Agenda packet — Porterville City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 1 of 4)

City Council Agenda June 2, 2026

Page 1 of 5 ends

CITY OF PORTERVILLE - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY HALL, 291 N. MAIN STREET

PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 2, 2026, 5:30 PM
The City of Porterville provides access to view city council meetings electronically. Please note that this service is offered as a courtesy and may not always be accessible to the public. To ensure the opportunity to participate in public comments and scheduled public hearings, individuals must attend in person.

This meeting will be available for viewing via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@cityofporterville4149 ,
Please direct any questions to the Office of City Clerk at 559-782-7464.

Call to Order
Roll Call

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

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION:

A. Closed Session Pursuant to:

1- Government Code Section 54957.6 – Conference with Labor Negotiator. Agency Negotiator: Richard Tree and Yuliana Andrade. Employee Organizations: Management & Confidential Series, Porterville Safety Support Unit, and Porterville City Employee Association.
2 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Vanessa Sousa. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville.
3 - Government Code Section 54956.95 – Liability Claim: Claimant: Jose Vargas. Agency claimed against: City of Porterville.

4 - Government Code Section 54956.9(d) (2) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant Exposure to Litigation: One (1) case in which facts are not yet known to potential plaintiff.
6:30 P.M. RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND REPORT ON REPORTABLE ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED

SESSION
City Council Agenda June 2, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

Pledge of Allegiance Led by Council Member Rivas
Invocation

COUNCIL COMMENTS

PRESENTATIONS
Employee of the Month - Damon Noe

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

COUNCIL COMMENTS

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

1. Authorization to Purchase and Implement SwiftComply Backflow Management Software Re: Consider the approval of the purchase and implementation of SwiftComply Backflow Management Software for the City’s Cross-Connection Control Program in an amount not to exceed $32,447 for a three-year term.

2. Authorization for Engine Replacement of Water Department Service Truck No. 6577 Re: Consideration to authorize an engine replacement for Water Department Vehicle No. 6577 by Porterville Ford in an amount not to exceed $14,246.62.

3. Authorization to Renew Loan Management Software Agreement and Approve Supplemental Addendum
Re: Consider the approval of the annual renewal of the City’s loan management software agreement with City Data Services in the amount of $15,410 and approve a $2,500 supplemental addendum for software migration services.

4. Authorization to Advertise a Request for Proposals for a Downtown Sound System Re: Council to consider authorizing staff to advertise a Request for Proposals for the design, procurement, and installation of a Downtown Sound System within the downtown area, including Centennial Park.

5. Authorization to Award Annual Ferric Chloride Supply Contract Re: Council to consider awarding the Annual Ferric Chloride Supply Contract to Kemira Water Solutions Inc. for an estimated annual expenditure of approximately $100,000.

City Council Agenda June 2, 2026

Page 3 of 5 ends

6. Authorization to Award Annual Wastewater Treatment Polymer Supply Contract Re: Council to consider awarding the Annual Wastewater Treatment Polymer Supply Contract to Solenis, LLC for an estimated annual expenditure of approximately $250,000.

7. Adoption of the Annual State Senate Bill 1205 Fire Inspection Compliance Resolution Re: Consider the adoption of the Annual Senate Bill 1205 Fire Inspection Compliance Resolution.

8. Authorization to Operate a Fare-Free Freedom Fest Shuttle Service on July 3, 2026 Re: Council to consider authorizing operation of a fare-free Freedom Fest shuttle service on July 3, 2026.

9. Consideration of Funding Requests for the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program and Kings View Homeless Reunification Program
Re: Council to consider adopting resolutions appropriating $5,000 from the Special Purposes Reserve Fund for the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program and $5,000 from the Special Purposes Reserve Fund for the Kings View Homeless Reunification Program.

10. Authorization to Submit FY 2025–2026 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Cycle A & B Applications for Transit Fleet Replacement Vehicles Re: Council to consider the approval of the submission of FY 2025–2026 LCTOP Cycle A and Cycle B applications for transit fleet replacement vehicles and adopt the associated Authorized Agent Resolution.

11. Approval of HOME Loan Payoff for Sequoia Village at River’s Edge Re: Consideration to approve the payoff of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program loan for Sequoia Village at River’s Edge, located at 424 S. E. Street, and acknowledge the continuing affordability restrictions associated with the property.

12. Approval of Parenting Network “Summer Festival” Community Civic Event Re: Council to consider the Community Civic Event Application submitted by Parenting Network for the “Summer Festival” event scheduled for Friday, July 17, 2026, at Zalud Park from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

13. Approval of Parenting Network “Backpacks & Beyond” Community Civic Event Re: Council to consider the Community Civic Event Application submitted by Parenting Network for the “Backpacks & Beyond” event scheduled for August 7, 2026, at Zalud Park from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

14. Approval of For the Kidz Global Corporation “3rd Annual Watermelon Festival” Community Civic Event
Re: Consideration to approve the Community Civic Event Application submitted by For the Kidz Global Corporation for the “3rd Annual Watermelon Festival” event scheduled for Sunday, July 19, 2026, at Veterans Park from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

15. Proclamation Recognizing “United Under One Flag” – June 14 through July 4, 2026 Re: Consider the approval of a proclamation recognizing the period between June 14 and July 4, 2026, as “United Under One Flag” in the City of Porterville.

City Council Agenda June 2, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS

16. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of the Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project
Re: Conduct a public hearing and consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project located entirely on the Tule River Indian Reservation.

17. Amendment to Porterville Development Ordinance Section 301.01 Related to Accessory Structure Setbacks
Re: Conduct a public hearing and consider the introduction of an ordinance amending the Porterville Development Ordinance Section 301.01 related to accessory structure setbacks.

SCHEDULED MATTERS

18. Presentation of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Budget and Scheduling of Public Hearing
Re: Council to receive the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Budget and consider scheduling a public hearing for June 16, 2026.

19. Calling and Consolidating the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election Re: Council to consider adopting a resolution calling and consolidating the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election and requesting election services from the Tulare County Registrar of Voters.

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

1. Tulare County Task Force on Homelessness - May 20, 2026

2. Downtown Porterville Committee - May 29, 2026

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

OTHER MATTERS

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

ADJOURNMENT - to the meeting of June 16, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.

City Council Agenda June 2, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Ralph M. Brown Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, requesting electronic participation as an accommodation, or to be able to access this agenda and documents in the agenda packet, please contact the Office of City Clerk at (559) 782-7464. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and/or provision of an appropriate alternative format of the agenda and documents in the agenda packet.

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

Item No. 1.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase and Implement SwiftComply Backflow Management Software
SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: The Water Division currently administers the City’s Cross-Connection Control Program utilizing the XC2 software platform to manage backflow prevention devices, annual testing requirements, compliance reporting, customer notifications, and regulatory documentation. The City’s Cross-Connection Control Program currently manages approximately 2,229 backflow assemblies and processes roughly 180 annual backflow tests per month.

The XC2 software platform is no longer supported and is considered obsolete.

Continued reliance on obsolete software systems increases regulatory compliance risk and limits the City’s ability to efficiently manage the CrossConnection Control Program. Retention and migration of historical compliance, testing, and customer records is essential to maintain continuity of operations, support regulatory reporting requirements, preserve audit documentation, and ensure long-term compliance with State drinking water regulations.

Staff evaluated replacement software options and determined that transitioning to the SwiftComply Backflow Management platform is the best course of action for the City. Because SwiftComply acquired the legacy XC2 platform, the proposed implementation significantly reduces data migration challenges, minimizes operational disruption, and avoids the substantial costs and risks typically associated with converting historical compliance databases to a new platform. Existing historical records, tester certifications, and testing schedules can be directly migrated into the new platform while preserving continuity of program operations.

The SwiftComply platform is a cloud-based backflow and cross-connection management system specifically designed for water utilities and regulatory agencies. The software provides improved functionality and automation compared to the City’s existing XC2 system, including:
• Automated annual testing notifications and compliance tracking; Item No. 1.
• Digital submission of backflow test reports by certified testers; • Improved recordkeeping and reporting capabilities;
• Real-time compliance monitoring;
• Enhanced customer communication tools;
• Secure cloud-based data storage and backup; and
• Streamlined regulatory reporting and audit support
The SwiftComply platform also provides secure cloud-based storage and backup capabilities, including SOC 2 Type 2 cybersecurity standards designed to improve data security and reliability.

Implementation of the software will improve efficiency within the Water Division, reduce administrative workload, improve compliance tracking, modernize record management practices, and support the City’s ongoing efforts to modernize operational systems and improve long-term regulatory and infrastructure management. Staff anticipates the transition to SwiftComply will provide long-term operational benefits while improving oversight of the City’s Cross-Connection Control Program.

The total cost for software implementation services, data migration, software subscription fees, applicable taxes, and a 10% contingency for the three-year agreement is not to exceed $32,447. Funding for the proposed software purchase is available within the Water Division Operating Budget.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Approve the purchase and implementation of the SwiftComply Backflow Management Software platform for the City’s CrossConnection Control Program in an amount not to exceed $32,447 for a three-year term, inclusive of implementation services, software subscription costs, applicable taxes, and a 10% contingency; and

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all necessary agreements and documents associated with the
software implementation and subscription services.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. SwiftComply SO - City of Porterville, CA

2. City of Porterville, CA SwiftComply Backflow
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Item No. 1.

Department Director:

Robert Alvarez, Public Works Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Service Order
6701 Koll Center Pkwy Suite 250, Pleasanton, CA 94566
619.304.6022 - www.swiftcomply.com
Rep Name Gillian Gillespie Service Order #
Email [email protected] Create Date 05/21/2026 Phone Number 905-220-3380 Valid Until 06/30/2026
Customer Information
Customer City of Porterville, CA Contact David Payne Billing Contact Street Address 291 N Main Street Title Field Services Manager Email City, St, Zip
Porterville, CA 93257
Email
[email protected]
a.us Phone
Phone (559) 782-7516 Phone (559) 782-7516 PO # (If any) Services provided by SwiftComply:

One Time Professional Services
SKU Description Unit Price Quantity Total Price
SC-BF-PS SwiftComply Backflow Implementation $6,800 1 $6,800 Total One-Time Service Fees $6,800
Recurring Subscription Fees
SKU Description Unit Price Quantity Total Price
SC-BF-P-2 SwiftComply Backflow Software Subscription $7,200 1 $7,200 Total Subscription Fees $7,200
Total Three Year Contract $29,498.00
Billing Details & Terms
Invoicing Schedule
Billing Date Amount(s) Notes
Invoice 1 Contract Effective Date $14,000 Including Professional Services and Year 1 SaaS Invoice 2 Renewal Date $7,560 Year 2 SaaS
Invoice 3 Renewal Date $7,938 Year 3 SaaS
Invoice 4
Invoice 5
Billing Terms & Conditions
Initial Term 3 Year Contract
Service Order
6701 Koll Center Pkwy Suite 250, Pleasanton, CA 94566
619.304.6022 - www.swiftcomply.com
Signatures Customer SwiftComply
Signature Signature
Name Name
Gillian Gillespie
Title Title
Senior Account Executive
Date Date
May 21st 2026
General Terms & Conditions

1. Taxes
The Service Fees and Billing amounts set forth above in this SwiftComply Service Order DO NOT include applicable taxes. In accordance with the laws of the applicable state, in the event that sales, use or other taxes apply to this transaction, SwiftComply shall include such taxes on applicable invoices and Customer is solely responsible for such taxes, unless documentation is provided to SwiftComply demonstrating Customer's exemption from such taxes.

2. Agreement
This SwiftComply Service Order shall become binding upon execution by both Parties. The signature herein affirms your commitment to pay for the Service(s) ordered in accordance with the terms set forth in this SwiftComply Service Order and also acknowledges that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions set forth in the SwiftComply Master Service Agreement. This Service Order incorporates by reference the terms of such SwiftComply Master Service Agreement, which can be found at:
https://www.swiftcomply.com/terms-and-conditions/.

Yearly Increase Annual increase of 5% beginning in Year 2 Payment Terms
Invoice 1 Due 100% on Contract Effective Date (Net 30). Subsequent invoices are due annually in advance.

SWIFTCOMPLY

BACKFLOW

CROSS CONNECTION

CONTROL PROGRAM
Prepared for
Presented by
CityofPorterville,CA
GillianGillespie
MAY
2026
2016
45+
500+

WHO WE ARE
SwiftComply Founded
States & Provinces In North
America
Municipalities Served
50M+
Protected Citizens
SwiftComply develops compliance management software designed to help municipalities protect public health, reduce risk, and manage regulatory programs more efficiently. The platform replaces manual and fragmented processes with digital workflows built specifically for programs such as Backflow Prevention, FOG, Stormwater, and Industrial Preteatment.

As Porterville evaluates solutions to support its backflow and cross-connection control program, SwiftComply provides a system purpose-built for the operational needs of local governments. The platform centralizes program records, simplifies compliance tracking, and improves coordination between city staff, certified testers, contractors, and property owners.

Founded by former utility professionals, SwiftComply was created with a practical understanding of the day-to-day challenges involved in administering compliance programs.

The system is designed to reduce administrative workload, improve data accuracy, and streamline program oversight as municipalities transition from manual or outsourced processes to a more structured internal program.

In 2025, SwiftComply was recognized as Water Compliance Software of the Year by Utilities Tech Outlook. The platform continues to evolve through collaboration with local government agencies across North America, with a focus on delivering tools that are both effective and practical for municipal operations.

SHARED CHALLENGES
SupportingPorterville’s Backflow
Programwith Tools Builtfor CrossConnection Control
At SwiftComply, we understand that managing a backflow program like Porterville's — 2,229 assemblies, seven to eight in-house testers, and roughly 180 tests per month — requires a smarter solution, especially as California's cross-connection survey mandate adds new urgency.

Right now, Porterville is running a fully manual, paper-based workflow through XC2, a system that's become obsolete with no remaining tech support. SwiftComply has absorbed XC2, making us the natural successor for programs like Porterville's — and your existing data, including next test due dates and tester certifications, migrates directly so nothing is lost.

With SwiftComply, your testers submit results from the field on tablets, overdue assemblies surface automatically without year-end queries, and your cross-connection survey module gives your team a structured way to track every commercial property visit, hazard finding, and followup date — exactly what the state will expect as you work through 700–800 commercial buildings.

Automated compliance notices, tester certification tracking, and real-time dashboards replace the manual processes your team manages today.

SwiftComply is built to give the City of Porterville back the time and confidence to focus on what matters most — delivering a safe, reliable water system for your community.

Built for Real-World Compliance
Most systems fall short for Backflow Programs—not because they lack basic tracking features, but because they lack the structure, automation, and regulatory focus needed to manage assemblies, testers, and compliance at scale.

As regulations evolve and communities grow, manual processes and disconnected systems make it harder to stay ahead of risk.

Why Programs Struggle
Disconnected spreadsheets and legacy databases make it difficult to see what’s tested, overdue, or non-compliant.

Staff spend hours processing paper test reports and correcting data entry errors.

Limited visibility into tester credentials, test kit calibrations, and assembly histories increases compliance risk.

Compliance Built-In
SwiftComply is purpose-built for Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control—not a generic system adapted for utilities. It connects assemblies, testers, test reports, and communications into one structured workflow.
360° View of Compliance – Access real-time assembly data, compliance status, and program metrics from a centralized dashboard.

Verified Test Report Processing – Automatically check submitted reports against pass/fail criteria to improve data accuracy.

Flexible Program Rules – Configure testing schedules, hazard classifications, and requirements to match your ordinance and policies.

Automation & Safeguards
Automation reduces administrative burden while built-in checks protect data integrity and prevent missed steps.

Auto-process online test report submissions.

Bulk upload data when needed—no repetitive manual entry.

Automatically remind testers about credential renewals and test kit calibrations.

Generate and schedule compliance notices by mail, email, or postcard.

Receive real-time alerts for overdue tests and missing documentation.

PRODUCT OVERVIEW: SWIFTCOMPLY BACKFLOW
"SwiftComply is the most
stable, effective, and costeffective tracking software I have used. My team loves it"
Justin Broderway
Section Supervisor, DeKalb
County
“SwiftComply is a game changer for our backflow
operations. The software automates our most
time-consuming tasks and ensures we are working
with accurate data.”
Ahmad Cade
Backflow Manager, City of Atlanta
Reporting & Visibility
Turn compliance data into actionable insight in minutes—not days.

Interactive dashboards provide real-time program visibility.

Custom reports and filters allow teams to analyze assemblies by hazard type, location, or risk level.

Custom fields adapt to your processes, including different requirements for residential and commercial assemblies.

One-click annual California state reporting
Customer & Tester Communication
Make it easier for testers and water customers to stay on track.

Centralized communications center for tracking outreach.

Automated annual testing reminders and follow-up notices.

Mobile-friendly on-site surveys that upload directly to the city database.

Security & Reliability
SwiftComply is SOC 2 Type 2 certified, meeting one of the highest standards for SaaS cybersecurity and data protection.

Water professionals across North America—including Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas, Saint Louis County, Atlanta, and DeKalb County—use SwiftComply to support and enhance their backflow prevention programs.

Why Backflow Programs Choose SwiftComply
Compliance clarity, not complexity – manage your program proactively with accurate, realtime data.

Higher compliance rates – keep staff, testers, and customers aligned.

Reduced operational strain – automate labor-intensive administrative tasks.

Built by industry experts – designed specifically for cross-connection control professionals.

PRODUCT OVERVIEW: SWIFTCOMPLY BACKFLOW
Porterville’s 2030 General
Plan
How SwiftComply Aligns
Deliver safe, reliable water to
~17,000 services — ensuring
public health and water
quality across the city's
growing service area
SwiftComply's real-time compliance dashboard gives your team instant visibility into which of your 2,229 assemblies are tested, overdue, or noncompliant — so protection gaps are caught before they become public health risks
Modernize aging
infrastructure and
technology — replacing
obsolete systems (XC2) to
keep pace with regulatory
demands and growing
program scope
SwiftComply has absorbed XC2, making it the direct successor for Porterville's program. Existing data, tester certifications, and next-test due dates migrate over intact — no rebuild required
Protect property owners and
the community from crossconnection hazards —
mitigating risks in
commercial buildings where
outdated protection
equipment may now fail
current standards
The cross-connection survey module creates a documented enforcement record for every property — critical when non-compliant owners push back, as the Acting Superintendent anticipated they will
Support sustainable growth
and adequate public
infrastructure — ensuring
water system capacity and
compliance keep pace with
residential and commercial
development
SwiftComply scales with Porterville's growth. As new services are added and the commercial survey program expands, the platform manages increasing program volume without adding administrative complexity Maintain accountable,
transparent city government
— demonstrating responsible
stewardship of public
resources and regulatory
compliance
System-generated compliance reports, enforcement audit trails, and certification records give city leadership and council a clear, defensible picture of program status at any time
SwiftComply's backflow prevention solution is a natural fit for the City of Porterville's 2030 General Plan, directly supporting its core commitments to public health and safety, water supply conservation, and sustainable infrastructure for a growing community. The platform ensures safe, compliant delivery of potable water across Porterville's 17,000 service connections — fulfilling the city's most fundamental public utilities mandate — while its paperless, cloud-based workflows align with the General Plan's emphasis on environmental stewardship and efficient use of public resources. Beyond compliance, SwiftComply modernizes a historically manual program into a transparent, data-driven operation that frees staff capacity, reduces liability exposure, and ensures the city can demonstrate cross-connection control progress to the state as California's regulatory requirements continue to expand. As Porterville grows and its infrastructure demands increase, SwiftComply scales alongside it — making it as much a long-term investment in sustainable city operations as it is a water safety solution.

HOW SWIFTCOMPLY SUPPORTS PORTERVILLE’S GENERAL PLAN

HAZARD ASSESSMENTS/CROSS-CONNECTION SURVEYS
SwiftComply’s Backflow solution includes fully configurable hazard assessment and cross-connection survey capabilities, allowing Livermore to manage both backflow prevention and cross-connection control activities within a single platform.

Hazard assessments can be completed for any location,
regardless of whether a backflow assembly is currently
installed. This allows the City to track properties that require an initial inspection but may not yet have a device, as well as locations where an assessment determines that no backflow protection is necessary. If an assessment
identifies a moderate or high hazard, a backflow
assembly can be added to the same location
record and placed directly into the appropriate
testing and compliance workflow.

The hazard assessment form is fully configurable
to match Livermore’s existing inspection forms,
risk classifications, and regulatory requirements.

SwiftComply can capture any fields the City
chooses to include, such as hazard category,
water use type, corrective actions, inspection
notes, photographs, and recommended followup intervals.

Once completed, assessment results are stored
as part of the location’s permanent compliance
history and can be used to trigger future
inspections based on the assigned hazard level.

For example, low-risk properties can be
scheduled for reassessment every 10 or 20 years,
while higher-risk properties can be scheduled
more frequently. Staff can easily filter and report
on locations by hazard category, due date, or
inspection status, providing complete visibility
into the City’s cross-connection control program.

In 2016, the City and County of Honolulu was required to implement a new 3rd Party Construction insp program. We were fortunate to come across CloudCompli and were immediately attracted to its foc helping municipalities with MS4 compliance in a cost-effective manner.

RandallWakumoto,CityandCountyof Honolulu
In 2016, the City and County of Honolulu was required to implement a new 3rd Party Construction inspections
program. We were fortunate to come across CloudCompli
and were immediately attracted to its focus on helping
municipalities with MS4 compliance in a cost-effective
manner.

RandallWakumoto,CityandCountyof Honolulu
n 2016, the City and County of Honolulu was required to implement a new 3rd Party Construction inspection program. We were fortunate to come across CloudCompli and were immediately attracted to its focus on helping municipalities with MS4 compliance in a cost-effective manner.

RandallWakumoto,CityandCountyof Honolulu
n 2016, the City and County of Honolulu was required to implement a new 3rd Party Construction inspections
rogram. We were fortunate to come across CloudCompli
and were immediately attracted to its focus on helping
municipalities with MS4 compliance in a cost-effective
manner.

RandallWakumoto,CityandCountyof Honolulu
"The biggest thing is that people understand what
we're asking them to do. When they understand it,
compliance follows. In compliance, it’s about
understanding the requirement and then making
sure people know how to meet it"
Christine Williams
Stormwater Coordinator and Water Compliance
Specialist
Full Case Study
“It’s not a one-and-done program. It’s always
evolving, and when I reach out, I get responses
fast. That makes a huge difference.Support is
everything. With SwiftComply, I get responses
fast. That hasn’t always been my experience
with other software.

Nick Lopez
Backflow Program Manager, City of Anaheim
Full Case Study
"We kind of adopted this program not really
knowing what we were doing. What we needed
was a system that had a good foundation. And
something that could simplify our annual
reporting, notices, and surveys."
Steve Daldegan
General Manager, Lakehurst Water
Full Case Study

SWIFTCOMPLY CLIENT CASE STUDIES
In 2016, the City and County of Honolulu was required to implement a new 3rd Party Construction inspe program. We were fortunate to come across CloudCompli and were immediately attracted to its foc helping municipalities with MS4 compliance in a cost-effective manner.

RandallWakumoto,CityandCountyof Honolulu
“Something that took me an hour and a half to do
in the past, is probably a 5 minute process now.

Everything we need to know is now just one click
away, and we can immediately drill down into the
data. It's a tool that changed everything in that
regard.”
Casey Nettles
Environmental Supervisor
Full Case Study
In 2016, the City and County of Honolulu was required to implement a new 3rd Party Construction inspectio program. We were fortunate to come across CloudCompli and were immediately attracted to its focus o helping municipalities with MS4 compliance in a cost-effective manner.

RandallWakumoto,CityandCountyof Honolulu
"The biggest thing is that people understand what
we're asking them to do. When they understand it,
compliance follows. In compliance, it’s about
understanding the requirement and then making
sure people know how to meet it"
Christine Williams
Stormwater Coordinator and Water Compliance
Specialist
Full Case Study
n 2016, the City and County of Honolulu was required to implement a new 3rd Party Construction inspection program. We were fortunate to come across CloudCompli and were immediately attracted to its focus on helping municipalities with MS4 compliance in a cost-effective manner.

RandallWakumoto,CityandCountyof Honolulu
n 2016, the City and County of Honolulu was required to implement a new 3rd Party Construction inspections
ogram. We were fortunate to come across CloudCompli
and were immediately attracted to its focus on helping
municipalities with MS4 compliance in a cost-effective
manner.

RandallWakumoto,CityandCountyof Honolulu
"The biggest thing is that people understand what
we're asking them to do. When they understand it,
compliance follows."
Christine Williams
Water Compliance Specialist
Full Case Study
What’s Included Description
Unlimited Users & Storage Add as many staff as needed — no license caps, no data limits.

Implementation & Configuration Hands-on setup tailored to your workflows, forms, and reports.

Comprehensive Training
Live and recorded sessions to ensure every team member is confident.

Third Party Support Included
Our team assists external parties directly with logins, passwords, and submissions — saving staff time.

Dedicated Success Manager
A single point of contact post-launch for ongoing guidance and check-ins.

Weekly Drop-In Sessions
Open office hours for quick questions, feature refreshers, and bestpractice sharing.

SWIFTCOMPLY BUDGETARY ESTIMATE

DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL
SWIFTCOMPLY BACKFLOW IMPLEMENTATION $6,800 1 $6,800
SWIFTCOMPLY BACKFLOW SUBSCRIPTION $7,200 1 $7,200
YEAR ONE FEE $14,000
YEAR TWO FEE $7,560
YEAR THREE FEE $7,938
TOTAL COST OF CONTRACT $29,498
Note:

Pricing reflects SwiftComply’s all-inclusive subscription model, covering hosting, support, training, and ongoing feature updates—without per-user fees or hidden costs. A locked-in annual rate adjustment beginning in Year 2 of 5% ensures predictable budgeting and sustained service quality as your program evolves. Pricing based on a 3-year agreement.

Item No. 2.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization for Engine Replacement of Water Department Service Truck No. 6577
SOURCE: Transportation
COMMENT: Vehicle No. 6577 is an active Water Department service truck that has experienced significant internal engine wear and requires engine replacement.

Vehicle No. 6577 remains an operationally valuable asset with approximately four (4) years of anticipated remaining service life following engine replacement.

Timely replacement of the engine will help minimize service disruptions and maintain operational reliability for Water Department field operations.

Replacement of the engine is considered the most cost-effective option compared to full vehicle replacement and will allow the vehicle to remain in active service for its remaining anticipated useful life.

Staff solicited estimates from three qualified vendors for the engine replacement services. The estimates received were as follows:

Porterville Ford $12,951.47
Porterville Automotive $13,471.07
Monarch Ford $16,489.58
Porterville Ford submitted the lowest responsive quotation and is familiar with the maintenance and repair requirements associated with the vehicle platform.

Staff is requesting authorization to utilize Porterville Ford to perform the engine replacement in an amount not to exceed $14,246.62, inclusive of all parts, labor, taxes, and a 10% contingency.

Funding for the proposed engine replacement is available within the Water Department Maintenance Budget.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize an engine replacement for Water Item No. 2.

Department Service Truck No. 6577 by Porterville Ford in an amount not to exceed $14,246.62, inclusive of all parts, labor, taxes, and a 10% contingency, funded through the Water
Department Maintenance Budget.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Monarch Ford Estimate

2. Porterville Auto Estimate

3. Porterville Ford Estimate
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Russell Isom, Director of Transportation
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 3.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Renew Loan Management Software Agreement and Approve Supplemental Addendum
SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT:

The Community Development Department administers several federal and state grant-funded programs, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs, which support affordable housing, economic development, and community assistance activities throughout the City. A portion of these grant funds is utilized for the administration of housing rehabilitation loans, business assistance loans, and utility connection loan programs.

The City’s current loan portfolio consists of 617 accounts, including 270 active accounts, managed across multiple housing, economic development, and utility assistance programs. Loan servicing is completed in-house by City staff utilizing a centralized loan management software system shared between the Community Development Department and the Engineering and Project Management Department. The software system centralizes loan portfolio management, reporting, compliance documentation, and account history, which improves operational efficiency and supports ongoing audit and regulatory requirements.

In April 2025, the City Council approved a five-year agreement with Balio Software US, Inc. dba City Data Services (CDS) for loan management software services covering Fiscal Year 2025 through Fiscal Year 2029. The agreement is subject to annual renewal based on the availability of grant funding. The annual renewal cost for Fiscal Year 2026–2027 (Year 2) is $15,410, with future annual increases limited to three percent (3%) as identified within the agreement.

In addition to the annual renewal, CDS is transitioning from its legacy loan software platform to the new CDS 2.0 platform, which is intended to improve system stability, reporting capabilities, usability, and long-term maintainability.

The Supplemental Addendum includes one-time migration, configuration, data conversion, onboarding, and training services necessary to transition the City’s Item No. 3.
existing loan portfolio to the upgraded platform.

The upgraded software platform is expected to improve long-term operational efficiency, reporting functionality, audit tracking, and overall management of the City’s housing and loan programs. The migration is anticipated to be completed before the end of calendar year 2026.

The standard one-time migration fee for the CDS 2.0 platform is $5,000; however, CDS is offering the City a discounted preferred client rate of $2,500 in recognition of the City’s longstanding relationship and active agreement with the company.

Funding for both the annual software renewal and Supplemental Addendum is available through Community Development Block Grant administration funds and HOME grant administration funds.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Approve the FY 2026–2027 (Year 2) annual renewal of the 2025–2029 Loan Management Software Agreement with Balio Software US, Inc. dba City Data Services in the amount of $15,410;

2. Approve the Supplemental Addendum to the Agreement for CDS 2.0 migration and implementation services in the amount of $2,500; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all necessary documents associated with the annual renewal and Supplemental Addendum.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2025-2029 Executed Agreement w CDS for Loan Software

2. Supplemental Addendum to Agreement
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Luisa Zavala, Economic and Housing Development Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Vidush Mahansaria
Director
07/21/2025

Supplement to FY 2026/27 Agreement – City of Porterville City Data Services LLC – Confidential Page 1 of 5

CITY OF PORTERVILLE
Supplement to FY 2026/27 Agreement
Migration Configuration and Customization
Document Date: May 8, 2026

1. Recitals
This Supplement to the FY 2026/27 Agreement (the “Supplement”) is entered into by and between the City of Porterville (the “City”) and City Data Services LLC (“CDS” or the “Contractor”), and is incorporated into and made a part of the underlying agreement between the parties for the provision of City Data Services’ hosted data management platform (the “Agreement”).

WHEREAS, the City currently uses the Contractor’s legacy CDS 1.0 platform for the administration of its Loan Management programs;
WHEREAS, the Contractor is delivering CDS 2.0, a full technical rebuild of the platform designed to improve system stability, data integrity, usability, and long-term maintainability while preserving the workflows and compliance requirements relied upon by local government jurisdictions; WHEREAS, the Contractor proposes to migrate the City’s Loan Management module from CDS 1.0 to CDS 2.0 during the FY 2026/27 contract year on a one-time professional services basis; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to set forth the scope, approach, fees, and responsibilities applicable to that migration in this Supplement, separate and distinct from the recurring annual service fees set forth in the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows.

2. Purpose of this Supplement
The purpose of this Supplement is to:
• Define the scope, deliverables, and timing of the one-time migration and implementation services for the Loan Management module;
• Clearly separate one-time migration costs from the recurring software license fees set forth in the Agreement;
• Confirm the responsibilities of each party during the migration; and • Establish the one-time fee payable for these services.

This Supplement does not amend the City’s recurring license fees, the term of the Agreement, or any other provision of the Agreement except as expressly stated herein.

3. CDS 2.0 Platform Overview
Supplement to FY 2026/27 Agreement – City of Porterville City Data Services LLC – Confidential Page 2 of 5
CDS 2.0 is a full technical rebuild of the City Data Services platform. The new platform introduces a consolidated, modern cloud infrastructure; improved reporting, configuration, and workflow management; reduced operational and support burden; and a foundation for long-term scalability and future regulatory requirements.

CDS 2.0 will continue to serve as the system of record for housing, community development, and loan programs. The platform centralizes program data, documentation, reporting, and compliance workflows across departments and funding sources, while remaining configurable as the City’s programs evolve.

Core platform capabilities applicable to the City’s Loan Management module include:
• Role-based user management and permissions, supporting granular access • Unlimited users within licensed modules (no per-seat pricing) • Longitudinal data storage supporting multi-year and multi-phase programs • Secure, auditable, cloud-hosted infrastructure
• Version logging for auditability and edit tracking
• Centralised document library with global search, filtering, and bulk export • System-wide notifications (time-based and action-based email notifications) • Export framework supporting Excel and PDF outputs
• Integration with IDIS and external reporting systems where applicable • Personalised task and action views for City staff
The migration to CDS 2.0 is delivered on a module-by-module basis to minimise operational risk and disruption to ongoing program administration. This Supplement covers the migration of the City’s Loan Management module only.

