise levels from new stationary noise sources associated with proposed Commercial Mixed Use, Retail Center, Neighborhood Commercial, and Industrial Park land uses within the project site could potentially impact existing and new sensitive receptors (residential land uses). Exact uses of these land use designations were not known at the time this analysis was prepared.

Mitigation: Noise levels from new stationary noise sources may be effectively mitigated by incorporating appropriate 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. If required, 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 study area are proposed that could result in a noise‐related conflict between a commercial or other stationary noise source and existing or proposed noise‐sensitive receptor, an acoustical analysis may be required by the City that quantifies project‐related noise levels and recommends appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the City’s noise standards.  Potential Impact: A noise impact could occur if new proposed sensitive receptors (residential land uses) are located within the 2046 cumulative 60dB Ldn traffic noise contours. Table XI provides the setback distances from the centerline of each of the four site‐adjacent arterial roadways and highways to the 60 dB Ldn exterior nose level contour.

Mitigation: 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. Options for noise mitigation include the use of building setbacks and the construction of berms and sound walls.  Potential Impact: A noise impact could occur if construction activities occur outside of the City’s allowable hours of construction and/or do not incorporate appropriate best management practices in regards to construction‐related noise. Implement best management practices to minimize the potential for noise impacts on existing sensitive receptors in the project area, during project construction. The following provides the City’s allowable hours of construction as well as generalized best management practices that should be applied during periods of project construction to ensure that noise impacts do not result from project construction:
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 26
 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 provided above in Table III.
 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 a contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator. 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 27

7. SOURCES CONSULTED

1. Dyett and Bhatia, City of Porterville 2030 General Plan, 2008.

2. City of Porterville Municipal Code, updated November 15, 2022

3. California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.

4. Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5, April 14, 2004

5. Aries Consultants, Ltd., Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, December. 2012

23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 28
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LAND USE PLAN
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 29
FIGURE 2: PROJECT VICINITY AND AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING SITES 23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 30
FIGURE 3: HOURLY NOISE LEVELS AT SITE LT-1
2030405060708090
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐1
July 27, 2023
LmaxLeqL90
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 31
FIGURE 4: NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE LT-1
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 32
FIGURE 5: HOURLY NOISE LEVELS AT SITE LT-2
2030405060708090
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐2
July 27, 2023
LmaxLeqL90
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 33
FIGURE 6: NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE LT-2
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 34
FIGURE 7: HOURLY NOISE LEVELS AT SITE LT-3
2030405060708090
100
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00
17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐3
July 27, 2023
LmaxLeqL90
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 35
FIGURE 8: NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE LT-3
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 36
FIGURE 9: MODELED TRAFFIC NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
23‐22 (SOTU Master Plan, Porterville) 8‐2‐23 37
FIGURE 10: PORTERVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS APPENDIX A‐1
ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.

DECIBEL, dB: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter).

DNL/Ldn: Day/Night Average Sound Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.

Leq: Equivalent Sound Level. The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.

Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.

NOTE: The CNEL and DNL represent daily levels of noise exposure averaged on an annual basis, while Leq represents the average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.

Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event.

Ln: The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval (L90, L50, L10, etc.). For example, L10 equals the level exceeded 10 percent of the time.

A‐2
ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant levels of noise exposure. CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise.

NOISE LEVEL
REDUCTION (NLR): The noise reduction between indoor and outdoor environments or between two rooms that is the numerical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those areas or rooms. A measurement of “noise level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.

SEL or SENEL: Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level. The level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an aircraft overflight, with reference to a duration of one second.

More specifically, it is the time‐integrated A‐weighted squared sound pressure for a stated time interval or event, based on a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second.

SOUND LEVEL: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.

SOUND TRANSMISSION
CLASS (STC): The single‐number rating of sound transmission loss for a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs.

APPENDIX C

TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING CALCULATIONS
WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
August 2, 2023
Project #: 23-22 SOTU Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: ExistingLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 Westwood n/o Olive R-1 9830 90 10 2 1 45 902 Olive w/o Westwood R-2 10800 90 10 2 1 45 1503 Westwood s/o Olive R-3 9930 90 10 2 1 45 804 Olive e/o Westwood R-4 10660 90 10 2 1 45 855 Olive w/o Newcomb R-5 13130 90 10 2 1 45 2306 Newcomb n/o Olive R-6 7710 90 10 2 1 45 1357 Newcomb s/o Olive R-7 5570 90 10 2 1 45 908 Prospect s/o Olive R-8 700 90 10 2 1 45 1109 SR 190 w/o Westwood R-9 5970 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 135 10 SR 190 e/o Westwood R-10 12150 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 21511 SR 190 w/o Prospect R-11 11930 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 17512 Prospect s/o SR 190 R-12 2810 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 12013 SR 65 29000 85 15 4.6 3.7 65 100 WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
August 2, 2023
Project #: 23-22 SOTU Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: Existing + ProjectLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 Westwood n/o Olive R-1 15150 90 10 2 1 45 902 Olive w/o Westwood R-2 11280 90 10 2 1 45 1503 Westwood s/o Olive R-3 16230 90 10 2 1 45 804 Olive e/o Westwood R-4 14560 90 10 2 1 45 855 Olive w/o Newcomb R-5 17170 90 10 2 1 45 2306 Newcomb n/o Olive R-6 12540 90 10 2 1 45 135 7 Newcomb s/o Olive R-7 16420 90 10 2 1 45 908 Prospect s/o Olive R-8 720 90 10 2 1 45 1109 SR 190 w/o Westwood R-9 9880 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 135 10 SR 190 e/o Westwood R-10 16310 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 21511 SR 190 w/o Prospect R-11 21260 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 17512 Prospect s/o SR 190 R-12 2890 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 120 WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
August 2, 2023
Project #: 23-22 SOTU Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: Cumulative 2046 NPLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 Westwood n/o Olive R-1 10450 90 10 2 1 45 902 Olive w/o Westwood R-2 11430 90 10 2 1 45 1503 Westwood s/o Olive R-3 10690 90 10 2 1 45 804 Olive e/o Westwood R-4 11730 90 10 2 1 45 855 Olive w/o Newcomb R-5 14230 90 10 2 1 45 2306 Newcomb n/o Olive R-6 8540 90 10 2 1 45 1357 Newcomb s/o Olive R-7 6490 90 10 2 1 45 908 Prospect s/o Olive R-8 700 90 10 2 1 45 1109 SR 190 w/o Westwood R-9 7000 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 135 10 SR 190 e/o Westwood R-10 13480 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 21511 SR 190 w/o Prospect R-11 13060 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 17512 Prospect s/o SR 190 R-12 2810 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 120 WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
August 2, 2023
Project #: 23-22 SOTU Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: Cumulative 2046 + ProjLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 Westwood n/o Olive R-1 15970 90 10 2 1 45 902 Olive w/o Westwood R-2 11910 90 10 2 1 45 1503 Westwood s/o Olive R-3 16950 90 10 2 1 45 804 Olive e/o Westwood R-4 18100 90 10 2 1 45 855 Olive w/o Newcomb R-5 18240 90 10 2 1 45 2306 Newcomb n/o Olive R-6 12960 90 10 2 1 45 135 7 Newcomb s/o Olive R-7 17340 90 10 2 1 45 908 Prospect s/o Olive R-8 720 90 10 2 1 45 1109 SR 190 w/o Westwood R-9 10910 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 135 10 SR 190 e/o Westwood R-10 17640 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 21511 SR 190 w/o Prospect R-11 21050 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 17512 Prospect s/o SR 190 R-12 2890 85 15 6.1 4.8 55 12013 Newcomeb n/o South Collector 10570 90 10 2 1 45 10014 Westwood n/o SR 190 13030 90 10 2 1 45 100

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 222

7.6 Appendix F: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Prepared by JBL Traffic Engineering, Inc., on August 4, 2023.

Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023
SoTu Master Plan
Bound by the Tule River, State Route 65, State
Route 190 and Westwood Street
In the City of Porterville, California
Prepared for:

City of Porterville
291 North Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
Project No. 053-001
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions Z:\01 Projects\053 Porterville\053-001 Tule River Master Plan\Report\VMT\R20230804 SoTu Master Plan VMT Analysis.docx

Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
For the SoTu Master Plan bound by the Tule River, State Route 65, State Route 190 and Westwood Street
In the City of Porterville, CA
August 4, 2023
This Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic Engineer attests to the technical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data from which recommendations, conclusions and decisions are based.

Prepared by:
_________________________________
Jose Luis Benavides, P.E., T.E.

