Agenda packet — Tulare City Council, November 15, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

City of Tulare Page 1
City of Tulare
City Council
Agenda
Tulare Public Library & Council Chamber
491 North M Street, Tulare
www.tulare.ca.gov
Tuesday, November 15, 2022
6:00 p.m. – Special Meeting
7:00 p.m. – Regular Meeting
Mission Statement
To promote a quality of life making Tulare the most desirable community in which to live, learn, play, work, worship and prosper.

Attending and Participating in Meetings
Regular Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chamber located in the Tulare Public Library at 491 North M Street, Tulare. Additional meetings of the City Council may be called as needed.

Attend meetings in person or access the meeting live via YouTube. For those that wish to provide public comment while not physically in attendance, call (559) 366-1849 during Citizen Comments and/or General Business items. Please note that there will be approximately a 20-second delay in broadcast for viewers. When calling in, please mute speakers if viewing the meeting via YouTube.

City of Tulare YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWZiv2o7do1JY0OvGe1_aw/videos Documents related to items on the agenda are accessible on the City’s website at www.tulare.ca.gov and available for viewing at the entrance of the Council Chamber.

Rules for Addressing Council
• Members of the public may address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of Tulare.
• If you wish to address Council, please complete one of the yellow speaker cards located at the entrance to the Council Chamber and provide to the Clerk. • Persons wishing to address Council concerning an agendized item will be invited to address the Council during the time that Council is considering that particular agenda item. Persons wishing to address Council concerning a non-agendized issue will be invited to address Council during the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting.
• When invited by the Mayor to speak, please step up to the podium, state your name and city where you reside, and make your comments. Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker.

Americans with Disabilities Act
• Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disabilityrelated modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification from the City Clerk’s Office at (559) 684-4200.

Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.

Agri-Center of the World
Mayor
Dennis A. Mederos, District 4
Vice Mayor
Terry A. Sayre, District 2
Councilmembers
Jose Sigala, District 1
Stephen C. Harrell, District 3
Patrick Isherwood, District 5
City Council Agenda – Special and Regular Meetings November 15, 2022 City of Tulare Page 2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to section 54956 of the California Government Code, that a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Tulare is hereby called.

1. CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION - Comments are limited to items to be discussed in closed session. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes.

3. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING

3.1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.9(c): 1 case

4. RECONVENE FROM CLOSED SESSION

5. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - This is the time for Council to publicly report specified closed session action and the vote taken on those actions, if any.

6. ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
7:00 p.m. - REGULAR MEETING

7. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING

8. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS - This is the time for the public to comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Tulare City Council that are not on the agenda. The Council asks that comments are kept brief and positive. The Council cannot legally discuss or take official action on request items that are introduced tonight. This is also the time for the public to comment on items listed under the Consent Calendar or to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes. Comments related to Public Hearing or General Business items will be heard at the time those items are discussed. In fairness to all who wish to speak, each speaker will be allowed three minutes with a maximum time of 15 minutes per item unless otherwise extended by Council. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

10. COMMUNICATIONS - Communications are to be submitted to the City Manager’s Office 10 days prior to a Council Meeting to be considered for this section of the Agenda. No action will be taken on matters listed under communications; however, the Council may direct staff to schedule issues raised during communications for a future agenda. Public comments will be limited to three minutes per topic unless otherwise extended by Council.

11. 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 to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

11.1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only.
6:00 p.m. – SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION)
City Council Agenda – Special and Regular Meetings November 15, 2022 City of Tulare Page 3

11.2. Approve minutes of the November 1, 2022, special and regular meetings. [Submitted by: M. Hermann]

11.4. Accept as complete the required public works improvements for Phase 3 of the Kensington Estates subdivision with the exception of certain improvements secured through separate deferred improvement agreements; authorize the City Engineer to sign a Notice of Completion; and direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the Tulare County Recorder’s Office. [Submitted by: M. Miller]

11.7. Accept the monthly investment reports for September and October 2022. [Submitted by: D. Ibanez]

12. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORTS OR ITEMS OF INTEREST

12.1. Measure Y results and future implementation.

13. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Comments related to Public Hearing items are limited to three minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item, unless otherwise extended by the Council.

13.2. Adopt a resolution adopting the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-22 – (Fulton Estates), Annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35), General Plan Amendment No. 2022.01 and Zone Amendment No. 748; adopt a resolution requesting the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission take proceedings for annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35) and detachment of the property from County Service Area No. 1; adopt a resolution City Council Agenda – Special and Regular Meetings November 15, 2022 City of Tulare Page 4
approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 to change the existing General Plan land use designation from Residential Estate to Low Density Residential on approximately 35.62-acres and Community Commercial on approximately 2.86-acres; and pass to print an ordinance approving Zone Amendment No. 748, pre-zoning approximately 35.62-acres of the subject property to R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and approximately 2.86-acres to the C-3 (Retail Commercial) zoning designations to become effective upon annexation into the City limits. [Submitted by: S. Sopp]

14. GENERAL BUSINESS - Comments related to General Business items are limited to three minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item, unless otherwise extended by the Council.

14.3. Approve and authorize the mayor to execute the Hillman Center Emergency Homeless Shelter Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Tulare and Tulare County. [Submitted by: M. Mondell]

15. STAFF UPDATES

16. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

16.1. Utility Bill Late Charge. [Submitted by: Mayor Mederos]

17. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING

17.1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.9(c): 1 case

18. RECONVENE FROM CLOSED SESSION

19. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - This is the time for Council to publicly report specified closed session action and the vote taken on those actions, if any.

20. ADJOURNMENT
City Council Agenda – Special and Regular Meetings November 15, 2022 City of Tulare Page 5
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Tulare City Council is Tuesday, December 6, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Tulare Public Library, 491 North M Street, Tulare, California.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
State of California }
County of Tulare } ss.

City of Tulare }
I, Melissa Hermann, Chief Deputy City Clerk for the City of Tulare, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that I caused the posting of this agenda before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 10, 2022, at City Hall, 411 E. Kern Avenue, as well as on the City’s website.

POSTED BY: Melissa Hermann, Chief Deputy City Clerk

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: Marc Mondell, City Manager
Subject: November 15, 2022 Agenda Memo
Date: November 10, 2022
Time Estimates - Time estimates are provided as part of the Council’s effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council, by consensus, reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 6:00 p.m. - SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION)

1. CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION - Comments are limited to items to be discussed in closed session. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes.

3. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING

3.1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.9(c): 1 case

4. RECONVENE FROM CLOSED SESSION

5. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - This is the time for Council to publicly report specified closed session action and the vote taken on those actions, if any.

6. ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
7:00 p.m. - REGULAR MEETING

7. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING

8. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS - This is the time for the public to comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Tulare City Council that are not on the agenda. The Council asks that comments are kept brief and positive. The Council cannot legally discuss or take official action on request items that are introduced tonight. This is also the time for the public to comment on items listed under the Consent Calendar or to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes. Comments related to Public Hearing or General Business items will be heard at the time those items are discussed. In fairness to all who Tulare City Council Page 2
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
wish to speak, each speaker will be allowed three minutes with a maximum time of 15 minutes per item unless otherwise extended by Council. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

10. COMMUNICATIONS - [Time Estimate: 7:15-7:20 p.m.] Communications are to be submitted to the City Manager’s Office 10 days prior to a Council Meeting to be considered for this section of the Agenda. No action will be taken on matters listed under communications; however, the Council may direct staff to schedule issues raised during communications for a future agenda. Public comments will be limited to three minutes per topic unless otherwise extended by Council.

11. CONSENT CALENDAR - [Time Estimate: 7:20-7:25 p.m.] 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 to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

11.1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only.

11.2. Approve minutes of the November 1, 2022, special and regular meetings. [Submitted by: M. Hermann] The minutes of the November 1, 2022, special and regular meetings are submitted for Council approval. Staff recommends Council approve as presented.

11.3. Adopt a resolution approving the acceptance and appropriation of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) funds from the State of California in the amount of $107,283.00. [Submitted by: M. Machado] Since 1997, the California State Budget Act has included allocations to counties and cities for the COPS program. This funding is intended to fill the need for additional resources at the local level to ensure public safety. Funds must supplement existing services and cannot be used to supplant any existing funds. The funds cannot be used for administrative overhead costs in excess of ½ percent of the total allocation. The allocation may not be used to fund the costs of any capital project or construction project that does not directly support frontline law enforcement. Each city is required to deposit the funds into a separate Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund so that these funds are not intermingled with General Fund dollars.

The 2022-23 COPS award for Tulare is in the amount of $107,283.00. Staff proposes to use the COPS funds to supplement one sworn officer position. Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution approving the acceptance and appropriation of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) funds from the State of California in the amount of $107,283.00.

M. Miller] On July 6, 2021, City Council conditionally approved the final map for Phase 3 of the Kensington Estates subdivision, which created 55 single-family Tulare City Council Page 3
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
residential lots, as shown on the attached exhibit. The overall Kensington Estates subdivision comprises approximately 24 acres consisting of 111 single-family residential lots. The subdivision is being developed in phases.

The Subdivider, Presidio JJR Brighton II 100, LLC, has completed construction of all required public works improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications for this subdivision, with the exception of the undergrounding of overhead utilities and frontage improvements along the project’s Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63) frontage and the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Cartmill Avenue and De La Vina Street. The Subdivider requested that the Mooney Boulevard improvements and traffic signal installation be secured through short-term deferred improvement agreements, which were approved by Council on July 6, 2021 and June 21, 2022 respectively. The Developer has continued to make satisfactory progress towards completion of the deferred improvements. The traffic signal at the intersection of Cartmill Avenue and De La Vina Street is expected to be complete and operational by mid-December. Plans for the Mooney Boulevard (SR 63) improvements are currently being reviewed by Caltrans. Caltrans has indicated that their review process could take up to 6 months, which would put start of construction in early Summer of 2023. Staff recommends Council accept as complete the required public works improvements for Phase 3 of the Kensington Estates subdivision with the exception of certain improvements secured through separate deferred improvement agreements; authorize the City Engineer to sign a Notice of Completion; and direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the Tulare County Recorder’s Office.

11.5. Authorize the City Manager to execute a preliminary oversize construction reimbursement agreement with CFT NV Developments, LLC for construction costs associated with the Panda Express commercial development that are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Municipal Code, subject only to minor conforming and clarifying changes acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager. [Submitted by: M. Miller] As part of the Panda Express commercial development located on the northeast corner of Bardsley Avenue and Blackstone Street, CFT NV Development, LLC (Developer) is required to install a raised median in Bardsley Avenue to control turning movements into the project.

These Bardsley Avenue street improvements are required to address traffic operational concerns related to the intersections of Bardsley Avenue / Blackstone Street, and Bardsley Avenue / Southbound Highway 99 ramps, and serve regional needs beyond what would be required for the development itself. Costs associated with the supplemental size and capacity provided by the required improvements are eligible for oversized construction reimbursement in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Municipal Code.

The attached preliminary oversize construction reimbursement agreement for Bardsley Avenue street improvements identifies work that the City has required the Developer to complete that would be eligible for reimbursement under the City’s oversize reimbursement policy, and identifies the conditions under which the City would reimburse the Developer for their eligible expenditures, plus accrued interest, as funding becomes available through the City’s Development Impact Fee program.

Tulare City Council Page 4
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to execute a preliminary oversize construction reimbursement agreement with CFT NV Developments, LLC for construction costs associated with the Panda Express commercial development that are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with Chapter

8.64 of the Municipal Code, subject only to minor conforming and clarifying changes acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager.

11.6. Authorize the City Manager to execute and sign a contract with AAA Security, Inc. to provide one security guard for the temporary homeless encampment not to exceed the amount of $141,480.00. [Submitted by: M. Ott] The City of Tulare is developing a temporary homeless encampment on the corner of East Walnut Street and South O Street to provide security and promote positive welfare for the homeless community. The City requests to contract security service with AAA Security, Inc. who will provide one security guard to be on-site at the temporary homeless encampment from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m., 7 days a week, for a period not to exceed 18 months.