4. Migration Approach
The migration is structured in three phases – Preparation, Sprint, and Cut-Over & Hypercare – across the following stages. Specific calendar dates will be set collaboratively during the Stakeholder & Readiness Intake to align with the City’s reporting cycles and avoid peak periods.

Phase Stage Description

1. Preparation
Stakeholder &
Readiness Intake
Joint kickoff session covering current-state review of CDS 1.0, agreement on target migration window, identification of decision-makers, and confirmation of meeting availability during the review period.

1. Preparation
Customer Readout:

Data Assessment
CDS reviews the City's existing data and configuration, presents a data assessment, and aligns on data clean-up activities to be completed prior to import.

Supplement to FY 2026/27 Agreement – City of Porterville City Data Services LLC – Confidential Page 3 of 5
Phase Stage Description

2. Sprint CDS 2.0 & Pre-UAT
Orientation
Training of City stakeholders on the core processes that will be reviewed during User Acceptance Testing, including
objectives, timelines, responsibilities, and sign-off criteria.

2. Sprint User Acceptance
Testing & Feedback
City validates migrated data and workflows in CDS 2.0 against agreed acceptance criteria. Feedback is captured and
incorporated into the configuration prior to go-live.

2. Sprint Admin / Power User
Training
Up to five (5) administrator onboarding sessions covering system navigation, core workflows, user management, and program configuration.

2. Sprint Subrecipient
Training
Up to two (2) subrecipient onboarding sessions delivered via webinar, covering navigation and core workflows for external users.

3. Cut-Over
&
Hypercare
Go-Live Readiness
Review
Final confirmation that CDS and the City are ready to cut over. The City confirms data accuracy and workflow
correctness, and CDS confirms system readiness.

3. Cut-Over
&
Hypercare
Cut-Over to CDS 2.0 The City is officially transitioned to CDS 2.0 for the Loans module. Legacy access is retained for read-only reference during the hypercare window.

3. Cut-Over
&
Hypercare
Hypercare & Success
Check-Ins
Dedicated post-cut-over support period to resolve issues quickly, followed by ongoing success check-ins to ensure adoption and customer satisfaction.

Supplement to FY 2026/27 Agreement – City of Porterville City Data Services LLC – Confidential Page 4 of 5

5. Migration Configuration and Customization

5.1 FY 2026/27 CDS 2.0 One-Time Migration Fee
Migration to the CDS 2.0 platform shall be subject to a one-time professional services fee covering all configuration, customization, and onboarding activities necessary to transition from the legacy system.

Migration fees shall be payable at the initiation of migration services for each module.

5.2 Services Included in the Migration Fee
This migration fee shall include all of the activities listed below.

Discovery and scoping sessions with City staff
• Initial onboarding call to confirm project scope, module configuration requirements, and implementation timeline
• Definition of workflows, forms, reports, and access requirements • Assignment of a CDS implementation specialist to guide the onboarding process • Preparation of an implementation checklist and onboarding milestones • Coordination with the City’s designated system administrator Configuration and customization of CDS 2.0 to meet the City’s program needs • Setup and configuration of the Loan Management module within the CDS 2.0 platform • Configuration of program structures, reporting workflows, required data fields, and user roles and permissions
• Configuration of standard system notifications and status workflows where applicable Data migration, validation, enrichment, and import
• Review of City-provided data exports from the existing CDS 1.0 system or other approved source systems
• Mapping of key program, agency, contract, and loan records into the CDS 2.0 data structure • Import of agreed baseline datasets into CDS 2.0
• Internal validation checks to ensure migrated data aligns with the CDS 2.0 schema • Reconciliation of record counts between legacy datasets and imported data • One structured data review session with the City to confirm imported information Training for City staff on the new system’s use and administration • Up to five (5) administrator onboarding sessions covering system navigation and core workflows • Overview of operational processes and reporting functionality • Guidance on user management and program configuration Training session for external subrecipients or contractors, delivered via webinar Supplement to FY 2026/27 Agreement – City of Porterville City Data Services LLC – Confidential Page 5 of 5
• Up to two (2) subrecipient onboarding sessions covering system navigation and core workflows • Reference materials provided to support subrecipient adoption Go-live readiness and hypercare
• Final system readiness review with City administrators • Confirmation that the module configuration and imported data are ready for operational use • Assistance during initial system activation
• A dedicated hypercare support window immediately post cut-over to resolve issues quickly • Ongoing success check-ins to support adoption following migration

6. Indicative Timeline
The migration of the Loan Management module is to be completed prior to the end of calendar year 2026. Specific dates for each stage will be set collaboratively during the Stakeholder & Readiness Intake to align with the City’s reporting cycles and to avoid peak periods.

7. Fees and Payment

7.1 Pricing
The one-time migration fee for the Loan Management module is set out in the table below. The Long Tenure Discount reflects the City of Porterville’s standing as a long-tenured client of City Data Services.

Module FY 26/27 List
Price
Long Tenure
Discount
Preferred Client Rate
Loans $5,000 -$2,500 $2,500
Total One-Time Fee $5,000 -$2,500 $2,500

7.2 Payment Terms
The one-time migration fee shall be invoiced at the initiation of migration services for the Loan Management module. Payment terms shall follow those set forth in the Agreement. The migration fee is non-recurring and does not affect the recurring annual service fees payable under the Agreement.

7.3 Total Fee Authorization
The total amount payable by the City of Porterville under this Supplement is two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00), inclusive of all discounts and exclusive of any future change orders mutually agreed in writing.

Item No. 4.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise a Request for Proposals for a Downtown Sound System
SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: Staff is requesting authorization to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design, equipment procurement, and installation of a Downtown Sound System within the City’s downtown area, including Centennial Park.

The proposed project is intended to enhance the downtown experience by providing a scalable, distributed outdoor public address and audio system capable of supporting community events, public announcements, background music, emergency notifications, advertisements, and other public communications. The system is intended to improve the functionality and atmosphere of the downtown area while supporting special events, tourism, business activity, and community engagement.

The proposed system would initially provide audio coverage across approximately six (6) city blocks within the downtown core, including Centennial Park. The project is intended to be scalable and expandable beyond the initial service area to accommodate future downtown improvements and community event needs.

The Request for Proposals will seek qualified firms capable of providing engineering design, system integration, equipment procurement, installation, testing, and implementation services for the project. The system design is anticipated to include:
• Engineered distributed audio coverage designed to minimize audio “hot spots” and dead zones;
• Zoned audio capabilities for independent control of various downtown areas;
• Outdoor-rated IP55 or higher speakers and equipment suitable for long-term exterior installation;
• Corrosion-resistant mounting hardware and components; • IP-based speakers, amplifiers, digital signal processors (DSPs), controllers, and related infrastructure;
Item No. 4.
• Mounting speakers on existing downtown light poles where feasible; and
• Scalable infrastructure to support future expansion of the system.

The proposed RFP process will allow staff to evaluate qualified firms, technical approaches, system capabilities, long-term maintenance considerations, scalability, and project costs prior to returning to the City Council with a final recommended agreement for consideration.

Staff anticipates the RFP process, evaluation, and contract negotiations will take approximately three (3) months to complete. The anticipated project budget for the Downtown Sound System is approximately $150,000, provided through Measure I funding, subject to final design, equipment selection, and installation requirements.

The project supports the City’s ongoing efforts to enhance downtown vibrancy, improve public event infrastructure, support economic activity, and create a more engaging public environment within the downtown area.

Staff anticipates returning to the City Council at a future meeting with a recommended proposal and associated project costs following completion of the RFP process.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals for the design, procurement, and installation of a Downtown Sound System within the downtown area, including Centennial Park.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. RFP Downtown PA System
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Donnie Moore, Deputy City Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 5.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Award Annual Ferric Chloride Supply Contract SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: The City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility utilizes ferric chloride as part of the wastewater treatment process to control hydrogen sulfide concentrations in wastewater and digester gas. Continued availability of ferric chloride is critical to maintaining uninterrupted wastewater treatment operations and regulatory compliance.

The Air Board requires the Wastewater Treatment Facility to maintain control of hydrogen sulfide concentrations in digester gas as part of the facility’s air quality compliance efforts. Continued use of ferric chloride is therefore necessary to assist the facility in maintaining compliance with applicable air quality requirements and operational standards.

In addition to supporting regulatory compliance, ferric chloride also assists in reducing odors and minimizing corrosion to treatment equipment and infrastructure caused by hydrogen sulfide. The continued use of ferric chloride helps protect critical wastewater infrastructure while supporting reliable plant operations.

Wastewater Treatment Facility staff solicited pricing proposals from three qualified vendors for the annual supply and delivery of ferric chloride. The quotes received were as follows:

Kemira Water Solutions $0.270 per wet pound delivered
California Water Technologies $0.282 per wet pound delivered Brenntag Pacific $0.420 per wet pound delivered
Based on the quotes received, Kemira Water Solutions submitted the lowest responsive quotation and is recommended for award of the Annual Ferric Chloride Supply Contract.

Staff is also requesting authorization to include an optional one-year extension to the agreement. The extension would be subject to mutual agreement between the City and the vendor regarding any pricing adjustments after the Item No. 5.
initial contract term. Including the extension option provides operational continuity, purchasing flexibility, and procurement stability while helping ensure continued chemical availability for uninterrupted plant operations.

The projected annual expenditure for ferric chloride is approximately $100,000 and will be funded through the Wastewater Operating Budget.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Award the Annual Ferric Chloride Supply Contract to Kemira Water Solutions Inc. for the submitted quote of $0.270 per wet pound delivered; and

2. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute the Annual Ferric Chloride Supply Contract, including an optional one-year extension subject to mutual agreement on future pricing adjustments, for an estimated annual expenditure of
approximately $100,000 funded through the Wastewater
Operating Budget.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Kemira Quote

2. Calif. WaterTech. Quote

3. Brenntag Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Robert Alvarez, Public Works Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 6.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Award Annual Wastewater Treatment Polymer Supply Contract
SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: The City of Porterville Wastewater Treatment Facility utilizes polymer as part of the sludge dewatering process associated with wastewater treatment operations. Continued availability of polymer is critical to maintaining uninterrupted sludge dewatering operations at the Wastewater Treatment Facility.

The polymer-assisted dewatering process improves solids handling efficiency, reduces drying time, and helps minimize sludge hauling and disposal costs associated with wastewater treatment operations. Polymer is utilized within the Wastewater Treatment Facility’s screw press dewatering system, which assists in separating water from anaerobically digested solids during treatment operations.

The polymer treatment process assists the screw press in increasing solids concentration from approximately 1.5% to greater than 17%, significantly improving the efficiency of the sludge drying and handling process.

Wastewater Treatment Facility staff solicited pricing proposals from three qualified vendors for the annual supply and delivery of polymer utilized within the sludge dewatering process. The quotes received were as follows:

Solenis, LLC $1.65/ pound delivered
Aqua Ben Corporation $1.95/ pound delivered
Univar Solutions Declined to submit a quote
Based on the quotes received, Solenis, LLC submitted the lowest responsive quotation and is recommended for award of the Annual Wastewater Treatment Polymer Supply Contract.

Staff is also requesting authorization to include an optional one-year extension Item No. 6.
to the agreement. The extension would be subject to mutual agreement between the City and the vendor regarding any pricing adjustments after the initial contract term. The optional extension provides procurement stability and operational continuity while helping ensure uninterrupted chemical supply availability for wastewater treatment operations.

The projected annual expenditure for the polymer contract is approximately $250,000 and will be funded through the Wastewater Operating Budget.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Award the Annual Wastewater Treatment Polymer Supply Contract to Solenis, LLC for the submitted quote of $1.65 per pound delivered for polymer; and

2. Authorize the Public Works Director to execute the Annual Wastewater Treatment Polymer Supply Contract, including an optional one-year extension subject to mutual agreement on future pricing adjustments, for an estimated annual expenditure of approximately $250,000 funded through the Wastewater Operating Budget.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Solenis Quote

2. Aqua ben Quote
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Robert Alvarez, Public Works Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 7.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Annual State Senate Bill 1205 Fire Inspection Compliance Resolution
SOURCE: Fire
COMMENT: California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 require fire departments that provide fire protection services to conduct annual inspections of public and private schools, hotels, motels, lodging houses, apartment buildings, and certain residential occupancies to ensure compliance with building and fire safety standards. Senate Bill 1205 (SB 1205), enacted following the December 2016 Ghost Ship Fire, established additional annual reporting requirements intended to improve transparency and accountability regarding State-mandated fire inspections.

During calendar year 2025, the Porterville Fire Department conducted inspections of forty (40) identified Educational Group E occupancies within the City of Porterville, including multiple buildings, structures, and facilities inspected in accordance with State mandate. Educational Group E occupancies generally include public and private schools used by more than six individuals at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade, as well as certain daycare facilities.

During calendar year 2025, the Porterville Fire Department also conducted inspections of forty-seven (47) Residential Group R-1 and R-2 occupancies in accordance with State mandate. Residential Group R occupancies generally include hotels, motels, apartment buildings containing three or more dwelling units, lodging houses, and certain residential care facilities.

The Fire Department continues to improve its inspection tracking, occupancy classification, and records management processes to enhance long-term compliance with State inspection mandates. Occupancies identified as incorrectly classified are corrected, and additional occupancies continue to be identified, inspected, and entered into the Department’s records management system. The Department anticipates these inspection totals will continue to fluctuate, with a general trend toward an increase as annexations and new development occur within the community.

Item No. 7.

A limited number of inspections may remain open due to pending violation corrections, parts availability, or scheduling delays with contractors.

Prevention staff continues to work closely with property owners and responsible parties to ensure outstanding violations are corrected, and inspections are completed as soon as practicable.

California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires fire departments to annually report compliance with State-mandated inspections to their administering authority and requires the governing body to acknowledge receipt of the report through adoption of a resolution or similar formal action.

The Fire Chief recommends that the City Council adopt the Annual Senate Bill 1205 Fire Inspection Compliance Resolution regarding the Porterville Fire Department’s inspection of specific buildings and occupancies pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Annual Senate Bill 1205 Fire Inspection Compliance Resolution regarding the Porterville Fire Department’s inspection of specific buildings and occupancies pursuant to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. SB1205 2025 Fire Inspections

2. Draft Resolution

3. SB1205 text
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Bryan Cogburn, Fire Chief
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Annual Reinspection Total Count
(All Selected) FAIL NOT

OBSERVED PASS VIOLATION

CLEARED
1 1 2 3 0 0 3
26 19 45 76 0 0 29
2 3 5 3 0 0 2
1 1 2 4 0 1 3
1 0 1 4 0 0 0
25 21 46 74 0 5 38
2 1 3 30 0 0 6
6 2 8 2 0 0 2
21 26 47 74 0 4 77
8 11 19 80 0 0 75
3 4 7 11 0 0 10
1 2 3 6 0 9 0
1 0 1 2 0 0 0
4 5 9 18 0 0 10
29 40 69 132 0 7 78
9 22 31 68 0 4 65
6 3 9 9 0 0 28
39 5 35 25 7 327 22
2 0 1 2 0 0 0
2 0 2 6 0 1 0
189 166 345 629 7 358 448
*State Mandated Occupancies required for annual reporting pursuant to SB1205 Inspection Count for Date Range for Category-Subcategory for Zone for Inspection Type for Inspection Result for Observation Value Inspection Type: All Inspection Types | Occupancy Categories: All Categories | Start Date: 01/01/2025 | End Date: 12/31/2025 Category/Subcategory
Assembly Group A / A-1 Theaters / Performing Arts
Assembly Group A / A-2 Food and Drink
Assembly Group A / A-3 Worship and Recreation
Assembly Group A / A-5 Outdoor Sporting Events
Assembly Group A / S-2 Storage of Non-Combustible materials Business Group B / Business Group B
Educational Group E / College
Educational Group E / Daycare with more than 5 children age 2.5 or older Group E Educational Group E / Elementary School
Educational Group E / High School
Educational Group E / Middle School
Residential Group R / R-2 Apartments
Residential Group R / R-4 Assisted Living (more than 5 but less than 16 (excluding staff) Storage Group S / S-1 Moderate-hazard (Car Garages)
Total
Factory Industrial Group F / F2 Low-hazard
Imported / Imported
Mercantile Group M / Business Group B
Mercantile Group M / Mercantile Group M
Mercantile Group M / Service Stations
Residential Group R / R-1 Hotels / Motels
Only Completed Inspections for Active Occupancies included. emergencyreporting.com
Doc Id: 1832
Page # 1 of 1

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _______- 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE

ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE FIRE CHIEF'S ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING THE

PORTERVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S INSPECTION OF SPECIFIC BUILDINGS AND OCCUPANCIES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13146.2 AND 13146.3 OF THE CALIFORNIA

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 became effective on January 1, 2019 and requires that an annual report of fire inspections conducted by the Fire Department be presented to the City Council for acknowledgement; and WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 require all fire departments, including the Porterville Fire Department, that provide fire protection services, to perform annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities for compliance with building standards, as provided; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2 requires all fire departments, including the Porterville Fire Department, that provide fire protection services, to report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Porterville intends this Resolution to fulfill the requirements of California Health & Safety Code regarding acknowledgment of the Porterville Fire Department's compliance with California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

SECTION l. REPORT RECEIVED:

That the City Council of the City of Porterville acknowledges receipt of the Fire Department's annual inspections report for Calendar Year 2025 and recognizes the measure of compliance achieved by the Porterville Fire Department with California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 in the area encompassed by the City of Porterville, as follows:

A. EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES:

Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade. Within the City of Porterville, during the 2025 calendar year, there were forty (40) identified Group E occupancies inspected, including multiple buildings, structures, and facilities inspected in accordance with State mandate.

Page 2 of 2 ends

B. RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES:

Residential Group R occupancies, for the purposes of this resolution, are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and include hotels, motels, apartments (three units or more), etc. as well as other residential occupancies(including several residential care facilities). These residential care facilities have numerous sub classifications, and they may contain residents or clients that have a range of needs, including those related to custodial care, mobility impairments, cognitive disabilities, etc. The residents may also be non- ambulatory or bedridden. During the 2025 calendar year, there were forty-seven (47) Group R-1 and R-2 inspected in accordance with State mandate
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 2026 Greg Meister, Mayor
ATTEST:

Rich Tree, City Clerk
By _
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Senate Bill No. 1205
CHAPTER 854
An act to add Section 13146.4 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to fire protection.
[Approved by Governor September 27, 2018. Filed with
Secretary of State September 27, 2018.]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1205, Hill. Fire protection services: inspections: compliance reporting.

Existing law requires the chief of any city or county fire department or district providing fire protection services and his or her authorized representatives to inspect every building used as a public or private school within his or her jurisdiction, for the purpose of enforcing specified building standards, not less than once each year, as provided. Existing law requires every city or county fire department or district providing fire protection services that is required to enforce specified building standards to annually inspect certain structures, including hotels, motels, lodging houses, and apartment houses, for compliance with building standards, as provided.

This bill would require every city or county fire department, city and county fire department, or district required to perform the above-described inspections to report annually to its administering authority, as defined, on the department's or district's compliance with the above-described inspection requirements, as provided. The bill would require the administering authority to acknowledge receipt of the report in a resolution or a similar formal document. To the extent this bill would expand the responsibility of a local agency, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates detennines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 13146.4 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
13146.4. (a) Every city or county fire department, city and county fire department, or district required to perform an annual inspection pursuant 93 Ch. 854 -2-
to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 shall report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3. (b) The report made pursuant to subdivision (a) shall occur when the administering authority discusses its annual budget, or at another time determined by the administering authority.
( c) The administering authority shall acknowledge receipt of the report made pursuant to subdivision (a) in a resolution or a similar fonnal document.
( d) For purposes of this section, "administering authority" means a city council, county board of supervisors, or district board, as the case may be.

SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 ( commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 0 93
Item No. 8.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Operate a Fare-Free Freedom Fest Shuttle Service on July 3, 2026
SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: In conjunction with the 2026 Freedom Fest event, staff is requesting authorization to extend transit service hours and operate a dedicated fare-free shuttle service between the downtown Porterville Transit Center and the Porterville Sports Complex. The shuttle route will also incorporate an additional stop at the existing transit location on the south side of the Lowe’s parking lot.

The “Freedom Express” shuttle service will operate from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., departing approximately every 40 minutes from the Transit Center and the Sports Complex. The last shuttle is anticipated to depart from the Transit Center at 7:40 p.m., and from the Lowe’s stop at 7:50 p.m. Transit staff will monitor ridership throughout the event and adjust vehicle deployment as necessary to ensure all passengers are transported back to the Transit Center or their nearest bus stop by the conclusion of the event.

The shuttle service is intended to reduce traffic congestion, improve event accessibility, and provide additional parking flexibility during the Freedom Fest event.

City staff will coordinate with transit staff during the event regarding implementation of supplemental shuttle service from the Tulare County Fairgrounds to the Sports Complex should parking at the Sports Complex reach capacity and additional overflow parking become necessary.

Additionally, fixed-route transit buses will operate one additional evening route, concluding at approximately 8:20 p.m., to support increased ridership demand associated with the event.

In support of the community event, the City’s transit contractor, SM Transit, has offered to cover the estimated labor costs associated with the extended transit services at no cost to the City. The total estimated labor cost for the event is approximately $2,000.

Item No. 8.

All passengers under the age of thirteen (13) will be required to be accompanied by a parent or responsible adult in order to board and ride the Freedom Express shuttle. This policy is consistent with the City’s commitment to passenger safety and will be posted on-site and included in public communications leading up to the event.

This extended transit service has been successfully provided during prior Freedom Fest events and continues to receive positive feedback from the public.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to operate a fare-free shuttle route between the Porterville Transit Center and the Porterville Sports Complex from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on July 3, 2026, to provide alternative transportation services for the Freedom Fest event.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Locator Map
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Richard Tree, City Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 9.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of Funding Requests for the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program and Kings View Homeless Reunification Program SOURCE: City Manager's Office
COMMENT: At its meeting of May 19, 2026, the City Council directed staff to return with formal consideration of funding requests for the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program and the Kings View Homeless Reunification Program.

Councilman Beltran requested that the City Council consider providing financial assistance to two community-based programs that support individuals experiencing homelessness and related community needs within the community.

The first request is for $5,000 to the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program to assist with various community projects, outreach efforts, and support services benefiting individuals experiencing homelessness and related community needs. Proposed uses of the funding include vision care assistance, bottled water during summer months, shade pop-up canopies, and informational signage to support outreach and community services.

The second request is for $5,000 to Kings View Behavioral Health to assist with its Homeless Reunification Program, which focuses on reconnecting individuals experiencing homelessness with family members. Funding would be utilized for family gathering events, reunification support activities, and programs intended to strengthen and rebuild family relationships and support systems.

The proposed funding source for both requests is the City’s Special Purposes Reserve Fund for Fiscal Year 2025/2026, from which sufficient funds are currently available. Pursuant to Porterville Municipal Code Section 2-31.6, the Special Purposes Reserve Fund was established for the purpose of supporting one-time City special events, projects, and/or purposes that benefit the community.

Staff believes the proposed funding requests are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Special Purposes Reserve Fund because the programs provide community-based assistance, outreach, stabilization services, and Item No. 9.
family support efforts intended to benefit vulnerable populations within the community.

Draft resolutions authorizing the appropriation of funds from the City’s Special Purposes Reserve Fund for each program are provided herein for City Council consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Adopt the draft resolution authorizing an appropriation not to exceed $5,000 from the City’s Special Purposes Reserve Fund for the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program; and

2. Adopt the draft resolution authorizing an appropriation not to exceed $5,000 from the City’s Special Purposes Reserve Fund for the Kings View Homeless Reunification Program.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution - LINC

2. Draft Resolution - Kings View
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Richard Tree, City Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _______-2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE AUTHORIZING THE

APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE SPECIAL PURPOSES RESERVE FUND FOR THE LOCAL

INITIATIVES NAVIGATION CENTER (LINC) PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to support community-based programs that provide assistance and support services to individuals experiencing homelessness and related community needs; and
WHEREAS, the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program provides outreach, support services, and community-based assistance benefiting vulnerable populations within the community, including vision care assistance, bottled water during summer months, shade pop-up canopies, and informational signage supporting outreach efforts; and WHEREAS, Section 2-31.6 of the Porterville Municipal Code established the Special Purposes Reserve Fund for one-time City special events, projects, and/or purposes that benefit the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that financial assistance to the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Special Purposes Reserve Fund.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE that an appropriation not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) from the City’s Special Purposes Reserve Fund for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 is hereby approved for the Local Initiatives Navigation Center (LINC) Program.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 2026. _____________________________
Greg Meister, Mayor
ATTEST:

Richard Tree, City Clerk
By: ________________________________________________
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _______-2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTERVILLE AUTHORIZING THE

APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE SPECIAL PURPOSES RESERVE FUND FOR THE KINGS

VIEW HOMELESS REUNIFICATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to support community-based programs that provide assistance and support services to individuals experiencing homelessness and related community needs; and
WHEREAS, the Kings View Homeless Reunification Program assists individuals experiencing homelessness by reconnecting them with family members or support systems as part of broader stabilization efforts, including family gathering events, reunification support activities, and programs intended to strengthen and rebuild family relationships and support systems; and WHEREAS, Section 2-31.6 of the Porterville Municipal Code established the Special Purposes Reserve Fund for one-time City special events, projects, and/or purposes that benefit the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that financial assistance to the Kings View Homeless Reunification Program is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Special Purposes Reserve Fund.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 2026. _____________________________
Greg Meister, Mayor
ATTEST:

Richard Tree, City Clerk
By: ________________________________________________
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Item No. 10.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Authorization to Submit FY 2025–2026 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Cycle A & B Applications for Transit Fleet Replacement Vehicles
SOURCE: Transportation
COMMENT: The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP), administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), provides funding for transit projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility, particularly within disadvantaged and low-income communities.

Staff is requesting authorization to submit Fiscal Year (FY) 2025–2026 LCTOP Cycle A and Cycle B funding applications to support the phased replacement of aging transit fleet vehicles utilized for demand-response transit services.

The proposed project includes the purchase of six (6) replacement hybrid transit vans over a three-year period, with two (2) vehicles anticipated to be procured annually. The replacement vehicles will continue to provide ADAaccessible transportation services and are intended to replace aging gasolinepowered vehicles that have exceeded their useful life and are experiencing increasing maintenance costs, reduced reliability, and service downtime.

The proposed replacement vehicles are anticipated to improve fuel efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve transit reliability, and lower longterm maintenance and operating costs. The project also supports continued transit accessibility for disadvantaged and low-income populations within the Porterville Transit service area, including East Porterville and surrounding communities identified within the State’s priority population mapping tools.

For FY 2025–2026, the LCTOP program transitioned to a two-cycle funding structure, allowing transit agencies greater flexibility in coordinating project delivery schedules and vehicle procurement timelines. The City of Porterville intends to utilize both funding cycles as part of the phased fleet replacement strategy.

The FY 2025–2026 LCTOP allocations include:

Item No. 10.
• Cycle A: $117,602
• Cycle B: $62,298
The total FY 2025–2026 LCTOP funding request is $179,900. Over the threeyear phased replacement program, the City anticipates utilizing approximately $539,700 in LCTOP funding for vehicle procurement and associated transit equipment and improvements.

The project is anticipated to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the useful life of the replacement vehicles while improving overall transit system efficiency and reliability. Application materials estimate approximately 817 metric tons of greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with the project.

As required by the LCTOP program, the City Council must approve the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent forms authorizing designated staff to execute grant-related documents and administer the program on behalf of the City.

Staff anticipates returning to the City Council annually for approval of future LCTOP application packages associated with the phased fleet replacement program and future funding allocations.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Approve submission of the Fiscal Year 2025–2026 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Cycle A and Cycle B
applications for the phased replacement of transit fleet vehicles, including the purchase of replacement hybrid transit vans; and

2. Adopt the draft Resolution authorizing execution of the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent forms for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all required grant documents.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cycle A FY25-26 Allocation Request Package

2. FY25-26 Certifications, Assurances, and Authorized Agent Forms
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Item No. 10.

Department Director:

Russell Isom, Director of Transportation
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk Yes Yes
33 16
22 4
3 Years
Months
Tulare
https://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/departments/porterville_transit/index.php Tulare County Association of Governments
06 Lead Agency Name: City of Porterville
Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
FY 2025-2026 LCTOP: Cycle A
Lead Agency Information
Is your Cycle A and Cycle B project the same? Yes
Allocation Request Prepared by Contact (if different than "Prepared by") Name: Teresa Avitia Name: Russell Isom
Caltrans District:

Does your agency have an approved Title VI Plan? Approved Date: 09/26/25 Title VI Attached:

County:

Agency Website:

Regional Planning Agency:
291 N. Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
Name: Russell Isom Assembly*:

Title: Director of Transportation Senate*:

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Authorized Agent Legislative District Numbers
Title: Grants & Procurement Coordinator Title: Director of Transportation Phone #: 559-258-0861 Phone #: 559-782-7597
Sub-Type:

Purchase of replacement zero-emission vehicle(s) (may include equipment/infrastructure) Start date (anticipated) : 12/31/2026 End date (anticipated) : 12/31/2030 Project Summary
Name: No more
than 2 lines
City of Porterville Transit will use LCTOP funds over three years to purchase six (6) replacement transit hybrid vans, acquiring two (2) vans per year.

Description
(Short): No
more than 375
characters.

City of Porterville Transit will use LCTOP funds over three years to procure six transit vans (two annually) to improve service and reduce GHG emissions. The project prioritizes zero-emission vehicles, with hybrids as needed, and benefits disadvantaged communities by improving access to essential services and reliable transit.

Type: Capital
Phone #: 559-782-7597 Congressional*:

E-mail [email protected] *if you have additional Districts, please provide a separate attachment Project Life: For capital projects, state the project useful life in years. For operation projects, state the number of months a service will be funded.

Capital: 5
Operations: 0
Request LONP: Your agency has selected a start date prior to estimated Award Date of October 1 2026, please provide an explaination of your need to start your project before the Award Date. $177,602
Rollover Projects: Please provide the total number of years your agency plans to accumulate funds and how many years remaining, include this year.

Rollover Project: Yes
Total Years of Rollover:

Remaining Years of Rollover:

Funding: 99313: $157,731 99314: $19,871 Total:

Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 1 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Funding Information
Allocation Yr Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 $45,222
Total LCTOP: $0 $117,602 $62,298 $179,900 $179,900 $0 $539,700 PUC 99314: $9,871 $5,203 $15,074 $15,074
Total
PUC 99313: $107,731 $57,095 $164,826 $164,826 $494,478
$0 $539,700
Other Funds: $0
Total CCI: $0 $117,602 $62,298 $179,900 $179,900
$0
Other GGRF: $0
LCTOP Interest:

Contact Person: Russell Isom 99313
Contact Phone #: 559-782-7597 $15,074 99314
$0 $539,700
Lead Agency: City of Porterville Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Total: $0 $117,602 $62,298 $179,900 $179,900
Contact Phone #: 559-623-0423 99314
Contact E-mails: [email protected]
Contributing Sponsor: Tulare County Association of Governments Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Contact Person: Ted Smalley $164,826 99313
Contact E-mail: [email protected]
Contact E-mails:

PUC Funds Type:

Contact Person: 99313
Contact Phone #: 99314
Contributing Sponsor: Amount:

Contributing Sponsor: Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Contact Person: 99313
Contact Phone #: 99314
Contact E-mails:

Contributing Sponsor: Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Contact Person: 99313
City of Porterville Transit will use LCTOP funds over a three-year period to purchase six (6) transit vans, acquiring two (2) annually, to replace gasoline-powered vehicles reaching the end of their useful life. The fleet will prioritize low- and zero-emission vehicles, including hybrid options as needed, to improve service reliability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining consistent transit operations.

Detailed Funding Information: This section should be completed to detail any CAP funds included in the “Prior” column, include the Project ID, amount of funds transferred, and CAP approval date(if available).

N/A
Total FY 24-25 LCTOP Funding $179,900
Fully Funded Project: Provide a description of all the funds that will be used to complete this project and how LCTOP funds will not supplant other funding sources. Include the project ID and awarded funding amount from prior rollover years.