President

www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iii
(559) 570-8991
SoTu Master Plan - City of Porterville
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023

Table of Contents
Plan Description...................................................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Setting, Criteria of Significance and Methodology ................................................................. 1 Regulatory Setting.................................................................................................................................... 1 Criteria of Significance ............................................................................................................................. 2 Methodology............................................................................................................................................ 2 VMT Calculations.................................................................................................................................... 3 VMT Output ............................................................................................................................................. 3 VMT Mitigations....................................................................................................................................... 3 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................. 5 Study Participants................................................................................................................................... 6 References.............................................................................................................................................. 7 List of Tables Table I: VMT Output............................................................................................................................................... 3 Table II: VMT Mitigations....................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Appendices Appendix A: VMT Output
Appendix B: VMT Mitigation Measures
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991
SoTu Master Plan - City of Porterville
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023

Plan Description
This Draft Report describes a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) for the SoTu Master Plan (Plan) located on approximately 421.89 acres bound by the Tule River, State Route 65, State Route 190 and Westwood Street in the County of Tulare, but within the sphere of influence of the City of Porterville. The Plan will require a conditional use permit, a general plan amendment and a rezone application. Currently, this area is planned for low density residential, retail centers, education and parks. The Plan will change these planned land uses to include low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, commercial mixed-use, retail center, neighborhood commercial, professional office, general industrial and parks.

Regulatory Setting, Criteria of Significance and Methodology 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.

www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991
SoTu Master Plan - City of Porterville
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023
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 study area with the plan in the planning horizon year to the VMT/capita of the study area 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 study area, a comparison to this study area in the base year would not represent a comparison to any meaningful existing data. Consequently, this VMT Analysis compares the VMT of the study area, including the plan, in the horizon year to the VMT of the entire region in the 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 study area 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 study area. 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 study area. 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. www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991
SoTu Master Plan - City of Porterville
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023

VMT Calculations
VMT Output
Table I 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 output 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 I, before VMT mitigations are considered, the Plan has a less than significant VMT impact in terms of VMT per Capita and VMT per Service Population, but a significant VMT impact in terms of VMT per Service Population. As a result, the Project would need to implement VMT mitigation measures. Appendix A presents a summary of the VMT outputs by the TCAG model.

Table I: VMT Output
VMT Measurement TCAG Base Year No Project
VMT Results (Entire Region) ¹
TCAG Horizon Year plus Project
VMT Results (Study Area) ¹
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
Note: 1 = VMT Results from TCAG Model
VMT Mitigations
The VMT mitigation measures considered for this Plan include those appropriate for the study area. As this VMT is being studied for a plan and not a land development project, VMT mitigation measure T-1 through T-16 were not considered for this Plan. The VMT mitigation measures 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 TransitSupportive Roadway Treatments. Appendix B presents a summary of the VMT reduction associated with each mitigation measure utilized in this Report. The selected VMT reduction rates appropriate for the Plan were based on the CAPCOA VMT Mitigation Guidelines.

Land Use Subcategory
T-17. Improve Street Connectivity: The Plan will include an increase in the number of intersections.

Therefore, this measure was applied to the Plan. See Appendix B for more information.

Neighborhood Design Subcategory
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement: The Plan will include pedestrian network improvements that connect to a greater network. Therefore, this measure was applied to the Plan. See Appendix B for more information.

T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility: The Plan will include the construction of bike facilities that connect to a greater network. Therefore, this measure was applied to the Plan. See Appendix B for more information.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991
SoTu Master Plan - City of Porterville
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023
T-19-B. Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard: The Plan will not include the construction of bike boulevards (Class III bike lanes). Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

T-20. Expand Bikeway Network: The Plan will include the expansion of a bikeway network when compared to the existing plan in this area. Therefore, this measure was applied to the Plan. However, the reduction from this measure was negligible. See Appendix B for more information.

T-21-A. Implement Conventional Carshare Program: The Plan will not implement a conventional carshare program. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

T-21-B. Implement Electric Carshare Program: The Plan will not implement an electric carshare program.

Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

T-22-A. Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program: The Plan will not implement a pedal (nonelectric) bikeshare program. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

T-22-B. Implement Electric Bikeshare Program: The Plan will not implement an electric bikeshare program.

Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

T-22-C. Implement Scootershare Program: The Plan will not implement a scootershare program.

Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

Trip Reduction Programs Subcategory
T-23. Provide Community-Based Travel Planning: The Plan will not provide community-based travel planning. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

Parking or Road Pricing/Management Subcategory
T-24. Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street): The plan will not implement market price public parking. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

Transit Subcategory
T-25. Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours: The plan will not extend transit network coverage or hours. However, it is recommended that the City of Porterville and the Tulare County Regional Transit Agency consider implementing a route within the Plan or altering an existing route to service the Plan area. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

T-26. Increase Transit Service Frequency: At present, there is no transit serving the plan areas and as such increasing transit service frequency is technically not possible. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments: The plan will implement transit-supportive roadway treatments such as bus bays at intersections of all major streets. Therefore, this measure was applied to the Plan. See Appendix B for more information.

T-28. Provide Bus Rapid Transit: The plan will not provide bus rapid transit. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991
SoTu Master Plan - City of Porterville
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023
T-29. Reduce Transit Fares: The plan will not reduce transit fares. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles Subcategory
T-30. Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles: Using cleaner-fuel vehicles is not a feasible measure for the Plan as employee and resident vehicles cannot be forced to be clean-fuel vehicles. Therefore, this measure was not applied to the Plan.

The mitigation measures combine to reduce the Plan’s VMT by 10.15%. As can be seen in Table II, the mitigation measures result in a reduction of 0.62 VMT per Capita, 1.19 VMT per Employee and 2.48 VMT per Service Population to the Plan. In conclusion, after reductions from VMT mitigations are considered, the Plan has less than significant VMT impacts.

Table II: VMT Mitigations
VMT Measurement
TCAG Base Year No Plan
VMT Results (Entire
Region) ¹
TCAG Horizon Year plus
Plan VMT Results (Study
Area) ¹
Reduction in
VMT from
Mitigations²
VMT After
Mitigations
Significant VMT
Impact After VMT
Mitigations?
VMT per Capita 14.51 6.12 0.62 5.50 No
VMT per Employee 11.92 11.74 1.19 10.55 No
VMT per Service Population 23.52 24.48 2.48 22.00 No
Note: 1 = VMT Results from TCAG Model
2 = VMT Mitigations calculated using CAPCOA’s VMT Mitigation Guidelines Conclusions
• Per the TCAG model, the VMT output for the Base Year No Plan (Entire Region) is 14.51 VMT per Capita, 11.92 VMT per Employee and 23.52 VMT per Service Population. • Per the TCAG model, the VMT output for the Horizon Year plus Plan (Plan Area) is 6.12 VMT per Capita, 11.74 VMT per Employee and 24.48 VMT per Service Population. • Once the VMT mitigation measures are considered, the Plans VMT output is reduced 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) is 5.50 VMT per Capita, 10.55 VMT per Employee and 22.00 VMT per Service Population after considering VMT mitigations. • 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.

www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570-8991
SoTu Master Plan - City of Porterville
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023

Study Participants
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Personnel
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE Project Manager
Matthew Arndt, EIT Engineer I/II
Christian Sanchez Engineer I/II
Adrian Benavides Engineering Aide
Carlos Topete Engineering Aide
Persons Consulted:

Kelsey George Precision Civil Engineering
Bonique Emerson Precision Civil Engineering
Jenna Chilingerian Precision Civil Engineering
Shin Tu Precision Civil Engineering
Javier Sanchez City of Porterville
Daniel Cervantez City of Porterville
Gary Mills County of Tulare
Michael Winton County of Tulare
David Padilla Caltrans
Lorena Mendibles Caltrans
Andrea Nason Caltrans
Kasia Poleszczuk Tulare County Association of Governments Roberto Brady Tulare County Association of Governments
Steven Ingoldsby Tulare County Association of Governments www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 7
(559) 570-8991
SoTu Master Plan - City of Porterville
Draft Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
August 4, 2023

References
California Air Pollution Officers Association. 2021. “Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.”. Sacramento:

State of California.

Caltrans. 2020. “Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide”. Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2021. "California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Sacramento: State of California.

City of Porterville. 2007. "City of Porterville 2030 General Plan". Porterville: City of Porterville.

Tulare County. 2012. "Tulare County General Plan – 2030 Update". Tulare: Tulare County.

Tulare County. 2020. "County of Tulare SB 743 Guidelines". Tulare: Tulare County.

Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. Ebook. Sacramento: State of California, pp.1-34.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2017. “Trip Generation Manual”. Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | A
(559) 570-8991
Appendix A: VMT Output
Total Homebased VMT Total Population VMT/Capita
6328508 436145 14.51
26062 4256 6.12
-57.8%
*Output from the TCAG Model
Total Homebased Work VMT Total Employment VMT/Employee
2246509 188434 11.92
10752 916 11.74
-1.5%
*Output from the TCAG Model
Total VMT Total Service Population VMT/Service Population 14688740 624579 23.52
126606 5172 24.48

4.1%
*Output from the TCAG Model2046 Project Area (Plus Project)2046 Project Area (Plus Project) Non-Residential VMT Calculation
2022 Entire Modeling Area (No Project)
Percent DifferencePercent DifferencePercent Difference
2022 Entire Modeling Area (No Project)2046 Project Area (Plus Project) Residential VMT Calculation
Service Population VMT Calculation
RegionRegionRegion
2022 Entire Modeling Area (No Project)
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | B
(559) 570-8991
Appendix B: VMT Mitigation Measures
Home-Based Work-Based Total Service
6,328,508 2,246,509 14,688,740
436,145 188,434 624,579

14.51 11.92 23.52
26,062 10,752 126,606
4,256 916 5,172

6.12 11.74 24.48
-57.82% -1.53% 4.09%
Measure VMT Mitigation Maximum Reduction VMT Reduction (%) VMT Reduction (%) VMT Reduction (%) T-17 Improve Street Connectivity 30.00% 7.70% 7.70% 7.70%T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement 6.40% 2.59% 2.59% 2.59% *See later pages for calculations T-19-A Construct or Improve Bike Facility 0.80% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% *See later pages for calculations T-19-B Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% T-20 Expand Bikeway Network 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% *See later pages for calculations T-21-A Implement Conventional Carshare Program 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% T-21-B Implement Electric Carshare Program 0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% T-22-A Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% T-22-B Implement Electric Bikeshare Program 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%T-22-C Implement Implement Scootershare Program 0.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

10.00% 2.62% 2.62% 2.62%
T-23 Provide Community-Based Travel Planning 2.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%T-24 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%T-25 Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours 4.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%T-26 Increase Transit Service Frequency 11.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%T-27 Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments 0.60% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% *See later pages for calculations T-28 Provide Bus Rapid Transit 13.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%T-29 Reduce Transit Fares 1.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

15.00% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03%

70.00% 10.15% 10.15% 10.15%
T-30 Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles N/A N/A N/A N/A
Home-Based Work-Based Total Service

14.51 11.92 23.52

6.12 11.74 24.48
-0.62 -1.19 -2.48

5.50 10.55 22.00
Significant VMT Output? No No No
Cumulative Year 2046 Project Home-Based/Work-Based/Total VMT Cumulative Year 2046 Project Population/Employment/Service Population Cumulative Year 2046 Project VMT per Capita/Employee/Service Population % Difference
Land Use:

Base Year 2022 VMT per Capita/Employee/Service Population Cumulative Year 2046 Project VMT per Capita/Employee/Service Population Mitigation VMT Reduction:

Project VMT after Mitigations:

Parking Or Road Pricing/Management
Transit
Combined Transit
Combined Plan/Community Scale Mitigations
Clean Vehicles and Fuels
VMT Mitigation Calculations
Trip Reduction Programs
Plan/Community Scale
Land Use
Neighborhood Design
Combined Neighborhood Design
SoTu Master Plan VMT Analysis
Land Use:

Base Year 2022 Home-Based/Work-Based/Total VMT
Base Year 2022 Population/Employment/Service Population Base Year 2022 VMT per Capita/Employee/Service Population TRANSPORTATION | 130
T-17. Improve Street Connectivity
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 30.0% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Improving street connectivity could increase
route redundancy, allowing faster and more
efficient travel during extreme weather
events, evacuations, or for emergency
vehicles requiring access to hazard sites.

Health and Equity Considerations
Multiple active modes routing options
allows vulnerable road users to choose
based on perceived safety, comfort, speed,
and other factors.

Measure Description
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of vehicle intersections compared to the average intersection density in the U.S. Increased vehicle intersection density is a proxy for street connectivity improvements, which help to facilitate a greater number of shorter trips and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Projects that increase intersection density would be building a new street network in a subdivision or retrofitting an existing street network to improve connectivity (e.g., converting cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets to grid streets).

Cost Considerations
Capital and infrastructure costs for improved street connectivity may be high. Depending on the location, losses may also be incurred through the reduction of sellable land due to the increased street footprint. Benefits come mainly from the reduction of traffic on arterial streets, which reduces congestion and allows for safer use of nonmotorized transportation, such as bikes. These outcomes, in turn, can reduce car usage, which provides costs savings to commuters and municipalities.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure T-18, Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement, to best support use of the local pedestrian network.
30%
T-17. Improve Street Connectivity TRANSPORTATION | 131
GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B − C
C
× D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from vehicle travel in plan/community
0–30.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Intersection density in project site with
measure
[ ] intersections
per sq mile
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Average intersection density 36 intersections
per sq mile
Fehr & Peers 2009
D Elasticity of VMT with respect to
intersection density
-0.14 unitless Stevens 2016
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – The average intersection density is based on the standard suburban intersection density in the U.S. (Fehr & Peers 2009). This density is approximately equivalent to block faces of 750 to 800 feet, or cul-de-sac–style built environments, which are appropriate for suburban areas.
▪ (D) – A meta-regression analysis of 15 studies found that a 0.14 percent decrease in VMT occurs for every 1 percent increase in intersection density (Stevens 2016).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 30 percent. The purpose of the 30 percent cap is to limit the influence of any single built environmental factor (such as intersection density).

Subsector Maximum
Same as (Amax). Measure T-17 is the only measure at the Plan/Community scale within the Land Use subsector.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by constructing their project with a higher intersection density than the surrounding city. In this example, the project intersection density (B) would be 72 =
(39 / 0.6989) - 36
36 * (-0.14) = -7.70%
T-17. Improve Street Connectivity TRANSPORTATION | 132
intersections per square mile (sq mile), which would reduce GHG emissions from project VMT by 14 percent.

A =
72 int
sq mile − 36 int
sq mile
36 int
sq mile
× -0.14 = -14%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Fehr & Peers. 2009. Proposed Trip Generation, Distribution, and Transit Mode Split Forecasts for the Bayview Waterfront Project Transportation Study.
▪ Stevens, M. 2016. Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association 83:1(7–18), DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044. November. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309890412_Does_Compact_Development_Make_People_ Drive_Less. Accessed: January 2021.

TRANSPORTATION | 133
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 6.4% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Improving pedestrian networks increases
accessibility of outdoor spaces, which can
provide health benefits and thus improve
community resilience. This can also improve
connectivity between residents and
resources that may be needed in an
extreme weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Ensure that the improvements also include
accessibility features to allow for people of
all abilities to use the network safely and
conveniently. Ensure that sidewalks connect
to nearby community assets, such as
schools, retail, and healthcare.

Measure Description
This measure will increase the sidewalk coverage to improve pedestrian access. Providing sidewalks and an enhanced
pedestrian network encourages people to walk instead of drive.

This mode shift results in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban, rural
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The GHG reduction of this measure is based on the VMT reduction associated with expansion of sidewalk coverage expansion, which includes not only building of new sidewalks but also improving degraded or substandard sidewalk (e.g., damaged from street tree roots). However, pedestrian network enhancements with nonquantifiable GHG reductions are encouraged to be implemented, as discussed under Expanded Mitigation Options.

Cost Considerations
Depending on the improvement, capital and infrastructure costs may be high. However, improvements to the pedestrian network will increase pedestrian activity, which can increase businesses patronage and provide a local economic benefit. The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When improving sidewalks, a best practice is to ensure they are contiguous and link externally with existing and planned pedestrian facilities. Barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity, such as walls, landscaping buffers, slopes, and unprotected crossings should be minimized. Other best practice features could include high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other pedestrian signals, mid-block crossing walks, pedestrian refuge islands, speed tables, bulb-outs (curb extensions), curb ramps, signage, pavement markings, pedestrianonly connections and districts, landscaping, and other improvements to pedestrian safety (see Measure T-35, Provide Traffic Calming Measures).

6.4%
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 134 GHG Reduction Formula
A = (
C
B
− 1) × D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
household vehicle travel in plan/community
0–6.4 % calculated
User Inputs
B Existing sidewalk length in study area [ ] miles user input C Sidewalk length in study area with measure [ ] miles user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Elasticity of household VMT with respect to the
ratio of sidewalks-to-streets
-0.05 unitless Frank et al.
2011
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – Sidewalk length should be measured on both sides of the street. For example, if one 0.5-mile-long street has full sidewalk coverage, the sidewalk length would be 1.0 mile. If there is only sidewalk on one side of the street, the sidewalk length would be 0.5 mile. The recommended study area is 0.6 mile around the pedestrian network improvement. This represents a 6- to 10-minute walking time. ▪ (D) – A study found that a 0.05 percent decrease in household vehicle travel occurs for every 1 percent increase in the sidewalk-to-street ratio (Frank et al. 2011; Handy et al. 2014).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 3.4 percent, which is based on the following assumptions:
▪ 35.2 percent of vehicle trips are short trips (2 mile or less, average of 1.29 miles) and thus could easily shift to walking (FHWA 2019).
▪ 64.8 percent of vehicle trips are longer trips that are unlikely to shift to walking (2 miles or more, average of 10.93 miles) (FHWA 2019).
▪ So Amax=

35.2% × 1.29 miles

64.8% × 10.93 miles = 6.4%

7.32 = (

4.82 - 1) * -0.05 = -2.59%
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 135 Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces household VMT by improving the pedestrian network in the study area. In this example, the existing sidewalk length (B) is 9 miles, and the sidewalk length with the measure (C) would be 10 miles. With these conditions, the user would reduce GHG emissions from household VMT within the study area by 0.6 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in household VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Improved Public Health
Users are directed to the Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model (ITHIM) (CARB et al. 2020). The ITHIM can quantify the annual change in health outcomes associated with active transportation, including deaths, years of life lost, years of living with disability, and incidence of community and individual disease.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionTool-ITHIM/#Home. Accessed: September 17, 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2019. 2017 National Household Travel Survey Popular Vehicle Trip Statistics. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips. Accessed: January 2021.