The security guard will make hourly checks on the encampment and parking area and observe and report any fire, medical issues, fight or acts of violence to 911. The security guard will have a guard house for their comfort and to conduct operations from. Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to execute and sign a contract with AAA Security, Inc. to provide one security guard for the temporary homeless encampment not to exceed the amount of $141,480.00.

11.7. Accept the monthly investment reports for September and October 2022. [Submitted by: D. Ibanez] The investment reports for September and October 2022 are submitted for Council review and acceptance. Staff recommends Council accept the monthly investment reports for September and October 2022.

11.8. Authorize City of Tulare to apply to the Kings Tulare Continuum of Care on Homelessness local Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (“HHAP”) Round 4 Request for Proposals for a grant award not to exceed $143,415 to finance street outreach and housing placement services for people experiencing homelessness in prioritized encampment area(s) within the City of Tulare. [Submitted by: T. Myers] The California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH), through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Program, provides funding in the form of grants for a range of activities that assist persons who are currently experiencing homelessness or are at risk of experiencing homelessness. The HHAP Round 4 (HHAP 4) funding is a $1 billion block grant program authorized by Health and Safety Code 50218.7, which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 19, 2021.The Kings Tulare Continuum of Care (KTCoC) announced a Request for Proposals (RFP) for HHAP 4 on October 19, 2022. A full overview of the RFP and HHAP Program guidelines are available at the KTCoC website at
https://www.kthomelessalliance.org/news/category/ktcoc-releases-hhap-4-rfp.

The exact amount of funds allocated to the KTCoC will be determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). KTCoC anticipates a decrease their allocation from the state in proportion to the region’s decreased Point-In-Time Count numbers (4.7% decrease from 2020 to 2022), Tulare City Council Page 5
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
therefore the projected allocation to the KTCoC is $1,517,633.23. These HHAP 4 grant funds are then invested in local activities and projects that satisfy HHAP Program guidelines and local funding priorities.

General eligible uses of HHAP 4 grant funds include:
• Rapid rehousing services (e.g., housing placement and deposit and rent assistance);
• Operating subsidies in new and existing affordable or supportive housing units; • Non-congregate emergency shelters and navigation centers; • Street outreach;
• Services coordination;
• System support for activities necessary to create regional partnerships and maintain a homeless services and housing delivery system; • Delivery of permanent housing and innovative housing solutions; • Prevention and shelter diversion to permanent housing; and, • Non-congregate Interim shelter.

Direct service activities must be carried out in accordance with federal regulations cited below and written standards of the local Coordinated Entry System and Every Door Open.

Component Type Regulation
Navigation Centers 24 CFR 576.102
Rental Assistance 24 CFR 576.106
Housing Location / Stabilization Services 24 CFR 576.105 Housing Search and Placement 24 CFR 576.105(1)
Homeless Prevention 24 CFR 576.103
Housing and Grants Division staff propose securing HHAP 4 funds to account for particular personnel costs on the current Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) project in Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Three (3) Case Managers / Housing Navigators are contracted full-time to provide street outreach, services coordination, and housing placement support for a minimum of 75 people experiencing homelessness over the course of a two-year period that began on July 1, 2022. The amount of HHAP 4 funds the City requests should not exceed $143,415 and is comprised primarily of the cost to contract three (3) full-time Case Managers / Housing Navigators in the second and final year of the current ERF project. A finalized HHAP 4 funding request amount will account for at least 60 percent of each Case Manager’s total salary and indirect costs incurred by organization(s) supervising these personnel.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

To-date, no general or other local funds are committed to and/or expended on the ERF Project. If acquired, a HHAP 4 grant will solidify financing for Case Managers / Housing Navigators in the second and final year of the ERF Project. In the current and first year of the ERF Project, Housing and Grants Division staff recommended and received approval from Council to expend Community Development Block Grant funds on a portion of salary costs for three (3) Case Managers / Housing Navigators. Staff Tulare City Council Page 6
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
recommends Council authorize City of Tulare to apply to the Kings Tulare Continuum of Care on Homelessness local Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (“HHAP”) Round 4 Request for Proposals for a grant award not to exceed $143,415 to finance street outreach and housing placement services for people experiencing homelessness in prioritized encampment area(s) within the City of Tulare.

12. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORTS OR ITEMS OF INTEREST [Time Estimate: 7:25-7:35 p.m.]

12.1. Measure Y results and implementation.

13. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Comments related to Public Hearing items are limited to three minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item, unless otherwise extended by the Council.

13.1. Receive a presentation by Peters Engineering Group regarding their preparation of a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) for the City of Tulare, conduct a public hearing to receive comment, and provide Council direction regarding the contents, findings and recommendations of the LRSP. [Submitted by: M. Miller] [Time Estimate: 7:35-8:00 p.m.] Federal regulations require each State to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). An SHSP is a statewide data-driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, state, local and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis (or challenge) areas. The SHSP address the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

While the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) can be a means for providing local and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP. The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements. Preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and contribute to the statewide plan. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges.

An LRSP provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads. The process of developing an LRSP can be tailored to local protocols, needs, and issues. To be eligible to apply for grant funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program, a local agency must have an LRSP.

On March 1, 2022, Council awarded a professional services contract to Peters Engineering Group of Clovis, CA to prepare a LRSP for the City of Tulare. Since then, Peters Engineering Group has been reviewing traffic safety data and roadway conditions for the City. They have compiled the results, and are ready to present their Tulare City Council Page 7
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
initial findings and recommendations to City Council and the public. Feedback from City Council and community stakeholders is necessary to affirm stakeholder support and establish priorities of proposed improvements identified in the final draft of the LRSP. Staff recommends Council receive a presentation by Peters Engineering Group regarding their preparation of a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) for the City of Tulare, conduct a public hearing to receive comment, and provide Council direction regarding the contents, findings and recommendations of the LRSP.

35.62-acres of the subject property to R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and approximately 2.86-acres to the C-3 (Retail Commercial) zoning designations to become effective upon annexation into the City limits. [Submitted by: S. Sopp] [Time Estimate: 8:00-8:15 p.m.] This is a request by Quest Equity to annex into the City limits and subdivide approximately

35.62-acres into a 185-lot single-family residential subdivision and to establish an approximately 2.86-acre commercial corner. The proposed project is located on the southwest corner of Tulare Avenue (SR 137) and Oakmore Street.

The proposed annexation is immediately adjacent to the existing City limits to the west and represents an orderly expansion of the City limits. The annexation does not contribute to the creation of an island or peninsula. Staff has reviewed the proposed annexation and determined it to be consistent with Chapter 10.26 – Annexations, of the City of Tulare Municipal Code. Following the approval of a resolution of application by the City Council, the applicant will be required to provide documentation and filing fees, and City staff will work to submit an application to the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in order to initiate annexation proceedings.

The existing General Plan designation for the site is Residential Estate within the City of Tulare adopted 2035 General Plan. The applicant is proposing to change the existing General Plan land use designation to Low Density Residential for approximately 35.62-acres and Community Commercial for approximately 2.86-acres of the project site.

The subject property is currently subject to the zoning designation established by the County of Tulare. Upon annexation, the project proponents are proposing to establish the underlying zoning designations as R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and C-3 (Retail Commercial). The proposed R-1-5 and C-3 zoning Tulare City Council Page 8
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
designations are consistent with the existing/proposed Low Density Residential and Community Commercial land use designations.

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project for public review pursuant to provisions of the Public Resources Code, State of California, Section 21000 to 21177 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Tulare was the lead agency on the preparation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. A notice of Public Hearing for the project, and the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published on September 14, 2022.

Comments provided by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) acknowledged that “pollutant emissions from construction and operation are not expected to exceed any of the significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.” Comments also summarized the District’s established rules, regulations and regulatory permitting requirements. The comments are common permitting requirements for new construction and a recommended condition of approval will ensure that these requirements are met.

Comments provided by one neighboring resident were in favor of the proposed project and one comment was opposed to the project. The comment opposed to the project expressed concern regarding the school district’s ability to handle additional demand for services. No changes to the CEQA document were required as a result of the comments provided.

On October 24, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 2-0 (with one abstention and one recusal – one seat is currently vacant) to approve Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-22 (Fulton Estates) and to recommend that the City Council approve Annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35), General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 and Zone Amendment No. 748. Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution adopting the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-22 – (Fulton Estates), Annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35), General Plan Amendment No. 2022.01 and Zone Amendment No. 748; adopt a resolution requesting the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission take proceedings for annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35) and detachment of the property from County Service Area No. 1; adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 to change the existing General Plan land use designation from Residential Estate to Low Density Residential on approximately 35.62-acres and Community Commercial on approximately 2.86- acres; and pass to print an ordinance approving Zone Amendment No. 748, prezoning approximately 35.62-acres of the subject property to R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and approximately 2.86-acres to the C-3 (Retail Commercial) zoning designations to become effective upon annexation into the City limits.

Tulare City Council Page 9
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022

14. GENERAL BUSINESS - Comments related to General Business items are limited to three minutes per speaker, for a maximum of 30 minutes per item, unless otherwise extended by the Council.

14.1. Receive the recommendation of the Tulare Parks and Recreation Commission and authorize the allocation of $466,000.00 in Regional Park Development Impact Fee funds to design and construct a dog park located at the 400 Block of N Street. [Submitted by: J. Glick] [Time Estimate: 8:15-8:45 p.m.] At the August 9, 2022 meeting the Tulare Parks and Recreation Commission and Tulare Community Services staff discussed potential dog park locations for future development. City staff and the Tulare Parks and Recreation Commission identified five potential locations.

The locations were as follows:
• Blain Park
• Elk Bayou Regional Park
• City owned property located at the 400 Block of N Street. • City owned property located at the corner of East Alpine Ave. and Nelder Grove St.
• Belmont Basin located on Pleasant Ave. and Belmont St.

On October 11, 2022, the Tulare Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and discussed the potential Tulare Dog Park locations for a second time. Following questions and discussion with staff, the Commission identified and voted on a preferred location. The Tulare Parks and Recreation Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Tulare City Council authorize development of a plan for a dog park to be constructed at the City-owned property located on the north side of the 400 Block of N Street just north of the Santa Fe Trail. The Commission concluded that this is the preferred site due to its central location, proximity to a major trail, substantial distance from schools, and that parking would not impact a residential neighborhood.

A dog park has long been contemplated for construction in the City of Tulare. Regional Park Development Impact Fees will serve as the funding source for the project. The existing Regional Park DIF fund balance is $6,081,179.94. The Community Services Department and City Engineering staff estimate the project cost to be $466,000.00 for the design and construction. The cost estimate includes a ten percent contingency.

Staff recommends Council receive the recommendation of the Tulare Parks and Recreation Commission and authorize the allocation of $466,000.00 in Regional Park Development Impact Fee funds to design and construct a dog park located at the 400 Block of N Street.

14.2. Receive an update on the status of City Project EN0090 – Sequoia-Spruce Tracts Improvements, a street and utility improvement project on Spruce St., Sierra Ave., Sequoia Ave., Dayton St., and Kern Ave; and provide direction regarding the non-compliant asphalt paving installed in Phase 5: Spruce Street between Sierra Avenue and Tulare Avenue. [Submitted by: N. Bartsch] [Time Estimate:
8:45-9:30 p.m.] Capital Improvement Project EN0090 included street and utility improvements on: Spruce Street between Bardsley Avenue and Tulare Avenue (SR137); Sierra Avenue between SR99 and Canby Street; Sierra Avenue/Sequoia Tulare City Council Page 10
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
Avenue Alley between SR99 and Spruce Street; Sequoia Avenue between Dayton Street and Spruce Street; Sequoia Avenue/Kern Avenue Alley between Dayton Street and Spruce Street; Kern Avenue between Dayton Street and Spruce Street. The project has addressed deteriorated and substandard water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure, reconstructed the street section, and included ADA compliance improvements to intersection curb returns and alley/sidewalk intersections within the project limits. The need for the project was identified through the City’s Pavement Management System and the review of the condition of the City’s utility infrastructure.