Contact Phone #: 99314
Contact E-mails:

Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 2 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Funding Plan
Total Project Funding
$0 $0
R/W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS&E $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
FY 28-29 Total
PA&ED $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Component Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 $0 $0
TOTAL $0 $117,602 $62,298 $179,900 $179,900 $0 $539,700 Operations/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0
Veh/Equip Purchase $0 $117,602 $62,298 $179,900 $179,900 $0 $539,700 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0
PS&E $0
PA&ED
Funding Source: Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Component Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 Total $539,700
Operations/Other $0
Equipment Purchase $117,602 $62,298 $179,900 $179,900
$0
CON $0
R/W
FY 28-29 Total
PA&ED $0
$0 $539,700
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 TOTAL $0 $117,602 $62,298 $179,900 $179,900
$0
Equipment Purchase $0
CON
$0
R/W $0
PS&E
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 $0
Equipment Purchase $0
CON
$0
R/W $0
PS&E
$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operations/Other
Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 3 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Funding Plan
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 $0
R/W $0
PS&E
FY 28-29 Total
PA&ED $0
$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operations/Other
$0
Equipment Purchase $0
CON
Total
PA&ED $0
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 $0
Equipment Purchase $0
CON
$0
R/W $0
PS&E
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 $0
Veh/Equip Purchase $0
CON
$0
R/W $0
PS&E
Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 25-26 (A) FY 25-26 (B) FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 $0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operations/Other
$0
R/W $0
PS&E
Total
PA&ED $0
$0
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operations/Other
$0
Equipment Purchase $0
CON
Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 4 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
3) Project Costs - Provide an itemized breakdown of project components and describe how the cost estimations were developed. Please include marketing and bus wraps cost in this section. Total costs must correspond to the Funding Information section above. No more than 14 lines.

The total project cost for the procurement of six (6) hybrid transit vans is $489,198, based on a per-vehicle cost of $81,533. Each vehicle cost includes a base price of $75,668, sales tax of $4,630, and DMV and tire fees totaling $1,235.

The City of Porterville Transit will utilize approximately three (3) years of LCTOP funding, totaling $539,700, based on an annual allocation of approximately $179,900, to fully fund the project.

After vehicle procurement costs, a remaining balance of approximately $50,502 will be used to support vehicle wraps and exterior branding, onboard safety and technology enhancements (including security camera systems and realtime vehicle tracking), and minor bus stop improvements in disadvantaged communities, such as signage and accessibility upgrades.

LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Project Information
1) Project Description - Provide a comprehensive project description. For operations projects, include: #of trips, span, frequency improvements, days of operation and marketing component (if applicable). For capital projects, include:
product specifications and identify all LCTOP funded components. No more than 14 lines.

The City of Porterville Transit will utilize LCTOP funds over a three-year period to procure six (6) replacement transit vans, acquiring two (2) vehicles annually for fixed-route and demand-response services. The proposed vehicles will be 2025 BraunAbility Sienna Rear Entry – 4 Passenger wheelchair-accessible minivans (or equivalent), designed to meet ADA and operational requirements.

Each vehicle will be ADA-compliant and equipped with a rear-entry ramp system and mobility device securement areas. The project includes procurement, delivery, and preparation for revenue service, including installation of transit equipment such as security cameras, two-way radios, fareboxes, and GPS/AVL technology, as applicable. Additional features include LED lighting, HVAC systems, durable seating, and agency branding.

This project will replace six (6) 2019 Dodge Caravan vans with V6 gasoline engines that have reached the end of their useful life. The replacement vehicles will be gasoline-hybrid models, improving fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to the existing fleet.

This project will reduce fuel consumption, lower emissions, improve reliability, and enhance passenger safety and 2) Project Planning - Provide a detailed explanation of the project planning process and how it was designed to avoid substantial burden on any low- income, disadvantaged, and vulnerable populations. Include any public outreach, events, workshops or community input. No more than 14 lines.

The City of Porterville Transit will use LCTOP funds over a three-year period to procure six (6) replacement transit vans, acquiring two (2) vehicles annually. The project will prioritize zero-emission vehicles, with hybrid vehicles included as needed based on availability and operational requirements. These vehicles will replace aging gasoline-powered units that have reached the end of their useful life.

The project will directly benefit residents of disadvantaged communities, including areas such as East Porterville, by improving access to essential destinations such as employment centers, healthcare services, education, and shopping. By maintaining a reliable and modern fleet, the project supports increased transit accessibility and dependability for populations that rely most on public transportation.

This phased procurement approach supports ongoing fleet renewal, enhances service reliability, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to improved local air quality and public health outcomes. Remaining funds will be used for necessary vehicle outfitting and equipment to ensure the vehicles are fully operational and ready for service upon delivery.

Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 5 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
5) Agency Service - Describe the transit service provided and how the project plays into the overall operations. . No more than 2450 characters.

The City of Porterville provides (4) fixed-routes and demand-response transit services seven days a week. The fixedroute system consists of four routes operating in a hub-and-spoke configuration centered at the Porterville Transit Center. Routes are designed as one-way loops with approximately 40-minute headways.

Service operates from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Saturday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Sundays.

Dial-A-COLT provides curb-to-curb, on-demand service for residents aged 62 and older and individuals with disabilities, operating within ¾ mile of fixed routes and during the same service hours.

Regional connectivity is provided through the Tulare County Regional Transit Agency (TCRTA), linking riders to surrounding communities and key destinations throughout Tulare County 6) AB 680 Workforce Standards to Support Job Quality -As part of your FY 25-26 LCTOP Allocation Request Packet please include an electronic copy of your agency's most recently approved procurement manuals.

Yes Did you submit your approved procurement manual as part of your FY 25-26 LCTOP Allocation Request Packet?
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Agency Information
4) Agency Fare - Describe your agency's fare structure including any discounts or special fares and how the project will affect that structure, if at all. No more than 16 Lines.

Porterville Transit maintains an affordable fare structure to ensure accessibility for all riders. The base one-way cash fare is $1.50, with a $3.00 all-day pass offering unlimited rides. Exact change is required for cash payments.

Passengers may also pay using Tap to Pay with a contactless credit/debit card or mobile device. Smart cards and bus passes are available for purchase at the Downtown Transit Center.

Discounted fares are provided for seniors (65+), veterans, individuals with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, and fulltime students. Children age 12 and under ride free.

Current fares include: General $1.50; Day Pass $3.00; 7-Day Pass $14.00; 31-Day Pass $50.00. Discount fares are $0.75 for one-way trips; $1.50 Day Pass; $7.50 7-Day Pass; and $30.00 31-Day Pass. ADA Paratransit (including one attendant) is $3.00, and Microtransit service is $5.00
Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 6 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Project GHG Benefits
Project Yr. 1 Ridership Increase - Estimated
annual ridership contributed by the new
service or capital improvement in Yr1.

Project Yr. F Ridership Increase - Estimated
annual ridership contributed by the new
service or capital improvement in YrF.

Year 1 (Yr1) - First year of service, or year
that capital improvements will be
completed.
2026
The project will being December 31, 2026, includes
the purchase of transit vans with a 5-year useful life.

Year F (YrF) - Final year that the service is
funded or the final year of useful life for
capital improvements.
2031
The capital project will extend through 2031, the final year of useful life for the vehicles.

Greenhouse Gas Reductions - Describe qualitatively how this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing six (6) 2019 Dodge Caravan V6 gasoline-powered vans with new 2025 BraunAbility Toyota Sienna rear-entry, wheelchair-accessible hybrid minivans (or equivalent). Older vehicles produce higher emissions and consume more fuel due to outdated engine technology and wear.

Transitioning to newer hybrid vehicles will significantly reduce fuel consumption and tailpipe emissions while improving overall energy efficiency. Additionally, maintaining a reliable transit fleet encourages ridership, reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and further lowering community-wide emissions. This project directly supports LCTOP goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable transportation options. Maintaining a reliable transit Greenhouse Gas Reductions - Please provide quantitative information requested below and explanations supporting the data provided.

Value Explanation
Total Project VMTs Reduced
0 This number is calculated based on the values above.

Total Project GHG Emission Reductions
(MTCO2e) 816.78
This number is calculated based on the values from
above and the QM-Tool tab.

Project Useful Life
5 This is calculated based on the values above.

Total Project Ridership Increased
0 This is calculated based on the values above.

Adjustment (A) - Adjustment factor to
account for Choice Riders.Use defaults
values listed on
Trip Length (L) - Length (miles) of average
auto trip reduced or average passenger trip
length. You may use defaults values list ed
on
FY 25-26 LCTOP Project GHG Emission
Reductions (MTCO2e) 816.78
This number is calculated based on the values from
above and the QM-Tool tab.

Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 7 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
X
X
X
X
Transit Facility Parking Cost
($/Roundtrip/Rider) (Average cost to park to
use transit associated with project)
$0.00 (ex. The average transit facility parking cost is $5 per day) Avoided Parking Cost ($/Roundtrip/Rider)
(Average avoided parking cost associated
with project)
$0.00 (ex. The average parking cost in the project area is $15 per day)
Baseline Average One-Way Fare Cost
($/One-Way Trip/Rider) (Average fare per
boarding, prior to project implementation)
$1.50 The average fare between the senior, youth and disabled at $1.50 per one-way.

New Average One-Way Fare Cost
($/One-Way Trip/Rider) (Average fare per
boarding resulting from project
implementation)
$0.00
(ex. The average reduced fare paid (due to this project) for adult, senior, youth, and discounted fare is $0.75 per way)
Value Explanation
Travel Cost Savings Benefits
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Project Benefits
Co-Benefits - Describe benefits selected above and other benefits not listed.

Improved Safety – Newer vehicles provide updated safety features, ADA-compliant design, and modern onboard equipment such as cameras and communication systems, improving passenger and operator safety.

Improved Public Health – Replacing older gasoline-powered vehicles reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, contributing to improved air quality and community health.

Reduced Operating / Maintenance Costs – New hybrid vehicles reduce repair frequency, fuel consumption, and overall maintenance expenses compared to aging vehicles.

Increased System Reliability – Replacing end-of-life vehicles reduces breakdowns and service interruptions, improving on-time performance and service consistency.

Improved Public Health College Grades K-12
Reduced Operating/Maintenance Costs Promotes Active Transportation Increase System Reliability Promotes Integration w/ other modes Avoided Toll Cost ($/Roundtrip/Rider)
(Average avoided toll cost associated with
project)
$0.00 (ex. The average tolling cost in the project area is $10 per day)
Co-Benefits - Check all additional Benefits/Outcomes.

Improved Safety Coordination with Educational Institution Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 8 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Community Engagement Co-Benefit
To estimate the community engagement co-benefit, users will respond to the five questions below. Based on the responses to the questions, the level of community engagement will be evaluated as low, medium, or high. 1) Is the project being proposed for LCTOP funding, a neighborhood-scale, city/regional-scale, or rural-scale project? City/Regional
h. Developed project features or project alternatives collaboratively with the community by a communitybased organization, community-driven steering committee, or similar entity designed, planned, and implemented the project in whole or in significant part.

5. Considering all input opportunities, which of the following statements are true (check all that apply):
a. The participants comprised a broadly representative sample of the population potentially benefiting from, or affected by, the project.
b. Project proponents identified key community leaders and organizations and engaged them directly. c. The events and input opportunities were hosted at varied and accessible times and locations throughout the area potentially affected by the project and included both in person and online forms of engagement. Events and written materials were offered in languages other than English. d. The participation process was conducted or assisted by a professional facilitator or public participation expert.
b. Solicited and recorded written or spoken input from the community about specific aspects of the project or potential project alternatives before decisions on those aspects and alternatives were finalized. c. Incorporated proposals or ideas from the community into project alternatives or components. d. Reported back to the community on how the input in 4(b) and 4(c) was incorporated. e. Developed project features or project alternatives collaboratively with the community by having one or more workshops or other meetings in which the community developed a project alternative or specific component to address unmet community needs, which was subsequently included in the project’s application for funding or final design.
f. Developed project features or project alternatives collaboratively with the community by formal cooperation with a community-based organization (i.e., via a memorandum of understanding, community benefits agreement, steering committee, labor agreement, etc.) to acquire or distribute funding, identify project alternatives or project components, or otherwise enhance community engagement in project design, planning and implementation.
g. Developed project features or project alternatives collaboratively with the community by delegation of authority to choose between project alternatives or components to the community through a steering committee, organized voting process, representative community-based organization, or other means. 2) With regard to public events held by the project proponent to discuss this project proposal with the community, what was the approximate total attendance at those events? 6 3) With regard to other opportunities provided by the project proponent for community members to comment or provide input on the project, beyond those included in question 2, what is the approximate total number of people who provided commentary or input on the project through these opportunities?
80 4) Which of the following took place as part of the events & other opportunities identified? (Check all that apply):
a. Informed the community about various aspects of the project, including the process by which major decisions about the project would be made.
e. The project proponents, or those acting on their behalf, prepared and followed a community engagement plan that meets the minimum criteria originally established by the Transformative Climate Communities Program Priority Population Community Engagement: Identify the specific assessment for the Community Engagement Co-benefit (High, Medium, Low): High
Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 9 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
Is the project located outside of a disadvantaged community, but within 1/2 mile of a disadvantage community and within a low-income census tract? Yes
Step 2 - Identify a Need: Review the options and select one that explains how the community or household need for the priority population identified in Step 1 was determined.

Priority Populations Community Needs Description: Describe the community or household need and how it was identified. If option “B. Local Documentation” was chosen, briefly describe the documentation. If option “C. Data Tools” was chosen, include the name of the tool in the description.

C. Data Tools: Refer to one of the tools provided on the California Climate Investments website and confirm that the project will reduce the impacts related to at least one of the factors or indicators.

Does your Agency's Service Area have a Disadvantaged Community? (as defined by SB 535) Yes Is the project located within the boundaries of a Disadvantaged Community census tract? Yes Is the project located within the boundaries of a Low-Income community census tract? Yes LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Allocation Request Cycle A
Priority Populations Benefits
Step 1 - Identify the Priority Population: Determine if the project is at least partially located within a Priority Population census track or will benefit Priority Population households.

Agency can meet the DAC requirement by meeting any of the SB 1119 Project Criteria:

Is the project a transit fare subsidies or network and fare integration technology improvements, including, but not limited to, discounted or free student transit passes No
Is the project a purchase of zero-emission transit buses and/or purchase and installation of supporting infrastructure?
No
Is the project a new or expanded transit service that connects with transit service serving a disadvantaged communities?
No
Amount of FY 25-26 funds to benefit Low-Income Community: $29,400 Amount of FY 25-26 fund to benefit Low-Income Households and Residents within 1/2 mile of a DAC: $29,400 Total Amount of FY 25-26 LCTOP funds to benefit Priority Population (Total should not exceed total FY 25-26 LCTOP project funding): $117,602 Community needs were identified using the California Climate Investments Priority Populations Mapping Tool (CalEnviroScreen), which shows that disadvantaged and low-income communities in the Porterville Transit service area face higher pollution exposure and socioeconomic vulnerability. The project responds to the need to replace aging gasoline vehicles that contribute to emissions and local air pollution. These communities rely on transit for essential travel, making reliable and cleaner service critical. This project will replace older vehicles with new hybrid, wheelchair-accessible vans to reduce emissions, improve reliability, and enhance equitable access to transportation.

Step 3 - Provide a Benefit:Review the options below and select one that demonstrates how the project directly benefits the priority population identified in Step 1 and addresses the need identified in Step 2.

Priority Population Benefit: Select the benefit
your project provides to the community or
household.

B. Project provides increased access to clean and/or shared transportation options.

Please provide the amount of FY 25-26 LCTOP funds estimated to benefit Priority Populations.

Amount of FY 25-26 funds to benefit a Disadvantage Community (If you have a DAC, at least 50% must benefit a DAC) :
$58,802
Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 10 of 22
Sheet Name: Allocation_Request
Rev. 1-2026
Note to applicants:

A step-by-step user guide, including project examples, for this Benefits Calculator Tool is available here:

Step 2a: Identify the Project Type.

Step 2b: Input Project-specific Information.

Project Name:

SECTION 1: This section is used to determine the quantification method and emission factors to use to estimate emissions.

Project Info Inputs Input Required Description
Project Sub-Type
Purchase of replacement zero-emission
vehicle(s) (may include
equipment/infrastructure)
Automated For the purposes of this quantification, eligible LCTOP projects fall into four project types. Select the project type that best describes this component.

Quantification
Method Cleaner Vehicles/Technology/Fuels Searched Emission Estimates = Emissions from Baseline Vehicle – Emissions from New Vehicle Quantification
Method 1 Cleaner Vehicles/Technology/Fuels Searched The primary quantification method.

Quantification
Method 2 N/A Searched The secondary quantification method, if applicable.

Service Type Local/ Intercity Bus (Short Distances) Required Input The transit service (e.g., Intercity/Express Bus (Long Distance), Rail, Vanpool, etc.) directly associated with the proposed project. For projects that serve multiple services, select Multi-modal.

Type of Region County Required Input The type of region that best encompasses the geographic location for the proposed project type.

Region Tulare Required Input The County or Air Basin where the majority of the service occurs.

Year 1 (Yr1) 2026 Automated The first year of the rolling stock's useful life.

Year F (YrF) 2031 Automated The final year of the rolling stock's useful life.

Useful Life (yrs) 5 Calculated The useful life of the rolling stock. Limited to up to 50 years.

SECTION 2: This section is used to estimate the emission and cost reductions from displaced auto vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Displaced Auto VMT
Inputs Input Required Description
Yr1 Ridership Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

YrF Ridership Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Adjustment Factor Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Length of Average Trip
(mi) Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Passenger VMT
Reductions (mi) Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

GHG Emission
Reductions (MTCO2e) Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

City of Porterville Transit will use LCTOP funds over three years to purchase six (6) replacement transit hybrid vans, acquiring two (2) vans per year.

January 9, 2023 11 of 22 QM-Tool
SECTION 3: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from new service or from the purchase of new zero-emission/hybrid vehicle(s).

New Service Vehicle
Inputs Input Required Description
Vehicle Type Van Required Input The vehicle type (e.g., Transit Bus, Streetcar, Ferry, etc.) that will operate the new service or will be procured.

Engine Tier Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Engine Horsepower Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Fuel Type Gasoline Required Input The fuel type (e.g. Electric, Diesel, etc.) of the vehicle to be acquired.

Hybrid Vehicle Yes Required Input Is the vehicle to be acquired a hybrid? Model Year 2025 Required Input The engine model year of the vehicle to be acquired.

Project-Specific GHG
Emission Factor
(gCO2e/MJ)
Optional Input
If used, applicant must be able to demonstrate an approved carbon intensity value under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and submit additional documentation.

Annual VMT (mi/yr) 118,220 Required Input The estimated annual VMT of the vehicle to be acquired (e.g., 72,000 mi/yr).

Annual Fuel Use 14,224 Optional Input
The estimated annual fuel (i.e., gallons of diesel, KWh of electricity) of the rail or ferry to be acquired (e.g., 26,000 units/yr).

Units of gallons/yr for biodiesel, diesel, gasoline, LNG, renewable diesel; scf/yr for CNG and renewable natural gas; kWh/yr for electric; kg/yr for hydrogen.

SECTION 4: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from vehicle replacement as a result of the proposed project.

Baseline Vehicle
Inputs Required Description
Vehicle Type Van Required Input The vehicle type (e.g., Transit Bus, Streetcar, Ferry, etc.) that will operate the new service or will be procured.

Engine Tier Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Engine Horsepower Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Fuel Type Gasoline Required Input The fuel type (e.g. Electric, Diesel, etc.) of the vehicle to be acquired.

Hybrid Vehicle No Required Input Is the vehicle to be acquired a hybrid? Model Year 2019 Required Input The engine model year of the vehicle to be acquired.

Annual VMT
(mi/yr) 118,220 Required Input The estimated annual VMT of the vehicle to be acquired (e.g., 72,000 mi/yr).

Annual Fuel Use 14,224 Required Input
The estimated annual fuel (i.e., gallons of diesel, KWh of electricity) of the rail or ferry to be acquired (e.g., 26,000 units/yr).

Units of gallons/yr for biodiesel, diesel, gasoline, LNG, renewable diesel; scf/yr for CNG and renewable natural gas; kWh/yr for electric; kg/yr for hydrogen.

January 9, 2023 12 of 22 QM-Tool
SECTION 5: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from fuel/energy reductions as a result of the proposed project.

Fuel/Energy
Reductions Inputs Input Required Description
Vehicle Type Not Required The vehicle type (e.g., Transit Bus, Streetcar, Ferry, etc.) of the vehicle(s) that will realize fuel/energy reductions as a result of The project.

Engine Tier Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Engine Horsepower Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Fuel Type Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Model Year Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Annual Fuel/Energy
Reduced Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

SECTION 6: This section is used to estimate the travel cost savings as a result of the proposed project.

Travel Cost Savings
Inputs Input Required Description
Baseline Average OneWay Fare Cost ($/OneWay Trip/Rider) $1.50 Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

New Average
One-Way Fare Cost
($/One-Way Trip/Rider)
$0.00 Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Average Transit Facility
Parking Cost
($/Roundtrip/Rider)
$0.00 Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Average Avoided
Parking Cost
($/Roundtrip/Rider)
$0.00 Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

Average Avoided Toll
Cost
($/Roundtrip/Rider)
$0.00 Not Required Not applicable for this project type.

This section is used to estimate the travel cost savings as a result of the proposed project.

Total Project GHG
Emission Reductions
(MTCO2e)
817 Calculated Total GHG emission reductions (MTCO2e) from the project during the useful life.

FY 2025-26 LCTOP
Project GHG Emission
Reductions (MTCO2e)
817 Calculated
The portion of GHG emission reductions attributable to funding from FY 24-25 LCTOP; GHG emission reductions are prorated according to the level of program funding contributed from FY 24-25 LCTOP and other GGRF-funded programs, as applicable.

January 9, 2023 13 of 22 QM-Tool
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Project Location Information
Location Name Latitude Longitude Priority Population
J and 8th 38.580997 -121.496433 Disadvantaged Community 61 West Oak St, Porterville Transit 39.098778 -120.956062 DAC and LICH East Porterville 36.062145 -118.987578 Disadvantaged Community (DAC) West Porterville 36.065821 -119.070923 Low-Income w/n 1/2 mile of a DAC If you are claiming a Priority Population benefit, please provide at least one location point to each claimed community within the first three rows. Then select from the drop down which community the location points are representing.

Please provide specific area information for the project. Lat-Long for the project should be in decimal degrees.

Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 14 of 22
Sheet Name: Lat-Long
Rev. 1-2024
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Project Location Information
Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 15 of 22
Sheet Name: Lat-Long
Rev. 1-2024
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Project Location Information
Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 16 of 22
Sheet Name: Lat-Long
Rev. 1-2024
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 Project Location Information
Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 17 of 22
Sheet Name: Lat-Long
Rev. 1-2024
LCTOP FY 2025-2026 MAP
Please insert a screenshot of the project area from the CARB Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Project Map https://gis.carb.arb.ca.gov/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=5dc1218631fa46bc8d340b8e82548a6a&page=Priority-Populations-4_0 Division of Local Assistance
Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 18 of 22
Sheet Name: Map
Rev. 1-2024
Step 3: Review the Estimated GHG Emission Reductions for the Proposed Project Project Name:

City of Porterville Transit will use
LCTOP funds over three years to
purchase six (6) replacement transit
hybrid vans, acquiring two (2) vans
per year.

Quantified GHG Component 1 Quantified GHG Component 2
Identifying Descriptor
City of Porterville Transit will use
LCTOP funds over three years to
procure six transit vans (two annually)
to improve service and reduce GHG
emissions. The project prioritizes zeroemission vehicles, with hybrids as GHG Emission Reduction Start Date (Year) 2026; 2026
Total CCI
Total GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) 817
Total GGRF Funds Requested ($) $539,700
Total GHG Emission Reductions/Total GGRF Funds
Requested (MTCO2e/$) 0.001513
LCTOP
TIRCP GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) 817
TIRCP Funds Requested ($) $539,700
TIRCP GHG Emission Reductions/TIRCP Funds
Requested (MTCO2e/$) 0.001513
TIRCP Funds Requested/TIRCP GHG Emission
Reductions ($/MTCO2e) 661
Additional CCI Program 1
CCI Program
GHG Emission Reductions Attributable to other GGRF
Programs (MTCO2e)
January 9, 2023 19 of 22 GHG Summary
Total Additional GGRF Funds to Implement Project ($)
Additional CCI Program 2
CCI Program
GHG Emission Reductions Attributable to other GGRF
Programs (MTCO2e)
Total Additional GGRF Funds to Implement Project ($)
January 9, 2023 20 of 22 GHG Summary
Step 3: Review the Estimated GHG Emission Reductions for the Proposed Project Project Name:

Quantified
Co-Benefit
Component 1
Quantified
Co-Benefit
Component 2
Identifying Descriptor
City of Porterville
Transit will use
LCTOP funds
over three years
to procure six
transit vans (two
Total CCI
Passenger VMT Reductions
(miles)
Fossil Fuel Use Reductions (gallons)
Fossil Fuel Energy Use Reductions (kWh)
Energy and Fuel Cost Savings ($)
Passenger Travel Cost Savings ($)
ROG Emission Reductions (lbs) 9
NOx Emission Reductions (lbs) 30
PM2.5 Emission Reductions (lbs) (1)
Diesel PM Emission Reductions (lbs)
TIRCP
Passenger VMT Reductions
(miles)
Fossil Fuel Use Reductions (gallons)
Fossil Fuel Energy Use Reductions (kWh)
Energy and Fuel Cost Savings ($)
Passenger Travel Cost Savings ($)
ROG Emission Reductions (lbs) 9
NOx Emission Reductions (lbs) 30
PM2.5 Emission Reductions (lbs) (1)
Diesel PM Emission Reductions (lbs)
City of Porterville Transit will use LCTOP funds over three years to purchase six (6) replacement transit hybrid vans, acquiring two (2) vans per year.

January 9, 2023 21 of 22 Co-benefits Summary
Additional CCI Program 1
Passenger VMT Reductions
(miles)
Fossil Fuel Use Reductions (gallons)
Fossil Fuel Energy Use Reductions (kWh)
Energy and Fuel Cost Savings ($)
Passenger Travel Cost Savings ($)
ROG Emission Reductions (lbs)
NOx Emission Reductions (lbs)
PM2.5 Emission Reductions (lbs)
Diesel PM Emission Reductions (lbs)
Additional CCI Program 2
Passenger VMT Reductions
(miles)
Fossil Fuel Use Reductions (gallons)
Fossil Fuel Energy Use Reductions (kWh)
Energy and Fuel Cost Savings ($)
Passenger Travel Cost Savings ($)
ROG Emission Reductions (lbs)
NOx Emission Reductions (lbs)
PM2.5 Emission Reductions (lbs)
Diesel PM Emission Reductions (lbs)
January 9, 2023 22 of 22 Co-benefits Summary
FY 2025-2026 LCTOP
Authorized Agent
AS THE Mayor
(Chief Executive Officer/Director/President/Secretary)
OF THE City of Porterville
(Name of County/City/Transit Organization)
I hereby authorize the following individual(s) to execute for and on behalf of the named Regional Entity/Transit Operator, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funds provided by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Local Assistance. I understand that if there is a change in the authorized agent, the project sponsor must submit a new form. This form is required even when the authorized agent is the executive authority himself. I understand the Board must provide a resolution approving the Authorized Agent. The Board Resolution appointing the Authorized Agent is attached.

Russell Isom, Transportation Director OR
(Name and Title of Authorized Agent)
Alberto Barragan, Transportation Manager OR
(Name and Title of Authorized Agent)
Teresa Avitia, Grants and Procurement Coordinator OR
(Name and Title of Authorized Agent)
Click here to enter text. OR
(Name and Title of Authorized Agent)
Greg Meister Mayor
(Print Name) (Title)
(Signature)
Approved this 2
day
of June , 2026
FY 2025-2026 LCTOP
Certifications and Assurances
Lead Agency: City of Porterville
Project Title:

City of Porterville Transit will use LCTOP funds over three years to purchase six (6) replacement transit hybrid vans, acquiring two (2) vans per year.

Prepared by: Teresa Avitia, Grant and Procurement Coordinator The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has adopted the following Certifications and Assurances for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP).

As a condition of the receipt of LCTOP funds, Lead Agency must comply with these terms and conditions.

A. General

1. The Lead Agency agrees to abide by the current LCTOP Guidelines and applicable legal requirements.

2. The Lead Agency must submit to Caltrans a signed Authorized Agent form designating the representative who can submit documents on behalf of the project sponsor and a copy of the board resolution appointing the Authorized Agent.

B. Project Administration

1. The Lead Agency certifies that required environmental documentation is complete before requesting an allocation of LCTOP funds. The Lead Agency assures that projects approved for LCTOP funding comply with Public Resources Code § 21100 and § 21150.

2. The Lead Agency certifies that a dedicated bank account for LCTOP funds only will be established within 30 days of receipt of LCTOP funds.

3. The Lead Agency certifies that when LCTOP funds are used for a transit capital project, that the project will be completed and remain in operation for its useful life.

4. The Lead Agency certifies that it has the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out the project, including the safety and security aspects of that project.

5. The Lead Agency certifies that they will notify Caltrans of pending litigation, dispute, or negative audit findings related to the project, before receiving an allocation of funds.

6. The Lead Agency must maintain satisfactory continuing control over the use of project equipment and facilities and will adequately maintain project equipment and facilities for the useful life of the project.

7. Any interest the Lead Agency earns on LCTOP funds must be used only on approved LCTOP projects.

FY 2025-2026 LCTOP

8. The Lead Agency must notify Caltrans of any changes to the approved project with a Corrective Action Plan (CAP).

9. Under extraordinary circumstances, a Lead Agency may terminate a project prior to completion. In the event the Lead Agency terminates a project prior to completion, the Lead Agency must (1) contact Caltrans in writing and follow-up with a phone call verifying receipt of such notice; (2) pursuant to verification, submit a final report indicating the reason for the termination and demonstrating the expended funds were used on the intended purpose; (3) submit a request to reassign the funds to a new project within 180 days of termination.

C. Reporting

1. The Lead Agency must submit the following LCTOP reports:
a. Annual Project Activity Reports October 30th each year. b. A Close Out Report within six months of project completion. c. The annual audit required under the Transportation Development Act (TDA), to verify receipt and appropriate expenditure of LCTOP funds. A copy of the audit report must be submitted to Caltrans within six months of the close of the year (December 31) each year in which LCTOP funds have been received or expended.
d. Project Outcome Reporting as defined by CARB Funding Guidelines. e. Jobs Reporting as defined by CARB Funding Guidelines.

2. Other Reporting Requirements: CARB develops and revises Funding Guidelines that will include reporting requirements for all State agencies that receive appropriations from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Caltrans and project sponsors will need to submit reporting information in accordance with CARB’s Funding Guidelines, including reporting on greenhouse gas reductions and benefits to disadvantaged communities.

D. Cost Principles

1. The Lead Agency agrees to comply with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations 225 (2 CFR 225), Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.

2. The Lead Agency agrees, and will assure that its contractors and subcontractors will be obligated to agree, that:
a. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allow ability of individual project cost items and
FY 2025-2026 LCTOP
b. Those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Every sub-recipient receiving LCTOP funds as a contractor or sub-contractor shall comply with
Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.

3. Any project cost for which the Lead Agency has received funds that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR 225, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 or 2 CFR, Part 200, are subject to repayment by the Lead Agency to the State of California (State). All projects must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required under Public Resources Code section 75230, and any project that fails to reduce greenhouse gases shall also have its project costs submit to repayment by the Lead Agency to the State. Should the Lead Agency fail to reimburse moneys due to the State within thirty (30) days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, the State is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due the Lead Agency from the State or any third-party source, including but not limited to, the State Treasurer and the State Controller.

A. Record Retention

1. The Lead Agency agrees and will assure that its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate incurred project costs and matching funds by line item for the project.

The accounting system of the Lead Agency, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion. All accounting records and other supporting papers of the Lead Agency, its contractors and subcontractors connected with LCTOP funding shall be maintained for a minimum of three (3) years after the “Project Closeout” report or final Phase 2 report is submitted (per CARB Funding Guidelines, Vol. 3, page 3.A-16), and shall be held open to inspection, copying, and audit by representatives of the State and the California State Auditor.

Copies thereof will be furnished by the Lead Agency, its contractors, and subcontractors upon receipt of any request made by the State or its agents. In conducting an audit of the costs claimed, the State will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of the Lead Agency pursuant to the provisions of federal and State law. In the absence of such an audit, any acceptable audit work performed by the Lead Agency’s external and internal auditors may be relied upon and used by the State when planning and conducting additional audits.

2. For the purpose of determining compliance with Title 21, California Code of Regulations, Section 2500 et seq., when applicable, and other matters connected with FY 2025-2026 LCTOP
the performance of the Lead Agency’s contracts with third parties pursuant to Government Code § 8546.7, the project sponsor, its contractors and subcontractors and the State shall each maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the entire project period and for three (3) years from the date of final payment. The State, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of the State, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent to a project for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and the Lead Agency shall furnish copies thereof if requested.

3. The Lead Agency, its contractors and subcontractors will permit access to all records of employment, employment advertisements, employment application forms, and other pertinent data and records by the Civil Rights Department, or any other agency of the State of California designated by the State, for the purpose of any investigation to ascertain compliance with this document.