A = (
10 miles
9 miles − 1) × -0.05 = -0.6%
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 136 ▪ Frank, L., M. Greenwald, S. Kavage, and A. Devlin. 2011. An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy. WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 765.1, Washington State Department of Transportation. April. Available:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Handy, S., S. Glan-Claudia, and M. Boarnet. 2014. Impacts of Pedestrian Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Pedestrian_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_P olicy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

TRANSPORTATION | 137
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.8% of GHG
emissions from vehicles
parallel roadways
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Constructing and improving bike facilities
can incentivize more bicycle use and
decrease vehicle use, which have health
benefits and can thus improve community
resilience. This can also improve connectivity
between residents and resources that may
be needed in an extreme weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Prioritize low-income and underserved areas
and communities with lower rates of vehicle
ownership or fewer transit options. Make
sure that the bicycle facility connects to a
larger existing bikeway network that
accesses destinations visited by low-income
or underserved communities.

Measure Description
This measure will construct or improve a single bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II, or IV) that connects to a larger existing bikeway network. Providing bicycle infrastructure helps to improve biking conditions within an area. This encourages a mode shift on the roadway parallel to the bicycle facility from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. When constructing or improving a bicycle facility, a best practice is to consider local or state bike lane width standards. A variation of this measure is provided as T-19-B, Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community. This measure reduces VMT on the roadway segment parallel to the bicycle facility (i.e., the corridor). An adjustment factor is included in the formula to scale the VMT reduction from the corridor level to the plan/community level.

Implementation Requirements
The bicycle lane facility must be either Class I, II, or IV. Class I bike paths are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Class IV bikeways are protected on-street bikeways, also called cycle tracks.

Class II bike lanes are striped bicycle lanes that provide exclusive use to bicycles on a roadway.

Cost Considerations
Capital and infrastructure costs for new bike facilities may be high.

The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Implement alongside Measures T-22-A, T-22-B, and/or T-22-C to ensure that micromobility users can ride safely along bicycle lane facilities and not have to ride along pedestrian infrastructure, which is a risk to pedestrian safety.

0.8%
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility TRANSPORTATION | 138 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -B ×
F
I
× (C + D) × E × G
H
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
displaced vehicles on roadway parallel to
bicycle facility
0–0.8 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of plan/community VMT on parallel
roadway
0–100 % user input
C Active transportation adjustment factor Table T-19.1 unitless CARB 2020 D Credits for key destinations near project Table T-19.2 unitless CARB 2020 E Growth factor adjustment for facility type Table T-19.3 unitless CARB 2020 Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
F Annual days of use of new facility Table T-19.4 days per year NOAA 2017 G Existing regional average one-way bicycle
trip length
Table T-10.1 miles per trip FHWA 2017
H Existing regional average one-way vehicle
trip length
Table T-10.1 miles per trip FHWA 2017
I Days per year 365 days per year standard
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The percent of total plan/community VMT within the roadway parallel to the bike facility should represent the expected total VMT generated by all land use in that area, including office, residences, retail, schools, and other uses. The most appropriate source for this data is from a local travel demand forecasting model. An alternate method uses VMT per worker or VMT per resident as calculated for SB 743 compliance and screening purposes multiplied by the population in the area.
▪ (C, D, and E) – The active transportation adjustment factor, key destination credit, and growth factor adjustment should be looked up by the user in Tables T-19.1 through T19.3 in Appendix C. The active transport adjustment factor is based on the existing annual average daily traffic (AADT) of the facility, length of the proposed bike facility, and the city population. The key destination credit is based on the number of key destinations within 0.5-mile of the facility. The growth factor is based on the type of proposed bicycle facility.
▪ (F) – The annual days of use for the new facility should be looked up by users in Table T19.4 based on the county in which the project is located. The days of use is based on the number of days per year where there is no rainfall (i.e., <=0.1 inches) (NOAA 2017). = -.88 *
(320 / 365) * (0.0019 + 0.0) * 1 * 2.2

11.7 = -0.03%
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility TRANSPORTATION | 139 ▪ (G and H) – Ideally, the user will calculate bicycle and vehicle trip lengths for the corridor at a scale no larger than the surrounding census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input regional average one-way bicycle and vehicle trip lengths for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California provided in Table T-10.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use CBSA data from Table T-10.1 in Appendix C, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.8 percent. This is based on a neighborhood project the size of a large corridor (B = 100%) within the CBSA of Sacramento-RosevilleArden-Arcade that uses the highest values for (C, D, and E) in Tables T-19.1 through T19.3 and annual use days for Sacramento County (F) in Table T-19.4. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification. (Cmax) The active transportation adjustment factor (C) was determined for roadways with AADT ranging from 1 to 30,000 (CARB 2020). Roadways with AADT greater than 30,000 are generally not appropriate for bicycle facilities. Care should be taken by the user in interpreting the results from this equation for a project roadway with AADT greater than 30,000.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by constructing a bicycle facility that displaces vehicle trips with bicycle trips. In this example, the following assumptions are made to obtain inputs from Tables T-19.1 through T-19.3 in Appendix C:
▪ Percent of plan/community VMT on parallel roadway (B) = 100%. The project would establish a bike corridor the whole length of a central commercial thoroughfare. It is assumed this main street makes up the entire neighborhood. ▪ Active transportation adjustment factor (C) = 0.0207. Existing AADT on the roadway parallel to the proposed bicycle facility is 10,000, the facility length is 2.5 miles, and the project site is in a university town with a population of 200,000. ▪ Key destination credit (D) = 0.003. There are 10 key destinations within 0.25 mile of the project site.
▪ Growth factor adjustment (E) = 1.54. The bike facility would be a new Class IV bikeway.

T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility TRANSPORTATION | 140 The project is within the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade CBSA and the user does not have project-specific values for average bicycle and vehicle trip lengths. Accordingly, the inputs of 2.9 miles and 10.9 miles, respectively (G and H), from Table T-10.1 in Appendix C are assumed. The user would displace GHG emissions from project study area VMT by 0.8 percent.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Improved Public Health
Users are directed to the ITHIM (CARB et al. 2020). The ITHIM can quantify the annual change in health outcomes associated with active transportation, including deaths, years of life lost, years of living with disability, and incidence of community and individual disease.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Quantification Methodology for the Strategic Growth Council’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/draft_sgc_ahsc_q m_091620.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionTool-ITHIM/#Home. Accessed: September 17, 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.

A = -100% × (
307 days
365 days × (0.0207 + 0.003) × 1.54 × 2.9 miles

10.9 miles ) = -0.8%
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility TRANSPORTATION | 141 ▪ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021. Global Historical Climatology Network–Daily (GHCN-Daily), Version 3. 2015-2019 Average of Days Per Year with Precipitation >0.1 Inches. Available: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/search/data-search/dailysummaries?bbox=38.922,-120.071,38.338,- 119.547&place=County:1276&dataTypes=PRCP&startDate=2015-01- 01T00:00:00&endDate=2019-01-01T23:59:59. Accessed: May 2021.

TRANSPORTATION | 146
T-20. Expand Bikeway Network
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.5% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Expanding bikeway networks can incentivize
more bicycle use and decrease vehicle use,
which have health benefits and can thus
improve community resilience. This can also
improve connectivity between residents and
resources that may be needed in an extreme
weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Prioritize low-income and underserved areas
and communities with lower rates of vehicle
ownership or fewer transit options. Make
sure that destinations visited by low-income
or underserved communities are served by
the network.

Measure Description
This measure will increase the length of a city or community bikeway network. A bicycle network is an interconnected system of bike lanes, bike paths, bike routes, and cycle tracks. Providing bicycle infrastructure with markings and signage on appropriately sized roads with vehicle traffic traveling at safe speeds helps to improve biking conditions (e.g., safety and convenience). In addition, expanded bikeway networks can increase access to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the “catchment area” of the transit stop or station and increasing ridership. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. When expanding a bicycle network, a best practice is to consider bike lane width standards from local agencies, state agencies, or the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The bikeway network must consist of either Class I, II, or IV infrastructure.

Cost Considerations
Capital and infrastructure costs for expanding the bikeway network may be high. Construction of these facilities may also increase vehicle traffic, leading to more congestion and temporarily longer trip times for motorist. However, the local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
As networks expand, ensure safe, secure, and weather-protected bicycle parking facilities at origins and destinations. Also, implement alongside T-22-A, T-22-B, and/or T-22-C to ensure that micromobility options can ride safely along bicycle lane facilities and not have to ride along pedestrian infrastructure, which is a risk to pedestrian safety.