This project was included and approved as a part of the City’s 2019-2024 transportation and utility CIP program budget.

On March 16, 2021 the City Council approved a contract with 99 Pipeline, Inc. in the amount of $6,045,366.78 to complete the work on the subject project. Work began on April 30, 2021, and progressed into June of 2022. The project was broken into 5 phases of work, with the final phase (Phase 5) of the project located on Spruce Street, between Sierra Avenue and Tulare Avenue. The asphalt paving in Phase 5 was performed by 99 Pipeline’s subcontractor, MAC General Engineering, on May 26, 2022. The asphalt material was supplied by Deer Creek Asphalt (a.k.a., Jaxon Enterprises). As is typical, the City contracted with a geotechnical and materials testing consultant, NV5, to serve as the “Quality Assurance Lab”. In this capacity, NV5 obtained material samples and performed required testing to verify compliance with project specifications. Additionally, as required by the contract, the material was also sampled and tested by the Contractor’s consultant, Trinity Engineering Labs, acting as the “Quality Control Lab”. Results from both labs indicated the material failed to meet some of the Caltrans established standards incorporated into the City’s contract specifications. Specifically, the results indicated that the material had low air voids far below allowable tolerances, and high oil content above the specified limit. Material with these properties typically causes “flushing”, a condition where oil migrates out of the material to the surface of the road. This can result in slippery road conditions causing vehicles to lose traction, and an increased potential for rutting (permanent deformation or consolidation of the pavement surface over time). Signs of flushing have been observed since the day the paving work was performed, and continue to progress ever since. Additionally, certain areas are beginning to indicate initial signs of rutting.

The City received the materials testing results from NV5 for the asphalt concrete material placed in Phase 5 of the project on June 3, 2022. The City immediately provided the test results to the Contractor. Based on the results indicating that the material failed to meet specification requirements, and in consultation with NV5, the City made the determination that the asphalt paving materials placed with Phase 5 should be removed and replaced. The City provided direction to the Contractor to move forward with a proposed remediation plan.

MAC General Engineering and Deer Creek Asphalt both recognized the specified material deficiencies, but requested that the material re-tested by a third-party laboratory. Although not required or provided for by the contract specifications, the City obliged this request and allowed them to select an alternative laboratory from the City’s on-call list of consultants to perform “referee” testing at their cost, with the Tulare City Council Page 11
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
understanding that results confirming that the material failed to meet required specifications would be cause for the prompt removal and replacement of the material, as previously directed. The contractor agreed to these terms and the additional testing of the material was performed by Kleinfelder. Ultimately, the results from Kleinfelder’s referee testing confirmed those previously found by both NV5 and Trinity Engineering, confirming that the material failed to meet the required specifications. Results were provided to the Contractor on September 26, 2022 with, once again, the direction to immediately remove and replace all asphalt concrete paving within the Phase 5 limits of the project.

Since the issuance of the September 26, 2022 letter, additional meetings and rounds of correspondence have occurred between City staff, the Contractor (99 Pipeline), the paving subcontractor (MAC General Engineering), and the asphalt material provider (Deer Creek Asphalt). To date, the Contractor has failed to remove and replace the material in accordance with the contract specifications. As allowed by the provisions of the contract specifications, the City has withheld $103,354.62 related to the work in question. This amount represents all work performed to date (at the bid unit prices) impacted by the non-compliant material. Additionally, as is typical and required by the contract and allowed by the Public Contract Code, the City has also withheld 5% ($290,074.78) in retention of the total amount earned to date. Under normal conditions, upon successful completion of the contract and resolution of outstanding issues, this amount would be released after issuance of the Notice of Completion.

For reference, Deer Creek Asphalt has been the material supplier of asphalt on three (3) other ongoing City projects. They have struggled to produce compliant material on all of these projects, even when utilizing numerous different mix design formulas to meet varying specification requirements. Based on this recent experience, there is significant cause for concern regarding Deer Creek Asphalt’s ability to produce material that meets the requirements of the contract specifications.

Based upon the Contractor’s failure to perform the removal and replacement of the non-compliant asphalt material in a timely manner, staff has obtained additional bids to complete this work. These bids exceed the amount withheld specifically related to the Phase 5 paving, but are well within the total amount currently withheld in retention for the overall project. Due to the Contractor’s failure to perform work in compliance with the contract specifications and refusal to follow City directives for the correction of noncompliant work, staff recommends Council direct staff to proceed with performing the necessary remedial work utilizing an alternate contractor.

14.3. Approve and authorize the mayor to execute the Hillman Center Emergency Homeless Shelter Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Tulare and Tulare County. [Submitted by: M. Mondell] [Time Estimate: 9:30-9:45 p.m.] On February 15, 2022 City Council adopted Resolution 2022-05 allocating $2,000,000 in Federal ARPA funds towards a Homeless Shelter (Shelter) the details of which were to be later determined. On May 17, 2022 City Council accepted staff’s recommendations regarding the proposed Shelter to be located at the Hillman Health Center and directed staff to proceed with negotiating a ground lease agreement with Tulare City Council Page 12
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
Tulare County and preparation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a non-profit operator. In addition, on July 19, 2022 City Council approved a contract with 4 Creeks to prepare a survey, geotechnical analysis, design, bidding documents, and construction support services for the Shelter.

Since that time, staff has been negotiating with Tulare County on the terms of a ground lease which is presented herein for approval this evening. Staff has also been working on the development of an RFP for a non-profit operator which will be presented at a future date.

The basic terms of the proposed ground lease are as follows:
• The Shelter is to be located on approximately 2.5 acres at the Hillman Health Center (parcel id #181-040-002) owned by Tulare County. • The lease is provided at no cost to the City (rent free) in exchange for the City reserving up to 25% of bed space for County homeless service needs. • The initial lease term is 10 years (December 1, 2022 through November 30,2023 with 3 five-year options to renew (total of twenty-five years). • The City is solely responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Shelter.
• The City is responsible to respond to issues regarding safety within one hour during business hours and three hours after business hours. • The City is responsible to respond to nuisance type issues within twenty-four hours and work to resolve within thirty business days failing which the County may seek lease termination.
• The Shelter shall be opened and operational 7 days per week. • The agreement contemplates a third-party provider to operate the Shelter, the County reserves the right to review the scope of work for the service provider. • The County retains the right to terminate the agreement or charge fair market rent (less the value of improvements) if the premises are not utilized as a Shelter or if it is determined to no longer be a public benefit (conditions apply). • The City accepts the premises in an “as is” basis, no warranties are provided. • All alterations and construction must be reviewed and approved by the County at various stages, although permitting and inspection responsibility will be retained by the City.
• Prevailing wages and project registration with the Department of Industrial Relations is required.
• City shall provide County with written ten-day advance notice of construction and must complete initial Shelter construction within twenty-four months. • City must keep the leasehold free of liens and indemnify the County. • The City is required to remove all improvement upon lease termination unless otherwise directed by the County.
• The County retains the right to inspect the premises. • If the City vacates the premises the County has the right to terminate the lease. • The City is responsible for all utility related expenses and monthly charges. • The City is responsible for all maintenance.

Tulare City Council Page 13
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022
• The City shall not assign or sublease the premises (a third-party operator is contemplated).
• The City shall be responsible for paying property taxes (if applicable). • The City shall erect a full 8’ tall fence with privacy screening around the premises.
• The City shall provide security in the form of Peace Officers to the premises. • The City shall provide exterior lighting, alarms, and a security camera system. • The City and County shall jointly undertake a complete review of the project and the agreement after the project has been in operation for twelve calendar months (agreement modifications may be necessary at that time). • The City shall meet the indemnification and insurance requirements as specified.
• Other standard terms and conditions apply.

Staff recommends Council approve and authorize the mayor to execute the Hillman Center Emergency Homeless Shelter Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Tulare and Tulare County.

14.4. Adopt a resolution amending the Handbook of Rules and Procedures of the City Council of the City of Tulare formalizing the process for councilmembers to request future agenda items. [Submitted by: M. Mondell] [Time Estimate: 9:45- 10:00 p.m.] California Government Code § 36813 provides that a city council may establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings. On February 16, 2010, the Tulare City Council approved and adopted the Handbook of Rules and Procedures of the City Council (“Handbook”) which sets forth rules and procedures of the general powers and duties of the Council, meetings, decorum, as well as procedural and administrative rules that may be useful to the City Council, administrative staff, and the general public. The most recent update was on July 19, 2022.

Mayor Mederos advised staff and the Council of his desire to formalize the process for councilmembers to request future agenda items. The current process involves councilmembers bringing up items at a meeting and asking for consensus to place those items on a future agenda. The proposed process involves the following:

1. Councilmembers complete the Council Item Request Form and submit to the City Clerk;

2. Item is added to the next available agenda under Future Agenda Items and the completed form provided by the requesting councilmember will be provided in the packet for review (same as staff reports provided by staff);

3. Council will consider each item under Future Agenda Items separately. If approved, the item will be referred to staff to conduct a full analysis and added to a future agenda.

Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution amending the Handbook of Rules and Procedures of the City Council of the City of Tulare formalizing the process for councilmembers to request future agenda items.

15. STAFF UPDATES [Time Estimate: 10:00-10:10 p.m.]
Tulare City Council Page 14
Agenda Memo – November 15, 2022

16. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS [Time Estimate: 10:10-10:30 p.m.]

16.1. Utility Bill Late Charge. [Submitted by: Mayor Mederos] Frequently, I have received complaints from constituents regarding the late charge they are assessed if their payment doesn't arrive at the Los Angeles Post Office Box on time. Many people mail their utility bill payment or use Bill Pay provided by their financial institution. The mail is woefully slow these days. The late payment penalty is 10% of the outstanding bill which equates to a 120% per annum charge. On its face, this appears to be very excessive.

If agreed to by a consensus of the Council, I would like to have this matter placed on a future Agenda for analysis and review as to whether this late charge is appropriate. I believe the City Attorney should also review this issue to render an opinion as to whether this is legally excessive. Staff, after analysis and review, can then bring this matter back to the Council with a recommendation so we can determine if the appropriate Ordinance regarding the late fee should be modified.

17. ADJOURNMENT
City of Tulare Page 1
City of Tulare
City Council Meeting Minutes
A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Tulare was held on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. at the Tulare Public Library in the Council Chamber located at 491 North M Street.

COUNCIL PRESENT: Dennis A. Mederos, Terry A. Sayre, Stephen C. Harrell, Patrick Isherwood, Jose Sigala
STAFF PRESENT: Marc Mondell, Mario Zamora, Josh McDonnell, Janice Avila, Matt Machado, Trisha Whitfield, Justin Patananan, Jason Bowling, Melissa Hermann

1. CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING
A special meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Mederos.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
There were no public comments.

3. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING

3.1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) CVRR v. City of Tulare
Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU282595

3.2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) Hood v. City of Tulare
Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU290768

3.3. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) Villa v. City of Tulare
Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU290071

3.4. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) Camin v. City of Tulare
Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU288750

3.5. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) Charlton v. City of Tulare
Eastern District Court Case No. 1:20-cv-01136

3.6. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) Cuevas v. City of Tulare
Eastern District Court Case No. 1:19-cv-01525

3.7. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) Medina-Diaz v. City of Tulare
Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU290506
City Council Minutes Tuesday, November 1, 2022
City of Tulare Page 2

3.8. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) Murguia v. City of Tulare
Eastern District Court Case No. 1:19-cv-00942

3.9. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956.9(1)) Reedom v. City of Tulare
Eastern District Court Case No. 1:18-cv-01135
Mayor Mederos recessed to closed session at 6:01 p.m. for items on the agenda as stated by City Attorney Mario Zamora.

4. RECONVENE FROM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Mederos reconvened from closed session at 7:00 p.m.

5. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Mayor Mederos advised there was no reportable action.

6. ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Mederos adjourned the special meeting at 7:00 p.m.

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tulare was held on Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tulare Public Library in the Council Chamber located at 491 North M Street.