F. Special Situations
Caltrans may perform an audit and/or request detailed project information of the project sponsor’s LCTOP funded projects at Caltrans’ discretion at any time prior to the completion of the LCTOP.

I certify all these conditions will be met.

Russell Isom Director of Transportation
(Print Authorized Agent) (Title)
June 2, 2026
(Signature) (Date)
FY 2025-2026 LCTOP
RESOLUTION #______-2026

AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE

CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES AND AUTHORIZED AGENT FORMS

FOR THE LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP)
FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT(S): PURCHASE SIX (6) REPLACEMENT TRANSIT HYBRID VANS, ACQUIRING TWO (2) VANS PER YEAR.

Cycle A - $117,602
Cycle B - $62,298
WHEREAS, the City of Porterville is an eligible project sponsor and may receive state funding from the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) for transit projects; and WHEREAS, the statutes related to state-funded transit projects require a local or regional implementing agency to abide by various regulations; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 862 (2014) named the Department of Transportation (Department) as the administrative agency for the LCTOP; and
WHEREAS, the Department has developed guidelines for the purpose of administering and distributing LCTOP funds to eligible project sponsors (local agencies); and WHEREAS, the City of Porterville wishes to delegate authorization to execute these documents and any amendments thereto to Russell Isom, Transportation Director.

WHEREAS, the City of Porterville wishes to implement the following LCTOP project(s) listed above,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the City of Porterville that the fund recipient agrees to comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in the Certification and Assurances and the Authorized Agent documents and applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines for all LCTOP funded transit projects.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Russell Isom, Transportation Director, be authorized to execute all required documents of the LCTOP program and any Amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the City of Porterville that it hereby authorizes the submittal of the following project nomination(s) and allocation request(s) to the Department in FY2025-2026 LCTOP funds:
(Continued to next page)
FY 2025-2026 LCTOP
List project(s), including the following information:

Project Name: Purchase six (6) replacement hybrid vans, acquiring two (2) vans per year.

Short Description of Project: City of Porterville Transit will use LCTOP funds over three years to purchase six (6) transit vans, acquiring two (2) per year, to improve transit service and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Vehicles will prioritize zero-emission technology, with hybrid options.

Amount of LCTOP funds requested: $177,602
Benefits to a Priority Populations: Porterville Transit anticipates that disadvantaged communities (DACs) and low-income households (LICHs) within the service area will directly benefit from this project through continued access to affordable, accessible transportation options. The city engages the public through outreach events, annual transit hearings, and social media to share information and gather feedback. These efforts help ensure residents are informed about available services and the benefits of clean transportation, including improved mobility and reduced air pollution.

Amount of Priority Populations benefits: $177,602
Contributing Sponsors: Tulare County Association of Governments, 210 N. Church St., Suite B, Visalia, CA 93291
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED This 2nd Day OF June 2026.

AGENCY BOARD DESIGNEE:
_________________________________
Greg Meister, Mayor
____________________________________
ATTEST:

Richard I. Tree, City Manager
By:

Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Chief Deputy City Clerk
BY: ________________________________
Item No. 11.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of HOME Loan Payoff for Sequoia Village at River’s Edge SOURCE: Community Development
COMMENT:

On March 1, 2007, the City of Porterville entered into a HOME Investment Partnerships Program Loan Agreement with Porterville Pacific Associates, a California Limited Partnership, for the development of Sequoia Village at River’s Edge, a 64-unit affordable housing development located in the City of Porterville. The City provided HOME Program funding in the amount of $975,000 to support the development and operation of affordable housing units for low-income and very low-income households.

As part of the financing arrangement, the City recorded a Deed of Trust and Regulatory Agreement against the property to ensure compliance with federal HOME Program affordability requirements and long-term affordability obligations. The Regulatory Agreement established a 55-year affordability period requiring the property to continue operating as affordable housing for eligible low-income households throughout the duration of the affordability period.

The Housing Authority of Tulare County is currently in the process of acquiring the property and has requested authorization to pay off the outstanding HOME loan obligation as part of the ownership transfer transaction.

The outstanding principal balance of the HOME loan is $975,000, plus any accrued interest or residual receipt obligations due under the Loan Agreement.

Although the HOME loan would be paid in full through the proposed transaction, the affordability restrictions recorded against the property will remain in effect and continue to bind future owners of the property for the remainder of the affordability period. The recorded Regulatory Agreement specifically provides that the affordability restrictions remain in effect for 55 years and run with the land regardless of ownership changes or repayment of the HOME loan.

Item No. 11.

Because the Regulatory Agreement was recorded in 2007, the affordability restrictions are expected to remain in effect through approximately August 2062.

The proposed transaction does not eliminate or reduce the number of affordable housing units required under the existing Regulatory Agreement.

The property will continue operating as an affordable housing development subject to all applicable HOME Program requirements, including income eligibility requirements, rent restrictions, reporting obligations, and long-term affordability provisions.

Approval of the proposed payoff will allow the transaction to move forward while preserving the City’s affordable housing protections and maintaining compliance with federal HOME Program requirements.

Upon closing of escrow, the City will receive repayment of the outstanding HOME loan balance. Loan repayment funds will be returned to the applicable HOME Program fund and administered in accordance with applicable federal regulations governing HOME Program income and repayment funds. There is no anticipated impact to the City’s General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Authorize the Housing Authority of Tulare County to pay off the outstanding HOME Investment Partnerships Program
(“HOME”) loan associated with Sequoia Village at River’s Edge, including all accrued interest and obligations due under the Loan Agreement;

2. Acknowledge that the property shall remain subject to the existing Regulatory Agreement and affordability restrictions for the remainder of the 55-year affordability period; and

3. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents associated with the payoff and transfer of ownership, subject to approval by the City Attorney.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Construction Deed of Trust

2. Regulatory Agreement

3. HOME Loan Agreement & Deed of Trust

4. HATC Letter of Interest
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Item No. 11.

Department Director:

Luisa Zavala, Economic and Housing Development Manager
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

1 of 29
2 of 29
3 of 29
4 of 29
5 of 29
6 of 29
7 of 29
8 of 29
9 of 29
10 of 29
11 of 29
12 of 29
13 of 29
14 of 29
15 of 29
16 of 29
17 of 29
18 of 29
19 of 29
20 of 29
21 of 29
22 of 29
23 of 29
24 of 29
25 of 29
26 of 29
27 of 29
28 of 29
29 of 29
1 of 15
2 of 15
3 of 15
4 of 15
5 of 15
6 of 15
7 of 15
8 of 15
9 of 15
10 of 15
11 of 15
12 of 15
13 of 15
14 of 15
15 of 15

Item No. 12.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of Parenting Network “Summer Festival” Community Civic Event SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: The Parenting Network is requesting approval to conduct the “Summer Festival” Community Civic Event on Friday, July 17, 2026, at Zalud Park from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The event is intended to provide a family-friendly community gathering featuring food, games, music, and activities for all ages while promoting positive community engagement during the summer season.

Event organizers anticipate attendance of approximately 100 to 200 participants. The required park reservation has been secured through the Parks and Leisure Services Department. An Outside Amplifier Permit has also been approved for the duration of the event.

The Community Civic Event Application has been submitted in accordance with Community Civic Events Ordinance No. 1326, as amended. The application has been reviewed by all required City departments, including the Police Department, Fire Department, Parks and Leisure Services Department, Administrative Services Department, and Risk Management. All applicable operational requirements and conditions are outlined in the Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and the Outside Amplifier Permit.

Food vendors participating in the event will be required to comply with all applicable County health requirements and Fire Department safety regulations. In addition, the required certificate of liability insurance and additional insured endorsement have been reviewed and approved.

Staff believes the proposed event will provide a positive community gathering opportunity while maintaining appropriate operational, safety, and risk management requirements.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Community Civic Event Application submitted by Parenting Network for the “Summer Festival” event scheduled for July 17, 2026, at Zalud Park, subject to the conditions and requirements contained within the Item No. 12.

Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and the Outside Amplifier Permit.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. CCE Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Outside Amplifier Permit, Map, Certificate of Liability Insurance, and Flyer.

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Trisha Whiteley, Accountant II
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 13.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of Parenting Network “Backpacks & Beyond” Community Civic Event SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: The Parenting Network is requesting approval to conduct the “Backpacks & Beyond” Community Civic Event on Friday, August 7, 2026, at Zalud Park from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The event is intended to provide a family-friendly community gathering featuring free backpacks, school supplies, snacks, refreshments, and school readiness resources to help children prepare for a successful school year.

Event organizers anticipate an attendance of approximately 100 to 200 participants. The required park reservation has been secured through the Parks and Leisure Services Department. An Outside Amplifier Permit has also been approved for the duration of the event.

Staff believes the proposed event will provide a positive community benefit by assisting local families and students with back-to-school resources while maintaining appropriate operational, safety, and risk management requirements.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Community Civic Event Application submitted by Parenting Network for the “Backpacks Item No. 13.
& Beyond” event scheduled for August 7, 2026, at Zalud Park, subject to the conditions and requirements contained within the Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and the Outside Amplifier Permit.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. CCE Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Outside Amplifier Permit, Map, Certificate of Liability Insurance, and Flyer.

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Trisha Whiteley, Accountant II
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 14.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of For the Kidz Global Corporation “3rd Annual Watermelon Festival” Community Civic Event
SOURCE: Finance
COMMENT: For the Kidz Global Corporation is requesting approval to conduct the “3rd Annual Watermelon Festival” Community Civic Event on Sunday, July 19, 2026, at Veterans Park from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The event is intended to promote community engagement, support local vendors, and provide a family-friendly summer activity for residents and visitors.

The event will feature watermelon contests, vendor booths, live music, familyoriented games, entertainment, community activities, and local vendor participation. Staff believes the event will provide a positive opportunity for the community to gather and activate Veterans Park through a family-oriented seasonal event.

An Outside Amplifier Permit has been approved to accommodate event setup, live music, announcements, and event activities from 1:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

The Community Civic Event Application has been reviewed by all required City departments, including Police, Fire, Parks and Leisure Services, Administrative Services, and Risk Management staff. All applicable operational requirements and event conditions are outlined in the Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and the Outside Amplifier Permit.

The required park reservation, certificate of liability insurance, and additional insured endorsement have been reviewed and approved.

Staff believes the proposed event provides a positive community benefit while maintaining appropriate operational, safety, and risk management requirements.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Community Civic Event Application submitted by For the Kidz Global Corporation for the “3rd Annual Watermelon Festival” event scheduled for July 19, Item No. 14.
2026, at Veterans Park, subject to the conditions and
requirements contained within the Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and the Outside Amplifier Permit.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. CCE Application and Agreement, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Outside Amplifier Permit, Map, Certificate of Liability Insurance, and Flyer.

Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Trisha Whiteley, Accountant II
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Item No. 15.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Proclamation Recognizing “United Under One Flag” – June 14 through July 4, 2026
SOURCE: Administrative Services
COMMENT: On December 19, 2023, the City Council amended the process for approving proclamations. Pursuant to the adopted proclamation policy, requests receiving support from more than two Council Members are placed on a City Council agenda for formal consideration.

The City of Porterville – City Manager’s Office submitted a request for a proclamation recognizing the period between June 14 and July 4, 2026, as “United Under One Flag” within the City of Porterville. Mayor Greg Meister is sponsoring the request.

The proposed proclamation is intended to recognize and promote patriotic activities occurring throughout the community between Flag Day and Independence Day, including the annual Flag Day Ceremony and related community events coordinated by the Porterville Flag Day Committee.

The Porterville Flag Day Committee consists of several local organizations and community partners that support patriotic events and activities throughout the community, including the Elks Lodge, Emblem Club, American Legion, American Legion Auxiliary, Old Glory Club, Grocery Outlet, Save Mart Supermarkets, Porterville Chamber of Commerce, Porterville Exchange Club, and The Porterville Recorder.

Because more than two Council Members indicated support for signing the proclamation, this item is presented for City Council consideration in accordance with the adopted proclamation policy. If approved, the proclamation will be prepared with the appropriate number of Council Member signature blocks and affixed with the City Seal.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the proclamation recognizing the period between June 14 and July 4, 2026, as “United Under One Flag” in the City of Porterville.

Item No. 15.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proclamation Request - United Under One Flag - 2026 Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Yuliana Andrade, Administrative Services Director
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk ---------
------------
----------------------------
City of Porterville

REQUEST FOR PROCLAMATION
IVED
APR 1 4 2026 Date of Request: _A_p_r_il_1_4,_2_0_2_6____ Name of EvenUlndividual: Flag Day - "250 Years of American History" i.e. "Porterville Tourism Week", "Mr. John Doe"
Name of Sponsoring Organization: City of Porterville - City Manager's Office Name of Contact Person: Yuriko Velarde/Yolanda Bocanegra Address: 291 N. Main St. , Porterville, Ca.

Phone: 559-306-1211 Email: [email protected] .us I would like the proclamation: □ mailed □ call for pick up Kl presented at an event Date Needed: June 14, 2026 Date of Event: June 14, 2026 Please attach a sample of your proclamation, or the pertinent information needed to formulate your proclamation. It is recommended that you submit your request at least four to six weeks in advance. If assistance is needed, or if you need a sample provided, or to return this form, contact:

Office of City Clerk
291 North Main Street
Porterville, CA 93257
(559) 782-7464 I Fax (559) 782-7452
Please be advised that a Proclamation is ceremonial in nature and does not convey official legislative action. The City reserves the right to correct grammar and spelling; to reject all advocacy of unlawful acts; and to reject all discriminatory language.

Citv Clerk's S~ction • ••• • .. -I
Request Received by:~ Routed by: ~ Date: </-z.. r./~
Granted by Council_Member: ~ <>I V\\GJ <"d::'2-:::':: Date: s/ 'vt/ ~ Signatures:

Date Requestor
~'~/
Notified ofCompletion. _______
kJ,~/ ~
in
te:d
writing
.. ~
□ by phone □
Comments:

WHEREAS: There is a three-week period between Flag Day, June 14, 2026, and Independence Day July 4, 2026;and
WHEREAS: The local patriotic activities during this period have grown to involve the support of several community-based institutions, service clubs and community organizations; and WHEREAS: These organizations consist ofthe Elks Lodge, Emblem Club, American Legion, American Legion Auxiliary, Old Glory Club, Grocery Outlet, 50 W. Olive LLC, M.D. Atkinson, Save Mart Supermarkets, Porterville Chamber of Commerce, the Porterville Exchange Club, and The Porterville Recorder; and
WHEREAS: These organizations form the Porterville Flag Day Committee; and WHEREAS: It is the wish of the Porterville Flag Day Committee for the entire community to join with them in the events occurring during this period; and
WHEREAS: The Porterville Flag Day Committee encourages all citizens to display "OLD GLORY" each day from Flag Day to Independence Day, and to participate in the 45th Annual Flag Day Ceremony at 50 W. Olive Avenue, at 10:00 a.m. on June 14, 2026 NOW, THEREFORE I, Greg Meister, Mayor of the City of Porterville, on behalf ofthe Porterville City Council, do hereby proclaim the period between June 14 and July 4, 2026 as, "UNITED UNDER ONE FLAG"
and encourage all citizens to participate in many patriotic activities.

PROCLAIMED this 14th day of June 2026.

Item No. 16.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – JUNE 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of the Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project SOURCE: Engineering and Project Management
COMMENT: The proposed Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project is located entirely on the Tule River Indian Reservation. The Project includes the construction of two pedestrian bridge crossings intended to improve pedestrian connectivity and safety throughout the Village area of the Reservation. Generally, the Project would provide safer routes for Tule River Tribe pedestrians to cross the South Fork of the Tule River to access educational, governmental, recreational, and community facilities.

Project components include:

1. Replacement of the existing pedestrian swinging bridge.

2. A new pedestrian bridge to connect Cow Mountain Road and the corridor to the Justice Center.

3. Class 1 trail.

4. Approximately 3,765 SF of concrete sidewalk.

5. Seven (7) accessible curb ramps.

6. Two (2) streetlights for the N. Reservation Road corridor.

7. Eight (8) new solar-powered Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) (4 locations; 2 RRFBs assumed per location).

8. Two (2) raised pedestrian crossings.

9. Reconfiguration of back-in-angled parking stalls.

10. Landscaping and irrigation for the length of the project.

11. Signing and pavement delineation improvements for the corridor, including pedestrian bridge crossings.

The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for a 30-day public review period beginning April 28, 2026, and ending May 27, 2026. During the public review period, comments were received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding biological resource mitigation measures and project implementation requirements.

Item No. 16.

Following the close of the public hearing and Council consideration, applicable comments received during the public review period, including comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, will be incorporated into the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and project implementation documents, as appropriate.

Based on the environmental analysis contained within the IS/MND and implementation of the mitigation measures identified therein, staff has determined that the project will not result in a significant effect on the environment.

BACKGROUND: The Tule River Tribe has identified pedestrian safety improvements within the Village area of the Tule River Indian Reservation as a longstanding priority. Existing pedestrian circulation routes require residents, students, employees, and visitors to cross the South Fork of the Tule River and Reservation Road with limited pedestrian infrastructure and accessibility improvements.

The proposed project is intended to improve pedestrian connectivity, accessibility, and safety through the construction of replacement and new pedestrian bridges, sidewalks, accessible curb ramps, pedestrian crossing improvements, lighting, signage, and related infrastructure enhancements.

The project is funded through transportation-related grant funding intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety infrastructure. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Porterville is serving as the Lead Agency for environmental review associated with the project.

ANALYSIS: The Initial Study evaluated potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, hydrology, transportation, noise, hazardous materials, and other environmental categories required under CEQA.

The analysis concluded that all potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

The cumulative impact is limited to the Tule River Tribe Reservation area, specifically along the project corridor for the enhanced and new pedestrian and cyclist facilities. The proposed Project is intended to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety and accessibility and would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts.

Item No. 16.

ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW:

Pursuant to CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project. On April 16, 2026, the Environmental Coordinator made a preliminary determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for the proposed project in light of the studies prepared and with implementation of defined mitigation measures related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Mandatory Findings of Significance.

The Initial Study and proposed Mitigation Measures were transmitted to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for a 30-day public review period from April 28, 2026, through May 27, 2026.

At the time of preparation of this staff report, comments had been received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding additional biological monitoring and mitigation recommendations. Staff will incorporate applicable recommendations into the finalized Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and project implementation documents, as appropriate.

The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was also circulated through the State Clearinghouse under State Clearinghouse No. 2026041305.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Hold the noticed Public Hearing to receive public testimony regarding the proposed project; and

2. Adopt the draft resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approving the Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND)

3. Locator Map

4. Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

5. Response - California Department of Fish and Wildlife Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Item No. 16.

Clayton Dignam, Interim Engineering and Project Management Director/Fire Marshal
Final Approver: Fernando Gabriel-Moraga, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ____-2026

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

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR,

AND APPROVING, THE TULE RIVER TRIBE COMPLETE STREETS AND TWO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES

PROJECT
WHEREAS: the City Council of the City of Porterville at its regularly scheduled meeting of June 2, 2026, conducted a public meeting to consider approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS: The cumulative impact is limited to the Tule River Tribe Reservation area, specifically, along the Project’s limitations for the enhanced and new pedestrian and cyclist facilities.

The Project includes the construction of two pedestrian bridge crossings, new sidewalk improvements, accessible curb ramps, streetlights, solar-powered Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, pedestrian crossings, landscaping and irrigation, and signage; and WHEREAS: the Project would provide safer routes for Tule River Tribe pedestrians to cross the South Fork of the Tule River to access an education center and gymnasium and provide safe river crossings via pedestrian bridges.

WHEREAS: the aforementioned activities, individually and collectively, constitute a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS: the City prepared an Initial Study pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS: the Initial Study indicated the potential for significant effects in the environmental factors of resource areas of Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance; and WHEREAS: the Initial Study concluded that with implementation of mitigation measures, all potentially significant effects resulting from the Project can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, and that adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate; and WHEREAS: there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project, with the adoption of the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program would have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS: on April 16, 2026, the Environmental Coordinator, made a preliminary determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for the proposed Project; and
Resolution No. ____-2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

WHEREAS: pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, on or about March 9, 2026, the City provided notice of the Project to Kern Valley Indian Community, Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians, Table Mountain Rancheria, traditional Choinumni Tribe, Tubatulabals of Kern Valley, Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band and the Tule River Indian Tribe, and only received one response from the Tule River Indian Tribe requesting to remain involved in the project; and
WHEREAS: on April 24, 2026, a notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in The Porterville Recorder and was filed with the Tulare County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse and posted at the City Hall and on the City’s website, said notice identifying a public review and comment period of 30 days starting on April 28, 2026, and ending on May 27, 2026. Comments were received from the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife which shall be incorporated into the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project; and
WHEREAS: the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was uploaded to the State Clearinghouse, assigned a State Clearinghouse Number: 2026041305, and circulated for a period of 30 days starting on April 28, 2026, and ending on May 27, 2026; and WHEREAS: the City Council has received and considered the information contained therein; and
WHEREAS: The proposed Project is not subject to General Plan goals, policies, and actions and would not be subject to zone classifications as it is intended to enhance pedestrian and cyclists’ safety.

The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; it would not substantially damage scenic resources, (including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway); and it would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Site and its surroundings. The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and it would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetic resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant; and WHEREAS: The City Council considered the following findings in its review of the environmental circumstances for this project:

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

2. That the City Council is the decision-making body for the Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges project.

3. On April 16, 2026, the Environmental Coordinator made a preliminary determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for the Project in light of the studies prepared and with implementation of defined mitigation measures Resolution No. ____-2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

related to Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources and Mandatory Findings of Significance. The Initial Study and proposed Mitigation Measures have been transmitted to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for a 30-day review period from April 28, 2026, through May 27, 2026. At the time of writing the staff report, the only comments received were from the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife which shall be incorporated into the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

4. That review of the environmental circumstances regarding this project indicates that no adverse impacts would occur to biological resources or geology soils when the mitigation measures are implemented. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant were defined and have been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached as an exhibit to this resolution (Exhibit A). In addition to these mitigation measures, any further mitigation measures recommended by a responsible or trustee agency shall be upheld at the expense of the applicant with the oversight of the City and said responsible or trustee agency.

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

6. The developer/applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures adopted as a component of the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The developer/applicant will be required to sign a document committing to comply with the adopted mitigation measures prior to any construction on the site.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville does hereby approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Tule River Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project, and that the mitigation measures defined in Exhibit A shall be implemented by the developer/applicant or his/her partners and successors with project implementation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Porterville hereby determines to carry out the Tule River Complete Streets and Pedestrian Bridges Project and directs the City Manager or his designee to execute the necessary documents and actions to effect its construction and operation.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Resolution No. ____-2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 2026.

Greg Meister, Mayor
ATTEST:

Richard Tree, City Clerk
By: ______________________________
Fernando Gabriel-Moraga,
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two
Pedestrian Bridges
April 2026
Prepared By: Prepared For:
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S Santa Fe Street,
Suite A
Visalia, CA, 93292
City of Porterville
291 N Main Street
Porterville, CA
93257
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: CEQA Review Process......................................................................................................1-1

1.1. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines...................................................................................1-1

1.2. Initial Study........................................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3. Environmental Checklist.........................................................................................................................................1-2

1.4. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration................................................................................1-2

1.5. Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration............................................................. 1-3

1.6. Intended Uses of Initial Study/Negative Declaration Documents........................................... 1-3

1.7. Notice of Determination (NOD) ........................................................................................................................ 1-4

1.8. CEQA Process Flow Chart...................................................................................................................................... 1-5 SECTION 2: Project Description ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1. Project Description and Purpose......................................................................................................................2-1

2.2. Project Location ............................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.3. Other Permits and Approvals .............................................................................................................................2-1 SECTION 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration........................................................................................ 3-2

3.3 Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts........................................................................................................3-8

3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................................3-9

3.5 Environmental Analysis .........................................................................................................................................3-11 I. AESTHETICS ...........................................................................................................................................................................3-12 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: ............................................................................................................3-17 III. AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................................................................3-22 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................................................3-46 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................................3-64 VI. ENERGY................................................................................................................................................................................ 3-87 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................................................3-96 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS........................................................................................................................... 3-109 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.........................................................................................................3-122 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY......................................................................................................................3-131 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.........................................................................................................................................3-141 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................................... 3-145 XIII. NOISE.................................................................................................................................................................................3-147 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...............................................................................................................................3-157 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-160 XVI. RECREATION................................................................................................................................................................ 3-165 XVII. TRANSPORTATION...................................................................................................................................................3-167 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 3-189 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS..................................................................................................................... 3-198 XX. WILDFIRE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-208 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE..................................................................................................3-214

3.6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM....................................................................3-216

3.7 Supporting Information and Sources.....................................................................................................3-222 SECTION 4: List of Preparers..............................................................................................................4-1 Tables
Table 3-1: San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status............................................................................................ 24 Table 3-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards......................................................................................................... 26 Table 3-3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary .......................................................................................................27 Table 3-4: Regional Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions .......................................... 38 Table 3-5: Thresholds of Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC's) ................................................ 38 Table 3-6: Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons per year) ..................................................................................................................................................................41 Table 3-7: Construction HRA Results Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance.......................43 Table 3-8: Noise Equipment Levels ....................................................................................................................154 Table of Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map...................................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Area ........................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-3. Aerial View of Conceptual Project Components Site Plan ....................................................... 2-4 Figure 3-1 Soils Map............................................................................................................................................ 3-97 Figure 3-2 Flood Zones......................................................................................................................................3-133 Figure 3-3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................3-170 Figure 3-4: Existing pedestrian bridge condition facing south ................................................................3-171 Figure 3-5: Existing pedestrian bridge condition facing northwest ....................................................... 3-172 Figure 3-6 Aerial View of Project Area Existing Conditions .......................................................................3-173 Figure 3-7 Aerial View of The Village Existing Conditions..........................................................................3-174 1-1
City of Porterville
Porterville, CA 93257
SECTION 1: CEQA Review Process
Project Title: Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges

1.1. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. All phases of the project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, include:
(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;
(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;
(3) Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(a) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (b) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (c) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
(d) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects. (4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment (6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

1.2. Initial Study
291 N Main Street
1-2
This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project. In summary, the Project would result in the replacement of an existing pedestrian swing bridge, a new pedestrian swing bridge, sidewalk, trail, streetlights, and other features. See the Project Description at Section 2 of this MND for a full description of the Project’s improvements. The City of Porterville (“City”) will act as the Lead Agency for this Project under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

1.3. Environmental Checklist
The Lead Agency may use the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063(d)(3) and (f)) in preparation of an Initial Study to provide information for determination if there are significant effects of the project on the environment. A copy of the completed Environmental Checklist is set forth in Section 3.

1.4. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration
The Lead Agency shall provide a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072) to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies and the county clerk within which the project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period. The public review period (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105) shall not be less than 20 days, unless the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse, in which case the review period shall not be less than 30 days unless a shorter period is approved by the State Clearinghouse (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073(a)).

Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and shall adopt the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15074(b)).

The written and oral comments received during the public review period will be considered by the City of Porterville prior to adopting the Negative Declaration. Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the overall purpose of the CEQA process is to:
1) Assure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns; 2) Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision-makers who will approve or deny the project, and the responsible trustee 1-3
agencies charged with managing resources (e.g. wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and
3) Provide a forum for public participation in the decision-making process pertaining to potential environmental effects.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:

The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and 2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

The Environmental Checklist Discussion contained in Section Three of this document has determined that the environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant with mitigation measures and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for adoption by the Lead Agency.

1.5. Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration The Lead Agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070) for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include the following:
(a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project. (b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map. (c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. (d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding. (e) Mitigation measures, if any.

1.6. Intended Uses of Initial Study/Negative Declaration Documents 1-4
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration document is an informational document that is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. The environmental review process has been established to enable the public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency must balance any potential environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The City of Porterville, as the Lead Agency, will make a determination, based on the environmental review for the Environmental Study, Initial Study and comments from the general public, if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be met by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

1.7. Notice of Determination (NOD)
The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the Project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse.
(2) A brief description of the project.
(3) The agency's name and the date on which the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
(5) A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration was adopted pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
(6) A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted. (7) The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be examined.
(8) The identity of the person undertaking a project which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies or the identity of the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use from one or more public agencies. 1-5

1.8. CEQA Process Flow Chart
2-1
City of Porterville
Porterville, CA 93257
SECTION 2: Project Description
Project Title:

Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project

2.1. Project Description and Purpose
The proposed Project (Project or project) predominantly consists of two new pedestrian bridge crossings. Generally, the Project would provide safer routes for Tule River Tribe pedestrians to cross the South Fork of the Tule River (Tule River) to access an education center and gymnasium and provide safe river crossings via pedestrian bridges. See section 3.2.7 Project Description for additional project components.

2.2. Project Location
The Project is exclusively located along the South Fork of the Tule River exclusively within the Tule River Reservation, which is located approximately 20 miles southeast of Porterville, CA.

2.3. Other Permits and Approvals
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District) • To be specified/determined by the Air District
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Approval of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Streambed Alteration Agreement
• Caltrans District 6
291 N Main Street
2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map
Source: Map provided in CRA by Soar Environmental Consulting, see Appendix C 2-3
Figure 2-2 Project Area
Source: Map provided in CRA by Soar Environmental Consulting, see Appendix C 2-4
Figure 2-3. Aerial View of Conceptual Project Components Site Plan Source: Map provided in CRA by Soar Environmental Consulting, see Appendix C 3-1
City of Porterville
Porterville, CA 93257
SECTION 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Title:

Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project that includes two new pedestrian bridge crossings over the South Fork of the Tule River within the Tule River Reservation. The Tule River Reservation is located approximately 20 miles southeast of Porterville, CA. Section 3.2.7 provides a more detailed description of the Project’s components. The City of Porterville is the Lead Agency for this Project under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

3.1 Purpose
This environmental document aims to implement CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a) describes the basic purposes of CEQA:
(1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in Projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the Project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(1) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
a.)Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review 291 N Main Street
3-2
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and;
b.)There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

3.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1. Project Title: Tule River Tribe Complete Streets and Two Pedestrian Bridges Project Lead Agency: City of Porterville
Porterville, CA 93257
Contact Person:

Sarah Weaver, Project Manager
Engineering & Project Management
Phone Number: (559)

2. Applicant: City of Porterville
Same as above

3. Contact Person:

Same as above

4. Project Location: On the Tule River Indian Tribe of California Reservation, generally along No. Reservation Road between Cow Mountain Road and Million Dollar Bridge. The Project is generally located in the Village Area, which is the community and civic center of the Tule River Reservation and comprises of uses such as the Tribal Education Center, Gymnasium, Community Health Clinic, Tribal Council, Justice Center, Cow Mountain Daycare Center, Towanits Elementary School. Residents access the area from the surrounding residences by walking, cycling, or vehicles. See item 7. Project Description for additional details.

5. General Plan Designation: N/A

6. Zoning Designation: N/A

7. Project Description: As noted earlier, the Project is generally a pedestrian bridge and project. Following is a list of the Project’s components:

1. Replacement of the existing pedestrian swinging bridge.

2. A new pedestrian bridge to connect Cow Mountain Road and the corridor to the Justice Center.

3. Class 1 trail.

4. Approximately 3,765 SF of concrete sidewalk.

Sarah Weaver, Project Manager
291 N Main Street
782‐7462
3-3

5. Seven (7) accessible curb ramps.

6. Two (2) streetlights for the N. Reservation Road corridor.

7. Eight (8) new solar-powered Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) (4 locations; 2 RRFBs assumed per location).

8. Two (2) raised pedestrian crossings.

9. Reconfiguration of back-in-angled parking stalls.

10. Landscaping and irrigation for the length of the project.

11. Signing and pavement delineation for the corridor, including pedestrian bridges.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:

South:
 Existing Land Use: Justice Center, Elders Center, Fire Department, Public Works Department, scattered residences
 Zoning: N/A
 General Plan Designation: N/A
North:
 Existing Land Use: Tribal Administration, Housing Authority, Health Center, Gymnasium, School, Day Care Facility, scattered Residences
 Zoning: N/A
 General Plan Designation: N/A
East and West:
 N/A as the Project generally follows a linear course along No. Reservation Road and an existing pedestrian bridge (to be replaced as part of the Project).