0.5%
T-20. Expand Bikeway Network TRANSPORTATION | 147
GHG Reduction Formula
A = -1 ×
(
C − B
B
) × D × F × H
E × G
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
employee commute vehicle travel in
plan/community
0–0.5 % calculated
User Inputs
B Existing bikeway miles in plan/community [ ] miles user input C Bikeway miles in plan/community with
measure
[ ] miles user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Bicycle mode share in plan/community Table T-20.1 % FHWA 2017 E Vehicle mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017 F Average one-way bicycle trip length in
plan/community
Table T-10.1 miles per
trip
FHWA 2017
G Average one-way vehicle trip length in
plan/community
Table T-10.1 miles per
trip
FHWA 2017
H Elasticity of bike commuters with respect to
bikeway miles per 10,000 population

0.25 unitless Pucher &
Buehler 2011
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The existing bikeway miles in a plan/community should be calculated by measuring the distance of all Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways within the plan/community. This information can sometimes be found in a city’s bicycle master plan, if a plan has been prepared and is up to date.
▪ (D, E, F, and G) – Ideally, the user will calculate bicycle and auto mode share and trip length for a plan/community at the city scale. Potential data sources include the California Household Travel Survey (preferred) or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the mode shares and trip lengths for bicycles and vehicles for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-3.1, T-10.2, and T20.1 in Appendix C. Trip lengths are likely to be longer for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state. Similarly, it is likely for areas outside of the area covered by the listed CBSAs to have vehicle mode shares higher and bicycle mode shares lower than the values provided in the tables. ▪ (H) – A multivariate analysis of the impacts of bike lanes on cycling levels in the 100 largest U.S. cities found that a 0.25 percent increase in commute cycling occurs for every 1 percent increase in bike lane distance (Pucher & Buehler 2011). = -1 *
(5.05 - 2.75)

2.75 * 0.0006 * 2.2 * 0.25

0.9688 * 11.7 = 0.00%
T-20. Expand Bikeway Network TRANSPORTATION | 148
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use CBSA data from Tables T-3.1, T-10.2, and T-20.1 in Appendix C, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.5 percent. This is based on a project within the CBSA of San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara that has no existing bike lane infrastructure. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification. (
C-B
B max
) The maximum percent increase in bike lane miles in the plan/community is conservatively capped at 1000 percent. If there is no existing bike lane infrastructure in the plan/community, (B) should be set to (1/11×C), resulting in a percentage change of 1000 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces employee commute VMT by increasing the length of a bicycle network within a plan/community, which displaces commute vehicle trips with bicycle trips. In this example, the existing bikeway length in the plan/community (B) is 0 miles and the length with the measure (C) is 11 miles. The project is within the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CBSA, yielding the following inputs from Tables T-3.1, T-10.2, and T-20.1 in Appendix C. ▪ Bicycle mode share (D) = 0.79 percent.
▪ Vehicle mode share (E) = 91.32 percent.
▪ Average one-way bicycle trip length (F) = 2.8 miles.
▪ Average one-way vehicle trip length (G) = 11.5 miles.

The user would displace GHG emissions from project study area employee commute VMT by 0.5 percent.

91.32% × 11.5 miles ) = -0.5%
T-20. Expand Bikeway Network TRANSPORTATION | 149
adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in employee commute VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionTool-ITHIM/#Home. Accessed: September 17, 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Pucher, J., and Buehler, R. 2011. Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York. March. Available: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/analysisbike-final_0.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

TRANSPORTATION | 188
T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway
Treatments
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.6% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Implementing transit-supportive roadway
treatments improves the reliability of the
transportation network and allows
redundancy to exist even if an extreme
event disrupts part of the system. It could
also incentivize more people to use transit,
resulting in less traffic and better allowing
emergency responders to access a hazard
site during an extreme weather event.

Furthermore, emergency responders can
use queue jumps and dedicated bus lanes
when needed.

Health and Equity Considerations
Transit facilities can have conflicts with
cyclists. Consider appropriate treatments to
minimize conflicts. Improved transit
investments should be equitably distributed
prioritizing areas with transit deficiencies in
underserved communities.

Measure Description
This measure will implement transit-supportive treatments on the transit routes serving the plan/community. Transit-supportive treatments incorporate a mix of roadway infrastructure
improvements and/or traffic signal modifications to improve transit travel times and reliability. This results in a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and the associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Transit
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Treatments can include transit signal priority, bus-only signal phases, queue jumps, curb extensions to speed passenger loading, and dedicated bus lanes.

Cost Considerations
Costs and savings of transit-supportive roadway treatments vary depending on the strategy pursued, ranging from low-cost route optimization changes to high-cost infrastructure projects (e.g., busonly lanes). Reducing route cycle time without significantly increasing the number of transit vehicles can result in net cost savings for the transit system. Dedicated transit infrastructure will improve transit reliability and increase ridership. This supplements existing transit income streams for municipalities. Increased ridership similarly reduces vehicle use, which has cost benefits for both commuters and municipalities.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure could be paired with other Transit subsector strategies (Measure T-25 and Measure T-29) for increased reductions.

0.6%
T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments TRANSPORTATION | 189 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -1 ×
B × C × D × E × G
F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from vehicle
travel in plan/community
0–0.6 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of plan/community transit routes that
receive treatments
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent change in transit travel time due to
treatments
-10 % TRB 2007
D Elasticity of transit ridership with respect to transit travel time
-0.4 unitless TRB 2007
E Transit mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a F Vehicle mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a G Statewide mode shift factor 57.8 % FHWA 2017b
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – A literature review of studies from the U.S. and United Kingdom indicates that the travel time savings associated with one type of transit-supportive roadway treatment— transit signal prioritization—typically ranged from 8 to 12 percent (TRB 2007). To account for the likelihood that a user would implement multiple transit-supportive treatments, the midpoint of this range is used for the measure formula. Use of the midpoint is still conservative given the additional travel time savings associated with other transit-supportive treatments. If the user can provide a project-specific value based on the suite of their treatments, then the user should replace this default in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (E and F) – Ideally, the user will calculate transit and auto mode shares for a plan/community at the city scale (or larger). Potential data sources include the California Household Travel Survey (preferred) or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the mode shares for transit and vehicles for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-3.1 in Appendix C. It is likely for areas outside of the area covered by the listed CBSAs to have vehicle mode shares higher and transit mode shares lower than the values provided in the table. = -1 * 1 * -0.08 * -0.40 * 0.0137 * 0.578

0.9688 = -0.03%
T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments TRANSPORTATION | 190 ▪ (G) – Mode shift factor is an adjustment to reflect the reduction in vehicle trips associated with a reduction in person trips as some vehicles carry more than one person. It is calculated as (1/average vehicle occupancy) (FHWA 2017b).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-3.1 and (Cmax), the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.6 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.
(Cmax) The percent reduction in transit travel time is capped at 20 percent, which is based on the values reported in a literature review of studies from the U.S. and United Kingdom (TRB 2007).

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-25 through T-29 ≤15%) This measure is in the Transit subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-25 through T-29. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 15 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure T-28, Provide Bus Rapid Transit, and converts all transit routes in the plan/community to BRT, then the user cannot also take credit for this measure or Measure T-26, Increase Transit Service Frequency. This is because Measure T-28 accounts for the VMT reduction associated with increased transit frequency and decreased transit travel time as well as the additional BRT-specific bonus. To combine the GHG reductions from Measure T-28 with Measure T-27 and/or Measure T-26 would be considered double counting. However, where BRT is proposed on less than all of the existing bus routes in the plan/community area, this measure and/or Measure T-26 could be applied to the remaining bus routes, and the measure reductions could be combined with Measure T-28 to determine the emissions reduction at the larger plan/community scale.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community GHGs by implementing transit-supportive roadway treatments that decrease transit travel time, thereby encouraging a mode shift from vehicles to transit and reducing VMT. In this example, the project is in San Francisco-OaklandHayward CBSA where the transit and vehicle mode shares would be 11.38 percent and

86.96 percent, respectively (E and G). Assuming the maximum decrease in transit travel time of 20 percent (Cmax) and implementation for all transit routes (100 percent) in the plan/community (B), the user would reduce plan/community GHG emissions from VMT by

0.6 percent.

T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments TRANSPORTATION | 191 A = -1 ×
100% × -20% × -0.4 × 11.38% × 57.8%

86.96% = -0.6%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in passenger vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in passenger VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2007. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. Available:
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 223

7.7 Appendix G: Early Consultation Letters
July 26, 2023
Jason Ridenour
City of Porterville
Community Development Department
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
Project: South of the Tule River Master Plan
District CEQA Reference No: 20230611
Dear Mr. Ridenour:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Master Plan from the City of Porterville (City) for the South of the Tule River Master Plan (SoTu Master Plan) project. Per the project documentation, the project consists of changing the designated land uses and zone districts of approximately 447.30 acres of land of the selected parcels from their current land use designations and zone districts to a variety of different uses that include varying densities of residential uses, office uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, and open space uses (Project). The Project 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 in Porterville, CA.