COUNCIL PRESENT: Dennis A. Mederos, Terry A. Sayre, Stephen C. Harrell, Patrick Isherwood, Jose Sigala
STAFF PRESENT: Marc Mondell, Mario Zamora, Josh McDonnell, Mario Anaya, Janice Avila, Michael Ott, Matt Machado, Diego Ibanez, Michael Miller, Trisha Whitfield, Jason Glick, Nick Bartsch, Justin Patananan, Jason Bowling, Melissa Hermann

7. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING
A regular meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Mederos.

8. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
Mayor Mederos led the pledge of allegiance and an invocation was given by Vice Mayor Sayre.

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following provided public comment: Donnette Silva-Carter.

10. COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications.

City Council Minutes Tuesday, November 1, 2022
City of Tulare Page 3

11. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Councilmember Harrell, seconded by Councilmember Sigala, and unanimously carried that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved as presented with the exception of item 11.8.

11.1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only.

11.2. Approve the minutes of the October 18, 2022, special and regular City Council meetings. [Submitted by: M. Hermann]

11.3. Adopt Ordinance 2022-14 amending Title 4 of the Tulare Municipal Code to adopt Appendix X of the latest edition of the California Residential Code and Appendix O of the latest edition of the California Building Code, and commencing on January 1, 2023, Appendix Z of the 2022 California Residential Code or Appendix P of the 2022 California Building Code, as applicable. [Submitted by: M. Hermann]

11.4. Adopt a resolution accepting and approving expenditures of the Edward Bryne 2022 Memorial Grant in the amount of $20,756.00. [Submitted by: G.

Merrill]

11.5. Authorize the City Manager to complete and execute the documents necessary to purchase property located on the north east corner of Prosperity Avenue and West Street (portion of APN 164-130-004) needed for Project EN0088 – Prosperity Avenue & West Street Improvements Project in the amount of $21,000, subject only to minor conforming and clarifying changes acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager. [Submitted by: N. Bartsch]

11.6. Review and approve the amended project scope for the design and construction of a new traffic signal and intersection improvements at Prosperity Avenue and West Street; Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract amendment with QK of Visalia, CA in an amount not to exceed $16,000 for the modification to the design and alignment of ultimate frontage improvements along the north side of Prosperity Avenue, east of West Street within the project limits; and authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% of the revised contract amount. [Submitted by: N. Bartsch]

11.7. Approve the Parcel Map filed by Varo-Real Investments, Inc., a California Corporation, for the division of land located at 1105 North “F” Street for recordation, and accept all easements and dedications offered to the City. [Submitted by: M. Miller]

11.8. Authorize the City Manager to execute a preliminary oversize construction reimbursement agreement with Great Valley Builders, Inc. for construction costs associated with the Villa Sierra Ranch residential development that are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Municipal Code, subject only to minor conforming and clarifying changes acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager. [Submitted by: M. Miller] City Council Minutes Tuesday, November 1, 2022
City of Tulare Page 4
Councilmember Sigala pulled this item for clarification. It was moved by Councilmember Isherwood, seconded by Councilmember Harrell, and unanimously carried to approve the item as presented.

11.9. Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support for the SR 99 Tulare Six-lane and Paige Avenue Interchange Improvement Project for submittal to the California Transportation Commission. [Submitted by: M. Miller]

11.10. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Grant of Easement and Certificate of Conveyance to Southern California Edison Company (SCE) for installation and maintenance of SCE utilities located within landscaping Outlot A of Phase 1 of the Liberty Hill subdivision and a City-owned lot (APN 168-009-017), subject only to minor conforming and clarifying changes acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager. [Submitted by:

M. Miller]

11.11. Authorize the City Manager to execute a preliminary oversized construction reimbursement agreement with Gussan Shedid for construction costs associated with the Little Caesars commercial development that are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Municipal Code, subject only to minor conforming and clarifying changes acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager. [Submitted by: M. Miller]

11.12. Approve a contract with NTM Productions, subject to minor and conforming changes approved by the city manager and city attorney in the amount of $275,100.15 for purchase, and installation of Audio-Visual Equipment in the Council Chambers and Charter Room; and authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($27,510) of the contract amount. [Submitted by: J.

Bowling]

12. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORTS OR ITEMS OF INTEREST
Council reported out on recent events and discussed items of interest.

13. PUBLIC HEARINGS

13.1. Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for APN 164-130-005 (the “Property”) authorizing the City Attorney to take the steps necessary to finalize the acquisition of the property owned by Jesus Ramirez for the upgrade of the intersection of Prosperity Avenue and West Street by the City (the “Project”). [Submitted by: M. Zamora] City Attorney Mario Zamora provided a report for Council consideration. Mayor Mederos opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. With no comments received, the public hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Sigala, seconded by Vice Mayor Sayre, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution of necessity as presented.

13.2. Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for APN 164-130-006 (the “Property”) authorizing the City Attorney to take the steps necessary to finalize the acquisition of the property owned by Guillermo Hernandez Rubio, Jennifer Hernandez, and Maria Gonzalez for the upgrade of the intersection of City Council Minutes Tuesday, November 1, 2022
City of Tulare Page 5
Prosperity Avenue and West Street by the City (the “Project”). [Submitted by: M. Zamora] City Attorney Mario Zamora provided a report for Council consideration. Mayor Mederos opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. With no comments received, the public hearing was closed at 7:27 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Sigala, seconded by Councilmember Isherwood, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution of necessity as presented.

14. GENERAL BUSINESS

14.1. Review the existing siting criteria, including distance requirements, for approving a conditional use permit to establish the operation of a vendor stand or stationary mobile food vendor vehicle/trailer in the City of Tulare, pursuant to Tulare Municipal Code Chapter 10.180; and provide direction to staff thereto. [Submitted by: M. Anaya] City Planner Mario Anaya provided a report for Council consideration. Following discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Sigala to review the existing distance in general, review the distance between vendors that serve varying food items, and direct staff to review and report back on how the City can assist vendors to come into compliance. The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Councilmember Isherwood and seconded by Vice Mayor Sayre to direct staff to conduct an analysis of the 500 feet requirement. The motion carried 3 to 2 by rollcall vote as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Isherwood, Vice Mayor Sayre, Mayor Mederos NOES: Councilmembers Harrell and Sigala

15. STAFF UPDATES AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Staff provided the Council updates on current departmental activities. There were no future agenda item requests.

16. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Mederos adjourned the regular meeting at 8:27 p.m.

President of the Council and Ex-Officio
Mayor of the City of Tulare
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk and Clerk of the
Council of the City of Tulare
Approved by Council: November 15, 2022

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Police
For Council Meeting of: November 15, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☐Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Adopt a resolution approving the acceptance and appropriation of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) funds from the State of California in the amount of $107,283.00.

IS PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:

Since 1997, the California State Budget Act has included allocations to counties and cities for the COPS program. This funding is intended to fill the need for additional resources at the local level to ensure public safety. Funds must supplement existing services and cannot be used to supplant any existing funds. The funds cannot be used for administrative overhead costs in excess of ½ percent of the total allocation. The allocation may not be used to fund the costs of any capital project or construction project that does not directly support frontline law enforcement. Each city is required to deposit the funds into a separate Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund so that these funds are not intermingled with General Fund dollars.

The 2022-23 COPS award for Tulare is in the amount of $107,283.00. Staff proposes to use the COPS funds to supplement one sworn officer position.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution approving the acceptance and appropriation of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) funds from the State of California in the amount of $107,283.00.

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☐Yes ☒N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:

N/A
Submitted by: Matt Machado Title: Captain
Date: November 7, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ AGENDA ITEM: Consent 11.3
September 14, 2022
Honorable Betty T. Yee
State Controller
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1850
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Evelyn Calderon-Yee, Chief
Bureau of Payments, Local Government Programs and Services Division, State Controller’s Office
Dear Controller Yee:

Pursuant to Government Code section 30029.05, subdivision (e), paragraph (2), the Department of Finance respectfully submits the attached (Attachments I and II) percentages for the 2022-23 allocation of $214,200,000 in Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) and Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) funds deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount (ELEAS) in the Law Enforcement Services Account within the Local Revenue Fund 2011.

Pursuant to Government Code section 30061, subdivisions (b) and (g), subsequent to the allocation described in Section 29552, subdivision (d), 47.08727192 percent of the remaining funds deposited in the ELEAS for the COPS (23.54363596 percent) and JJCPA (23.54363596 percent) programs are to be allocated, according to the relative population for each county and city, as follows:
(1) 5.15 percent to county sheriffs for county jail construction and operation ($11,031,300).
(2) 5.15 percent to district attorneys for criminal prosecution ($11,031,300). (3) 50 percent to counties to implement a comprehensive multi-agency juvenile justice plan ($107,100,000).
(4) 39.7 percent to counties and cities for front-line law enforcement ($85,037,400).

Please note that the by-county percentages for the first three allocations above: (1) county jail construction and operation, (2) district attorney criminal prosecution, and (3) multi-agency juvenile justice plans, are specified on Attachment I and the bycounty/city percentages for the fourth allocation, front-line law enforcement, are identified on Attachment II.
-2-
Pursuant to Government Code section 30061, subdivision (b), paragraph (3), each law enforcement jurisdiction receiving front-line law enforcement funding is to receive a minimum grant of $100,000. The percentages included in Attachment II are calculated in a manner that provides for a minimum grant allocation of $100,000 to each law enforcement jurisdiction listed in Attachment II.

Also note that the allocations shown on Attachments I and II may be slightly different from the final allocations made by the State Controller’s Office due to rounding.

If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call Cynthia Mendonza, Staff Finance Budget Analyst, at (916) 445-8913.

Sincerely,

AMY JARVIS
Program Budget Manager
Attachment
cc: Natalie Sidarous, Chief, Local Government Programs and Services Division, State Controller’s Office
Anne Kato, Assistant Chief, Local Government Programs and Services Division, State Controller’s Office
Melma Dizon, Manager, Local Apportionments Section, Local Government Programs and Services Division, State Controller’s Office Kathleen Howard, Executive Director, Board of State and Community Corrections 2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety and Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act Allocations Based on Jan. 1, 2022 Population Estimates
Attachment I
Co. Jail
Operation
Allocation by
County
Percent of Co.