9. Required Approvals: The following discretionary approvals are required for the proposed Project. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive and additional permits and approvals may also be required:
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) o Approval of the Dust Control Plan
o Compliance with Regulation VIII, Rules 3135, 4101, 9510, and others as determined by the SJVAPCD
 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
o Approval of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
o Streambed Alteration Agreement

10. Native American Consultation: AB 52 requires the lead agency to notify tribes that have previously indicated they are traditionally and culturally affiliated with that geographic area regarding their expertise concerning tribal cultural resources. As part of the process of identifying tribal cultural resources in or near the Project Site, the City sent a letter on March 9, 2026, inviting the seven (7) local Tribes (10 representatives) to consult with the City regarding this Project. The 30-day response window has closed and one (1) response or 3-4
request for consultation has been received to date (April 18, 2026). As required by AB 52, the Tribal Consultation process will be completed prior to consideration of adoption of the mitigated negative declaration document.
3-5
Abbreviations/Acronyms
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
AFY Acre Feet per Year
AIA Air Impact Assessment
ACLUP Airport Compatibility Land Use Plan
APCD Air Pollution Control District
AQMD Air Quality Management District
ARB Air Resources Board
ATP Active Transportation Plan
AWIA America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018
BMP Best Management Practices
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMOD California Emissions Estimator Model
CalOES California Office of Emergency Services
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Code
CCID Central California Irrigation District
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon Monoxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CSO Community Service Officer
CUWP California Urban Water Plan
CWA Clean Water Act
dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIA Energy Information Administration
EMFAC Emissions Modeling Factors model
EMS Emergency Medical Services
3-6
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GAMAGI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG Greenhouse Gases
GIS Geographic Information System
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HABS/HAER Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record Hz Hertz
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plans
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
ISR Indirect Source Review
LAFCO Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission
Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level
Ldn or DNL Day-Night Sound Level
LID Post Construction Stormwater Low Impact Development Standards Plan LOS Level of Service
Lmax Maximum noise level
LRA Local Responsibility Area
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MJ-LHMP Tulare County Local Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPR State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
O3 Ozone
PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns
PPC Public Protection Classification
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROW Right-of-Way
3-7
RATP Regional Active Transportation Plan
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB California Senate Bill
SCE Southern California Edison
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOI Sphere of Influence
SR State Route
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
STCETRCMP Sustainable/Circulation Element for the Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TCAG Tulare County Association of Governments
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TISG Transportation Impact Study Guide
TRFD Tule River Fire Department
TRTPD Tule River Tribal Police Department
USGS United States Geological Survey
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WMP Water Master Plan
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
3-8

3.3 Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites, in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like the one involved (e.g., the Project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on Project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as Project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impact.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR if required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be crossreferenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
• Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. • Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
• Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated.” Describe and mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address Site-specific conditions for the Project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 3-9

3.4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Public Services  Agriculture and Forest Resources  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Recreation  Air Quality  Hydrology and Water Quality  Transportation Biological Resources  Land Use and Planning  Tribal Cultural Resources  Cultural Resources  Mineral Resources  Utilities and Service System  Energy  Noise  Wildfire
 Geology/Soils  Population and Housing  Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-10
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.

On the basis of this initial evaluation:
 I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
 I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
 I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
 I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is requested.

SIGNATURE DATE
City of Porterville

PRINTED NAME LEAD AGENCY
3-11

3.5 Environmental Analysis
The proposed Project (Project or project) predominantly consists of two new pedestrian bridge crossings (see section 3.2.7 Project Description for additional project components). In summary, the Project would provide safe routes for Tribe pedestrians to cross the Tule River and north Reservation Road to access an education center and gymnasium (and other governance and commercial uses within an area known as “The Village”) via pedestrian enhancements.

The Tule River Indian Tribe of California (Tule River Indian Tribe or Tribe) Reservation is a federally recognized tribe of Native Americans. As a U.S. federally recognized Tribal nation and trustee of the U.S., the Tribe has sovereignty within the Tule River Tribe Reservation area. The Tule River Tribe is required to comply with federal and state law, but is not subject to other local jurisdiction’s laws (for example, the County of Tulare or City of Porterville). However, the Tule River Tribe, of its own volition, can enter into a Memorandum of Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, or other mechanisms in cooperation with local governments such as the Porterville Unified School District, the County of Tulare through the Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the City of Porterville. Cal Trans is providing funding it receives from the federal government for this Active Transportation Plan (ATP) project, which also requires completion of the CEQA process. Subsequently, the City of Porterville is acting as the CEQA Lead Agency to complete the CEQA process for this Project.

The following section evaluates the impact categories and questions in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable. It is noted that this IS/MND will also rely on information (e.g., plans, programs, policies, studies, statistics, etc.) of previously completed (and in some instances adopted) documents such as: Recommendation to Improve Pedestrian Safety on the Tule River Indian Reservation (Sept. 2015); Tule River Tribal Transportation Safety Assessment (T2SA 2016); 2018 Sustainable Transportation/Circulation Element (ST/CE) of Tule River Comprehensive Master Plan; Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Regional Active Transportation Plan ((RATP) 2016, 2017, 2020); 2018 and 2022 Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); Tule River Indian Reservation ATP plan (December 2022); California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP 2021); 2023 Tulare County Local Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan ((MJHMP) Update; and Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The discussions regarding Environmental Setting, Regulatory Setting, CEQA requirements, resource discussions, etc.; contained in the above noted documents are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. It is noted that not all goals and policies for a particular resource will specifically apply to the Project, as such only those applicable to the Project have been included in the regulatory setting discussions. Where necessary, and if available, additional technical studies and/or sitespecific facts, data, information, etc., for a particular CEQA resource item are included in this discussion.
3-12
I.AESTHETICS
Wouldthe Project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?    
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within state
scenic highway?
   
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the Site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is
in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
   
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
   
Environmental Setting
Figure 2-3, shows that the Project site is predominantly surrounded by uses such as the Justice Center, Elders Center, Fire Department, Public Works Department) and scattered residential uses to the north; and Tribal Administration, Housing Authority, Health Center, Gymnasium, Towanits K-5 Elementary School, Day Care Facility, and scattered residential uses to the south.

The Project’s length is located within and near “The Village” area of the Tule River Reservation (which serves as a town-center area) where the majority of the Project will occur and South Reservation Road south of the river. Figure 2-3 shows that the proposed Project site is along a narrow naturally formed valley of the South Fork of the Tule River (Tule River) and is generally on uneven land adjacent to the river, and hillsides rising east of Indian Reservation Drive. Areas within approximately 0.25 miles of the Project site include scattered residences spread within hills. Generally, the undeveloped hillsides of the Sierra Nevada Mountains dominate the immediate surrounding areas.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
3-13
None that apply to the Project.

State
State Scenic Highways
The State Scenic Highway Program is implemented by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and was developed to preserve the aesthetic quality of certain highway corridors. Highways included in this program are designated as scenic highways. A highway is designated as scenic based on how much of the natural landscape is visible to travelers, the quality of that landscape, and the extent to which development obstructs views of the landscape. As applicable to CEQA, there are no designated State Scenic Highways or highways that are eligible for designation within the Tule River Reservation.

Local
As noted in TCAG’s 2018 RTP/SCS, “The Tule River Tribe has an established reservation within Tulare County. The Tule River Reservation was established by Executive Order of President Ulysses S. Grant on January 9, 1873. The Tule River Indian Reservation is estimated to cover around 85 square miles of the foothill region in Tulare County. The reservation is located in a rural area approximately 20 miles east of Porterville. The reservation is accessible only by one winding paved road. As seen in Table 4.5-1 [of the 2018 RTP/SCS], a list of historical resources in the County includes the First Tule River Indian Reservation (California Historical Landmark No. 473) established in 1873 and located in Porterville, before it was moved to its present location.” (see page 4.5-5 of the 2018 RTP/SCS). On October 29, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsome announced the return of 17,030 acres of ancestral land to the Tule River Indian Tribe.Local None that apply to the Project as the Project will not be intrusive to aesthetics within the Project site or surrounding areas. However, the Project will include aesthetic features to preserve the natural viewscape and also comply with visibility standards to protect pedestrians along the planned trail, road crossings, pedestrian bridges, and other components of the Project. Project components such as lighting; signage; streetscapes; pedestrian crossing facilities, etc., would not intrude upon the existing or natural landscape of the area.

Discussion
a) Would the Project have a substantialadverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact:A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscapes for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are the primary scenic vista within this region. The Project is located within the lower elevations (foothills) of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
3-14
As noted earlier, the Project Site is located within a natural occurring valley of the South Fork of the Tule River (Tule River). Design features of the Project will enhance safety and would include landscaping that would also enhance the pedestrian walking experience yet still incorporate visible yet non-intrusive safety features (e.g., signage, striping, lighting).

As such, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not obstruct or degrade any designated scenic vistas and there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway? No Impact: There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways (Scenic Highway) within the Tule River Reservation, as such, there are no designated Scenic Highways within the Project boundary. Additionally, the Project Site is currently utilized as existing urban-type environment that includes mixed uses of Tribal governance, elementary school, residential uses, and roadways. No scenic resources such as significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings are located within the Project’s boundary.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is located near, and part of the Village (a de facto town center), as it would provide essential and enhanced accessibility and safety features. Its design would not contribute to a decline of the existing visual character or quality of the Project area or its surroundings. Rather, the design character of the pedestrian facilities (e.g., pedestrian crosswalks and signage) would be installed using Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) standards, sign design details, and supporting graphics (accessed MUTCD standards at:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm). The MUTCD, which has been administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since 1971, is a compilation of national standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation's changing transportation needs and address new safety technologies, traffic control tools, and traffic management techniques.

States are required to adopt the National MUTCD as their legal standards for traffic control devices. As this Project would be funded by Caltrans, the MUTCD standards would be applied to crosswalks, signage, bicycle facilities, etc. Also, as the Project would result in no land use 3-15
changes other than the pedestrian, cyclist, and other safety enhancements, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning.

The Project design is required to adhere to the MUTCD standards. Landscaping, building materials, and architectural styles would be consistent with the existing Village character and Tribal considerations while providing visible and effective detail to protect pedestrians and cyclists utilizing the safety enhancements of the Project. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or regulations governing scenic quality and would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact: The Project would introduce new, minimal street lighting sources on the Project Site that would provide sufficient illumination during the evenings to enhance pedestrian safety. These lighting installations would be necessary for safety and functionality.

Project lighting would comply with Caltrans’ lighting standards to minimize light spillover, glare, and skyglow. Lighting design standards are intended to reduce light pollution, undesired glare, and encourage quality lighting designs. Maximum height of groundmounted luminaries on all pedestrian walkways are not anticipated to exceed a maximum height of 20 feet and sufficient foot-candles to provide effective illumination without contributing to or creating a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.

Based on the analysis and information provided herein, and implementation of existing standards/designs (e.g., MUTCD standards), no mitigation measures would be required.

Cumulative Impact: Less Than Significant
The cumulative impact is limited to the Tule River Tribe Reservation area, specifically, along the Project’s limitations for the enhanced and new pedestrian and cyclist facilities. The proposed 3-16
Project is not subject to General Plan goals, policies, and actions and would not be subject to zone classifications as it is intended to enhance pedestrian and cyclists’ safety. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; it would not substantially damage scenic resources, (including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway); and it would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Site and its surroundings. The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and it would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetic resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3-17
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
   
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
   
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g)?
   
d) Result in the loss of forestland or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
   
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forestland to non-forest
use?
  
Environmental Setting
Agriculture is a vital component of Tulare County economy and is a significant source of the County-wide and many Cities’ cultural identity. As such, preserving the productivity of agricultural lands is integral to maintaining the overall culture and economic viability of the County.
3-18
However, the Project is not located within agricultural areas nor is it suitable for viable agricultural productivity due to its location, existing physical environment, soil types, and other factors. Also, the intent of the Project would have no impact to any agricultural-related activities as it can be summarized as a pedestrian focused project to enhance safety through improvements and other safety-oriented components. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is designated as “Non-Agricultural and Natura Vegetation” by the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Project Site is not currently used for agricultural operations.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
None that apply to the Project.

State
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The FMMP is implemented by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to conserve and protect agricultural lands within the State. The land included in this program is based on soil type, annual crop yields, and other factors that influence the quality of farmland. The FMMP mapping categories for the most important statewide farmland are as follows, defined by the DOC:
• Prime Farmland: Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agriculture production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance: Is similar to Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
• Unique Farmland: Consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been farmed at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. 3-19
• Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. In some counties, Confined Animal Agriculture facilities are part of Farmland of Local Importance but they are shown separately.
• Grazing Land: Is the land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock suitable for grazing livestock.
• Urban and Built-up Land: Is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

However, as the Project would not be on existing or previously productive agricultural land, the FMMP classifications do not apply to the Project. Lastly, the 2020 FMMP shows the entire Tule River Reservation as “Non-Agricultural and Natural Vegetation” (2020 Rulal Land Mapping Editions Tulare County Important Farmland 2020).

Local
The Tulare County General Plan contains numerous goals and policies to minimize conversion of agricultural lands, the majority apply to areas remaining within unincorporated areas rather than incorporated areas. However, as the Project lies entirely within the Tule River Reservation, and specifically, as the Project would not impact any agricultural lands, there are no applicable local agricultural plans or programs that would apply to the Project.

Discussion
a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact: As noted earlier, the Project Site has not and does not contain agriculturally productive lands. The currently built environment contains commercial, residential, and Tribal governance structures, roadways, and other non-agricultural uses. Areas adjacent to the Project include riparian habitat, as such, the FMMP does not apply to those areas. The riparian habitat areas would be minimally disturbed to the extent possible during new pedestrian bridge.
replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge and during construction-related activities of the 3-20
Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would result in no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
No Impact: The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use nor is the Project site under an active Williamson Act contract. As noted earlier, agricultural zoning classifications do not apply to the Project as it is entirely located with the Tule River Reservation. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
No Impact: The Project site would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC section 4526), or Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g). There is no forest land located on the Project Site, and the Project does not involve any activities related to forestry resources. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
d) Would the Project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact: The Project site does not contain any forestland as defined under PRC section 12220(g) or by Government Code (GC) section 51104. As noted earlier, the currently built environment contains commercial, residential, and Tribal governance structures, roadways, and other non-agricultural uses. Areas adjacent to the Project include riparian habitat which are not forestland as defined by PRC section 12220(g) or GC section 51104. As such, the Project would not result in the loss of forestland or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, there would be no impact.
3-21
e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
No Impact: As noted earlier, the currently built environment contains commercial, residential, and Tribal governance facilities, roadways, and other non-agricultural uses.

Areas adjacent to the Project include riparian habitat. The FMMP criteria does not apply to the Project and due to the absence of Farmland and forestland, the Project would not impact these resources. Also as noted earlier, the FMMP classifies the entire Tule River Reservation as “Non-Agricultural and Natural Vegetation” as it is not considered agricultural in nature.

As such, the Project would not directly (or indirectly) induce the conversion of adjacent Farmland to non-agricultural uses
Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the impact would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.

Based on the analysis and information provided herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Cumulative Impact: No Impact.

The cumulative impact is limited to the Tule River Tribe Reservation area, specifically, along the Project’s limitations for the enhanced and new pedestrian and cyclists facilities. The proposed Project is not subject to General Plan goals, policies, and actions and would not be subject to zone classifications applicable to agriculture. As noted earlier, the Project is intended to enhance pedestrian and cyclists’ safety. As the Project area does not have any agricultural lands within the Project bounds, it would not result in any impact to the Agricultural resource.

Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the proposed Project would result in no cumulative impact.
3-22
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air
quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following
determinations.Wouldthe Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
   
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or state ambient air quality standard?
   
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?    
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
   
Qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, LLC., prepared the “Technical Report Health Risk Assessment for Tule Active Transportation Plan Phase I” (HRA Report) project which is used to provide technical expertise support regarding air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk assessment items of this MND. The HRA Report is included in its entirety as Appendix A of this MND.

Where necessary, and if available, additional site-specific facts, data, information, etc., are included in this discussion.

Environmental Setting
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
The Project lies in eastern Tulare County, within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, Coastal Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. These mountain ranges restrict air movement and prevent the dispersal of pollution in the Valley below.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District) is comprised of the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties and the Valley 3-23
portion of Kern County and has jurisdiction over most air quality matters in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Due to topographic features and the prevalence of agriculture in the region, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has one of the most severe air pollution problems in the State of California and the nation. Air pollution is hazardous to health, reduces visibility, degrades or soils materials, and can damage native vegetation. State and national ambient air quality standards were created to protect health and welfare, and to minimize other impacts. The ambient air quality standards are outlined in the Regulatory Setting section.

As noted in the HRA Report, “Area and stationary sources within SJVAB are under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). An overview of important air pollutants, and SJVPACD roles in controlling them, is provided in the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), along with in-depth discussions on the meteorology and geography that contribute to unhealthy levels of air pollution. This HRA focuses on Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC).” (HRA Report, page 6) Air Pollutants of Concern
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations. The federal and state standards have been set at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly, from illness or discomfort. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter ten microns or less in diameter (PM10), and lead (Pb). Note that reactive organic gases (ROGs), which are also known as reactive organic compounds (ROCs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxide (NOx) are not classified as criteria pollutants. However, ROGs and NOx are widely emitted from land development projects and participate in photochemical reactions in the atmosphere to form O3; therefore, NOx and ROGs are relevant to the proposed Project and are of concern in the air basin and are listed below along with the criteria pollutants.

As shown in Table 3-1, the SJVAB is in nonattainment for several pollutant standards.

Ozone
Ozone is not emitted directly into the environment but is generated from complex chemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG), or non-methane hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) that occur in the presence of sunlight. ROG and NOX generators in Tulare County include motor vehicles, recreational boats, other transportation sources, and industrial processes.

PM10
3-24
PM10, or particulate matter, is a complex mixture of primary or directly emitted particles, and secondary particles or aerosol droplets formed in the atmosphere by precursor chemicals.

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. When CO enters the bloodstream, it reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body's organs and tissues. Health threats are most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. Exposure to elevated CO levels can cause impairment of visual perception, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex tasks. The primary source of carbon monoxide is automobile use.

Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor both to ozone (O3) and acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NO). NO2 plays a key role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NO2 forms when fuel is burned at hot temperatures.

The two major emission sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) affects breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease in high doses. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children, and the elderly. SO2 is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees, crops, historic buildings, and statues. In addition, sulfur compounds in the air contribute to visibility impairment in large parts of the country. This is especially noticeable in national parks. Ambient SO2 results largely from stationary sources such as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp, and paper mills and from nonferrous smelters.

Table 3-1: San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standardf Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extremee Nonattainment PM 10 Attainmentc Nonattainment
3-25
Table 3-1: San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
PM 2.5 Nonattainmentd Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
a See 40 CFR Part 81
b See CCR Title 17 Sections 60200-60210
c On September 25, 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.
d The Valley is designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA designated the Valley as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (effective December 14, 2009).
e Though the Valley was initially classified as serious nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA approved Valley reclassification to extreme nonattainment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (effective June 4, 2010). f Effective June 15, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the federal 1-hour ozone standard, including associated designations and classifications. EPA had previously classified the SJVAB as extreme nonattainment for this standard. EPA approved the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan on March 8, 2010 (effective April 7, 2010). Many applicable requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas continue to apply to the SJVAB.

Source: SJVAPCD
Ambient Air Quality
Ambient air quality in Tule River Reservations can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at the nearest air quality monitoring station located in Porterville, CA. Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of Porterville are documented by measurements made by the SJVAPCD, which also maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.

The purpose of the monitoring station is to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether ambient air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are pollutants of particular concern in the SJVAB. The monitoring station located closest to the proposed Project site and most representative of air quality near the proposed Project site are in Porterville, which is approximately 14 miles northwest of the Project site. Ambient emission concentrations vary due to localized variations in emissions sources and climate and should be considered “generally” representative of ambient concentrations near the Project site. Criteria air pollutant concentrations are measured at several monitoring stations in the SJVAB which are used for measuring the localized concentration of various air pollutants across the SJVAB. The data from these stations is used to monitor exceedances for certain criteria pollutants as well as giving a snapshot of ambient air quality across the SJVAB. The Newcomb Street station located in the City of Porterville is the closest and most representative station to the project area with recent data for ozone. Because no PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are collected at the Newcomb Street station, measured 3-26
concentrations from the next closest station, the Visalia-N Church Street station located in the City of Visalia, was used. Table 3-2 summarizes the air quality data from a recent 3-year period (2020–2022)
Air monitoring data can be found on the California Air Resources Board website at:
https://arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php. California and National Air Quality Standards has been included in Table 3-2, California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Table 3-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards Concentration3 Primary Secondary
Ozone (03)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) -- Same as Primary
Standard 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3
) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m 150 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Annual Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 --
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 Hour -- 35 μg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m315 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) --
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) --
8 Hour (Lake
Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3
) -- --
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2) 8
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) --
Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) --
3 Hour -- --

0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3)

0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) --
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
--

0.030 ppm
(for certain areas) --
Lead10,11
30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 -- --
Calendar Quarter --

1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas) Same as Primary
Rolling 3-Month Standard
Average
-- 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles12
8 Hour See Footnote 1
No National Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3
)
3-27
Table 3-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards
Vinyl
Chloride10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3
)
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016.

Existing Ambient Air Quality Conditions
Table 3-3 summarizes air quality monitoring data for 2021 through 2023, the most recent threeyear period available. Data were obtained from the closest monitoring site, PortervilleNewcomb Street monitoring station, or from the next closest sites (Visalia-Church Street for 2021; Visalia – Ashland Ave for 2022-23) for pollutants not monitored at the Porterville site. No recent data were available for CO or SO2 because monitoring is not conducted for pollutants unlikely to exceed AAQS. As such, both CO and SO2 data are not included in Table 3-3 Table 3-3 Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant Data 2021 2022 2023
Ozone - 1 Hour
Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.106 0.099 0.102
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm)1 9 1 7
Ozone – 8 hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.093 0.085 0.089
Days > National Standard (0.070 ppm)2 61 62 47
Nitrogen Dioxide -
Annual
Annual Average (ppb)
ID ID 7
Nitrogen Dioxide – 1
Hour
Max 1 Hour (ppb) 50.0 49.7 39.9
Days > National Standard (100 ppb) 0 0 0
Days > National Standard (100 ppb) 0 0 0
PM10 – Annual Annual Average (μg/m3) 51.7 43.6 39.0
PM10 - 24-Hour
Max 24 Hour (μg/m3) 302.1 132.7 105.8
Days > National Standard (150 μg/m3) 4 0 0
Days > State Standard (50 μg/m3) 141 111 102
PM2.5 - Annual Annual Average 20.7 14.8 11.6
PM2.5 - 24-Hour
Max 24 Hour (μg/m3) 129.2 48.3 42.9
Days > National Hour Standard(35 μg/m3) 43 17 6
Notes:

Standards presented are the most health-conservative of those established Ppm = parts per million
Ppb = parts per billion
ID = Insufficient Data
1 Federal Standard was revoked
2 State standard is the same.

The following is excerpted from the HRA Report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants (Core), verbatim, to maintain the veracity, clarity, and accuracy of the Health Risk Assessment Setting for the Project area.
“Health Risk Assessment Setting
3-28
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The Project is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. Air pollution in the SJVAB can be attributed to both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural (biogenic) activities that produce emissions.

Area and stationary sources within SJVAB are under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). An overview of important air pollutants, and SJVPACD roles in controlling them, is provided in the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts4(GAMAQI), along with in-depth discussions on the meteorology and geography that contribute to unhealthy levels of air pollution. This HRA focuses on Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC).

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC), as defined by the California Health & Safety Code (CH&SC) §44321, are listed in Appendices AI and AII in AB 2588 Air Toxic “Hot Spots” and Assessment Act’s Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guideline Regulation document. Potential health impacts from TACs are generally categorized into two groups: carcinogenic (cancer causing) effects and non-carcinogenic (non-cancer-causing) effects.

The non-carcinogenic effects can be further divided into long-term (chronic) health effects such as birthdefects, neurological damage, or genetic damage; and short- term (acute) effects such as eye irritation, respiratory irritation, and nausea. The California TAC list identifies about 700 plus pollutants. Carcinogenic and/or non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria have been established for a subset of these pollutants by OEHHA, as required by CH&SC §44360. TACs used in determining the potential exposure to the public should not be confused with the 189 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) listed in the Clean Air Act.

SJVAPCD oversees the assessment of health risk associated with TAC emissions from new development in the SJVAB. SJVAPCD lays out a basic framework for understanding and assessing health risk, under CEQA, in the GAMAQI.

The location of a development project is a major factor in determining whether the project will result in localized air quality impacts. The potential for adverse air quality impacts increases as the distance between the source of emissions and receptors decreases. Receptors include sensitive receptors and worker receptors. Sensitive receptors refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with preexisting serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (these sensitive land uses may also be referred to as sensitive receptors). Worker receptors refer to employees and 3-29
locations where people work. Impacts on sensitive receptors are of particular concern, because they are the people most vulnerable to the effects of air pollution.

From a health risk perspective there are two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:

Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors.

Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources.

Projects of either type must be assessed to determine whether the resulting health risk to sensitive receptors would exceed SJVAPCD established thresholds of significance for carcinogenic, non- carcinogenic acute, and non-carcinogenic chronic risk.

The OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines are the standards for estimating health risks. OEHHA is responsible for developing and providing toxicological and medical information relevant to decisions involving public health to state and local government agencies. Historically, state laws have required OEHHA to develop Risk Assessment Guidelines for estimating health risk associated with various sources of air pollution. Furthermore, the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (SB 25, Escutia, 1999) requires OEHHA to biennially review risk assessment methods for air toxics, and related information, to ensure that they adequately protect infants and children.

The SJVAPCD risk management policy works in conjunction with the OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines. The SJVAPCD risk management policy further clarifies and provides guidance on the appropriate options to use, such as a longer exposure period and more conservative air dispersion modeling.

SJVAPCD staff members are considered leading statewide experts in the field of health risk assessment and have developed significant resources from guidance documents to database tools to assist other agencies, consultants, and regulated sources. Therefore, the SJVAPCD concludes that use of its risk management policy and the OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines is appropriate in determining significance within the environmental review process.” (HRA, pages 6-7
“Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
Construction activities associated with the Project would generate emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the use of off-road diesel-fueled equipment and on-road diesel trucks. DPM has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) based on its potential to contribute to both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects. OEHHA has evaluated numerous human epidemiological studies on diesel exhaust 3-30
exposure, with long-term occupational studies showing increased relative risks of lung cancer among exposed populations. These studies support a causal relationship between long-term diesel exhaust exposure and cancer risk.

In addition to carcinogenic effects, long-term non-cancer health effects have been associated with chronic exposure to diesel exhaust, including increased incidence of cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis, as well as reductions in pulmonary function. Short-term exposures have been linked to acute respiratory symptoms such as cough, wheezing, chest tightness, and eye and nasal irritation. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating potential exposures to DPM during construction activities, particularly for nearby sensitive receptors.

Because the Project does not include any operational sources of toxic air contaminants—such as gasoline dispensing, diesel fueling, industrial processes, or stationary equipment— construction DPM is the only TAC source evaluated in this Health Risk Assessment. Accordingly, this HRA focuses on estimating potential cancer and non-cancer risks associated with shortterm construction emissions of DPM, consistent with OEHHA and SJVAPCD guidance. “ (HRA, pages 7-8)
“Ambient Air Quality
The SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) provides the framework for evaluating potential air quality impacts under CEQA. The GAMAQI includes detailed discussions of regional meteorology, geography, and pollutant sources within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), as well as the regulatory context for criteria pollutants. This technical report provides only a brief overview of ambient air quality considerations relevant to the Project; the reader is referred to the GAMAQI for additional background.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for these and several additional pollutants. Under SJVAPCD guidance, projects must be evaluated for their potential to cause or contribute to localized exceedances of these standards.

SJVAPCD requires an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) when project-related on-site emissions of any criteria pollutant exceed the District’s 100-pound-per-day screening threshold after implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures. An AAQA uses air dispersion modeling to determine whether project emissions would cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable AAQS. For this Project, maximum daily construction emissions were compared to the 100-pound-per-day screening threshold to determine whether a full AAQA is required.” (HRA, page 8)
HRA Thresholds of Significance
3-31
This HRA focuses on answering the following question from the Air Quality section of Appendix G in the CEQA Guidelines:

3. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The CEQA Guidelines state that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make a significance determination.

SJVAPCD has established the following thresholds of significance for risk exposure to TAC:

Table 1 [of the HRA Report] SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance – Toxic Air Contaminants CARCINOGENS Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million NON

CARCINOGENS
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual Source San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; Table 1 of the HRA Report (Appendix A of this document) Therefore, if the calculated risk exposure from Project TAC emissions is below the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance, it can be concluded that the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and this impact would be considered less than significant under CEQA.

Ambient Air Quality Thresholds
The thresholds of significance for ambient air quality are based on the NAAQS and CAAQS. A project would be considered to have a significant impact if its emissions are predicted to cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard by creating a localized exceedance of any of the CAAQS or any of the NAAQS and if available the associated Significant Impact Level (SIL).

The SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) applicability thresholds, which are far more conservative than the criteria pollutant significance thresholds or the AAQA applicability threshold, can be used to screen out development projects subject to CEQA. Projects below ISR applicability thresholds (i.e., “small projects”) would be expected to not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and will not exceed the thresholds of significance for ambient air quality. In this case, SJVAPCD concludes no emission calculation is needed and no ambient air quality analysis is required.

For projects equal to or above the applicability thresholds, the District recommends that emissions from the project be quantified to determine if an AAQA is needed.

If maximum daily onsite emissions of all criteria pollutants, during construction and operation, are below 100 pounds per day, then the Project would not cause a localized exceedance of 3-32
NAAQS or CAAQS, no further AAQA is required, and the associated impact would be less than significant.” (HRA, pages 9-10)
“Methodology
HRA Methodology
The potential health risks associated with toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the Project were evaluated in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015), the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Policy APR 1906 – Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments and Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling, and the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). These documents provide the regulatory framework for identifying TAC sources, estimating emissions, modeling dispersion, and calculating cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Because the Project does not include any operational sources of TAC, construction diesel particulate matter (DPM) is the only TAC source requiring quantitative evaluation. DPM is the particulate component of diesel exhaust and has been identified as a TAC by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) based on its carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects. Longterm epidemiological studies have demonstrated increased lung cancer risks among populations with chronic occupational exposure to diesel exhaust, and both acute and chronic respiratory symptoms have been associated with short-term exposures. Construction-related DPM emissions were therefore included in the quantitative analysis described below.

Other potential TAC sources were evaluated and determined not to be present. The Project does not include gasoline dispensing, charbroilers, industrial equipment, diesel fueling, or any other stationary or area sources that would generate TAC emissions requiring quantitative HRA modeling under SJVAPCD guidance. Construction activities are the only source of TAC emissions, and all diesel particulate matter (DPM) associated with construction equipment and construction-related truck activity is captured within the CalEEMod construction emissions. The Project would not generate any new operational diesel demand, new vehicle trips, or any other operational TAC-emitting activities. Accordingly, construction DPM is the only TAC source requiring quantitative evaluation in this HRA.

Accordingly, the HRA focuses exclusively on quantifying potential cancer and non-cancer risks associated with construction DPM emissions. The analysis consisted of the following steps:

1. Estimated TAC Emissions. Construction emissions were estimated using the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Results are provided in Appendix A.

SJVAPCD considers exhaust particulate matter 10 microns and smaller (PM₁₀ exhaust) to be a reasonable surrogate for DPM. The maximum (worst-year) annual DPM emissions were used for subsequent modeling. Project-specific construction details were based on the best 3-33
available information provided by 4Creeks. Where project-specific information was not available, CalEEMod default assumptions were used.

Because construction activities occur across three distinct project areas, total annual DPM emissions from the single CalEEMod run were allocated proportionately to each area based on relative disturbance acreage for use in HARP2 ADMRT. Allocation calculations are provided in Appendix A [of the HRA Report].

2. Modeled Air Dispersion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) was used to model annual average downwind concentrations of DPM at nearby receptors. A normalized emission rate of one gram per second was applied to the construction area source, and meteorological data were obtained from SJVAPCD. Terrain was incorporated using AERMOD’s WebGIS preprocessing tool. The construction footprints were modeled as an area source based on the Project disturbance limits (see Figure 2 [of the HRA Report]). Receptors were placed at the nearest residential and worker locations surrounding the Project site. Consistent with OEHHA and SJVAPCD guidance, indoor worker receptors within the construction zone were excluded because they are regulated under OSHA and are not considered sensitive receptors for CEQA purposes.

3. Calculated Risk. Normalized downwind concentrations from AERMOD were imported into the CARB Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT). These concentrations were combined with the estimated DPM emissions to calculate ground-level TAC concentrations at each receptor. Cancer risk and chronic hazard index (HI) were calculated for all receptors using OEHHA-recommended exposure pathways and SJVAPCD-recommended conservative parameters. OEHHA has not established acute or 8-hour chronic Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) for DPM; therefore, acute and 8-hour chronic HI values were not calculated. Because construction DPM is the only TAC source associated with the Project, no operational TAC risks were calculated. Total Project risk is therefore equal to construction risk.