The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:

Land Use Planning
Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from general plans to individual projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs, and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution in the Valley. Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mix-use development, and project design elements that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven to be beneficial for air quality. The District recommends that the MND incorporate strategies that reduce VMTs and require the cleanest available heavy duty trucks, vehicles, and off-road equipment, including San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
zero and near-zero technologies. VMTs can be reduced through encouragement of mix-use development, walkable communities, etc. Additional design element options can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf In addition, the District recommends that the MND incorporate strategies that will advance implementation of the best practices listed in Tables 5 and 6 of California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Freight Handbook Concept Paper, to the extent feasible. This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts as “practices” which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities. The concept paper is available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf Project Siting
The SoTu Master Plan is the blueprint for future growth and provides guidance for the community’s development. Without appropriate mitigation and associated policy, future development projects within the City may contribute to negative impacts on air quality due to increased traffic and ongoing operational emissions. Appropriate project siting helps ensure there is adequate distance between differing land uses, which can prevent or reduce localized and cumulative air pollution impacts from business operations that are in close proximity to receptors (e.g., residences, schools, health care facilities, etc.). SoTu Master Plan siting-related goals, policies, and objectives should include measures and concepts outlined in the following resources:
 CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. The document includes tables with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources (e.g., distribution centers, chrome platers, gasoline dispensing facilities, etc.), and can be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/strategydevelopment/land-use-resources  CARB’s Freight Handbook Concept Paper: This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts, which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities, and can be found at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
Project Related Emissions
At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, PM2.5 standards.

As such, the District recommends that the MND stipulate that future development projects within the SoTu Master Plan identify and characterize project construction and operational air emissions. The District recommends the air emissions be compared to the District significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. The District recommends that future projects be mitigated to the extent feasible, and that future projects with air emissions above the aforementioned thresholds be mitigated to below these thresholds.

The District understands that the SoTu Master Plan is a program-level project where future individual project-specific data may not be available at this time. As such, the Master Plan should include a discussion of policies, which when implemented, will require assessment and characterization of project-level emissions, and subsequently require mitigation of air quality impacts to the extent feasible at the individual project-specific level. Environmental reviews of potential impacts on air quality should incorporate the following items:

Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should require that future development projects utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment, including the latest tier equipment.

Operational Emissions
Operational (ongoing) air emissions from mobile sources and stationary sources should be analyzed separately. For reference, the District’s significance thresholds are identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, project related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels of significance through incorporation of design elements such as the use of cleaner Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
and vehicles, measures that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), and measures that increase energy efficiency. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf Project Trip Length for HHD Truck Travel
The City’s environmental review should adequately characterize and justify an appropriate trip length distance for off-site HHD truck travel to and from the Project site. Based on the following factors: 1) the Project includes zoning for industrial space that is expected to generate a high volume of HHD truck trips, and 2) HHD trucks generally travel further distances for distribution. The District recommends the environmental review include a discussion characterizing an appropriate trip length distance for HHD truck travel, and reflect such appropriate distance supported by project-specific factors.

Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
Project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.

Health Risk Screening/Assessment
The District understands that the Project is a program-level project where future individual project-specific data may not be available at this time. As such, the City should incorporate a requirement for future development projects to evaluate the risk on sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for future development projects. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):

A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology.

The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.

To assist land use agencies and project proponents with Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORI TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls
Health Risk Assessment:

Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. This step will ensure all components are addressed when performing the HRA.

A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the health impacts would exceed the District’s established risk thresholds, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm.

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.

The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
 HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
 HARP2 files
 Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
 E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
 Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resourcecenter/strategy-development/land-use-resources.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for any future development projects with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
www.valleyair.org/ceqa.

Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Future development projects within the SoTu Master Plan could have a significant impact on air quality. The District recommends the MND include a feasibility discussion on implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) as a mitigation measure for future development projects that are determined to exceed the District’s CEQA significance thresholds.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-forpound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs.

The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of agricultural equipment with the latest generation technologies.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.

Allowed Uses Not Requiring Project-Specific Discretionary Approval In the event that the City determines that a project be approved as an allowed use not requiring a project-specific discretionary approval, the District recommends the MND include language requiring such projects to prepare a technical assessment, in consultation with the District, to determine if additional analysis and/or mitigation is required.

Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors. Since the Project includes industrial uses, there is potential for an increase in HHD truck trips in the area.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for future development projects, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The District’s CARB-approved 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes significant new reductions from HHD trucks, including emissions reductions by 2023 through the implementation of CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 g-NOx/bhp-hr by 2023. Additionally, to meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District’s Plan relies on a significant and rapid transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies.

The Project includes industrial space which is expected to generate high volumes of HHD truck trips. For future development projects, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce project-related operational emissions:
 Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero technologies.  Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

The Project includes industrial space which is expected to result in HHD truck trips, the District recommends the MND include measures to ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the District recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
Since the Project includes industrial zoning, future development projects may have the potential to result in increased use of off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts) and onroad equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with the ability to move materials). The District recommends that the MND include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
Under-fired Charbroilers
Future development projects have the potential to occupy restaurants with underfired charbroilers. Such charbroilers may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors.

Since the cooking of meat can release carcinogenic PM2.5 species, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, controlling emissions from new under-fired charbroilers will have a substantial positive impact on public health. The air quality impacts on neighborhoods near restaurants with under-fired charbroilers can be significant on days when meteorological conditions are stable, when dispersion is limited and emissions are trapped near the surface within the surrounding neighborhoods. This potential for neighborhood-level concentration of emissions during evening or multi-day stagnation events raises air quality concerns.

Furthermore, reducing commercial charbroiling emissions is essential to achieving attainment of multiple federal PM2.5 standards. Therefore, the District recommends that the MND include a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating under-fired charbroilers.

The District is available to assist the City and project proponents with this assessment. Additionally, the District is currently offering substantial incentive funding that covers the full cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the system during a demonstration period covering two years of operation. Please contact the District at (559) 230-5800 or [email protected] for more information, or visit:
http://valleyair.org/grants/rctp.htm
Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
For future development projects within the Project area, and at strategic locations throughout the Project area in general, the District suggests the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 10 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

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

On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects.

Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles.

The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

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

Nuisance Odors
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often resulting in citizen complaints.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 11 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
The City should consider all available pertinent information to determine if future development projects could have a significant impact related to nuisance odors.

Nuisance odors may be assessed qualitatively taking into consideration the proposed business or industry type and its potential to create odors, as well as proximity to off-site receptors that potentially would be exposed to objectionable odors. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to receptors influences the potential significance of malodorous emissions. Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors should be deemed to have a significant impact.

According to the District Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), a significant odor impact is defined as more than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three-year period, or three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period. An unconfirmed complaint means that either the odor or air contaminant release could not be detected, or the source of the odor could not be determined.

As the future development projects that will fall within the SoTu Master Plan do not yet exist the City should and stipulate odor mitigation measures in the MND as conditions of approval for those business and industry types. An example would be for a project proponent whose project is determined to have a potentially significant odor impact to draft and implement an odor management plan as a mitigation measure in the MND.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 12 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, project proponents shall obtain an ATC permit from the District for equipment/activities subject to District permitting requirements.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For projects subject to permitting by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, demonstration of compliance with District Rule 2201 (obtain ATC permit from the District) shall be provided to the City before issuance of the first building permit.

For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
Accordingly, future development projects within the SoTu Master Plan may be subject to District Rule 9510 if upon full buildout, the project would equal or exceed any of the following applicability thresholds, depending on the type of development and public agency approval mechanism:

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 13 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds
Development
Type
Discretionary
Approval Threshold
Ministerial Approval /
Allowed Use / By Right
Thresholds
Residential 50 dwelling units 250 dwelling units
Commercial 2,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Light Industrial 25,000 square feet 125,000 square feet Heavy Industrial 100,000 square feet 500,000 square feet Medical Office 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
General Office 39,000 square feet 195,000 square feet
Educational Office 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet Government 10,00 square feet 50,000 square feet
Recreational 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
Other 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet
District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

In the case the individual development project is subject to District Rule 9510, per Section 5.0 of the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the public agency’s analysis.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.

The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 14 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
District staff is available to provide assistance and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
Future development projects will be subject to District Rule 4002 since the Project will include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures.

To protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos, this rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Any asbestos present must be handled in accordance with established work practice standards and disposal requirements.

Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.

District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project will be subject to District Rule 4601 since it is expected to utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.

In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 15 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.

Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.

Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
http://valleyair.org/rule4901/
Other District Rules and Regulations
Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:

Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 16 of 16 District Reference No: 20230611
July 26, 2023
Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf
District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Matt Crow by email at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5931.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2024
CITY OF PORTERVILLE – South of Tule River Master Plan | 224

7.8 Appendix H: Project Review Committee Comments

PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Project No: 2023-018
Subject Address: NEC of SR 190 and Westwood Street
Applicant/Agent: City of Porterville
This item has been deemed complete/incomplete pursuant to California Government Code Section §65920.

The following departments have provided their comments. Please contact the appropriate department who need additional time in preparing their comments:

Engineering Planning Building Fire Field Services Parks Police Next Level of Submittal: Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, SOI amendment, The Project Review Committee (PRC) has reviewed project proposing a master plan for ±447 acres of land located southwest of the City of Porterville, south of the Tule River (“SoTu”). 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, 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. All comments are based upon staff’s understanding of the project at the time of PRC. The following topics and requirements were discussed at the Project Review Committee (PRC) Meeting on May 31, 2023.