Jail Operation
Allocation by
County
District
Attorney
Allocation by
County
Percent of District
Attorney
Allocation by
County
Juvenile
Justice
Allocation by
County
Percent of
Juvenile Justice
Allocation by
County
Total
Allocation by
County
Percent of Total
Allocation by
County
Net Total
Allocation by
County
Front-line Law
Enforcement
Percent of Net
Total Allocation
by County
Alameda 1,651,979 4.21578026% 465,055 4.21578026% $465,055 4.21578026% $4,515,101 4.21578026% $5,445,211 4.21578026% $8,254,037 $2,808,826 3.30304762% Alpine 1,200 0.00306235% $338 0.00306235% $338 0.00306235% $3,280 0.00306235% $3,955 0.00306235% $103,955 $100,000 0.11759532% Amador 40,297 0.10283623% $11,344 0.10283623% $11,344 0.10283623% $110,138 0.10283623% $132,826 0.10283623% $732,826 $600,000 0.70557190% Butte 201,608 0.51449506% $56,755 0.51449506% $56,755 0.51449506% $551,024 0.51449506% $664,535 0.51449506% $1,323,451 $658,915 0.77485365% Calaveras 45,049 0.11496314% $12,682 0.11496314% $12,682 0.11496314% $123,126 0.11496314% $148,489 0.11496314% $348,489 $200,000 0.23519063% Colusa 21,807 0.05565054% $6,139 0.05565054% $6,139 0.05565054% $59,602 0.05565054% $71,880 0.05565054% $371,880 $300,000 0.35278595% Contra Costa 1,156,555 2.95147925% $325,587 2.95147925% $325,587 2.95147925% $3,161,034 2.95147925% $3,812,207 2.95147925% $6,384,481 $2,572,274 3.02487337% Del Norte 27,218 0.06945918% $7,662 0.06945918% $7,662 0.06945918% $74,391 0.06945918% $89,715 0.06945918% $289,715 $200,000 0.23519063% El Dorado 190,465 0.48605859% $53,619 0.48605859% $53,619 0.48605859% $520,569 0.48605859% $627,806 0.48605859% $1,072,793 $444,987 0.52328339% Fresno 1,011,273 2.58072575% $284,688 2.58072575% $284,688 2.58072575% $2,763,957 2.58072575% $3,333,332 2.58072575% $5,911,240 $2,577,907 3.03149831% Glenn 28,750 0.07336878% $8,094 0.07336878% $8,094 0.07336878% $78,578 0.07336878% $94,765 0.07336878% $394,765 $300,000 0.35278595% Humboldt 135,168 0.34494300% $38,052 0.34494300% $38,052 0.34494300% $369,434 0.34494300% $445,537 0.34494300% $1,256,359 $810,822 0.95348824% Imperial 179,329 0.45763999% $50,484 0.45763999% $50,484 0.45763999% $490,132 0.45763999% $591,100 0.45763999% $1,391,100 $800,000 0.94076254% Inyo 18,978 0.04843105% $5,343 0.04843105% $5,343 0.04843105% $51,870 0.04843105% $62,555 0.04843105% $262,555 $200,000 0.23519063% Kern 909,813 2.32180414% $256,125 2.32180414% $256,125 2.32180414% $2,486,652 2.32180414% $2,998,903 2.32180414% $5,302,318 $2,303,416 2.70870909% Kings 152,023 0.38795624% $42,797 0.38795624% $42,797 0.38795624% $415,501 0.38795624% $501,094 0.38795624% $1,001,094 $500,000 0.58797658% Lake 67,407 0.17201980% $18,976 0.17201980% $18,976 0.17201980% $184,233 0.17201980% $222,185 0.17201980% $522,185 $300,000 0.35278595% Lassen 30,274 0.07725796% $8,523 0.07725796% $8,523 0.07725796% $82,743 0.07725796% $99,788 0.07725796% $299,788 $200,000 0.23519063% Los Angeles 9,861,224 25.1654249100% $2,776,074 25.16542491% $2,776,074 25.16542491% $26,952,170 25.16542491% $32,504,317 25.16542491% $51,149,975 $18,645,658 21.92642075% Madera 157,396 0.40166791% $44,309 0.40166791% $44,309 0.40166791% $430,186 0.40166791% $518,805 0.40166791% $832,786 $313,981 0.36922696% Marin 257,135 0.65619760% $72,387 0.65619760% $72,387 0.65619760% $702,788 0.65619760% $847,562 0.65619760% $2,051,022 $1,203,461 1.41521328% Mariposa 17,045 0.04349812% $4,798 0.04349812% $4,798 0.04349812% $46,586 0.04349812% $56,183 0.04349812% $156,183 $100,000 0.11759532% Mendocino 89,999 0.22967363% $25,336 0.22967363% $25,336 0.22967363% $245,980 0.22967363% $296,652 0.22967363% $796,652 $500,000 0.58797658% Merced 284,338 0.72561850% $80,045 0.72561850% $80,045 0.72561850% $777,137 0.72561850% $937,228 0.72561850% $1,715,144 $777,917 0.91479350% Modoc 8,690 0.02217651% $2,446 0.02217651% $2,446 0.02217651% $23,751 0.02217651% $28,644 0.02217651% $228,644 $200,000 0.23519063% Mono 13,379 0.03414264% $3,766 0.03414264% $3,766 0.03414264% $36,567 0.03414264% $44,100 0.03414264% $244,100 $200,000 0.23519063% Monterey 433,716 1.10682481% $122,097 1.10682481% $122,097 1.10682481% $1,185,409 1.10682481% $1,429,604 1.10682481% $2,938,558 $1,508,954 1.77445925% Napa 136,179 0.34752303% $38,336 0.34752303% $38,336 0.34752303% $372,197 0.34752303% $448,870 0.34752303% $1,068,537 $619,667 0.72869924% Nevada 101,242 0.25836528% $28,501 0.25836528% $28,501 0.25836528% $276,709 0.25836528% $333,711 0.25836528% $737,487 $403,776 0.47482126% Orange 3,162,245 8.06991496% $890,217 8.06991496% $890,217 8.06991496% $8,642,879 8.06991496% $10,423,312 8.06991496% $16,083,254 $5,659,942 6.65582657% Placer 409,025 1.04381443% $115,146 1.04381443% $115,146 1.04381443% $1,117,925 1.04381443% $1,348,218 1.04381443% $2,266,214 $917,996 1.07952074% Plumas 18,942 0.04833918% $5,332 0.04833918% $5,332 0.04833918% $51,771 0.04833918% $62,436 0.04833918% $262,436 $200,000 0.23519063% Riverside 2,435,525 6.21535638% $685,635 6.21535638% $685,635 6.21535638% $6,656,647 6.21535638% $8,027,916 6.21535638% $12,582,652 $4,554,736 5.35615588% Sacramento 1,576,618 4.02346219% $443,840 4.02346219% $443,840 4.02346219% $4,309,128 4.02346219% $5,196,808 4.02346219% $7,791,689 $2,594,881 3.05145811% San Benito 65,479 0.16709963% $18,433 0.16709963% $18,433 0.16709963% $178,964 0.16709963% $215,830 0.16709963% $515,830 $300,000 0.35278595% San Bernardino 2,187,665 5.58282818% $615,859 5.58282818% $615,859 5.58282818% $5,979,209 5.58282818% $7,210,926 5.58282818% $11,230,847 $4,019,920 4.72723823% San Diego 3,287,306 8.38906532% $925,423 8.38906532% $925,423 8.38906532% $8,984,689 8.38906532% $10,835,535 8.38906532% $16,320,064 $5,484,529 6.44954910% San Francisco 842,754 2.15067242% $237,247 2.15067242% $237,247 2.15067242% $2,303,370 2.15067242% $2,777,864 2.15067242% $4,079,487 $1,301,623 1.53064763% San Joaquin 784,298 2.00149519% $220,791 2.00149519% $220,791 2.00149519% $2,143,601 2.00149519% $2,585,183 2.00149519% $4,012,081 $1,426,898 1.67796543% San Luis Obispo 280,721 0.71638807% $79,027 0.71638807% $79,027 0.71638807% $767,252 0.71638807% $925,305 0.71638807% $1,813,677 $888,372 1.04468371% San Mateo 744,662 1.90034580% $209,633 1.90034580% $209,633 1.90034580% $2,035,270 1.90034580% $2,454,536 1.90034580% $4,800,890 $2,346,354 2.75920216% Santa Barbara 445,164 1.13603962% $125,320 1.13603962% $125,320 1.13603962% $1,216,698 1.13603962% $1,467,338 1.13603962% $2,586,992 $1,119,654 1.31666020% Santa Clara 1,894,783 4.83540576% $533,408 4.83540576% $533,408 4.83540576% $5,178,720 4.83540576% $6,245,536 4.83540576% $9,585,018 $3,339,482 3.92707485% Santa Cruz 266,564 0.68026001% $75,042 0.68026001% $75,042 0.68026001% $728,558 0.68026001% $878,642 0.68026001% $1,479,389 $600,748 0.70645133% Shasta 180,531 0.46070745% $50,822 0.46070745% $50,822 0.46070745% $493,418 0.46070745% $595,062 0.46070745% $1,040,953 $445,892 0.52434771% Sierra 3,229 0.00824027% $909 0.00824027% $909 0.00824027% $8,825 0.00824027% $10,643 0.00824027% $210,643 $200,000 0.23519063% Siskiyou 43,830 0.11185230% $12,339 0.11185230% $12,339 0.11185230% $119,794 0.11185230% $144,471 0.11185230% $1,244,471 $1,100,000 1.29354849% Solano 447,241 1.14134004% $125,905 1.14134004% $125,905 1.14134004% $1,222,375 1.14134004% $1,474,184 1.14134004% $2,506,019 $1,031,835 1.21338961% Sonoma 482,404 1.23107452% $135,804 1.23107452% $135,804 1.23107452% $1,318,481 1.23107452% $1,590,088 1.23107452% $2,865,665 $1,275,577 1.50001884% Stanislaus 549,466 1.40221390% $154,682 1.40221390% $154,682 1.40221390% $1,501,771 1.40221390% $1,811,136 1.40221390% $3,129,618 $1,318,482 1.55047339% Sutter 99,145 0.25301383% $27,911 0.25301383% $27,911 0.25301383% $270,978 0.25301383% $326,799 0.25301383% $634,393 $307,594 0.36171570% Tehama 65,052 0.16600994% $18,313 0.16600994% $18,313 0.16600994% $177,797 0.16600994% $214,423 0.16600994% $614,423 $400,000 0.47038127% Trinity 16,023 0.04089002% $4,511 0.04089002% $4,511 0.04089002% $43,793 0.04089002% $52,815 0.04089002% $152,815 $100,000 0.11759532% Tulare 475,014 1.21221556% $133,723 1.21221556% $133,723 1.21221556% $1,298,283 1.21221556% $1,565,729 1.21221556% $2,701,407 $1,135,678 1.33550374% Tuolumne 55,291 0.14110028% $15,565 0.14110028% $15,565 0.14110028% $151,118 0.14110028% $182,249 0.14110028% $382,249 $200,000 0.23519063% Ventura 833,652 2.12744450% $234,685 2.12744450% $234,685 2.12744450% $2,278,493 2.12744450% $2,747,863 2.12744450% $4,362,715 $1,614,853 1.89899117% Yolo 221,165 0.56440369% $62,261 0.56440369% $62,261 0.56440369% $604,476 0.56440369% $728,998 0.56440369% $1,229,188 $500,189 0.58819926% Yuba 82,275 0.20996231% $23,162 0.20996231% $23,162 0.20996231% $224,870 0.20996231% $271,193 0.20996231% $572,800 $301,607 0.35467593% Total 39,185,605 100.00000000% $11,031,300 100.00000000% $11,031,300 100.00000000% $107,100,000 100.00000000% $129,162,600 100.00000000% $214,200,000 $85,037,400 100.00000000% *Note that the COPS Front-line Law Enforcement breakdown by county and city for SCO distribution is provided in Attachment II. 107,100,000 129,162,600
Total

5.15%
JJCPA Net Total (Including Front-line Enforcemnet)
100.00%
214,200,000

50.00% 60.30%
COUNTY
1/1/2022
Population by
County
Percent of 1/1/2022
Population by County
COPS (Excluding Front-line Enforcement)*