SJVAPCD recommendations were followed throughout both the AERMOD and HARP2 ADMRT analyses. Results are provided in Appendix A [of the HRA Report], along with receptor maps.

Modeling files will be made available to reviewing agencies upon request [from the City of Porterville].” (HRA, pages 11-12)
“AAQA Methodology
The SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) outlines a stepwise process for determining whether a project requires a full Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA). The first step is to determine whether the project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review, ISR). If a project is exempt from ISR, it proceeds directly to the AAQA 3-34
screening step, which evaluates maximum daily onsite emissions against the District’s 100- pound-per-day screening threshold.

Rule 9510 applicability was evaluated based on the definitions, applicability criteria, and exemptions provided in Sections 2.0 through 4.0 of the rule. Rule 9510 Section 2.4 establishes that transportation or transit development projects are subject to ISR only if construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed 2.0 tons of NOx or 2.0 tons of PM10. Based on the construction emissions modeling, total construction exhaust emissions of NOx and PM10 are below the Rule 9510 applicability thresholds (for transportation projects) of 2.0 tons each. These results confirm that the Project does not meet the applicability criteria in Rule 9510 Section 2.4 [of the HRA Report].

Rule 9510 Section 3.13 [of the HRA Report] defines a development project as one that results in the construction of a new building, facility, or structure, or the reconstruction of such structures for the purpose of increasing capacity or activity. The Project does not include buildings, facilities, or structures as defined in the rule, nor does it increase the capacity or activity of any existing facility. As such, the Project does not meet the definition of a development project subject to ISR.

Rule 9510 Section 3.18 [of the HRA Report] defines an indirect source as a facility or installation that attracts or generates mobile-source activity resulting in emissions of pollutants for which there is a state ambient standard. The Project does not generate new vehicle demand or attract new mobile-source activity; rather, it provides safety and accessibility improvements for existing pedestrian and bicycle travel. No new operational vehicle trips or diesel demand would be generated by the Project. Therefore, the Project does not constitute an indirect source under Rule 9510.

Rule 9510 Section 4.4.2 [of the HRA Report] provides an exemption for transportation development projects that consist solely of modifications to existing roads subject to District Rule 8061 and that are not intended to increase single-occupancy vehicle capacity. The Project consists of pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, sidewalk infill, curb ramps, and related active transportation elements. These improvements do not increase roadway capacity, do not induce additional vehicle trips, and do not modify the roadway in a manner that would increase single-occupancy vehicle throughput. Therefore, the Project meets the exemption criteria in Section 4.4.2.1. [of the HRA Report] Based on these considerations, the Project is exempt from SJVAPCD Rule 9510. Because the Project is exempt from ISR, the AAQA process concludes at this step. The subsequent AAQA steps—maximum daily onsite screening against the 100-pound-per-day threshold, onsite plus one-quarter-mile mobile-source adjustments, air dispersion modeling, and localized concentration analysis—are not required for this Project. ” (HRA, pages 12-13) Regulatory Setting
3-35
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and set deadlines for their attainment. The Clean Air Act identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to meet interim milestones. The U.S. EPA is the federal agency charged with administering the Act and other air quality-related legislation. EPA’s principal functions include setting NAAQS; establishing minimum national emission limits for major sources of pollution; and promulgating regulations. Under CAA, the NCCAB is identified as an attainment area for all pollutants.
1990 Clean Air Act Amendment
As summarized at U.S. EPA’s 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary website, “In June 1989 President Bush proposed sweeping revisions to the Clean Air Act. Building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s, the President proposed legislation designed to curb three major threats to the nation's environment and to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. The proposal also called for establishing a national permits program to make the law more workable, and an improved enforcement program to help ensure better compliance with the Act.” “Several progressive and creative new themes are embodied in the Amendments; themes necessary for effectively achieving the air quality goals and regulatory reform expected from these far-reaching amendments.

Specifically the new law:
• encourages the use of market-based principles and other innovative approaches, like performance-based standards and emission banking and trading; • provides a framework from which alternative clean fuels will be used by setting standards in the fleet and California pilot program that can be met by the most cost-effective combination of fuels and technology;
• promotes the use of clean low sulfur coal and natural gas, as well as innovative technologies to clean high sulfur coal through the acid rain program; • reduces enough energy waste and creates enough of a market for clean fuels derived from grain and natural gas to cut dependency on oil imports by one million barrels/day; • promotes energy conservation through an acid rain program that gives utilities flexibility to obtain needed emission reductions through programs that encourage customers to conserve energy.” (see: https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/1990-clean-airact-amendment-summary) State
3-36
California Clean Air Act
California Air Resources Board coordinates and oversees both state and federal air pollution control programs in California. As part of this responsibility, the California Air Resources Board monitors existing air quality, establishes California Ambient Air Quality Standards, and limits allowable emissions from vehicular sources. Regulatory authority within established air basins is provided by air pollution control and management districts, which control stationary-source and most categories of area-source emissions and develop regional air quality plans. The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Regional
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or Air District) Regional Attainment Status
The state and federal standards for the criteria pollutants are presented in Section 8.4 of The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s 2015 “Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”. These standards are designed to protect public health and welfare. The “primary” standards have been established to protect public health. The “secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soils, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of general welfare. The U.S. EPA revoked the national 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and the annual PM10 standard on September 21, 2006, when a new PM2.5 24-hour standard was established.

CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if each Project of a certain threshold has an impact on the air quality of the area. The Air Quality standards and Greenhouse Gas guidance measures are used to establish levels of air quality impact of a Project. The following regulatory background represents global, federal, state, and local standards and guidance that have been reviewed in this study.

The SJVAPCD (Air District) is responsible for enforcing air quality standards in the Project area.

The following SJVAPCD rules and regulations may apply to the proposed Project (and is not all inclusive):
• Rule 3135: Dust Control Plan Fee. All Projects which include construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities as defined by Regulation VIII (Described below) are required to submit a Dust Control Plan and required fees to mitigate impacts related to dust.
• Rule 4101: Visible Emissions. District Rule 4101 prohibits visible emissions of air contaminants that are dark in color and/or have the potential to obstruct visibility. 3-37
• Rule 4102: Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public.
• Rule 4641: Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.
• Rule 9510: Indirect Source Review (ISR). This rule reduces the impact PM10 and NOX emissions from growth on the SJVB. This rule places application and emission reduction requirements on applicable development Projects in order to reduce emissions through onsite mitigation, offsite SJVAPCD administered Projects, or a combination of the two.

This Project may be subject to ISR and may be required to submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application in accordance with Rule 9510’s requirements. • Regulation VIII: Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Regulation VIII is composed of eight rules which together aim to limit PM10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. These rules contain required management practices to limit PM10 emissions during construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities.

Local
None that apply to this Project.

Discussion
Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided in the discussion below is based on the application of the following CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, which indicates that a project would have a significant impact on air quality if it would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan.

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district (i.e., SJVAPCD for the Project) may be relied upon to make the above determinations. According to the SJVAPCD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the 3-38
proposed Project would violate any ambient air quality thresholds, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction and operational activities of land use development projects, which is shown in Table 3-4 – SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Pollutants.

Table 3-4: Regional Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions Pollutant/Precursor
Construction
Emissions
Operational Emissions
Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Non-Permitted
Equipment and
Activities
Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy) Emissions (tpy)
CO 100 100 100
NOx 10 10 10
ROG 10 10 10
SOx 27 27 27
PM10 15 15 15
PM2.5 15 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

SJVAPCD has also established the following thresholds of significance for risk exposure to toxic air contaminants to nearby sensitive receptors to the Project site, shown below in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: Thresholds of Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC's) Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million
Non-Carcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for
the Maximally Exposed Individual
Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1
for the Maximally Exposed Individual
Source: SJVAPCD
CO Hotspot Analysis
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, the proposed Project area would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards, through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The California 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards are:
• 1-hour = 20 parts per million (ppm)
• 8-hour = 9 parts per million (ppm)
The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the Project site are above state and federal standards for carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide 3-39
concentrations in the San Joaquin Air Basin currently meets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO).

The HRA Report prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consultants (Core) included an Executive Summary that is included herein, verbatim, as it provides the reader with the overall background, methodology, and resuts contained in the HRA Report (see Appendix A). Specific impact determinations, based on the HRA Report, are provided in the discussion of III. Air Quality, Items a) - d).
“Executive Summary
This technical report has been prepared to summarize the background, methodology, and results of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the Tule River Active Transportation Program (ATP) Phase I Project (Project). The HRA evaluates the potential significance of impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions generated during Project construction. The Project does not include new operational sources of TAC; therefore, this assessment focuses exclusively on construction-related diesel particulate matter (DPM).

The Project consists of pedestrian, bicycle, and safety improvements along the Reservation Road corridor within the Tule River Reservation, including the Village Corridor Crossing improvements, construction of a new pedestrian bridge, and replacement of the existing swinging pedestrian bridge. All improvements are conceptual and based on the best available planning-level materials provided by 4Creeks.

The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with the City of Porterville serving as the Lead Agency. This HRA was prepared to support the Initial Study and permitting.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is responsible for developing and enforcing air quality regulations within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), where the Project is located. Under CEQA, SJVAPCD serves as a Responsible Agency for projects requiring air quality review and provides guidance for evaluating TAC emissions and health risk.

SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI)1 outlines the framework for determining whether a project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

This HRA was prepared in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments2, SJVAPCD Policy APR 1906 – Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments and Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling3, and the SJVAPCD GAMAQI. Construction DPM emissions were modeled using the U.S. EPA American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), and 3-40
health risks were calculated using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT).

The maximum residential cancer risk from construction-related diesel particulate matter emissions is below the SJVAPCD significance threshold of 20 in one million. Therefore, construction of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and construction TAC impacts would be less than significant [emphasis as shown in the HRA Report].

An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) screening was also performed. The Project is not subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) and is thus exempt from further AAQA.

No localized exceedances of National or California Ambient Air Quality Standards are expected and related impacts would be less than significant.

Brief summaries of construction air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are included for informational purposes. These sections provide quantified emissions results but do not include the broader regulatory background, setting, or full significance determinations that would be part of a standalone AQ/GHG technical study.” (HRA, page 1) a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD drafted a series of State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the criteria pollutants that are of concern for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The integration of multiple SIPs for each criteria pollutant collectively form the air quality plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The most recent SIP is the “2024 Plan for the 2012 PM 2.5 Standard”, which focuses on meeting the annual PM 2.5 standard of 12 micrograms/cubic meters originally set in 2012. This SIP includes measures to reduce fine particulate matter emissions and improve air quality by the year 2030. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds in the adopted SIPs and other air quality plans prepared by the Air District. These thresholds are shown in Tables 3-6 for construction and operation. Criteria for determining consistency with the established standards are whether or not the Project’s estimated emissions exceed those thresholds established by the Air District. As long as the Project construction and operational emissions do not exceed the thresholds, the Project would not result in new air violations, delay the timely attainment of air quality standards, or result in increased severity of an existing air quality violation.

Ambient Air Quality
As discussed in the HRA Report (page 14), “As described in the AAQA Methodology, the Project is exempt from SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review). Because the Project is exempt from ISR, the AAQA process concludes at this step and no further AAQA evaluation is required.
3-41
The subsequent AAQA steps—maximum daily onsite screening against the 100-pound-perday threshold, onsite plus one-quarter-mile mobile-source adjustments, air dispersion modeling, and localized concentration analysis—are not required for this Project.

Because the Project is exempt from SJVAPCD Rule 9510, no further AAQA evaluation is required. The Project would not result in localized exceedances of the NAAQS or CAAQS, and AAQA impacts would be less than significant. [emphasis as shown in the HRA Report]”(HRA, page 14)
As indicated in the HRA Report, criteria pollutant emissions from the Project would not exceed thresholds of significance. “ Construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, as described in Section 5 Methodology [of the HRA Report].

Construction emissions reflect standard equipment and schedules for active transportation projects. Operational emissions would consist of minor lighting electricity use and occasional maintenance trips, resulting in negligible operational emission levels. Combined construction and operational emissions are presented in the table below [Table 3-6 of this MND].”
Table 3-6: Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons per year)
CONSTRUCTION CO Nox ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions (max daily, worst year, worst season) 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.002 0.05 0.03 SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceeds 100 lb./day? NO NO NO NO NO NO
OPERATION CO1 Nox ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operational Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.002 0.0 0.0 0.0
SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
ROG = reactive organic gases
SOx = oxides of sulfur; sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the primary constituent and essentially equivalent PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns The nature of the Project can be summarized as pedestrian safety enhancements and new pedestrian bridges which would not result in substantial emission-generating uses at or near the proposed Project location. Construction-related emissions will be short-term, temporary, and intermittent and will cease after construction-related activities are concluded. Further, the overall objective of this type of project is to enhance, encourage, and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. As shown in Table 3-6, none of the criteria pollutant emissions from the Project would exceed the 100-pound-per-day applicability threshold for construction or operation. Therefore, no further AAQA is required and the Project would not 3-42
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations by resulting in a localized exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS. With respect to the numerical threshold established by SJVAPCD, the associated impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required outside of compliance with existing regulations and/or with implementation of all applicable State and/or regional measures.

To reiterate, as shown in Table 3-6, Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. As the Project is not anticipated to exceed any SJVAPCD thresholds of significance, the Project will not conflict with or delay the implementation of the SJVAPCD attainment/implementation plans for criteria pollutants.

Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, the impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
b)Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact: The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the entire San Joaquin Valley Air Basin planning area, including the Tule River Reservation, into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The significance thresholds and rules developed by the SJVAPCD are designed to prevent Projects from violating air quality standards or significantly contributing to existing air quality violations. As discussed in Item a), neither construction-related emissions nor operation-related emissions will exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.

The Project will comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, which will further reduce the potential for any significant impacts related to air quality as a result of Project implementation. Because these thresholds and regulations are designed to achieve and/or maintain federal and state air quality standards, and the Project is compliant with these thresholds and regulations, the Project will not violate an air quality standard or significantly contribute to an existing air quality violation. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements and new pedestrian bridges which would not result in substantial emission-generating uses at or near the proposed Project location.

Construction-related emissions will be short-term, temporary, and intermittent and will cease after construction-related activities are concluded. Further, the overall objective of this type of project is to enhance, encourage, and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, the impact would be less than significant.
3-43
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
c)Wouldthe Project expose sensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact: This discussion is partially based on the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared by qualified consultants Core Consulting, LLC., which can be found in Appendix A.

Health Risk Assessment
Due to the nature of the Project, there is the potential to Impact Sensitive Receptors, as such the HRA component of the AQ Memorandum modeled downwind receptors. As noted in the HRA Report, “The highest modeled cancer risk occurs at Receptor 15, a residence located adjacent to the northern side of the central portion of Project 1.” (HRA, page 14) Results of the AERMOD modeling and ADMRT calculations are included in Appendix A of the HRA, (Table 3-7 in this MND], along with a map of receptors. Modeling input and output files will be made available to reviewing agencies upon request from the City of Porterville. The highest risks calculated for each scenario are presented in the Table 3-7, along with comparisons to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. All results are the maximally exposed individual (MEI) for each scenario.

Table 3-7: Construction HRA Results Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance
Risk1
Carcinogen
(risk in one million)
Chronic Hazard
Index
Acute Hazard
Index
Construction Health Risk 14.6 0.016 N/A1
Thresholds of Significance 20 1 1
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO
1No Acute HI was calculated for Construction DPM Acute risk because OEHHA has not established REL.

As shown in Table 3-7 (Table 2 of the HRA Report),” The highest modeled cancer risk occurs at Receptor 15, a residence located adjacent to the northern side of the central portion of Project 1.” (HRA, page 20). “Construction health risks would be below SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and TAC impacts would be less than significant [emphasis as shown in the HRA Report]. (HRA, page 14)
3-44
Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact: Some typical construction-related odors would be generated during Project construction. As discussed in Item (c), the Project is adjacent to one (1) sensitive receptor located adjacent to the northern of the central portion of the Project. As such, this receptor may be temporarily affected by such odors. Odors will likely be generated from diesel emissions from construction-related equipment rather than operationalrelated activities and traffic associated with the Project. Additionally, the proposed Project would not include any odor sources identified in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) and no health risks associated with such odors were identified in the HRA done by Core Environmental.

Although the Project may create objectionable odors (e.g., diesel engine emissions and asphalt fumes during paving operations), the odors would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent during construction-related activities and would not affect a substantial number of people. Operational odors would be unlikely as the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements and new pedestrian bridges which would not result in emission-generating uses proposed at the Project location. As such, based on the information and analysis provided herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.

Based on the analysis and information provided herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, no mitigation measures would not be required.

Cumulative Impact: Less Than Significant with Mitigation The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The Project’s emissions would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants and would be consistent with the Air Quality Plan for this criterion. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations as specified in the applicable air quality plan(s). The 3-45
project’s less-than-significant contribution to air quality and its adherence to applicable rules and regulations would allow the Project to remain consistent with the AQP; therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. As shown in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7, the Project’s regional emissions would not exceed the applicable regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds. In addition, any permitted sources will be required to comply with Air District rules, regulations, permit conditions, thresholds, (requirements), as applicable.

The project would not generate a significant source of odors. Therefore, based on the information and analysis provided herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
3-46
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish & Game
or U.S. fish and Wildlife Service?
   
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or Federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
director removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
   
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery Sites?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
   
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
   
3-47
A Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared by qualified consultants Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) was used to determine impacts to Biological Resources and is included as Appendix B. Where necessary, and if available, additional site-specific facts, data, information, etc., are included in this discussion.

Environmental Setting
The following has been excerpted from the Biological Evaluation (BE) to remain consistent with the information provided in the BE. “The study area is located within the low foothills of the southern Sierra Nevada, in a transition zone from the Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada. The topography of the area consists of gentle to steeply sloped terrain.

Like most of California, this region of the Sierra Nevada foothills has a Mediterranean climate.

Warm, dry summers are followed by cool, moist winters with spring and fall as transitional seasons. Summer temperatures commonly exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity is generally very low. Winter temperatures rarely rise much above 70 degrees Fahrenheit, and daytime high temperatures are often below 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation at the nearest NOAA weather station, Springville, is about 16.5 inches, nearly all of which falls during fall and winter months (NOAA 2021).

The principal drainage of the project vicinity is the South Fork Tule River, which bisects the study area latitudinally. The South Fork Tule River originates near the summit of Slate Peak, approximately 12 miles northeast of the study area. It flows through the study area from east to west, ultimately exiting the Reservation and joining the main stem of the Tule River at Lake Success. Downstream of Lake Success, the Tule River historically flowed into Tulare Lake; however, agricultural diversions have eliminated the lake and greatly degraded the Tule River itself.” (BE, page 5)
Study Area
“The study area is characterized by a mix of developed and undeveloped lands. Developed lands include the Village Center area and rural residences along both sides of the South Fork Tule River. Undeveloped lands consist of an approximately 0.6-mile-long reach of the river and an associated woodland corridor.

The study area has an overall western aspect, reflecting the gradient of the river corridor.

Elevations range from approximately 1,100 feet above sea level in the northeastern corner of the study area to approximately 1,000 feet at the western boundary.

The study area contains three soil mapping units: Blasingame-Rock outcrop complex, 9 to 50 percent slopes; Blasingame sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; and Xerofluvents, flooded 3-48
(California Soil Resource Lab 2008). The latter mapping unit generally conforms to the on-site reach of the South Fork Tule River corridor, and is associated with drainageways and alluvial fans elsewhere in the region. It is considered hydric, meaning it has the propensity to pond water and support hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation. The Blasingame mapping units are both non-hydric (NRCS 2026).

A list of vascular plants identified on the site is presented in Appendix A [of the BE]. A list of terrestrial vertebrates using or potentially using the study area is presented in Appendix B [of the BE]. Representative photos of the site are presented in Appendix C.[of the BE]“ (BE, pages 5-6)
Regulatory Setting
The following has been excerpted from the Biological Evaluation (BE) to remain consistent with the information provided in the BE.

Federal
“National Environmental Policy Act
Projects that are proposed, funded, or authorized by federal agencies are generally subject to the provisions of NEPA. Signed into law in 1970 and amended most recently by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. Agencies must utilize systematic, interdisciplinary approach that includes the review of technically and economically feasible alternatives to the proposed action, and must ensure professional and scientific integrity in the environmental documents they prepare.

The level of NEPA review that is required is related to a project’s potential to cause “significant” environmental effects. Projects with reasonably foreseeable significant effects on the quality of the human environment require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Among other elements, an EIS requires detailed analyses of the project’s environmental effects, development and study of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action, and consideration of public comments received during the scoping process. Projects that do not have reasonably foreseeable significant effects on the quality of the human environment, and projects for which the significance of such effects is unknown, may meet their NEPA obligations with the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA is a concise public document that either provides the basis for a federal agency’s finding of no significant impact or culminates in a determination that an EIS is necessary.” (BE, pages 22-23)
“State and Federal Endangered Species Acts
3-49
In California, imperiled plants and animals may be afforded special legal protections under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA).

Species may be listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under one or both Acts, and/or as “rare” under CESA. Under both Acts, “endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Under CESA, “rare” means a species may become endangered if their present environment worsens. Both Acts prohibit “take” of listed species, defined under CESA as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86), and more broadly defined under FESA to include “harm” (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3).“ (BE, page 23) “Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC 703-712) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in any bird species covered in one of four international conventions to which the United States is a party, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The name of the act is misleading, as it actually covers almost all birds native to the United States, even those that are non-migratory. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. (Ibid.)
“Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act establishes a process by which non-federal projects can obtain authorization to incidentally take listed species, provided take is minimized and thoroughly mitigated. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with the USFWS and/or NMFS, ensures that such minimization and mitigation will occur, and is a prerequisite to the issuance of a federal incidental take permit. Similarly, a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), developed by the project applicant in collaboration with CDFW, provides for the conservation of biodiversity within a project area, and permits limited incidental take of state-listed species.” (BE, pages 23-24) “Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into “navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. §1344), defined in the CWA as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas” (33 U.S.C. §1362(7)). The CWA does not supply a definition for waters of the U.S., and that has been the subject of considerable debate since the CWA’s passage in 1972. A variety of regulatory definitions have been promulgated by the two federal agencies responsible for implementing the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE.

These definitions have been interpreted, and in some cases, invalidated, by federal courts. 3-50
Waters of the U.S. are presently defined by the EPA and USACE’s joint 2023 Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ Rule (2023 WOTUS Rule), issued in January 2023 and amended in August 2023.

Generally speaking, waters of the U.S. include:
• Waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
• The territorial seas
• Interstate waters
• Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States • Tributaries to other waters of the U.S. that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water
• Wetlands adjacent to other waters of the U.S. that have a continuous surface connection to those waters
The 2023 WOTUS Rule also defines a number of exclusions from the definition of waters of the U.S., many of which are longstanding exclusions from earlier regulatory regimes. These generally include:
• Waste treatment systems
• Prior converted cropland
• Ditches excavated wholly in and draining only dry land that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water
• Certain artificial features, e.g. irrigation basins, swimming pools, borrow pits, and artificially irrigated areas
• Swales and erosional features characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow
Projects that will discharge dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. must obtain Section 404 permit coverage from the USACE. Small-scale projects are often able to obtain coverage under one or more Nationwide Permits, while large-scale projects generally need to obtain Individual Permits. Section 404 permits typically require mitigation to ensure that there will be no net loss of wetland functions or values.

Projects that discharge pollutants into waters of the U.S., either from a localized “point source” or more general “nonpoint source,” must obtain a NPDES permit. On tribal lands, unless the Tribe has obtained “treated in a similar manner as a state” (TAS) status, the NPDES program and any associated permitting is administered by the EPA. NPDES permits cover a wide range of scenarios, from large-scale industrial or wastewater discharges to small-scale stormwater discharges from construction sites. Stormwater permit coverage is required for any project that will disturb one acre or more of land through earth-disturbing activities such as clearing, grading, excavating, and stockpiling. Most such projects can obtain blanket coverage under the EPA’s Construction General Permit (CGP).
3-51
Any federal permit or license for discharges into waters of the U.S. must be accompanied by a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) certifying that the project will comply with applicable water quality standards. For Tribes without TAS status, the EPA once again functions as the permitting authority. Where Tribes have adopted their own EPA-approved water quality standards, the EPA applies those tribal standards to the WQC. Where Tribes do not have their own water quality standards, and where the affected waterbody flows into the adjacent state, the EPA typically applies that state’s water quality standards to the WQC.” (BE, pages 24-26) State
Birds of Prey (CA Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5)
Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code specifically protect birds of prey. Section 3800 states that it is unlawful to take nongame birds, such as those occurring naturally in California, that are not resident game birds, migratory game birds, or fully protected birds, except when in accordance with regulations of the commission or a mitigation plan approved by CDFW for mining operations. Subsection 3503.5 prohibits taking, possessing, or destroying any birds and their nests in the orders Strigiformes (owls) or Falconiformes (hawks and eagles). These provisions, along with the Federal MBTA, serve to protect nesting raptors.

Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of (1972) is to maintain, restore, and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged and filled materials into “waters of the United States” (jurisdictional waters).

California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The California ESA (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050- 2116) generally parallels the main provisions of ESA, but unlike its Federal counterpart, the California ESA applies the take prohibitions to species proposed for listing (called “candidates” by the state). Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” the California ESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development Projects. State lead agencies are required to consult with CDFW to ensure that any action they undertake is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
3-52
As noted in the BE, “In California, any project carried out or approved by a public agency that will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment must comply with CEQA. The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a project’s potential impacts on the environment are evaluated and methods for avoiding or reducing these impacts are considered before the project is allowed to move forward. A secondary aim of CEQA is to provide justification to the public for the approval of any projects involving significant impacts on the environment.

According to Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest.” Although the lead agency may set its own CEQA significance thresholds, project impacts to biological resources are generally considered to be significant if they would meet any of the following criteria established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires the lead agency to make “mandatory findings of significance” if there is substantial evidence that a project may:
• Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. • Achieve short-term environmental goals to the detriment of long-term environmental goals.
3-53
• Produce environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, meaning that the incremental effects of the project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.“ (BE, pages 21-22)
Local
Tribal
As noted in the BE, “It is assumed that the project will be implemented in a manner consistent with any Tribal policies or ordinances that pertain to biological resources.” (BE, page 38) Discussion
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The BE provided a comprehensive discussion of potentially significant Project impacts. The discussion can be found in its entirety in Appendix B of this document.

Special Status Plants
“Of the 24 regionally occurring special status plant species, three have some potential to occur in the study area. These are the rose-flowered larkspur (Delphinium purpusii), calico monkeyflower (Diplacus pictus) and Munz’s iris (Iris munzii). Their potential occurrence on site is limited to the woodlands of the site’s river corridor (see Figure 3 [of the BE]). Two project components are proposed for this area: replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge and construction of a new pedestrian bridge. If individuals or populations of these species are found in the work areas for bridge construction, they may be damaged or destroyed by construction activities. This is considered a potentially significant impact of the project.

The remaining 21 regionally-occurring special status plant species have no appreciable potential to occur on site due to the absence of suitable habitat or soils, the site’s being located outside of the species’ distributions, or a combination thereof. Project impacts are less than significant for the 21 regionally-occurring plant species that are not expected to occur on site.” (BE, page 27)
See recommended Mitigation Measures BIO-4.1a, 4.1b, and 4.1c. 3-54
Monarch Butterfly
“The monarch butterfly has the potential to forage, roost, and possibly breed along the study area’s river corridor and in undeveloped portions of its rural residential properties. Two project components are proposed for such areas: replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge and construction of a new pedestrian bridge. All other project activities will take place in the Village Center, where monarchs have little potential to occur and no project-related impacts to this species are anticipated.

The potential for direct effects to monarchs is greatest during the spring and summer, when monarchs may breed in the project vicinity. Monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae would be particularly vulnerable to construction-related mortality, as these life stages are relatively immobile and unable to leave their milkweed host plants. Monarch adults are volant and would presumably have some ability to avoid construction disturbance while foraging or roosting on site.

The project may also indirectly affect monarchs through any construction-related loss of milkweed habitat that occurs. Loss of milkweed habitat has been cited as a major factor in monarch population declines (USFWS 2020). While project-related removal of milkweed plants would be minor, if it occurs at all, it would incrementally contribute to a habitat trend that is substantially affecting this species, and potential impacts associated with milkweed loss are therefore considered significant.

The project is not expected to adversely affect monarchs through loss of other plants that could be used for foraging by this species, or by loss of trees. Project-related vegetation removal will be localized and small-scale, and considerable alternative foraging and roosting habitat will remain available to monarchs following project implementation, both on- and off-site.” (BE., pages 28-29)
See recommended Mitigation Measures BIO-4.2a, 4.2b, and 4.2c.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee
“The Crotch’s bumble bee has the potential to forage, nest, and overwinter along the study area’s river corridor and in undeveloped portions of its rural residential properties. Two project components are proposed for such areas: replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge and construction of a new pedestrian bridge. All other project activities will take place in the Village Center, where habitat is absent and no impacts to the Crotch’s bumble bee are anticipated.

If Crotch’s bumble bees are present at the time of bridge construction, individual bees may be vulnerable to construction-related injury or mortality. This is of particular concern during nesting, as destruction of a single nest may result in the mortality of numerous adults and 3-55
larvae. Construction-related destruction of Crotch’s bumble bee nests would be considered a significant impact of the project.

The Crotch’s bumble bee is not expected to be adversely affected by project-related loss of habitat. Habitat impacts associated with bridge construction will be localized and smallscale. Extensive habitat for this species will remain available elsewhere along the South Fork Tule River and on adjoining lands. Loss of habitat for the Crotch’s bumble bee is not considered to be a significant impact of the project.” (BE 2, page 9-30) See recommended Mitigation Measures BIO-4.3a, 4.3b, and 4.3c.

Western Pond Turtle
“Two project components are proposed in areas where western pond turtles may occur:
replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge and construction of a new pedestrian bridge at locations along the South Fork Tule River. Turtles may be found in the river at these locations and may bask or overwinter in adjoining terrestrial habitats. Both locations are characterized by woodland habitat with high levels of canopy closure unconducive to nesting by this species.

If turtles are present at the time of bridge construction, individuals could be injured or killed by construction activities. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact of the project. All other project activities will take place in the Village Center, where habitat is absent and no impacts to the western pond turtle are anticipated.

The western pond turtle is not expected to be adversely affected by project-related loss of habitat. Habitat impacts associated with bridge construction will be localized and smallscale. Extensive habitat for this species will remain available elsewhere along the South Fork Tule River following project implementation. Loss of habitat for the western pond turtle is not considered to be a significant impact of the project.” (BE, page 31) See recommended mitigation measures BIO-4.4a, 4.4b, 4.4c, and 4.4d.

Northern California Legless Lizard
“The northern California legless lizard has the potential to occur in the terrestrial habitats of the study area’s river corridor. Two project components are proposed for such areas:
replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge and construction of a new pedestrian bridge.

If legless lizards are present at the time of these construction activities, individuals could be injured or killed. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact of the project. All other project activities will take place in the Village Center, where habitat is absent and no impacts to legless lizards are anticipated
3-56
The northern California legless lizard is not expected to be adversely affected by projectrelated loss of habitat. Habitat impacts associated with bridge construction will be localized and small-scale. Extensive habitat for this species will remain available elsewhere along the South Fork Tule River following project implementation. Loss of habitat for the northern California legless lizard is not considered to be a significant impact of the project.” (BE 33- 34)
See recommended Mitigation Measures BIO-4.1.5a and 4.1.5b.

Nesting Bird and Raptors
“The study area may be used for nesting by numerous birds and raptors protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If project construction takes place during the nesting season, birds nesting in active work areas could be injured or killed by construction activities or disturbed to a degree that their reproductive success could be compromised. Construction-related nest disturbance is also a possibility for nests located outside of work areas, but within visual or auditory range of construction activities. Construction-related mortality/disturbance of nesting birds and raptors is a potentially significant impact of the project.” (BE, page 33) See recommended Mitigation Measures BIO-4.6a, 4.6b, and 4.6c.

Tree-roosting Bats including Pallid Bat
The study area’s buildings and mature trees have the potential to support roosting by various bat species. The project will not remove or otherwise impact buildings, and no project-related impacts to any bats roosting in the site’s buildings are expected. Some amount of tree removal will likely be needed to accommodate the proposed pedestrian bridge replacement and construction activities in the river corridor, introducing the potential for construction-related injury or mortality to tree-roosting bats, possibly including the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California Species of Special Concern. Construction-related injury or mortality of the pallid bat and other tree-roosting bats is a potentially significant impact of the project.