Any changes upon further submittals may result in additional comments. The project shall be required to comply with State Laws, the City of Porterville Development Ordinance (PDO), adopted Building Codes and all other applicable laws and ordinances.

Applications Needed:

GPA ZC CUP ANNEX LLA TPM TSM
PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS:

The project is required to be developed and maintained in accordance with the PDO (Chapter 21 of the Municipal Code). The PDO can be found in its entirety at:

CHAPTER 21 DEVELOPMENT CODE (amlegal.com)

1. Fees for the proposed entitlements are as follows:
• Zone Change: $1,105
• CUP: $1,164
• General Plan Amendment: $1,599
• Additional Costs:
a) The requested entitlements are a discretionary action of the City Council, and as such are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1. The City maintains contracts with four on-call environmental consultants for use in preparing such documents. The cost to prepare this document is actual consultant cost, plus 10% for administration, plus 10% for contingencies. Filing fees with Department of Fish and Game Filing will be required and will be based on level of environmental review. Staff will share updated information once level of review is determined.

2. Noticing map and labels – 300’ radius from property $26.50 Please note that it is an optional item for the City to prepare the required map and mailing

3. ** A portion of the Property is currently outside the City’s sphere of influence about and under Williamson Act.

Engineering Comments:

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

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

6. The developer/applicant shall submit design master plans consisting of combined grading & drainage and sewer & water utilities to ensure the proper functioning and/or phasing at the time of development. The developer/applicant shall construct drainage facilities as required to serve the property (Ord. No. 1306). A master plan drainage basin is required to contain the area’s runoff and is recommended to be integrated into the available park space. A minimum amount of runoff must be contained onsite per the State’s MS4 requirements. Drainage calculations must be submitted to verify that onsite drainage area/s will capture necessary runoff. The parking lot/site shall be designed to convey water to the City drainage system without crossing driveways. The developer/applicant is required to install a sidewalk channel drain at the low side of the driveway, where applicable.

7. The developer/applicant shall comply with driveway vehicular sight distance requirements per Section 300.16 of the Development Ordinance and driveway separation from property line per City standards. Sight distance analyses will also be required for roadways connecting to SR 190, Westwood Street, and Newcomb Street.

8. The developer/applicant shall construct bus turnouts throughout the development to be approved by the City’s Transit Manager. The bus turnouts shall be located in the vicinity of the property lines separating the commercial properties from the residential property. The developer/applicant shall dedicate right-of-way necessary for the required bus turnouts.

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

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

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

11. Easement(s) shall be in place that allow for mutual ingress, egress, and maintenance of the parking lot.

12. Easement(s) shall be in place that allow for mutual use of sewer and water, if applicable.

13. The developer/applicant shall dedicate right-of-way for street widths that match the ultimate width in the adopted Land Use and Circulation Element and/or the width established by the City Council, and dedication of required property for accessible ramp(s), sidewalk, etc. Area to be dedicated shall include space for the future extension of the Tule River Parkway trail system.

14. A pedestrian bridge able to support emergency vehicles shall be constructed at the Prospect Street alignment. This bridge will link the Tule River Parkway trail system north and south of the Tule River and serve as a secondary access for emergency purposes.

15. The developer/applicant shall underground all existing utility structures that exist above grade.

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

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

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

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

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

18. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) Adoption of Rules 9510 and 3180 – Indirect Source Review (ISR) Rules:

Effective March 21, 2018, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District will enforce the Indirect Source Rule (ISR). ISR applies to projects that are at least:
• 250 residential units
• 10,000 square feet of commercial space
• 450,000 square feet of educational space
• 50,000 square feet of government space
• 125,000 square feet of light industrial space
• 500,000 square feet of heavy industrial space
• 100,000 square feet of medical or recreational space
• 195,000 square feet of general office space
• Or, 45,000 square feet of any land use not identified above.

Large Development Project applicants are required to submit an AIA application no later than seeking an approval from the City.

A Large Development Project is not subject to this rule, if any of the following apply:
• A final discretionary approval for the Large Development Project has been received prior to March 1, 2006; or
• The Large Development Project requires or required a discretionary approval and is subject to the rule under Section 2.1; or
• Prior to March 21, 2018, the applicant received project-level building permits, a conditional use permit, or similar approvals for the particular Large Development Project; or
• The Large Development Project qualifies as a Grandfathered Large Development Project (as defined in the rule).

For more information, the rule is available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r9510-a.pdf. You may also contact the District by called the District Technical Services at 559-230-6000.

19. If developer/applicant anticipates that interstate (extra length) trucks will service this property, then the developer/ applicant shall pay the required fee and apply for revision to the STAA Truck Route before issuance of the building permit.

20. The developer/applicant shall comply with the City Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance No. 1777 in all areas of special flood hazards (i.e., Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR or A99) and the requirements of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, where applicable. • A preliminary elevation certificate shall be provided to the City prior for review prior to the foundation forms inspection being scheduled. • A final elevation certificate shall be provided to the City prior to the final inspection (or any type of occupancy inspection) is scheduled.

Building Comments:

None
Fire Comments:

21. Fire only requests that there is a secondary vehicular access point, that can support fire apparatus, over the river between Newcomb and Hwy 65. Additionally, there should be a buffer and access points for properties developed along the river to allow access for fire apparatus.

Field Services:

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

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

FOCUSEDENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
JULY 2024
City of Porterville – South of Tule River Master Plan | 101

10.2 Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SCOPING MEETING FOR THE SOUTH OF THE TULE (“SoTu”) MASTER PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Porterville (City) will prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed South of the Tule River Master Plan (“Project” or “proposed Project”) located directly southwest of the city limits of the City of Porterville in the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare, California. The Project 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 447.3 gross acres. The City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section §15063(c)(3), to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project. The City is the Lead Agency for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The purpose of this notice is:

1. To serve as a Notice of Preparation of an EIR pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section §15063(c)(3);

2. To advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the forthcoming EIR to be prepared for the project; and

3. To serve as a notice of the public scoping meeting. Copies of the Notice of Preparation are available for review at the following locations:

City of Porterville, Community Development Department
291 N Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
-ANDPorterville Public Library
50 W Olive Ave Suite B
Porterville, CA 93257
City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
NOTICE OF PREPARATION: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City has prepared a Notice of Preparation to solicit comments related to the scope and content of the EIR. The 30-day public comment period for the Notice of Preparation is from Wednesday, March 20, 2024 to Friday, April 19, 2024.

The City, as the Lead Agency, requests that responsible and trustee agencies respond in a manner consistent with Section 15082(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. All environmental related comments to the Notice of Preparation should be submitted in writing or email by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 19, 2024 to:

Claudia Calderon, Acting Community Development Director City of Porterville, Community Development Department
291 N. Main St.

Porterville, CA 93257
Email: [email protected]
SCOPING MEETING: The City will conduct a public scoping meeting in conjunction with this Notice of Preparation in order to receive public comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the Focused EIR. The meeting will be held on:

Date: Wednesday, April 3rd, 2024
Time: 5:30 p.m.

Location:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86787044094
-ORhttps://bit.ly/SotuEIR
City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
PROJECT TITLE:

South of Tule River Master Plan
PROJECT LOCATION:

The Project site is directly southwest of the city limits of the City of Porterville in the jurisdiction of the County of Tulare, California (see Figure 1). The planning area of the SoTu Master Plan 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 totals approximately 447.30 gross acres (referred herein as “Project site”)..

The site is identified by the Tulare County Assessor as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 259-150-001, 259-030-031,259-270-004, 259-030-011, 259-040-041, 259-040- 044, 259-040-028, 259-040-027, 259-040-026, 259-040-025, 259-040-043, 259-040-042, 259-040-045, 259-040-046, 259-040-010, 259-040-039, 259-320-001, 259-370-058, and 259-320-002. The site is a portion of Township 21 South, Range 27 East, Section 33 and 34, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION:

Project Setting
The majority of the SoTu Project Site has historically been used for agricultural crops (orchards and row crops) continuously for at least the last 50 years. The Project site is primarily occupied by agricultural operations with a few single-family residential dwellings.

Existing land uses are listed in Table 1. Currently, the Project site has little to no existing circulation network. Street frontage includes State Route (SR) 190 adjacent south, SR 65 adjacent east, and South Westwood Street adjacent west to the Project site. The State Routes and the Tule River bounding the north of the site have prevented any major circulation within the site. The General Plan calls for Newcomb Street as a four (4)-lane north-south major arterial that will extend south with a bridge over the Tule River to access the site and a grade separation (overpass) at SR 190. Additionally, the General Plan has a collector planned for the east-west direction that eventually turns north to connect at the Prospect Street alignment with another planned bridge over the Tule River.