5.15%
11,031,300 11,031,300
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Alameda 1,651,979 $2,808,826 3.30304764%
Alameda 77,784 $120,136 0.14127479%
Albany 21,648 $100,000 0.11759532%
Berkeley 124,563 $192,386 0.22623691%
Dublin 72,932 $112,643 0.13246237%
Emeryville 12,497 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fremont 229,476 $354,423 0.41678461%
Hayward 160,591 $248,031 0.29167258%
Livermore 86,149 $133,056 0.15646768%
Newark 47,229 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oakland 424,464 $655,579 0.77093056%
Piedmont 10,977 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pleasanton 77,609 $119,866 0.14095695%
San Leandro 88,404 $136,539 0.16056331%
Union City 68,150 $105,257 0.12377709%
Unincorporated 149,506 $230,910 0.27153951%
Alpine 1,200 $100,000 0.11759532%
Amador 40,297 $600,000 0.70557192%
Amador 191 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ione 8,888 $100,000 0.11759532%
Jackson 5,028 $100,000 0.11759532%
Plymouth 1,045 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sutter Creek 2,620 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 22,525 $100,000 0.11759532%
Butte 201,608 $658,915 0.77485367%
Biggs 1,939 $100,000 0.11759532%
Chico 102,892 $158,915 0.18687707%
Gridley 7,205 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oroville 18,863 $100,000 0.11759532%
Paradise 7,705 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 63,004 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calaveras 45,049 $200,000 0.23519064%
Angels City 3,623 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 41,426 $100,000 0.11759532%
Colusa 21,807 $300,000 0.35278596%
Colusa 6,383 $100,000 0.11759532%
Williams 5,563 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 9,861 $100,000 0.11759532%
Contra Costa 1,156,555 $2,572,274 3.02487341%
Antioch 115,074 $177,730 0.20900256%
Brentwood 64,342 $100,000 0.11759532%
Clayton 10,863 $100,000 0.11759532%
Concord 123,634 $190,951 0.22454962%
Danville 43,352 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Cerrito 25,650 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hercules 26,091 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lafayette 25,064 $100,000 0.11759532%
Martinez 36,908 $100,000 0.11759532%
Moraga 17,105 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oakley 44,533 $100,000 0.11759532%
Orinda 19,478 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pinole 18,628 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pittsburg 75,156 $116,077 0.13650170%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Pleasant Hill 34,026 $100,000 0.11759532%
Richmond 114,489 $176,827 0.20794006%
San Pablo 31,510 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Ramon 83,820 $129,459 0.15223764%
Walnut Creek 69,891 $107,946 0.12693917%
Unincorporated 176,941 $273,283 0.32136818%
Kensington Police Department 0 $100,000 0.11759532%
Del Norte 27,218 $200,000 0.23519064%
Crescent City 6,060 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 21,158 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Dorado 190,465 $444,987 0.52328340%
Placerville 10,646 $100,000 0.11759532%
South Lake Tahoe 21,199 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 158,620 $244,987 0.28809276%
Fresno 1,011,273 $2,577,907 3.03149834%
Clovis 123,665 $190,999 0.22460592%
Coalinga 17,277 $100,000 0.11759532%
Firebaugh 8,439 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fowler 6,962 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fresno 543,660 $839,676 0.98741968%
Huron 6,170 $100,000 0.11759532%
Kerman 16,639 $100,000 0.11759532%
Kingsburg 12,506 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mendota 12,440 $100,000 0.11759532%
Orange Cove 9,497 $100,000 0.11759532%
Parlier 14,497 $100,000 0.11759532%
Reedley 24,982 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sanger 26,304 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Joaquin 3,639 $100,000 0.11759532%
Selma 24,522 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 160,074 $247,232 0.29073358%
Glenn 28,750 $300,000 0.35278596%
Orland 8,267 $100,000 0.11759532%
Willows 6,427 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 14,056 $100,000 0.11759532%
Humboldt 135,168 $810,822 0.95348826%
Arcata 18,059 $100,000 0.11759532%
Blue Lake 1,151 $100,000 0.11759532%
Eureka 26,768 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ferndale 1,367 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fortuna 12,432 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rio Dell 3,342 $100,000 0.11759532%
Trinidad 296 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 71,753 $110,822 0.13032102%
Imperial 179,329 $800,000 0.94076256%
Brawley 26,952 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calexico 38,711 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calipatria 6,367 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Centro 44,508 $100,000 0.11759532%
Holtville 5,565 $100,000 0.11759532%
Imperial 21,513 $100,000 0.11759532%
Westmorland 2,004 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 33,709 $100,000 0.11759532%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Inyo 18,978 $200,000 0.23519064%
Bishop 3,869 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 15,109 $100,000 0.11759532%
Kern 909,813 $2,303,416 2.70870913%
Arvin 19,639 $100,000 0.11759532%
Bakersfield 408,865 $631,487 0.74259896%
California City 14,952 $100,000 0.11759532%
Delano 51,258 $100,000 0.11759532%
Maricopa 1,018 $100,000 0.11759532%
McFarland 13,902 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ridgecrest 28,061 $100,000 0.11759532%
Shafter 20,486 $100,000 0.11759532%
Taft 7,011 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tehachapi 12,375 $100,000 0.11759532%
Wasco 26,689 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 305,557 $471,929 0.55496633%
Bear Valley Community Services District 0 $100,000 0.11759532% Stallion Springs Community Services District 0 $100,000 0.11759532% Kings 152,023 $500,000 0.58797660%
Avenal 13,186 $100,000 0.11759532%
Corcoran 22,047 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hanford 58,299 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lemoore 27,058 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 31,433 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lake 67,407 $300,000 0.35278596%
Clearlake 16,509 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lakeport 4,999 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 45,899 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lassen 30,274 $200,000 0.23519064%
Susanville 13,212 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 17,062 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Angeles 9,861,224 $18,645,658 21.92641972%
Agoura Hills 19,771 $100,000 0.11759532%
Alhambra 81,834 $126,392 0.14863058%
Arcadia 55,934 $100,000 0.11759532%
Artesia 16,226 $100,000 0.11759532%
Avalon 3,394 $100,000 0.11759532%
Azusa 49,704 $100,000 0.11759532%
Baldwin Park 70,855 $109,435 0.12869003%
Bell 33,624 $100,000 0.11759532%
Bellflower 77,359 $119,480 0.14050289%
Bell Gardens 38,861 $100,000 0.11759532%
Beverly Hills 32,265 $100,000 0.11759532%
Bradbury 904 $100,000 0.11759532%
Burbank 105,451 $162,868 0.19152484%
Calabasas 22,926 $100,000 0.11759532%
Carson 92,362 $142,652 0.16775201%
Cerritos 48,634 $100,000 0.11759532%
Claremont 37,072 $100,000 0.11759532%
Commerce 12,140 $100,000 0.11759532%
Compton 94,233 $145,542 0.17115020%
Covina 50,449 $100,000 0.11759532%
Cudahy 22,318 $100,000 0.11759532%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Culver City 40,135 $100,000 0.11759532%
Diamond Bar 54,204 $100,000 0.11759532%
Downey 112,584 $173,885 0.20448011%
Duarte 21,258 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Monte 107,706 $166,351 0.19562047%
El Segundo 17,084 $100,000 0.11759532%
Gardena 59,947 $100,000 0.11759532%
Glendale 193,116 $298,265 0.35074594%
Glendora 51,821 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hawaiian Gardens 13,619 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hawthorne 86,841 $134,125 0.15772452%
Hermosa Beach 19,171 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hidden Hills 1,738 $100,000 0.11759532%
Huntington Park 53,942 $100,000 0.11759532%
Industry 438 $100,000 0.11759532%
Inglewood 106,481 $164,459 0.19339557%
Irwindale 1,490 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Canada Flintridge 20,081 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Habra Heights 5,594 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lakewood 80,876 $124,912 0.14689062%
La Mirada 48,696 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lancaster 175,164 $270,539 0.31814072%
La Puente 37,587 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Verne 32,304 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lawndale 31,301 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lomita 20,633 $100,000 0.11759532%
Long Beach 460,682 $711,518 0.83671132%
Los Angeles 3,819,538 $5,899,228 6.93721507%
Lynwood 66,723 $103,053 0.12118531%
Malibu 10,686 $100,000 0.11759532%
Manhattan Beach 34,902 $100,000 0.11759532%
Maywood 24,814 $100,000 0.11759532%
Monrovia 37,563 $100,000 0.11759532%
Montebello 61,622 $100,000 0.11759532%
Monterey Park 60,207 $100,000 0.11759532%
Norwalk 101,645 $156,989 0.18461221%
Palmdale 167,398 $258,544 0.30403576%
Palos Verdes Estates 12,980 $100,000 0.11759532%
Paramount 52,477 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pasadena 138,310 $213,618 0.25120483%
Pico Rivera 61,442 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pomona 149,766 $231,312 0.27201173%
Rancho Palos Verdes 41,468 $100,000 0.11759532%
Redondo Beach 68,972 $106,526 0.12527004%
Rolling Hills 1,684 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rolling Hills Estates 8,289 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rosemead 50,511 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Dimas 34,352 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Fernando 23,519 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Gabriel 38,845 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Marino 12,257 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Clarita 228,835 $353,433 0.41562039%
Santa Fe Springs 18,763 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Monica 92,408 $142,723 0.16783556%
Sierra Madre 10,865 $100,000 0.11759532%
Signal Hill 11,597 $100,000 0.11759532%
South El Monte 19,668 $100,000 0.11759532%
South Gate 93,259 $144,037 0.16938118%
South Pasadena 26,580 $100,000 0.11759532%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Temple City 36,262 $100,000 0.11759532%
Torrance 144,433 $223,075 0.26232569%
Vernon 208 $100,000 0.11759532%
Walnut 28,094 $100,000 0.11759532%
West Covina 108,243 $167,180 0.19659579%
West Hollywood 35,399 $100,000 0.11759532%
Westlake Village 8,043 $100,000 0.11759532%
Whittier 87,931 $135,808 0.15970423%
Unincorporated 1,009,857 $1,559,711 1.83414759%
Madera 157,396 $313,981 0.36922696%
Chowchilla 18,851 $100,000 0.11759532%
Madera 65,843 $101,694 0.11958701%
Unincorporated 72,702 $112,287 0.13204463%
Marin 257,135 $1,203,461 1.41521331%
Belvedere 2,080 $100,000 0.11759532%
Corte Madera 10,028 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fairfax 7,418 $100,000 0.11759532%
Larkspur 12,797 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mill Valley 13,850 $100,000 0.11759532%
Novato 52,441 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ross 2,301 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Anselmo 12,645 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Rafael 60,560 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sausalito 7,072 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tiburon 8,956 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 66,987 $103,461 0.12166479%
Mariposa 17,045 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mendocino 89,999 $500,000 0.58797660%
Fort Bragg 7,153 $100,000 0.11759532%
Point Arena 443 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ukiah 16,080 $100,000 0.11759532%
Willits 4,920 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 61,403 $100,000 0.11759532%
Merced 284,338 $777,917 0.91479352%
Atwater 31,652 $100,000 0.11759532%
Dos Palos 5,715 $100,000 0.11759532%
Gustine 5,981 $100,000 0.11759532%
Livingston 14,410 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Banos 46,639 $100,000 0.11759532%
Merced 89,058 $137,549 0.16175114%
Unincorporated 90,883 $140,368 0.16506578%
Modoc 8,690 $200,000 0.23519064%
Alturas 2,726 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 5,964 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mono 13,379 $200,000 0.23519064%
Mammoth Lakes 7,365 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 6,014 $100,000 0.11759532%
Monterey 433,716 $1,508,954 1.77445928%
Carmel-by-the-Sea 3,041 $100,000 0.11759532%
Del Rey Oaks 1,539 $100,000 0.11759532%
Gonzales 8,340 $100,000 0.11759532%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Greenfield 19,634 $100,000 0.11759532%
King City 13,331 $100,000 0.11759532%
Marina 21,457 $100,000 0.11759532%
Monterey 28,082 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pacific Grove 14,761 $100,000 0.11759532%
Salinas 159,932 $247,013 0.29047567%
Sand City 372 $100,000 0.11759532%
Seaside 32,068 $100,000 0.11759532%
Soledad 26,308 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 104,851 $161,941 0.19043509%
Napa 136,179 $619,667 0.72869925%
American Canyon 21,658 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calistoga 5,199 $100,000 0.11759532%
Napa 77,480 $119,667 0.14072265%
St Helena 5,437 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yountville 2,829 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 23,576 $100,000 0.11759532%
Nevada 101,242 $403,776 0.47482127%
Grass Valley 13,617 $100,000 0.11759532%
Nevada City 3,334 $100,000 0.11759532%