The pallid bat is not expected to be adversely affected by project-related loss of habitat.

Although a few potential roost trees may be removed, numerous similar trees will remain available elsewhere along the river corridor, both on-site and off-site. The study area’s foraging value for this species will remain virtually unchanged. Any pallid bats that presently forage on site would be expected to continue to do so following project development. Loss of habitat for the pallid bat is not considered to be a significant impact of the project.: (BE, page 34)
See recommended Mitigation Measures BIO-4.7a, 4.7b, 4.7c, and 4.7d. 3-57
Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and implementation of the Mitigation Measures recommended in the BE prepared by qualified consultants LOA, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures discussion. b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: “As discussed [in the BE], the study area contains a vegetation alliance classified by the VegCAMP system as a sensitive natural community, California sycamore-coast live oak (CDFW 2026b). Broadly, this community corresponds to the river corridor habitat type identified in this report (see Figure 3). Two project components are proposed for the river corridor: replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge and construction of a new pedestrian bridge. These project components may temporarily disturb an area of up to 2 acres, with permanent impacts limited to the bridges themselves. Some amount of riparian tree and shrub removal will be needed to accommodate bridge construction. Loss of riparian trees and shrubs, even if minor, will contribute to degradation of a sensitive natural community and is considered a potentially significant impact of the project.” (BE, page 35). Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and implementation of the Mitigation Measures recommended in the BE prepared by qualified consultants LOA, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: See recommended Mitigation Measures 4.8a and 4.8b c)Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through director removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact: . LOA provided the following analysis in the BE with a caveat. “As discussed [in the BE], the project includes improvements related to two pedestrian bridges over the South Fork Tule River. One of the bridges is currently existing but experienced damage during past flooding and will be replaced under the project. The other bridge is newly proposed and will interconnect Cow Mountain Road with the pedestrian corridor to the Justice Center. It is unknown, at present, whether either bridge will require the placement of structures or materials below the river’s ordinary high water mark, which represents the typical extent of USACE jurisdiction. Any impacts that do occur within the jurisdictional area of the river would be extremely small-scale and are not expected to affect the function and value of this aquatic resource. Project impacts to waters of the U.S. are not considered to be significant. However, depending on bridge design, permits from the USACE and EPA may be required.” (BE, page 37). Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, 3-58
and in the BE prepared by qualified consultants LOA, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery Sites?
Less Than Significant Impact: As indicated in the BE, “The reach of the South Fork Tule River passing through the study area is likely to function as a regionally important wildlife movement corridor. As discussed, two project components are proposed within the river corridor: replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge and construction of a new pedestrian bridge. While bridge construction is occurring, there will be an elevated level of disturbance at these two locations, which may cause terrestrial wildlife to shift their movements away from the work areas. Following construction, disturbance levels at these locations will drop, but will remain somewhat above baseline due to the introduction of intermittent pedestrian traffic across the river corridor. The river corridor is 250 to 350 feet wide at the proposed bridge sites and contains substantial hiding cover, with opportunities for movement on either side of the channel. Although terrestrial wildlife moving along the river corridor may experience new anthropogenic disturbance as a result of bridge development, the project is not expected to significantly interfere with wildlife use of this corridor. Project impacts to wildlife movement corridors are not consider to be significant.” (BE, page 38). Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and the BE prepared by qualified consultants LOA, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact: As indicated in the BE, “It is assumed that the project will be implemented in a manner consistent with any Tribal policies or ordinances that pertain to biological resources. (BE, page 38) As such, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and the BE prepared by qualified consultants LOA, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or another approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3-59
Less than Significant Impact: The Project Site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As noted in the BRE, “It is assumed that the project will be implemented in a manner consistent with any Tribal policies or ordinances that pertain to biological resources.” (BE, page 38) Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and on the BE prepared by qualified consultants LOA, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required. As noted in the BE, “It is assumed that the project will be implemented in a manner consistent with any Tribal policies or ordinances that pertain to biological resources.” (BE, page 38). As such, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

The following recommended mitigation measures are excerpted from the BE prepared by qualified consultants Live Oak Associates. The numbering format from the BE has been revised to reflect the format used in this MND. The recommended mitigation measures, in their original format contained in the BE, can be found in their entirety in Appendix B.

Special Status Plants
BIO-4.1a (Protocol-level Surveys). Prior to the start of bridge construction, or any other project activity in the river corridor, protocol-level rare plant surveys will be conducted within the associated work areas. The surveys will be conducted when local populations of the target species are in bloom, as determined through visits to reference populations and/or consultation with local botanists. The general blooming windows are April-May for the rose-flowered larkspur, March-May for the calico monkeyflower, and March-April for the Munz’s iris.

BIO-4.1b (Avoidance). Any individuals or populations of the rose-flowered larkspur, calico monkeyflower, or Munz’s iris found during the surveys will be avoided by project activities to the maximum extent feasible. A qualified biologist will identify an appropriate construction-free zone around populations to be avoided. Construction-free zones will be delineated on the ground with temporary construction fencing and maintained for the duration of project activities.

BIO-4.1c (Salvage and Relocation). If it is not feasible to avoid some or all of any rose-flowered larkspur, calico monkeyflower, or Munz’s iris individuals or populations found on site, those plants that cannot be avoided will be salvaged and relocated to alternative habitat by a qualified botanist following the provisions of a salvage, relocation, and monitoring plan. 3-60
Alternative habitat must be in an area protected from herbicide application, excessive grazing, and other deleterious impacts.

Monarch Butterfly
BIO-4.2a (Milkweed Survey). Prior to the start of bridge construction, a qualified biologist will survey the associated work areas for milkweed plants. The survey will be conducted at a time of year when milkweed is readily identifiable. The objective of the survey will be to tally and map all milkweed plants that could potentially be impacted by project activities.

BIO-4.2b (Construction Timing). If feasible, no milkweed plants will be removed during the period when monarchs are most likely to breed in the project vicinity, March to August.

BIO-4.2c (Compensatory Mitigation). Any milkweed plants that are removed by the project will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio in accordance with a revegetation plan prepared by a qualified biologist. The planting site(s) must be in similar or higher quality habitat to the habitat that was impacted, in area(s) that will not be mowed or treated with pesticides or herbicides.

Crotch’s bumble bee
BIO-4.3a (Construction Timing). If feasible, all bridge construction activities will take place between October and February, outside of the period in which Crotch’s bumble bee nests are typically active.

BIO-4.3b (Preconstruction Surveys). If bridge construction must occur between March and September, then a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for the Crotch’s bumble bee within the associated work areas. To maximize detection, the surveys will be conducted on warm, sunny days (65-90 degrees F) when there is low wind (less than 8 mph).

The surveys will be conducted by walking meandering transects through the work areas, while visually searching for bumble bees and potential nest sites. Any bumble bees that are observed will be followed and, if possible, photographed once they alight on a plant, highlighting the following features to aid identification:
• Face, including cheek length
• Top of the head
• Banding on the abdomen
• Color pattern on the thorax
At any burrows or other underground features that exhibit concentrated bumble bee activity, the surveyor will monitor activity to determine nesting status. 3-61
BIO-4.3c (Avoidance). Any suspected Crotch’s bumble bee nests that are discovered during the surveys will be avoided by an appropriate setback during bridge construction activities, until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active.

Western Pond Turtle
BIO-4.4a (Preconstruction Surveys). Within 24 hours prior to the start of bridge construction at each location, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for western pond turtles in the associated work area.

BIO-4.4b (Relocation). The biologist will capture and relocate any turtles found within the work areas during the surveys. Turtles will be relocated to suitable alternative habitat within the river corridor, well outside of work area boundaries.

BIO-4.4c (Employee Education Program). Prior to the start of bridge construction, workers will receive training on western pond turtle identification and life history and the projectspecific measures required for this species’ protection.

BIO-4.4d (Site Inspections and Turtle Avoidance/Relocation). During bridge construction, construction staff will regularly inspect the work area for western pond turtles. At a minimum, this will include (1) checking for turtles under and around any parked vehicles or equipment prior to their operation, (2) scanning the ground for turtles while operating vehicles or equipment, and (3) checking any open trenches or other excavations for trapped turtles at the beginning and end of each work day.

BIO-4.4e (Avoidance). If any turtles are observed on site while work is occurring, work in the immediate area will cease and turtles will be allowed to leave the construction zone of their own volition, if feasible. If necessary, a qualified biologist will capture and relocate such turtles as described above under Mitigation Measure 4.1.4b.

Northern California Legless Lizard
BIO-4.5a (Preconstruction Surveys). Within 24 hours prior to the start of bridge construction at each location, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for northern California legless lizard in the associated work area. The survey will entail visually searching all terrestrial habitats of the work areas and will include gently raking leaf litter and turning over rocks, logs, and other features that could serve as refugia for individuals of this species.

BIO-4.5b (Relocation). The biologist will capture and relocate any legless lizards found within the work areas during the surveys. Lizards will be relocated to suitable alternative habitat within the river corridor, outside of work area boundaries.

Nesting Birds and Raptors
3-62
BIO-4.6a (Construction Timing). If feasible, the project will be constructed between September 1 and January 31, outside of the avian nesting season.

BIO-4.6b (Preconstruction Surveys). If construction is to occur between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys for active bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of any work within this period. The survey area will encompass the work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet for nesting raptors and 250 feet for other nesting birds.

BIO-4.6c (Avoidance of Active Nests). Should any active nests be discovered in or near proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the nest. The buffer distance will be determined based on species biology, sitespecific conditions, and the level of project-related disturbance that is anticipated near the nest(s) in question. Buffers will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged and are capable of foraging independently.

Tree roosting bats including Pallid Bat
BIO-4.7a (Construction Timing). If feasible, project-related tree removal will occur outside of the period between April 15 and September 30. This is the time frame within which colonyroosting bats in the vicinity generally assemble, give birth, nurse their young, and ultimately disperse.

BIO-4.7b (Pre-construction Surveys). Within 10 days prior to the removal of any mature trees, a qualified biologist will survey these features for roosting bats. The biologist will look for individuals, guano, and staining, and will listen for bat vocalizations. If necessary, the biologist will wait for nighttime emergence of bats from roost sites.

BIO-4.7c (Avoidance of Maternity Roosts). Should any active maternity bat roosts be discovered, the biologist will identify a suitable construction-free buffer around the roost(s). The buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nursery is no longer active.

BIO-4.7d (Humane Eviction of Non-breeding Bats). If a non-breeding bat colony is found, the individuals will be humanely evicted, under the direction of a qualified biologist, to ensure that bats are not physically harmed by tree removal.

Sensitive Natural Communities
BIO-4.8a (Tree Survey). Prior to project construction, a qualified biologist will survey all portions of the river corridor that are proposed for direct impact. All trees and shrubs within 3-63
these areas will be identified to species and mapped, and their diameter at breast height (DBH) will be recorded. At the end of construction, a qualified biologist will repeat the survey to quantify the tree and shrub removal that occurred.

BIO-4.8b (Replacement Plantings). Replacement plantings will be provided as compensation for removal of any riparian trees or shrubs with a DBH of 4 inches or greater. Plantings will be installed at a ratio of 3:1 for impacted trees/shrubs with a DBH between 4 and 24 inches, and at a ratio of 10:1 for impacted trees with a DBH greater than 24 inches. All plantings will be monitored annually for a minimum of five years. A revegetation plan will be prepared for the project that will detail the methods for planting, irrigating, and maintaining the replacement trees and shrubs.

Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and the Mitigation Measures recommended in the BE prepared by qualified consultants LOA, there would be a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impact: Less Than Significant
Biological resources can be both region-wide or limited to a particular location with suitable habitat to support a biological resource (i.e., plant (e.g., flower or tree), amphibian, bird, reptile, mammal, etc.). Within the Study Area of the BE, special status species and habitat were investigated and documented to determine the potential level of impacts associated with the Project. It is noted that the BE also investigated potential impacts associated with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or another approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and implementation of the Mitigation Measures recommended in the BE prepared by qualified consultants LOA, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
3-64
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
   
It is noted that this IS/MND will rely on information provided by the Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) prepared by qualified consultants Soar Environmental Consulting (Soar), including participation by Tribal representatives, was used to determine impacts to Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources and is included as Appendix C. Where necessary, and if available, additional site-specific facts, data, information, etc., are included in this discussion. Results from a California Historic Resources Information System(CHRIS) search conducted on February 24, 2026, and a responses from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) sacred lands files search (January 20, 2026 and February 24, 2026) are available in Appendix C.

SETTING
As excerpted from the CRA “This section of the report summarizes information regarding the physical and cultural setting of the Project area, including prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic contents of the general area. Several factors, including topography, biological resources, and available water sources, affect the nature and distribution of periods of cultural activity in an area. This background provides context for understanding the nature of the cultural resources that may be identified within the project region.” (CRA, page 10).

Environmental Setting
“The Project area is located at an elevation range of ~900 ft. to 7,500 ft. in the Tule River Indian Reservation, in the southeastern region of Tulare County, approximately 15 to 20 miles east and southeast of the city of Porterville, California, on the eastern border of Porterville, California, within the Southern San Joaquin Valley.
3-65
The San Joaquin Valley is 250 miles long, extending from San Joaquin County in the North to Kern County in the South. The San Joaquin Valley borders on: Sierra Nevada (east), Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (north), Coast Range, San Francisco Bay (west), and Tehachapi Mountains (south) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2005).

The region features rugged foothills and towering peaks of the southern Sierra Nevada mountains. Key landforms include the Sierra Nevada Foothills — the reservation lies amid the steep, rugged southern Sierra Nevada foothills, marked by dramatic canyons and prominent granite outcrops.

Slate Mountain — This peak, the highest in the South Fork Tule River Watershed at approximately 9,100–9,302 feet (sources vary slightly on exact summit elevation), rises as a dominant feature.

Other Prominent Peaks — Notable summits within or along the reservation boundaries include Solo Peak, Black Mountain, Mule Peak, and Cow Mountain.

Yowlumne Hills — This expansive 17,030-acre area of rolling hills and savannah-like landscapes, recently restored to the Tule River Indian Tribe in October 2025, acts as a vital ecological and cultural bridge linking the San Joaquin Valley floor to the higher Sierra Nevada mountains (Governor’s Office, 2025).

Painted Rock, a sacred site featuring ancient petroglyphs, is located within the reservation boundaries. Geologically, the area includes metasedimentary rocks such as schist and slate, as well as limestone and dolomite deposits near the now-inactive Tule River tungsten mine (Tule River Indian Tribe, 2014).

The Tule River Indian Reservation features a dramatic elevational gradient of approximately 6,700 feet, rising sharply from the Central Valley foothills westward to the high peaks of the Sierra Nevada in the east. This steep ascent forms a "staircase" of varied environmental zones, influencing soil types, vegetation, and overall ecology across the rugged, rocky landscape that slopes upward from west to east. As elevation increases, distinct life zones emerge in a predictable progression, each supporting unique plant communities typical of the western Sierra Nevada slopes:

Below 3,000 ft: Foothill woodlands and grasslands, often featuring blue oak, interior live oak, and savanna-like areas.
3,000–4,500 ft: Chaparral and scrub woodlands.
4,500–5,500 ft: Transition zone with ponderosa pine dominance. 5,500–7,000 ft: Mixed-conifer forests, including species like incense cedar, sugar pine, white fir, and occasional giant sequoia.

Above 7,000 ft: Subalpine forests with true firs and other high-elevation conifers.

This gradation in elevation—and the resulting variations in water availability, soil characteristics, and vegetation—directly shapes where people can settle, farm, and use 3-66
resources on the reservation, with lower elevations generally supporting communities and agriculture, while higher elevations focus on forest resources.

The average annual precipitation in the Southern San Joaquin Valley is from less than 4 inches in the southwest to about 10-15 inches in the east. Rainfall is highly seasonal, occurring mainly in winter. The South San Joaquin Valley has a hot-summer Mediterranean climate, characterized by extremely hot, arid summers and cold, foggy winters. Temperatures typically range from 39° to 98°F annually, rarely dropping below 29°F or exceeding 105°F. The frost-free season averages ~303 days (California Climate Commons, 2018) • Soil Changes with Elevation: At lower elevations, particularly on the toe slopes, you’ll find Tule loam—soft, loose, and easy to work with. As elevation increases, soils become noticeably rockier and much less developed, often consisting of loose, unconsolidated gravel and sand deposits.
• Water Supply Dynamics: Most water diversion for human use occurs in the lower sections of the river, yet these areas experience significant reductions in flow during late summer. In contrast the higher elevations function as the basin’s essential “water towers,” where accumulated snowpack provides the primary and most reliable source of water for the entire watershed Tule River Parkway Association, 2021” (CRA, pages 10- 11).
“The Project area consists of a mix of native plants, and extensive fauna is known locally. The Tule River Indian Reservation, located on the western slopes of California's Sierra Nevada, spans a remarkable elevation range of roughly 6,700 feet—from about 900–1,000 feet in the western lowlands to peaks like Parker Peak near 7,600–7,643 feet. This steep gradient creates a classic sequence of Sierra vegetation zones. In the foothill zone (generally below ~3,000 feet), grasslands transition into oak woodlands and savannas (Schoenherr, 1992; Tule River Indian Tribe, 2024; Tule River Parkway Association, 2021)” (CRA, page 12). A complete list of flora and fauna are provided in the CRA, page 12.
“Surface soils consist of 80% Blasingame Sandy Loam series to the south, 50% Blasingame— Rock outcrop complex in the northern area, and Xerofluvents, flooded, in between. To the north is the Blasingame outcrop complex, and to the south is the Blasingame Sandy Loam.

The Blasingame Sandy Loam is 20-40 inches to paralithic bedrock. It is well-drained and formed into quartz residuum, weathered from diorite. The Blasingame soil series is made up of grayish-brown fine sandy loam at the surface with fine sandy loam below. It is located on the foothills with a slope percentage of 15-30%.

The Blasingame-Rock outcrop complex is 20-40 inches to paralithic bedrock. It is well-drained and formed into residuum from quartz, weathered from diorite. The Blasingame-Rock outcrop complex soil series consists of grayish-brown fine sandy loam at the surface, with brown fine sandy loam below. It is located in the foothills with a slope percentage of 9-50%. 3-67
The Xerofluvents are flooded active, recurring inundation by stream overflow that deposits new sediment and dictates the dry-wet climate cycle of the soil (USDA-United States Department of Agriculture, 1980). and is more than 80 inches deep. It is poorly-drained and is formed out of alluvium derived from igneous rock. The Xerofluvents are flooded and more than 80 inches deep. It is poorly-drained and is formed of alluvium derived from igneous rock. The Xerofluvents, flooded, are variable from 0 to 60 inches. It is located in valleys, with a slope percentage of 0-5% (United States Department of Agriculture, 1980).” (CRA, page 13).

Cultural Setting
As noted in the CRA, “Cultural resources include prehistoric-era archaeological sites, historicera archaeological sites, Native American traditional cultural properties, sites of religious and cultural significance, and historical buildings, structures, objects, and sites. The importance of any single cultural resource is defined by the context in which it was first created, current public opinion, and evolving, modern analysis. From the analytical perspective, temporal and geographic considerations help to define the historical context of the Project area. The importance of a cultural resource is in part determined by the context in which it originated or developed. National Park Service Bulletin 16a (1997) describes a historic context as “information about historic trends and properties grouped by an important theme in the prehistory orhistory of a community, state, or the nation during a particular period of time.” Context links an existing property to important historic trends, providing a framework for determining its significance.

Given this, a major goal of the historian is to determine accurate themes of analysis, a task that can only be undertaken through a thorough review of previous researchers’ ideas and the literature on the resources. In California, historians have divided the past into broad categories based on climate models, archaeological dating, and written histories. Paleontologists divide time into much larger segments, with defined and named periods that become shorter as the modern era is reached. For the purposes of this analysis, the following periods in history are summarized below.” (CRA, pages 14-15).

Prehistoric Setting
The original inhabitants of the San Joaquin Valley were the Yokuts (also spelled Yokut), a group of Native American peoples comprising up to around 50–60 related tribes or dialect groups who spoke Yokut languages. They traditionally lived along rivers, creeks, and waterways that descend from the Sierra Nevada mountains, as well as around Tulare Lake. Today, descendants of these Yokuts people reside on the Tule River Indian Reservation, where they actively pursue goals of tribal sovereignty, self-governance, and economic self-sufficiency on their ancestral lands (Tule River Indian Tribe, 2024).

Climate change isn't a recent development. The region we now know as California has experienced cycles of warming and cooling, along with shifts between wet and dry conditions, which have long influenced its landscapes and the lives of its inhabitants. Some of the state's 3-68
oldest human artifacts—fluted spear points—have been discovered along the shores of Tulare Lake in the southern San Joaquin Valley. These tools date back to the close of the last Ice Age, roughly 13,500 to 11,500 years ago, soon after major glaciers retreated across much of North America. We know relatively little about the earliest people of California's Great Central Valley who crafted and used these implements, but they appear to have been nomadic groups that migrated in pursuit of game animals and seasonally available plants.

Between approximately 8,000 and 4,500 years ago, warmer, drier conditions accelerated the melting of the remaining glaciers and ice sheets in North America, Europe, and Asia. This meltwater drove a significant global rise in sea levels. The advancing Pacific Ocean inundated low-lying coastal areas, forming what are now San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, as well as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This marshy delta teemed with resources—fish, waterfowl, turtles, and mammals like vast herds of tule elk—enabling human groups to establish more permanent villages and remain in one location for extended periods. In contrast, other areas of present-day California grew extremely arid, making survival more challenging for residents there.

From about 4,000 to 1,000 years ago, the climate shifted to cooler conditions resembling today's patterns. Greater rainfall and snowmelt replenished previously dry lake beds and increased river flows into the Valley and Delta. Native populations in the state expanded substantially and thrived over these three millennia. Many archaeological deposits at site CASJO-3, for instance, date to the later part of this era, around 1,600 to 1,300 years ago.

Around 1,000 years ago, significant disruptions struck portions of California and the broader West. Archaeological records show heightened evidence of conflict and the abandonment of numerous settlements. Many researchers attribute this to extended droughts combined with growing human populations vying for scarce resources—a pattern still evident in various parts of the world today. Yet in California's Great Central Valley, major villages persisted, and new groups migrated into the region. The abundant Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers ensured reliable supplies of food and water, sustaining a dynamic and resilient population. About 450 years ago, Indigenous communities in the Valley continued to expand, with shifting tribal boundaries. California's Native population likely peaked around this time, just before the arrival of Spanish soldiers and missionaries, whose presence triggered profound and devastating transformations.

Today, the Great Central Valley bears the deep imprint of human modification. Many Sierrafed rivers are now dammed and their natural flows regulated. Rivers and sloughs that once wandered freely and flooded during winter storms are confined by levees, engineered channels, and irrigation ditches. Vast marshes have been drained for housing and development, while arid zones have been transformed into irrigated farmland. Numerous native animals have vanished or declined sharply—the grizzly bear has been extirpated from the state, and once-expansive herds of tule elk and pronghorn are now confined to small, scattered populations. (Norton, 2009).” (CRA, pages 15-16). 3-69
Ethnographic Setting
As descrbied in the CRA, “The project area lies within the traditional territory of the Penutianspeaking Yokuts people, who historically inhabited the southern San Joaquin Valley and adjacent portions of the Sierra Nevada. Key ethnographic accounts of the Yokuts come from sources such as Powers (1971, 1976 [originally 1877]), Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1930, 1948), Driver (1937), Latta (1977), and Harrington (n.d.). Due to various historical factors, much of the available documentation focuses on the central Yokuts groups, particularly those in the valley and Sierra foothills. The northern Yokuts experienced significant impacts from Euro-American settlement during the Gold Rush, resulting in a sharp population decline before major ethnographic work began in the early 20th century. Southern groups experienced partial displacement through Spanish missions and later incorporation into multi-tribal communities at places such as the Sebastian Indian Reservation (on Tejon Ranch), the Tule River Reservation, and the Santa Rosa Rancheria farther north. This has resulted in relatively limited ethnographic detail for the southern valley Yokuts compared to the richer records from central foothill groups, where speakers of Yokuts dialects persist today.

Despite these gaps, core aspects of Yokuts' lifeways—such as subsistence strategies shaped by the environment and religious beliefs and practices—were broadly consistent across their territory. This lack of specificity is especially noticeable regarding the distribution of southern valley tribal groups. The San Joaquin Valley floor, including the study area, was home to southern valley Yokuts speakers, who were organized into numerous autonomous tribelets with boundaries that remain poorly defined. Among them: The Yauelmani (also spelled Yawelmani or Yowlumne) occupied areas from the Kern River vicinity (near modern Bakersfield) southeastward to the Tejon Ranch area. The Hometwali centered around Kern Lake. The Tulamni lived along the western side of Buena Vista Lake and extended into the Temblor foothills, at least as far as McKittrick. The Tuhohi inhabited regions from the Kern River delta northward to the Goose Lake area and westward to sloughs near Buttonwillow.

Yokuts settlements reached up to—but generally did not enter—the canyon mouths along the northern and western slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains, extended well into the Sierra Nevada foothills and lower elevations on the east, and reached the crest of the Temblor Range on the west. As Penutian speakers, the Yokuts were linguistically connected to northern groups in the San Joaquin Valley. Yokuts settlement patterns showed considerable uniformity across groups.

Winter villages were usually situated along lake shores and major streams (as they existed around AD 1800), while seasonal family camps dispersed to higher spots on the valley floor and near resource-gathering areas in the foothills. Most Yokuts groups, including those mentioned, functioned as distinct tribelets—land-owning units centered on a main village, united by shared territory and common ancestry. Tribelet populations typically ranged from about 150 to 500 individuals (Kroeber, 1925). Leadership in each tribelet was vested in a chief, supported by assistants, with the winatum (herald, messenger, and assistant chief) being especially prominent.
3-70
A shaman held a key religious role. Although shamans lacked formal political power, they wielded considerable influence within the community, as Gayton (1930) illustrates. Shamanism, widespread among Native American groups, involved a personal connection to the supernatural achieved through trance states, often induced by psychotropic plants such as jimsonweed or, more commonly, native tobacco. Shamans were viewed as possessing exceptional supernatural abilities; they acted as healers, diviners, and controllers of natural forces (e.g., rain or thunder). They also created the region's rock art, which depicted visions from quests involving spirit helpers and supernatural events (Whitley, 1992, 2000). Shamanism played a central role in the Yokuts' religious life, as evidenced by their annual ceremonial cycle.

This yearly round followed a consistent pattern: it began in spring with the Jimsonweed ceremony, followed by the rattlesnake dance and (where relevant) first salmon rites. After summer seed-gathering camps, fall ceremonies included the mourning ceremony, first seed and acorn rituals, and the bear dance (Gayton, 1930). Shamans officiated at these events, leading dances that showcased their supernatural powers (Kroeber, 1925).

Subsistence varied somewhat by local environment and tribelet, but acorns formed a staple food across Yokuts territory, supplemented by various gathered seeds. Valley groups also relied heavily on lake and river resources, including fish and waterfowl. Like many California Native groups, Yokuts followed a seasonal pattern: aggregating in larger winter villages supported by stored foods (especially acorns), then dispersing into smaller family-based camps to exploit seasonal resources. Although estimates differ and populations were severely reduced by Euro-American diseases and disruption, the Yokuts ranked among California's largest and most successful Indigenous groups. Cook (1978) suggested their region held about 27 percent of the state's pre-contact Aboriginal population, with some estimates even higher.

Today, many Yokuts descendants continue to live in the southern San Joaquin Valley.” (CRA, pages 16-17)
Indigenous Groups of the Tule River Region Yokuts (The Majority Group) The Yokuts were the primary inhabitants of the southern San Joaquin Valley. Historically, they comprised approximately 60 distinct tribes and more than 50 dialect groups. • Vicinity Tribes: The Koyeti lived in the western lowlands, while the Yandanchi (also known as Yaudanchi) occupied the eastern foothills near the North and Middle Forks of the Kaweah River.
• Other Key Bands: Prominent Yokuts groups associated with the Tule River Tribe today include the Yowlumne and Wukchumni. Historical records also mention several other bands that lived on the original Tule River Farm/reservation, including the Chunuts, Yokodo, Kaweah, Punkalachi, and Kumaachisi.

Western Mono (Monache)
3-71
The Western Mono are a Shoshonean-speaking people whose traditional territory extended along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, between the Fresno and Tule Rivers. They primarily occupied the higher foothills and the upper drainage of the Kaweah River, spending most of the year in the lower hill country.

Tubatulabal (“Pine-Nut Eaters”)
The Tubatulabal are indigenous to the Kern River Valley and are considered among the earliest permanent residents of that area. Their traditional culture shared many similarities with the Yokuts. They also served as important intermediaries in extensive trade networks linking the Great Basin, the Central Valley, and coastal groups.

Additional Groups Relocated Before 1873
• Owens Valley Paiute: After the Owens Valley Indian War of 1863, roughly 350 Owens Valley Paiutes were forcibly relocated from Fort Tejon to the Tule River Farm. This relocation nearly doubled the settlement's population at the time. • Other Scattered Bands: The 1873 Executive Order formally designated the Tule River Reservation as a home for displaced “scattered bands,” including groups from the Kings River and Monache Cajon areas. Many of these people had been driven from their lands by the Gold Rush and expanding settler encroachment.

The Tule River Indian War of 1856
The Tule River Indian War was a short but intense six-week conflict that took place in the southern San Joaquin Valley in 1856. It was fought primarily between local Yokuts tribes and settler-led militias, later drawing in the California State Militia and the U.S. Army. The war represented the breaking point after years of rising tensions caused by settler encroachment on indigenous lands and repeated failures by the U.S. government to honor its promises.

Failed Treaties
In 1851, the U.S. government negotiated 18 treaties with California tribes (including the Treaty of Point Creek), promising to protect their lands and resources. In a secret vote in 1852, the U.S.

Senate rejected all of them, leaving the tribes without legal protection or the food supplies they had been promised.

The Pretext
The conflict was triggered by rumors that Native Americans had stolen 500 head of cattle and burned a sawmill. Later investigations showed that only a single calf had been taken for a 3-72
wedding feast and that the exaggerated claims were largely used as a pretext by settlers to justify clearing Indigenous people from the land.

Outcome and Impact
• Casualties: Roughly 100 Native Americans lost their lives during the war, while settler casualties were limited to a few wounded.
• Creation of the Reservation: In response to the violence and to prevent widespread starvation, the U.S. government established the Tule River Farm (the forerunner of today’s Tule River Indian Reservation) later that same year. • Historical Legacy: Many historians regard the Tule River War as an avoidable tragedy.

They argue that settlers exploited minor incidents as an excuse for the “wanton killing” and forced displacement of Indigenous groups.” (CRA, pages 17-19).

Historic Setting
In California, the historic era is divided into three general periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). The mission system, which ultimately established 21 missions between 1796 and 1822, consisted of missions, presidios, and pueblos, and was designed to convert the indigenous peoples of California to Christianity and assimilate them under Spanish rule (Gudde, 1998).

The Spanish Period saw exploration and the establishment of the San Diego Presidio and missions at San Diego (1769) and San Luis Rey (1798), and Asistencias (chapels) to the San Diego Mission at Santa Ysabel (1818) and to the San Luis Rey Mission at Pala (1816). Horses, cattle, agricultural foods, and weed seeds, and a new architectural style and method of building construction were also introduced. Spanish influence continued after 1821, when California became part of Mexico, yet the missions continued to operate for a short time longer, and laws governing land distribution were retained.

In 1821, Mexico won independence and control of the Spanish American colonies from Spain.

Land was allowed to be redistributed, and the native neophytes were freed from church jurisdiction as a result of the Secularization Act of 1833. During this period of secularization, the Mexican authorities in Alta California made numerous large land grants on former mission properties; many became private ranches, or ranchos; the vast majority were issued by the Mexican government (Robinson, 1979). The Mexican Period ended in 1848 as a result of the Mexican-American War.

The American period began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between Mexico and the United States in 1848. As a result of the treaty, the former Mexican province of Alta California became part of the United States as the territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 allowed California to become a state in 1850. 3-73
Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries, which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General’s office.

The original inhabitants of the San Joaquin Valley were the Yokut-speaking tribes- about 50 dialect groups occupying the territory along the rivers and creeks flowing from the Sierras and around the Tulare Lake. Their descendants today on the Tule River Indian Reservation continue to have the goal of self-government and self-sufficiency on the land.

When gold was discovered in 1848, California was under American military occupation in the war against Mexico. Thousands of American prospectors poured into the territory. California statehood followed in 1850, and everything changed for the native people of the Great Central Valley. Although Spain, and later Mexico, had sent forays into the interior of California for a century and a half, the Indians of the foothills of the Sierras were relatively well protected. They were the safest of any California Indians from military expeditions, capture, and forced conversion at the missions. With the Gold Rush and California statehood, disease decimated the population.