City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
Table 1: Existing Land Use on the Project site
APN Acreage Address Existing Land Use
259-030-
011 75.84 1260 W Poplar Ave Porterville, CA 93257 Agriculture (field and seed) 259-030-
031 66.62 - Agriculture (orchard)
259-040-
010 0.06 - Well Site
259-040-
025 1.02 2040 W Poplar Ave Porterville, CA 93257
1,945 sf. single-family dwelling
built in 1990, a storage shed, and
two (2) metal structures.
259-040-
026 1.00 2002 W Poplar Ave Porterville, CA 93257
1,716 sf. single-family dwelling
built in 1995
259-040-
027 1.05 1960 W Poplar Ave Porterville, CA 93257
2,797 sf. single-family dwelling
built in 2006
259-040-
028 1.00 1918 W Poplar Ave Porterville, CA 93257
A single-family dwelling and a
storage shed.
259-040-
039 50.94 512 S Westwood Rd Porterville, CA 93257
Mostly vacant land, 1,008 sf.
single-family dwelling, and 2,580
sf. and 625 sf. metal structures.
259-040-
041 39.34 - Agriculture (field and seed)
259-040-
042 1.65 2186 W Poplar Ave Porterville, CA 93257
1,536 sf. single-family dwelling
with 6 metal structures
259-040-
043 1.65 2176 W Poplar Ave Porterville, CA 93257
one mobile home and one metal
structure
259-040-
044 103.53 - Agriculture (orchard)
259-040-
045 25.13 730 S Westwood Rd #B Porterville, CA 93257
Agriculture (orchard) with a singlefamily dwelling and 10 accessory structures
259-040-
046 1.25 - Poplar Ditch (owned by Lower Tule River Irrigation District) 259-150-
001 25.03 - Agriculture (orchard), vacant land north of Tule River 259-270-
004 28.67 - Agriculture (orchard)
259-320-
001 3.55 362 S Westwood Rd Porterville, CA 93257 2 single-family dwellings 259-320-
002 14.67 362 S Westwood Rd Porterville, CA 93257 3 structures, mostly vacant land 259-370-
058 5.31 - Tule River floodplain (owned by City of Porterville) Total 447.30 - -
City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
The existing biotic conditions and resources of the site can be defined as agricultural (orchards and row crops), ruderal/non-native, and riparian habitats. Error! Reference source not found. maps the type of crops within the Project site. 1 In addition to crop trees, there are existing trees and shrubs on properties with single-family residences and along existing dirt roads. Historically, an agricultural ditch (Poplar Ditch) crossed through the southwest corner of the Project Site. Co-Existing water features include the Tule River, and a 22.11-acre freshwater emergent wetland and 3.47-acre freshwater forested shrub wetland on APN 259-040-044.

Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is bounded by Tule River to the north, SR 65 to the east, and SR 190 to the south. Existing land uses to the north of the site beyond Tule River and to the east are single-family residential uses. Existing land uses to the south and west include a mix of residential, services, vacant, and agriculture uses. As referenced in Table 2, all properties to the north, east, and west are planned and zoned for residential and public uses, and properties to the south are planned and zoned with a mix of industrial, retail, residential, and office uses.

Table 2: Existing Uses, General Plan Designations, and Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties
Direction
from the
Project site
Existing Land
Use Planned Land Use Zone District
North
Tule River,
Single-Family
Residential
Parks, Low Density
Residential
RS-1 – Very Low Density
Residential, RS-2 – Low Density
Residential, PD – Planned
Development, PK – Parks and
Public Recreation Facilities
South
SR 190,
Agriculture,
Residential,
Healthcare
center
Industrial Park, Retail
Center, Low Density
Residential,
Professional Office
IP – Industrial Park, CR – Retail
Centers, RS-1 – Very Low Density
Residential, PO – Professional
Office
East
SR 65, SingleFamily
Residential
Low Density
Residential, Public
Institution
PK - Parks and Public Recreation
Facilities, PD – Planned
Development
West
Agriculture,
Single-Family
Residential
Very Low Density
Residential, Parks
RS-1 – Very Low Density
Residential
City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

South of Tule River (SoTu) Master Plan and the associated entitlements, including a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Pre-zone/Rezone (RZ), is filed by the City of Porterville (Applicant). The Conditional Use Permit facilitates the adoption of the SoTu Master Plan. The General Plan Amendment requests amendment of the existing land use designations to the mix of 10 different land uses proposed in the SoTu Master Plan. The Rezone requests a rezone from the existing zoning districts to zoning districts that are consistent with the proposed land use designation. No physical development is proposed.

Project Assumptions Although no physical development is proposed by the Project, the Initial Study analyzed the potential buildout of the Project site 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 development. However, depending on the final design of future physical development, additional project specific CEQA review may be required as determined by the City through the entitlement review and approval process.

For the purposes of the analysis contained in the Initial Study, Table 3 shows the assumption of the Project buildout. As shown in the table, the Project assumes the development of 2,213 dwelling units, 2,873,801 square feet of mixed-use, and 1,821,492 square feet of employment uses.

Table 3: Project Buildout Assumption for Impact Analysis Land Use
Designation Acreage Permitted Intensity/Density Average Density Residential
Low Density
Residential

51.9 6 dwelling unit
maximum

5.35 dwelling units
Medium Density
Residential

43.8 12 dwelling unit
maximum
6 dwelling units for
Single Family

11.3 dwelling units
for Multi-Family
High Density
Residential

31.2 24 dwelling unit
maximum

22.55 dwelling units
Mixed-Use
Commercial Mixed
Use

33.2 24.0 dwelling unit
Maximum

2.0 FAR maximum
20 dwelling units

2.0 FAR
Employment
Retail Centers 24.6 0.35 FAR maximum 0.35 FAR
Neighborhood
Commercial

8.5 0.30 FAR maximum 0.30 FAR
Professional Office 32.6 0.5 FAR maximum 0.3 FAR
Industrial Park 59.5 0.4 FAR maximum 0.25 FAR
City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
Public Uses and Open Space
Education 15.9 N/A N/A
Parks 112.5 0.10 FAR maximum 0.10 FAR
Right-of-Way (ROW) 33.6 - -
Total 447.30
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS:

The Project would require approval by the City of Porterville City Council, including approval of a Conditional Use Permit to adopt the master plan, General Plan Amendment to reflect the mix of uses proposed in the Master Plan, and Rezone/Pre-zone to amend the zoning map from the current zone districts to those consistent with the proposed land use changes, as well as certification of the EIR. No permits would be required from other agencies for approval of the Project. However, future redevelopment of the Project site would require annexation, as well as review, permits, and/or approvals, such as grading, building, encroachment, and sign permits. Other approvals may be required as identified through the entitlement review and approval process. In addition, other agencies may have the authority to issues permits prior to implementation including but not limited to:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Central Region 4 (CDFW) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Fresno Region 5 (RWQCB)
• Porterville Unified School District
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• Army Corp of Engineers
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT:

Pursuant to Section 15063 of CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for preliminary review of the project to determine significant effects on the environment.

Through the Initial Study, it was determined that the following impact areas would not result in a significant impact with or without mitigation:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Based on the information the City has examined to date, the EIR would likely focus on environmental analysis related to Air Quality. The EIR will also include statutorily required sections identified in Sections 15120 to 15132 of CEQA Guidelines such as discussion of project alternatives and cumulative impacts. The EIR content will be subject to additional input from the scoping meeting.

Figure 1: Project Location Map
City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
Figure 2: Proposed Land Use Map
City of Porterville NOP and Scoping Mee�ng
SoTu Master Plan - Project
Figure 3: Proposed Circulation Map
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

AERONAUTICS PROGRAM

DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
P.O. BOX 942873, MS–40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94273–0001
(916) 654-4959
www.dot.ca.gov
April 18, 2024
Claudia Calderon SCH # 2024030738
Acting Community Development Director
City of Porterville
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
Electronically Sent <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Calderon:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Aeronautics Program has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP)of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South of the Tule Master Plan (Plan). One of the goals of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Aeronautics Program, is to assist cities, counties, planning agencies and organizations, and Airport Land Use Commissions or their equivalent (ALUC), to understand and comply with the State Aeronautics Act pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21001 et seq. Caltrans encourages collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thanks you for including the Aeronautics Program in the review of the NOP.

Please be aware that portions of the proposed project identified in the Plan may be located within an Airport Influence Area (AIA), safety zone, or noise contours as defined by the Tulare County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP) formed by the ALUC pursuant to the PUC, Section 21674 and therefore must adhere to the safety criteria and restrictions defined in the CALUP.

Proposed projects may also be subject to 14 CFR Part 77 Conical Surface standards and CNEL contours for noise compatibility of an airport, which may require noise reduction measures. Please be aware, Public Utilities Code, Section 21659, “Hazards Near Airports Prohibited” prohibits structural hazards near airports. To ensure compliance with Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace,” submission of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may be required. In addition, any proposed projects identified as hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, compatibility restrictions should be reviewed per the land use plan of an airport.

Ms. Claudia Calderon, Acting Community Development Director April 18, 2024

Page 2 ends

Porterville City CouncilOctober 1, 2024

Porterville City Council
October 1, 2024