Truckee 17,100 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 67,191 $103,776 0.12203531%
Orange 3,162,245 $5,659,942 6.65582662%
Aliso Viejo 50,782 $100,000 0.11759532%
Anaheim 341,245 $527,049 0.61978448%
Brea 46,872 $100,000 0.11759532%
Buena Park 83,430 $128,857 0.15152931%
Costa Mesa 111,394 $172,047 0.20231878%
Cypress 49,810 $100,000 0.11759532%
Dana Point 32,943 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fountain Valley 56,564 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fullerton 142,732 $220,448 0.25923626%
Garden Grove 170,526 $263,375 0.30971697%
Huntington Beach 196,100 $302,874 0.35616562%
Irvine 310,250 $479,177 0.56348997%
Laguna Beach 22,706 $100,000 0.11759532%
Laguna Hills 30,750 $100,000 0.11759532%
Laguna Niguel 64,316 $100,000 0.11759532%
Laguna Woods 17,514 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Habra 61,792 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lake Forest 86,775 $134,023 0.15760465%
La Palma 15,332 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Alamitos 11,873 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mission Viejo 92,515 $142,888 0.16802989%
Newport Beach 83,727 $129,315 0.15206873%
Orange 137,676 $212,639 0.25005333%
Placentia 51,204 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rancho Santa Margarita 47,279 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Clemente 63,380 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Juan Capistrano 34,798 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Ana 308,459 $476,411 0.56023708%
Seal Beach 24,846 $100,000 0.11759532%
Stanton 39,275 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tustin 79,535 $122,841 0.14445504%
Villa Park 5,782 $100,000 0.11759532%
Westminster 90,393 $139,611 0.16417582%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Yorba Linda 67,233 $103,841 0.12211159%
Unincorporated 132,437 $204,547 0.24053802%
Placer 409,025 $917,996 1.07952076%
Auburn 13,608 $100,000 0.11759532%
Colfax 2,042 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lincoln 51,252 $100,000 0.11759532%
Loomis 6,739 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rocklin 71,663 $110,683 0.13015756%
Roseville 151,034 $233,270 0.27431473%
Unincorporated 112,687 $174,044 0.20466719%
Plumas 18,942 $200,000 0.23519064%
Portola 2,042 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 16,900 $100,000 0.11759532%
Riverside 2,435,525 $4,554,736 5.35615595%
Banning 30,877 $100,000 0.11759532%
Beaumont 54,690 $100,000 0.11759532%
Blythe 17,505 $100,000 0.11759532%
Calimesa 10,899 $100,000 0.11759532%
Canyon Lake 11,056 $100,000 0.11759532%
Cathedral City 51,840 $100,000 0.11759532%
Coachella 42,158 $100,000 0.11759532%
Corona 156,778 $242,142 0.28474724%
Desert Hot Springs 32,569 $100,000 0.11759532%
Eastvale 69,929 $108,004 0.12700819%
Hemet 89,646 $138,457 0.16281909%
Indian Wells 4,762 $100,000 0.11759532%
Indio 89,137 $137,671 0.16189462%
Jurupa Valley 105,384 $162,764 0.19140315%
Lake Elsinore 71,615 $110,608 0.13007038%
La Quinta 37,860 $100,000 0.11759532%
Menifee 106,627 $164,684 0.19366074%
Moreno Valley 209,407 $323,426 0.38033439%
Murrieta 111,183 $171,721 0.20193555%
Norco 24,909 $100,000 0.11759532%
Palm Desert 50,889 $100,000 0.11759532%
Palm Springs 44,397 $100,000 0.11759532%
Perris 78,890 $121,845 0.14328356%
Rancho Mirage 16,804 $100,000 0.11759532%
Riverside 317,847 $490,911 0.57728798%
San Jacinto 54,593 $100,000 0.11759532%
Temecula 109,925 $169,778 0.19965072%
Wildomar 36,632 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 396,717 $612,724 0.72053522%
Sacramento 1,576,618 $2,594,881 3.05145812%
Citrus Heights 86,367 $133,393 0.15686362%
Elk Grove 176,972 $273,331 0.32142449%
Folsom 84,592 $130,651 0.15363979%
Galt 25,239 $100,000 0.11759532%
Isleton 780 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rancho Cordova 80,359 $124,113 0.14595162%
Sacramento 518,037 $800,102 0.94088204%
Unincorporated 604,272 $933,290 1.09750592%
San Benito 65,479 $300,000 0.35278596%
Hollister 42,554 $100,000 0.11759532%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
San Juan Bautista 2,093 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 20,832 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Bernardino 2,187,665 $4,019,920 4.72723827%
Adelanto 36,357 $100,000 0.11759532%
Apple Valley 75,628 $116,806 0.13735897%
Barstow 25,202 $100,000 0.11759532%
Big Bear Lake 5,041 $100,000 0.11759532%
Chino 91,998 $142,090 0.16709090%
Chino Hills 77,964 $120,414 0.14160171%
Colton 53,617 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fontana 212,809 $328,681 0.38651325%
Grand Terrace 13,042 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hesperia 100,324 $154,949 0.18221295%
Highland 56,546 $100,000 0.11759532%
Loma Linda 25,349 $100,000 0.11759532%
Montclair 37,846 $100,000 0.11759532%
Needles 4,876 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ontario 179,516 $277,260 0.32604501%
Rancho Cucamonga 174,476 $269,476 0.31689114%
Redlands 72,585 $112,107 0.13183213%
Rialto 103,954 $160,556 0.18880592%
San Bernardino 220,840 $341,085 0.40109952%
Twentynine Palms 27,685 $100,000 0.11759532%
Upland 79,139 $122,229 0.14373580%
Victorville 136,561 $210,917 0.24802822%
Yucaipa 54,494 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yucca Valley 21,813 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 300,003 $463,351 0.54487891%
San Diego 3,287,306 $5,484,529 6.44954913%
Carlsbad 115,585 $178,520 0.20993066%
Chula Vista 276,785 $427,491 0.50270934%
Coronado 22,277 $100,000 0.11759532%
Del Mar 3,929 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Cajon 105,638 $163,157 0.19186448%
Encinitas 61,515 $100,000 0.11759532%
Escondido 150,679 $232,722 0.27366996%
Imperial Beach 26,243 $100,000 0.11759532%
La Mesa 60,472 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lemon Grove 27,242 $100,000 0.11759532%
National City 61,471 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oceanside 173,048 $267,270 0.31429754%
Poway 48,759 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Diego 1,374,790 $2,123,346 2.49695528%
San Marcos 93,585 $144,541 0.16997328%
Santee 59,015 $100,000 0.11759532%
Solana Beach 12,812 $100,000 0.11759532%
Vista 100,291 $154,898 0.18215301%
Unincorporated 513,170 $792,585 0.93204238%
San Francisco 842,754 $1,301,623 1.53064763%
San Joaquin 784,298 $1,426,898 1.67796544%
Escalon 7,362 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lathrop 31,331 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lodi 66,570 $102,817 0.12090742%
Manteca 86,859 $134,153 0.15775721%
Ripon 15,979 $100,000 0.11759532%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Stockton 322,489 $498,080 0.58571899%
Tracy 94,538 $146,013 0.17170416%
Unincorporated 159,170 $245,836 0.28909170%
San Luis Obispo 280,721 $888,372 1.04468373%
Arroyo Grande 18,294 $100,000 0.11759532%
Atascadero 30,480 $100,000 0.11759532%
El Paso de Robles 31,176 $100,000 0.11759532%
Grover Beach 12,707 $100,000 0.11759532%
Morro Bay 10,466 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pismo Beach 7,981 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Luis Obispo 47,653 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 121,964 $188,372 0.22151649%
San Mateo 744,662 $2,346,354 2.75920222%
Atherton 6,718 $100,000 0.11759532%
Belmont 27,203 $100,000 0.11759532%
Brisbane 4,721 $100,000 0.11759532%
Burlingame 30,283 $100,000 0.11759532%
Colma 1,370 $100,000 0.11759532%
Daly City 102,875 $158,889 0.18684619%
East Palo Alto 28,963 $100,000 0.11759532%
Foster City 33,056 $100,000 0.11759532%
Half Moon Bay 11,308 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hillsborough 11,018 $100,000 0.11759532%
Menlo Park 33,034 $100,000 0.11759532%
Millbrae 22,512 $100,000 0.11759532%
Pacifica 37,533 $100,000 0.11759532%
Portola Valley 4,289 $100,000 0.11759532%
Redwood City 82,344 $127,179 0.14955687%
San Bruno 42,656 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Carlos 29,837 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Mateo 103,779 $160,285 0.18848808%
South San Francisco 64,492 $100,000 0.11759532%
Woodside 5,212 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 61,459 $100,000 0.11759532%
Broadmoor Police Protection District 0 $100,000 0.11759532% Santa Barbara 445,164 $1,119,654 1.31666022%
Buellton 5,055 $100,000 0.11759532%
Carpinteria 12,963 $100,000 0.11759532%
Goleta 32,591 $100,000 0.11759532%
Guadalupe 8,544 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lompoc 43,845 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Barbara 86,591 $133,739 0.15727046%
Santa Maria 109,910 $169,755 0.19962347%
Solvang 5,709 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 139,956 $216,160 0.25419437%
Santa Clara 1,894,783 $3,339,482 3.92707488%
Campbell 42,833 $100,000 0.11759532%
Cupertino 59,610 $100,000 0.11759532%
Gilroy 59,269 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Altos 31,526 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Altos Hills 8,400 $100,000 0.11759532%
Los Gatos 33,062 $100,000 0.11759532%
Milpitas 80,839 $124,855 0.14682342%
Monte Sereno 3,488 $100,000 0.11759532%
Morgan Hill 46,451 $100,000 0.11759532%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Mountain View 83,864 $129,527 0.15231756%
Palo Alto 67,473 $104,211 0.12254749%
San Jose 976,482 $1,508,164 1.77353042%
Santa Clara 130,127 $200,980 0.23634250%
Saratoga 30,667 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sunnyvale 156,234 $241,301 0.28375920%
Unincorporated 84,458 $130,444 0.15339641%
Santa Cruz 266,564 $600,748 0.70645134%
Capitola 9,794 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Cruz 64,075 $100,000 0.11759532%
Scotts Valley 12,049 $100,000 0.11759532%
Watsonville 50,669 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 129,977 $200,748 0.23607006%
Shasta 180,531 $445,892 0.52434772%
Anderson 11,088 $100,000 0.11759532%
Redding 92,963 $143,580 0.16884357%
Shasta Lake 10,237 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 66,243 $102,311 0.12031351%
Sierra 3,229 $200,000 0.23519064%
Loyalton 737 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 2,492 $100,000 0.11759532%
Siskiyou 43,830 $1,100,000 1.29354852%
Dorris 847 $100,000 0.11759532%
Dunsmuir 1,681 $100,000 0.11759532%
Etna 674 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fort Jones 684 $100,000 0.11759532%
Montague 1,215 $100,000 0.11759532%
Mount Shasta 3,204 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tulelake 886 $100,000 0.11759532%
Weed 2,828 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yreka 7,772 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 24,039 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lake Shastina Community Services District 0 $100,000 0.11759532% Solano 447,241 $1,031,835 1.21338963%
Benicia 26,656 $100,000 0.11759532%
Dixon 19,083 $100,000 0.11759532%
Fairfield 119,897 $185,179 0.21776231%
Rio Vista 9,925 $100,000 0.11759532%
Suisun City 28,896 $100,000 0.11759532%
Vacaville 101,257 $156,390 0.18390751%
Vallejo 123,190 $190,265 0.22374321%
Unincorporated 18,337 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sonoma 482,404 $1,275,577 1.50001886%
Cloverdale 8,905 $100,000 0.11759532%
Cotati 7,397 $100,000 0.11759532%
Healdsburg 11,030 $100,000 0.11759532%
Petaluma 58,945 $100,000 0.11759532%
Rohnert Park 43,998 $100,000 0.11759532%
Santa Rosa 175,775 $271,482 0.31925044%
Sebastopol 7,489 $100,000 0.11759532%
Sonoma 10,779 $100,000 0.11759532%
Windsor 25,942 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 132,144 $204,095 0.24000586%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Stanislaus 549,466 $1,318,482 1.55047341%
Ceres 48,386 $100,000 0.11759532%
Hughson 7,495 $100,000 0.11759532%
Modesto 217,880 $336,513 0.39572343%
Newman 12,244 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oakdale 23,071 $100,000 0.11759532%
Patterson 24,370 $100,000 0.11759532%
Riverbank 24,583 $100,000 0.11759532%
Turlock 71,531 $110,479 0.12991781%
Waterford 8,872 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 111,034 $171,491 0.20166493%
Sutter 99,145 $307,594 0.36171571%
Live Oak 9,394 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yuba City 69,663 $107,594 0.12652507%
Unincorporated 20,088 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tehama 65,052 $400,000 0.47038128%
Corning 8,100 $100,000 0.11759532%
Red Bluff 14,605 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tehama 424 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 41,923 $100,000 0.11759532%
Trinity 16,023 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tulare 475,014 $1,135,678 1.33550376%
Dinuba 25,127 $100,000 0.11759532%
Exeter 10,257 $100,000 0.11759532%
Farmersville 10,239 $100,000 0.11759532%
Lindsay 12,566 $100,000 0.11759532%
Porterville 62,345 $100,000 0.11759532%
Tulare 69,462 $107,283 0.12616000%
Visalia 142,091 $219,458 0.25807205%
Woodlake 7,648 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 135,279 $208,937 0.24569979%
Tuolumne 55,291 $200,000 0.23519064%
Sonora 5,144 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 50,147 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ventura 833,652 $1,614,853 1.89899119%
Camarillo 70,171 $108,378 0.12744772%
Fillmore 16,469 $100,000 0.11759532%
Moorpark 35,399 $100,000 0.11759532%
Ojai 7,466 $100,000 0.11759532%
Oxnard 200,050 $308,975 0.36333979%
Port Hueneme 21,599 $100,000 0.11759532%
San Buenaventura 108,231 $167,161 0.19657400%
Santa Paula 30,892 $100,000 0.11759532%
Simi Valley 124,985 $193,038 0.22700336%
Thousand Oaks 124,592 $192,431 0.22628958%
Unincorporated 93,798 $144,870 0.17036014%
Yolo 221,165 $500,189 0.58819927%
Davis 64,869 $100,189 0.11781799%
West Sacramento 52,837 $100,000 0.11759532%
Winters 7,422 $100,000 0.11759532%
Woodland 60,137 $100,000 0.11759532%
2022-23 Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Front-line Law Enforcement Allocation for 2022-23