The ravages of disease were compounded by injustice and starvation. In 1860, the Indian population in California was only 20% of what it had been ten years earlier (Norton, 2009). (CRA, pages 19-20).

Regulatory Setting
Federal
As noted in the CRA, “Federal regulations for cultural resources are governed primarily by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council's implementing regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties," are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to provide a measure of protection to sites determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria for determining National Register eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part 60. Amendments to the NHPA (1986 and 1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things, strengthened the provisions for Native American consultation and participation in the Section 106 review process. While federal agencies must follow federal regulations, most projects by private developers and landowners do not require this level of compliance. Federal regulations only come into play in the private sector if a project requires a federal permit or uses federal funds.” (cr, page 5)
State
3-74
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Under CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, Site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted per the state guidelines is also considered a historic resource under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.

CEQA details appropriate measures for the evaluation and protection of cultural resources in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), the criteria for listing on the CRHR includes the following:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

3. 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.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

According to CEQA guidelines §21074 (a)(1), criteria for tribal cultural resources includes the following:

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

1. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

2. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.

Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits the destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California PRC § 5020.1[j]) (State of California, 2021). In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources 3-75
(CRHR) “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California PRC § 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR, enumerated below, were developed to align with previously established criteria for listing in the NRHP. According to California PRC § 5024.1(c) (1– 4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3) 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.
4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history To understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (14 CCR 4852[d][2]).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in 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.

Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5(b) and CEQA Section 15064.5 Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered during activities involving ground disturbance. If human remains are discovered or identified in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there should be no further disturbance or excavation nearby until the county coroner has determined the area is not a crime scene that warrants further investigation into the cause of death and made recommendations to the persons responsible for the work in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98. This section provides guidance for proceeding when human remains associated with Native American burials and associated items are encountered. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that excavation activities stop whenever human remains are uncovered during a project or activity, and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. At that 3-76
time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native American descendants, if any, as identified by the NAHC. Under certain circumstances, the lead agency (or applicant), is required to develop an agreement with the Native American descendants for the treatment and disposition of the remains. In addition to the mitigating provisions pertaining to accidental discovery of human remains, Section 15064.5(f) of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that a lead agency make provisions for the accidental discovery of historical or archaeological resources, generally. These provisions should include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be a Historical Resource or Unique Archaeological Resource, avoidance measures should be implemented, or appropriate mitigation should be available.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 PRC Section 5097.9 states that no public agency or private party on public property shall interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion. The code further states that: …nor shall any such agency or party cause severe or irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public property, except on a clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity so require. County and city lands are exempt from this provision, except for parklands larger than 100 acres. Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (Senate Bill 18) California Government Code Section 65352.3-5, formerly known as Senate Bill (SB) 18, states that prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county’s general plan, or specific plans, the city or county shall consult with California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC. The intent of this legislation is to preserve or mitigate impacts on places, features, and objects, as defined in PRC 5097.9 and PRC 5097.993, that are within the city or county’s jurisdiction. The bill also states that the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects identified by Native American consultation. Government Code 65362.3-5 applies to all general and specific plans and amendments proposed after March 1, 2005. Assembly Bill 52 Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 amended CEQA to require that: (1) a lead agency provide notice to those California Native American tribes that requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and (2) the lead agency consult with any tribe that responded to the project notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include Tribal Cultural Resources, the potential significance of project impacts, the type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives. A California Native American tribe is defined as “…a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.

California State Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 amended California PRC § 5097.94, and added California PRC §21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 established that 3-77
tribal cultural resources must be considered under CEQA and also provided for additional Native American consultation requirements for the lead agency. California PRC §21074 defines Tribal Cultural Resources for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

A. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

B. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision:
(a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. (b) A historical resource described in §21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of §21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of §21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) contact list. This includes California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project, including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR).

Section 9 of AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 6 of AB 52 added §21080.3.2 to the California PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding Project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the consultation shall include those topics (California PRC §21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (California PRC §21082.3[a]). 3-78
Native American Human Remains
State law (California PRC §5097 et seq.) addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and established the NAHC.

In the event that Native American human remains, or related cultural material, are encountered, §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines (as incorporated from PRC §5097.98) and California Health and Safety Code, §7050.5, define the subsequent protocol. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, excavation or other disturbances shall be suspended on the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains or related material. Protocol requires that the County Coroner or Countyapproved Coroner be contacted in order to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. Should the coroner determine the remains to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in California PRC §5097.98 (14 CCR 15064.5(e))(State of California, 2021).

Local
Tulare County
Chapter 8.6 of the Tulare County General Plan of 2012 promotes the preservation of cultural and historic resources through managing and protecting sites of cultural and archeological importance for the benefit of present and future generations (County of Tulare 2012). Some of the measures implemented by the County are:

ERM-6.1 Evaluation of Cultural and Archaeological Resources - The County shall participate in and support efforts to identify its significant cultural and archaeological resources using appropriate State and Federal standards.

ERM-6.2 Protection of Resources with Potential State or Federal Designations - The County shall protect cultural and archaeological sites with demonstrated potential for placement on the National Register of Historic Places and/or inclusion in the California State Office of Historic Preservation’s California Points of Interest and California Inventory of Historic Resources. Such sites may be of Statewide or local significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific, religious, or other values as determined by a qualified archaeological professional.
3-79
ERM-6.3 Alteration of Sites with Identified Cultural Resources - When planning any development or alteration of a site with identified cultural or archaeological resources, consideration should be given to ways of protecting the resources. Development can be permitted in these areas only after a site-specific investigation has been conducted pursuant to CEQA to define the extent and value of the resource, and mitigation measures proposed for any impacts the development may have on the resource.

ERM-6.4 Mitigation - If preservation of cultural resources is not feasible, every effort shall be made to mitigate impacts, including relocation of structures, adaptive reuse, preservation of facades, and thorough documentation and archival of records.

ERM-6.5 Cultural Resources Education Programs - The County should support local, State, and national education programs on cultural and archaeological resources.

ERM-6.6 Historic Structures and Sites - The County shall support public and private efforts to preserve, rehabilitate, and continue the use of historic structures, sites, and parks. Where applicable, preservation efforts shall conform to the current Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.

ERM-6.7 Cooperation of Property Owners - The County should encourage the cooperation of property owners to treat cultural resources as assets rather than liabilities, and encourage public support for the preservation of these resources.

ERM-6.8 Solicit Input from Local Native Americans - The County shall continue to solicit input from the local Native American communities in cases where development may result in disturbance to sites containing evidence of Native American activity and/or to sites of cultural importance.

ERM-6.9 Confidentiality of Archaeological Sites - The County shall, within its power, maintain confidentiality regarding the locations of archaeological sites in order to preserve and protect these resources from vandalism and the unauthorized removal of artifacts.

ERM-6.10 Grading Cultural Resources Sites - The County shall ensure all grading activities conform to the County’s Grading Ordinance and California Code of Regulations, Title 20, § 2501 et. seq
Native American Reservation Cultural Resource Laws and Federal, State, and Local Laws As noted in the CRA, “Federal, state, and local cultural resource laws can apply to Native American tribal reservations, though their application, scope, and enforcement vary significantly due to tribal sovereignty and the complex interplay of jurisdictions. Certain federal laws specifically protect tribal cultural resources and apply directly to reservations or tribal 3-80
lands. Key examples include the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which governs the protection, repatriation, and handling of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony—particularly on federal or tribal lands—and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which safeguards authentic Native American arts and crafts from misrepresentation.

Other federal statutes, such as aspects of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), may involve tribal consultation for projects affecting cultural sites, even on tribal lands, especially when federal involvement (e.g., funding, permits, or undertakings) is present. However, enforcement of these laws can be inconsistent, and no single, comprehensive federal framework fully guarantees the long-term preservation and vitality of tribal cultures. State laws may have limited applicability on reservations because tribes generally are not subject to state jurisdiction due to their sovereign status. The relationship is further complicated by dual citizenship: tribal members are citizens of both their tribe and the United States, subjecting them to federal (and sometimes state) laws alongside tribal ones. This creates a layered system of rights and obligations that tribes, federal agencies, and others may not always fully navigate. In limited areas, such as criminal matters, federal law can incorporate state provisions—for instance, under the Assimilative Crimes Act, certain state criminal violations become federal offenses on reservations. Yet this does not mean all federal (or state) laws automatically extend to every aspect of reservation life or tribal governance.

The fundamental dynamic is a government-to-government relationship between the United States and each federally recognized tribe, with each tribe maintaining its own sovereign legal system and authority. Not every federal law applies uniformly across all reservations. To navigate this effectively, federal agencies, state entities, and local authorities must recognize the unique legal status of reservations, honor tribal sovereignty, and respect tribal traditions.

This includes meaningful government-to-government consultation—incorporating tribal input and perspectives—especially for projects or decisions that could affect historic properties, sacred sites, or other cultural resources (Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs, 2026).” (CRA, pages 9-10).

FIELD SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
“The basic criteria for determining the presence of prehistoric and historic cultural resources in local urban and rural settings generally include:
• Presence of flaking debris derived from stone tool manufacturing • Presence of marine shell and/or other faunal remains
• Occurrence of material culture artifacts
• Surface expressions of cultural features
• Bedrock mortars and related milling features or components • Soil discolorations or atypical soil manifestations
3-81
• Stone or adobe features associated with structural remains • Diagnostic ceramics derived from Spanish, Mexican, or later historic periods • Historic iron and glassware, cans, privy pits, and domestic occupational debris Soar Environmental Principal Archaeologist Heather Froshour, M.A., R.P.A., conducted the field survey of the Project area on March 17, 2026, in coordination with the Tule River Indian Tribe. The Project area was examined through systematic pedestrian inspection of the ground surface.

Transect spacing ranged from approximately 15 to 20 feet (4.5 to 6 meters), depending on surface conditions and visibility.

The approximately 48.8-acre Project area consists mostly of residential homes but is also located in the main village of the Tule River Indian Reservation, where there are other buildings, such as a gymnasium (Figures 5-12). The surface visibility of the Project area, defined as the approximate percentage of native soils visible during the field survey of a given project component, was estimated at 10-20%. The ground surface was covered by decomposed granite and very few non-native grasses, with heavily overgrown vegetation around the River, making surface identification very difficult. There is one recorded cultural resource within the Project area or radius that is listed as a California State Historic Landmark, No. 388. The landmark is the First Tule River Indian Reservation. A reservation was originally established in 1857. The reservation was moved to its present location, 10 miles to the southeast, in 1873.

Of the previously recorded resources within the Project area, three were relocated: P-54- 000423, P-54-000424, and P-54-000425. Five resources not relocated are located on private property or covered by dense vegetation and were inaccessible during the current field survey.

No additional in situ cultural resources or isolated materials potentially derived from primary or secondary archaeological contexts were observed on the surface of the Project area.

Based on these findings, the development of the Tule River Complete Streets Project has the potential to adversely affect previously recorded cultural resources (P-54-000417, P-54- 000422, P-54-000423, P-54-000424, P-54-000425, P-54-000430, P-54-000434, and P-54- 000436) that are culturally sensitive to Native American communities.”(CRA, page 23).

Discussion
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact: On February 24, 2026, qualified consultants Soar Environmental requested that the Central California Information Center (Information Center or CCIC), California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), Department of Anthropology – California State University, Bakersfield for the specific Project area and the immediate vicinity of the Project 3-82
area. CHRIS results were received on March 9, 2026 (see Appendix C). As noted in the CRA, searches by CHRIS included the following:
▪ “California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI)
▪ California Historical Landmarks (CHL)
▪ California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
▪ National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
▪ Historic maps (U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangles, General Land Office plats)
▪ Historical aerial imagery
▪ Caltrans Historical Bridge Inventory
The records search identified eight prior cultural resources investigations within the Project area. These investigations primarily involved cultural and historic property evaluations of the Tule River Indian reservation, utility line replacement, and fire management surveys.” (CRA page 20).

Records Search Results
As indicated in the CRA, “The results of the records search, received on March 9, 2026, indicate that eight cultural resource studies have been conducted within the Project area (Table 1 [of the CRA]). According to the information on file, there are eight resources within the Project area (Table 2 [of the CRA]). There are 19 recorded resources within the 0.5-mile record search radius, and 12 additional studies identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area.

Resource records can be found in Appendix B [of the CRA].” (CRA, page 20). The complete list of studies can be found on pages 21-22 of the CRA.

Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request “On February 24, 2026, Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Soar) requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and Native American contact list from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to identify tribes culturally and geographically affiliated with the Oakstone Resort Yosemite Project area.

On February 24, 2026, the NAHC, through Cultural Resources Analyst Pricilla Torres-Fuentes, confirmed positive results for Native American traditional cultural places or sacred sites within or near the Project area. The NAHC also provided a list of ten individuals representing seven Tulare County Native American tribal groups within the region (Appendix C).

As the proposed Project is entirely on an Indian Reservation, Soar Principal Archaeologist, Heather Froshour, M.A., R.P.A., consulted the Tule River Tribe, which utilizes the reservation, via verbal communication, and was informed that none of the tribal members had any questions or concerns.” (CRA, page 22).
3-83
As determined in the CRA, “There appears to be a high likelihood of subsurface cultural resources in the Project area, based on archival research and the detection of eight known resources during previous disturbances. There are no recorded cultural resources within the Project area that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), the California Points of Historical Interest, or the California Register of Historical Resources. There is one recorded resource within the Project area listed as a California State Historic Landmark: No. 388, the First Tule River Indian Reservation.

The intensive Phase I pedestrian survey was conducted on March 17, 2026, using parallel transects spaced at 15 to 20 feet (4.5 to 6 meters) across the Project area. Three previously recorded resources were relocated during the survey: P-54-000423, P-54-000424, and P-54- 000425. Five resources not relocated are located on private property or covered by dense vegetation and were inaccessible during the current field survey. No additional in situ cultural resources or isolated materials potentially derived from primary or secondary archaeological contexts were observed on the surface of the Project area.

Due to the presence of highly sensitive cultural resources within the Project area and a previously identified area of Native American Concern overlapping the whole of the Project area, the high potential for additional resources due to regional and environmental factors, NAHC results indicating the Project is positive for sacred lands, recorded Native American burials just north of the Project area, and the proximity of proposed ground-disturbing activities to known cultural resources, Mitigation Measures have been outlines in the section below.”(CRA, page 28).

The CRA notes, “Construction of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to PRC Section 15064.5. The Project area was surveyed for potential historical resources and evaluated for NRHP and CRHR eligibility. No historical resources were identified within or adjacent to the Project footprint. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse effect on historical resources, and construction will not impact any historical resources under PRC Section 15064.5.” (CRA, page 29).

Therefore, based on the information and analysis contained herein, and the CRA (Appendix C) provided by qualified consultants Soar Environmental Consulting, the Project would result in a no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
b)Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
3-84
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The CRA notes, “Given the landform age and geographic setting, there remains a potential for previously unknown buried archaeological deposits to be encountered during ground disturbance. Although large portions of the Project area have been graded or otherwise disturbed, this does not preclude the possibility of buried intact deposits.

If such deposits are encountered, they could be subject to demolition, destruction, or alteration, impairing their significance under PRC Section 15064.5(b)(1). Consequently, the Project could result in a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource.

To reduce this potential impact, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 require Cultural Resources Awareness Training, preconstruction coordination, and implementation of stopwork procedures in the event of an inadvertent discovery. Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.” (CRA, page 29) Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and the CRA (Appendix C) provided by qualified consultants Soar Environmental Consulting, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The CRA indicates that, “Archival map and aerial reviews identified no dedicated cemeteries within the Project footprint. The nearest known cemetery, Tule River Reservation Lower Cemetery, is located approximately 0.29 miles eastsoutheast. No human remains were encountered duringthe records search, Sacred Lands File review, or pedestrian survey.

While the likelihood of encountering human remains is low, any inadvertent discovery of remains during construction would constitute a potentially significant impact. Compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98, including stop-work and notification procedures, would ensure that impacts remain less than significant following implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3.” (CRA, page 29).

MM CUL-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains: If human remains are encountered during construction, all work in the vicinity shall cease. The Tulare County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98, and a Most Likely Descendant shall be identified. The County and the descendant shall confer to determine appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains. Construction shall not resume until approved by the County and the qualified archaeologist.
3-85
In the unlikely event that human remains are unearthed during construction-related activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be implemented to minimize the impact of such a discovery. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and the CRA (Appendix C) provided by qualified consultants Soar Environmental Consulting, the Project would result in a less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Cultural Resources
The following mitigation measures have been excerpted verbatim from the CRA (see Appendix C) prepared by qualified consultants Soar Environmental Consulting.

Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 Cultural Resources Awareness Training: Before grounddisturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training for all construction personnel. The training shall include examples of potential cultural materials, reporting protocols, penalties for unauthorized disturbance, and procedures for immediate notification of the archaeologist. Attendance shall be documented on a sign-in sheet retained by the contractor and provided to the Tule River Indian Reservation and Tulare County upon completion of construction.

MM CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources: Ground-disturbing activities shall be located at least 100 feet (30 meters) from known archaeological resources. If resources are discovered, work within 100 feet (30 meters) of the find shall halt immediately, and the area shall be protected from further disturbance. The archaeologist, in consultation with a Native American representative, shall evaluate the find for significance and recommend treatment consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). Avoidance shall be the preferred mitigation; if avoidance is infeasible, data recovery or other appropriate treatment may be implemented. Construction shall resume only after approval by the qualified archaeologist.

Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3, as applicable, impacts to this resource would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impact
3-86
The geographic area of this cumulative analysis is limited to the Tule River Reservation. As noted earlier, the Project site does not include any known historical, cultural, or archaeological resources. Also as noted earlier, this analysis relies on the information, determinations, technical studies, etc., and information provided in the CRA (Appendix C) prepared by qualified consultants Soar Environmental Consulting working with representatives of the Tule River Tribal Tribe. The CHRIS and NACH search results indicate that there are no known resources on the Project site. However, as an abundance of caution, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 are incorporated herein to minimize impacts in the unlikely event that any resources applicable to this Checklist Item are discovered. Known and unknown resources would be avoided, protected, and/or curated by Tule River Reservation representatives. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, and with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 as applicable, cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant with mitigation.
3-87
VI. ENERGY
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during Project
construction or operation?
   
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
   
Environmental Setting
Electricity and Natural Gas Electricity is quantified using kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt-hours (kWh). A kW is a measure of 1,000 watts of electrical power and a kWh is a measure of electrical energy equivalent to a power consumption of 1,000 watts for one hour. The kWh is commonly used as a billing unit for energy delivered to consumers by electric utilities.

According to the CEC’s 2022 Total System Electric Generation summary (see:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2022- total-system-electric-generation) regarding statewide energy demand, total electric energy production in California was 287,22013 gigawatt hours in 2023. A gigawatt is equal to one million kW
Electricity
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (see:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA), in 2023, California was the nation's fourthlargest electricity producer and accounted for about 5% of all U.S. utility-scale (1-megawatt and larger) power generation. Renewable resources, including hydropower and small-scale (less than 1-megawatt) customer-sited solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, supplied 54% of California's total in-state electricity generation in 2023. Natural gas-fired power plants provided 39% of the state's total net generation. Nuclear power's share of California's total electricity generation was about 7%. The state has one operating commercial nuclear power plant—the two-reactor Diablo Canyon facility.

In 2023, California was the nation's second-largest conventional hydroelectric power producer after Washington, and it is consistently among the nation's top four hydropower producers. 3-88
Hydropower's contribution is highly variable and is dependent on rain and snowfall. After a very wet year in California in 2023, led in part by the highest mountain snowpack since the mid1980s, the state's annual hydropower generation increased by more than 80% from 2022.

Nonhydroelectric renewable resources, mainly solar and wind energy, provided 41% of California's total in-state electricity generation in 2023. Coal fuels only a small amount of California's in-state net generation, all of it from one 57-megawatt industrial cogeneration plant.

Although California consumes more electricity than all other states except Texas and Florida, it uses less electricity per capita than any other state but Hawaii. In 2023, California had the nation's second-highest average price of electricity, after Hawaii. The commercial sector accounted for 47% of California's electricity sales in 2023. The residential sector, where three in ten California households use electricity for home heating, accounted for 35% of sales. About 18% of the state's electricity sales went to the industrial sector. Light rail, subways, and the iconic cable cars in California's transportation sector accounted for less than 0.3% of electricity use.

California used approximately 287,220 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2022 (see:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2022- total-system-electric-generation). Electricity usage in California for different land uses varies substantially by the types of uses in a building, type of construction materials used in a building, and the efficiency of all electricity-consuming devices within a building. Due to the state’s energy efficiency building standards and efficiency and conservation programs, California’s electricity use per capita in the residential sector is lower than any other state except Hawaii.

Electricity and Natural Gas Usage
Does not apply to the Project as it would not require the use of electricity or natural gas.

Existing Transportation Fuels
Fuel usage associated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT is based on vehicle trips beginning and ending in certain geographic areas, (e.g. a municipality’s boundaries and from external/internal trips that either begin or end in a municipality). As the nature of the Project can be summarized as enhancement of pedestrian and cycling to encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety, VMT would not apply to the Project.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
3-89
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was established in response to the 1973 oil crisis.

The act created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, established vehicle fuel economy standards, and prohibited the export of U.S. crude oil (with a few limited exceptions). It also created Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars starting in model year 1978. The CAFE standards are updated periodically to account for changes in vehicle technologies, driver behavior, and/or driving conditions. The nature of the Project can be summarized as enhancement of pedestrian and cycling to encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. As such, the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act would not apply to the Project.

State
Warren–Alquist Act
The California Legislature passed the Warren–Alquist Act in 1974, which created the CEC. The legislation also incorporated the following three key provisions designed to address the demand side of the energy equation:
• It directed the CEC to formulate and adopt the nation’s first energy conservation standards for buildings constructed and appliances sold in California. • The act removed the responsibility of electricity demand forecasting from the utilities, which had a financial interest in high demand projections, and transferred it to a more impartial CEC.
• The CEC was directed to embark on an ambitious research and development program, with a particular focus on fostering what were characterized as nonconventional energy sources.

The nature of the Project can be summarized as enhancement of pedestrian and cycling to encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. As such, the Project would not result in greater energy demand.

California Public Utilities Commission
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, which provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year 2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as enhancement of pedestrian and cycling to encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. As such, the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan would not apply to the Project. 3-90
State of California Energy Action Plan
The CEC and CPUC approved the first State of California Energy Action Plan in 2003. The plan established shared goals and specific actions to ensure the provision of adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies; it also identified costeffective and environmentally sound energy policies, strategies, and actions for California’s consumers and taxpayers. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as enhancement of pedestrian and cycling to encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. As such, the State of California Energy Action Plan would not apply to the Project.

Assembly Bill 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 32 (2016)
In 2006, the State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32, which extended the horizon year of the state’s codified GHG reduction planning targets from 2020 to 2030, requiring California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as enhancement of pedestrian and cycling to encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety; as such, AB 32 and SB 32 would not apply to the Project.

Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6); no changes have occurred beyond the 2019 edition of Part 6. Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficiency technologies and methods. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as enhancement of pedestrian and cycling to encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. As such, Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards would not apply to the Project.

Title 24, Part 11, Green Building Standards
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. It includes mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings throughout California. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG 3-91
emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The mandatory provisions of the most recent version CALGreen became effective January 1, 2023. As noted earlier, the nature of the Project can be summarized as enhancement of pedestrian and cycling to encourage and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. As such Title 24, Part 11, Green Building Standards would not apply to the Project.

Regional
Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG)
As summarized in the Executive Summary of TCAG’S 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, “The Tulare County Association of Governments is pleased to present its Draft 2022 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2022 RTP/SCS). The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a long-range planning document that defines how the region plans to invest in the transportation system over 20+ years based on regional goals, multi-modal transportation needs for people and goods, and estimates of available funding.

The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a component of the RTP, required by SB 375, that sets forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks to achieve the GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board. The future land use and transportation scenario presented in the SCS must accommodate forecast population, employment, and housing sufficient to meet the needs of all economic segment of population, including the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), while considering State housing goals.” The RTP/SCS can be found in its entirety at:
https://tularecog.org/tcag/planning/rtp/rtp-20181/
Local
The Project would occur in areas lacking pedestrian facilities or needing enhanced pedestrianoriented facilities, thus contributing to reduced energy use from the transportation sector. The pedestrian enhancements would provide a safer environment that would encourage Tribal citizens to forego vehicle travel and alternatively cycle and walk which would also contribute to minimizing VMT.

Thresholds and Methodology
3-92
The impact analysis provided in this section is based on the application of the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, which indicates that a Project would have a significant impact on energy use if it would:

1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?

2. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The methodology applied to assess the Project’s potential impacts involved the use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1 (CAPCOA 2022) that can be found in Appendix A For the construction phase, energy use would be attributed to worker trips and operation of construction equipment. Diesel and gasoline would be utilized to fuel on and off-road construction equipment during this phase of the Project. Energy use associated with the operational phase would result from residential vehicle trips (mobile sources) and activities in homes that consume energy in the form of electricity. No natural gas will be utilized.

Although electricity generation produces criteria pollutants and GHGs, these are emitted offsite at fossil fuel power plants and these pollutants are not attributed to pedestrian-related facilities. The power plants responsible for electricity generation are existing stationary sources permitted by air districts and/or the USEPA, criteria pollutant emissions are generally associated with the power plants themselves. These criteria pollutant emissions are subject to local, state and federal control measures. (CAPCOA 2022) Unlike criteria pollutants, GHG emissions at these offsite power plants are not subject to the same stationary source permitting requirements and it is difficult to mitigate GHG emissions associated with them. Therefore, the most effective way to control GHGs from power plants is to reduce electricity demand by electricity users, which can be mitigated through building efficiency measures. As a result, the CalEEMod program calculates GHG emissions (not criteria pollutant emissions) from regional power plants associated with building electricity use. To reduce GHG emissions and energy usage, the Project would comply with the provisions of Part 6 of the Title 24 California Code of Regulations, which is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code). The California Energy Commission implements Title 24, Part 6 to increase the energy efficiency of newly constructed residential buildings. The latest Energy Code is for 2023, which was the 2022 Energy Code (CAPCOA 2022).

CalEEMod defaults were used for vehicle trips lengths, vehicle trip counts, and electricity consumption. Natural gas emission factors were set to zero to account for the absence of direct natural gas consumption on the Project site. In order to calculate energy consumption from mobile sources in MBTUs, 2023 gasoline/diesel miles per gallon (MPG) factors provided by the EMFAC2017 Emissions Inventory were used. To simplify the estimation process for the construction phase, it was assumed that all worker vehicles used gasoline as fuel source and all vendor vehicles used diesel as a fuel source. Project-specific construction equipment was entered using data modeled from previous, completed construction projects. Energy 3-93
Calculations for both construction and operational phases are provided in the HRA Report included in Appendix A.

Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? LessThanSignificant Impact: As noted earlier, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements and new pedestrian bridges. As such, the Project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of the energy resource during Project construction or operation. Fueled use to operate constructionrelated equipment and employees driving to the Project site would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent and will cease after construction-related activities are concluded. Further, the overall objective of this type of project is to enhance, encourage, and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. Vehicle fuel consumption during Project construction-related activities was estimated based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths, and the number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1, and Year 2024 gasoline/diesel MPG factors provided by EMFAC2017. Energy calculations are provided in Appendix A of the HRA Report. It is noted that the Project would not generate additional daily vehicle usage above the current usage as it is intended to provide pedestrian and cycling mobility rather than vehicle usage. As such, the results contained in the Appendix A of HRA Report at Tables 2.4, 4.2, and 5.11 show negligible-to-no gasoline, diesel, electricity or natural gas usage. Further, the usage of the respective energy sources would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent do construction-related activities and would completely end upon the cease construction-related activities.

While construction-related activities of the Project would result in additional energy consumption, this energy use is not unnecessary or inefficient. This energy use is justified as the overall goal is to provide a safe environment to encourage walking and cycling thereby reducing vehicle usage and gasoline consumption by vehicles.

Because construction-related energy use would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent, and limited to the greatest extent feasible through consistency with Federal, State, and local policies related to energy conservation, and operation of the Project would comply with applicable energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Part 6. Based on the analysis and information contained herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, the Project would not result in inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful energy use. As such, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
3-94
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact: The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The construction and operation of the Project would comply with applicable energy efficiency regulations. Also, as noted earlier, the nature of the Project is pedestrian safety enhancements and new pedestrian bridges which would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency at or near the proposed Project location. The primary activity that would consume energy would be construction-related activities; however, these activities would be shortterm, temporary, and intermittent and will cease after construction-related activities are concluded. To reiterate, the overall objective of this type of project is to enhance, encourage, and facilitate pedestrian and bicycling mobility while also providing components to ensure pedestrian/cycling safety. Therefore, based on the analysis and information contained herein, and in the HRA report (see Appendix A) prepared by qualified consultants Core Environmental Consulting, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Based on the analysis and information contained herein, no mitigation measures would be required.

Cumulative Impact: Less Than Significant
Cumulative impacts would be limited to the Tule River Reservation area. Cumulative could occur if a series of actions lead to a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or a conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy and energy efficiency. As noted earlier, the proposed Project is located within the service area of SCE.

However, due to the nature of the project (a pedestrian/cycling oriented project with safety components), The Project would not result in a long-term increase in operational energy demand for electricity or natural gas. In addition, construction-related activities would require the use of energy for purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, and construction of development projects may overlap. However, construction-related emissions would be short-term, temporary, and intermittent and would cease once construction-related operations are complete.

Although the nature of GHG is a global and national issue, the practical geographic area is the state of California and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (including all of Tulare County). GHG emission reduction efforts are required via state legislation (e.g., SB 375 The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375). As noted earlier, based on the Project’s location and its primary objective of pedestrian/cycling enhancements with enhanced safety 3-95
features, the Project would result in minimizing GHG emissions consistent with the overall objective of an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) project to encourage alternatives (such as walking and cycling) rather than relying on vehicle usage. Therefore, based on the analysis and information provided herein, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. 3-96
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
   
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
   
iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
   
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
   
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct and
indirect risks to life or property?
   
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
   
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or Site or unique
geologic feature?
   
3-97
Environmental Setting
Geology
The Tule River Reservation is not located in the San Joaquin Valley. This is important as the San Joaquin Valley is in the southern half of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The Great Valley Geomorphic Province is a long, narrow northwest-trending alluvial valley that lies between the Sierra Nevada to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. However, as the Project is generally located within the 1,000 feet elevation of the foothill region, it does not have the underlain sediments from alluvial deposits, as well as non-marine sedimentary rocks typically found in the San Joaquin Valley. The Project site is predominantly granitic rock (pre-Cenozoic) with scattered metamorphic rock (pre-Cenozoic).

Soils
The predominant soil types in Project area include Xerofluvents flooded, generally along the Tule River’s course, Blassingame sandy loam to the south and Blasingame-Rock to the north.

The soil types share similarities and/or are within similar ranges such as: hills, not prime farmland, 36 to 60 inches to bedrock, slopes of 0 to 50 percent, depth to restrictive feature (where properties that significantly reduce the movement of water and air through the soil), 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock (where excavations can be made with trenching machines, backhoes, or small rippers), runoff class is high, with the frequency of flooding ranging from occasional (within the River’s banks) to none, and no frequency to ponding (see: USDA at FOTG Section II. Natural Resources Information A. Soils Information https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Delete/2008-8-16/Soil_Feat_Def.pdf.) Figure 3-1 Soils Map
3-98
Earthquake Hazards
“Ground-shaking is the primary seismic hazard in Tulare County because of the county’s seismic setting and its record of historical activity. Thus, emphasis focuses on the analysis of expected levels of ground-shaking, which is directly related to the magnitude of a quake and the distance from a quake’s epicenter. Magnitude is a measure of the amount of energy released in an earthquake, with higher magnitudes causing increased ground-shaking over longer periods of time, thereby affecting a larger area. Ground-shaking intensity, which is often a more useful measure of earthquake effects than magnitude, is a qualitative measure of the effects felt by population. The valley portion of Tulare County is located on alluvial deposits, which tend to experience greater ground-shaking intensities than areas located on hard rock. Therefore, structures located in the valley will tend to suffer greater damage from ground-shaking than those located in the foothill and mountain areas. However, existing alluvium valleys and weathered or decomposed zones are scattered throughout the mountainous portions of the county which could also experience stronger intensities than the surrounding solid rock areas.

The geologic characteristics of an area can therefore be a greater hazard than its distance to the epicenter of the quake. (see Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update, Background Report,

Page 8 ends

Porterville City CouncilJune 2, 2026

Porterville City Council
June 2, 2026