ATTACHMENT II
City/County
City/County
Population Estimates
1/1/2022
Projected Allocations by
City/County
Percent of Allocation by
City/County
Unincorporated 35,900 $100,000 0.11759532%
Yuba 82,275 $301,607 0.35467594%
Marysville 12,824 $100,000 0.11759532%
Wheatland 3,664 $100,000 0.11759532%
Unincorporated 65,787 $101,607 0.11948530%
CALIFORNIA TOTAL 39,185,605 $85,037,400 100.00000000%
CALIFORNIA CITY TOTAL 32,813,058 $73,282,889 86.17724493% RESOLUTION 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE
AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF CITIZENS’ OPTION

FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the State of California has appropriated monies for the Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) program and for juvenile justice programs specified pursuant to the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA); and WHEREAS, the State Controller is required to allocate the COPS and JJCPA funds to each county that has established a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF); and
WHEREAS, the County of Tulare has established a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund; and
WHEREAS, State law requires the County Auditor to allocate a certain percentage of the monies received from the State Controller to the cities within the county in accordance with the relative population of the cities; and WHEREAS, the City of Tulare is entitled to $107,283.00 for frontline law enforcement purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Tulare Police Chief has submitted to the City Council a request that the funds, which the City will receive under the allocation, be used to supplement one sworn officer position; and
WHEREAS, the 2022/2023 Budget included the anticipation of using the COPS funds as part of the Police Department’s budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tulare, as follows, to wit:

Section 1. The City of Tulare shall accept the allocation of $107,283.00 from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF).

Section 2. The funds which the City will receive are hereby appropriated towards the salary and benefits of one sworn officer position. /////
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 2 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on November 15, 2022.

President of the Council and Ex-Officio
Mayor of the City of Tulare
ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk and Clerk of the
Council of the City of Tulare

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Engineering Services / Engineering For Council Meeting of: November 15, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Accept as complete the required public works improvements for Phase 3 of the Kensington Estates subdivision with the exception of certain improvements secured through separate deferred improvement agreements; authorize the City Engineer to sign a Notice of Completion; and direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the Tulare County Recorder’s Office.

IS PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:

On July 6, 2021, City Council conditionally approved the final map for Phase 3 of the Kensington Estates subdivision, which created 55 single-family residential lots, as shown on the attached exhibit. The overall Kensington Estates subdivision comprises approximately 24 acres consisting of 111 single-family residential lots. The subdivision is being developed in phases.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☒Yes ☐N/A
AGENDA ITEM: Consent 11.4
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:

N/A
Submitted by: Michael Miller Title: City Engineer
Date: November 7, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Tulare

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Tulare
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274-4257
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103,
NO RECORDING FEE REQUIRED.

N O T I C E O F C O M P L E T I O N

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The City of Tulare, a Municipal Corporation, whose address is 411 East Kern Avenue, Tulare, California, 93274, is the owner of the real property, public works or structure hereinafter described.

2. The nature of the title of the stated owner is: In Fee.

3. On the 15th day of November, 2022, a work of improvement on real property hereinafter described was completed by Presidio JJR Brighton II 100, LLC, the Subdivider of record, whose address is 5607 Avenida De Los Robles, Visalia, CA 93291

4. The name of the surety for the work of improvements is SureTec Insurance Company, 1330 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77056.

5. The real property or public work or structure is described as follows:

Public Works Improvements for Phase 3 of the Kensington Estates subdivision, except for Mooney Boulevard frontage improvements and a traffic signal installation at Cartmill Avenue and De La Vina Street intersection secured by separate deferred improvement agreements.

6. The public works improvements were accepted as complete by the City Council of the City of Tulare on November 15, 2022.

Dated: CITY OF TULARE
A Municipal Corporation,
By:

Michael W. Miller, City Engineer
VERIFICATION:

I am the City Engineer of the City of Tulare and am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the City. I have read the foregoing Notice of Completion, know the contents thereof, and believe it to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ________________________ , 2022 at Tulare, California.

By: _________________________________
Michael W. Miller, City Engineer

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Engineering Services / Engineering For Council Meeting of: November 15, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Authorize the City Manager to execute a preliminary oversize construction reimbursement agreement with CFT NV Developments, LLC for construction costs associated with the Panda Express commercial development that are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Municipal Code, subject only to minor conforming and clarifying changes acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager.

IS PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:

As part of the Panda Express commercial development located on the northeast corner of Bardsley Avenue and Blackstone Street, CFT NV Development, LLC (Developer) is required to install a raised median in Bardsley Avenue to control turning movements into the project.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☒Yes ☐N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A AGENDA ITEM: Consent 11.5
FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:

DIF Local Streets & Traffic Signals / 230-3230-000
Submitted by: Michael Miller Title: City Engineer
Date: October 24, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________

Page 1 of 6 ends

PRELIMINARY OVERSIZE CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

BARDSLEY AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PANDA EXPRESS This Preliminary Oversize Construction Reimbursement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this day of , 2022, by and between the CITY OF TULARE, a Municipal Corporation in the State of California (“CITY”), and CFT NV Developments, LLC (“DEVELOPER”), with reference to the following facts:

WHEREAS, DEVELOPER is the owner and developer of the proposed Panda Express (hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”) located at the northeast corner of Bardsley Avenue and Hwy 99 (hereinafter referred to as “PROPERTY”), and WHEREAS, the conditions of approval for the PROJECT require DEVELOPER to construct: a raised median in Bardsley Avenue between Blackstone Street and the southbound ramp intersection of Highway 99, and
WHEREAS, the CITY has identified certain components of the required improvements that are supplemental in nature and subject to oversized construction reimbursement in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.64 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code of Tulare, and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.64 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code of Tulare requires, in the event that sewer, water, storm drain or street improvements are installed by a developer or a right-of-way is dedicated by the same, any of which contain supplemental improvements as described in that Chapter, that the CITY shall enter into a reimbursement agreement for oversize improvements with the developer; and WHEREAS, CITY and DEVELOPER desire to memorialize their agreement with respect to the foregoing as more fully set forth below in this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals, and in good consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by both parties, CITY and DEVELOPER hereby agree as follows:

Reimbursable Off-Site Work. CITY and DEVELOPER agree that the following components of the improvements required as conditions of approval for the PROJECT, are eligible for oversized construction reimbursement by the CITY to DEVELOPER, in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of Title 8 of the City Code of Tulare:
a. Bardsley Avenue Median Island – The approximate median island area required by the PROJECT’s conditions of approval has been estimated at 4,994 square feet. The estimated value of the Bardsley Avenue median island is as follows:

Page 2 of 6 ends

Value of Median Island Curb:
980 LF x $28.01 per LF = $27,449.80
Value of Median Island Concrete Flatwork (4” thick):
3,781 SF x $12.51 per SF = $47,300.31
Value of Median Signage, Pavement Markers, and Painting:

Lump Sum = $1,500
Value of Supplemental Median Paving:
52 Tons AB x $120/Ton = $6,240
The total estimated costs eligible for oversize reimbursement is $82,489.31.

2. Oversize reimbursable costs shall be based on the actual cost of installation. In addition, reimbursement shall be limited to the additional material costs where a difference in material quantities is involved. Further, the costs of engineering, staking, compaction tests, and all fees paid to the city, county or state shall be excluded, except for that portion of the inspection fees directly attributable to the oversized portion.

3. The CITY shall pay interest on any outstanding principal balance owed to the DEVELOPER pursuant to this Agreement at a variable rate, compounded annually. The interest rate for each calendar year shall be equal to the average annual Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rate of return on City of Tulare investments from the previous calendar year. Interest for a portion of a year shall be prorated to the nearest month and shall commence from the acceptance date on the notice of completion.

4. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.64.020 (C) of the City of Tulare Municipal Code, the total principal and interest for oversize and/or excessive right of way dedication shall be paid to the DEVELOPER by the CITY in accordance with the following:
a. For improvements funded through the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, the CITY shall not be required to reimburse more money than is identified and collected through the DIF program as improvement costs attributable to new developments within the City of Tulare. b. In accordance with City Ordinances and the DIF Program, fees are collected from developments City-wide and are maintained within individually ear-marked funds, each one dedicated to reimburse the City and/or Developers for a specific type of improvement (“Improvement Fund”). DEVELOPER shall be eligible for reimbursements from each said fund, to the extent applicable to the aforementioned oversize improvements. DEVELOPER reimbursement shall not be limited to DIF monies directly collected from the development that is the

Page 3 of 6 ends

subject of this Agreement, and shall be eligible for reimbursement by the CITY with the monies in each applicable Improvement Fund, collected city-wide and at any time.
c. Reimbursements shall be made only at that time when the balance of applicable CITY impact funds is sufficient to discharge the debt owed to the DEVELOPER from that Improvement Fund pursuant to this Agreement and in accordance with DEVELOPER’s standing on the Reimbursement List described in section d below. CITY shall be required to exercise good faith and due diligence in the collection of all DIF program fees from new developments within the City. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the City of Tulare Municipal Code, or this Reimbursement Agreement, failure or error by the CITY resulting in funds not being collected will not subject the CITY to any liability, obligation, or debt owed the DEVELOPER, absent a showing through reasonably reliable evidence that the CITY’s failure or error was the result of bad faith or lack of due diligence. Any such failure or error by the CITY shall not, however, discharge the debt owed to DEVELOPER or CITY’s duty to reimburse DEVELOPER pursuant to this Agreement at such time that sufficient funds become available. In no event shall CITY be liable to DEVELOPER for any amount of money in excess of that owed for reimbursement pursuant to this Agreement plus interest as outlined in section 3 above. d. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)-(c) of this Section 4, City shall implement a supplemental reimbursement mechanism to ensure the Developer Is fully reimbursed for all improvements and excess right of way not later than five (5) years from the effective date of this Agreement. The source of funding for the supplemental reimbursement mechanism shall be sales tax generated by the Project.
e. CITY has provided Developer with a true and correct copy of the Reimbursement List for each Improvement Fund maintained through the City’s DIF program. DEVELOPER shall be added to each applicable list in date order. The applicable date for purposes of proper placement on the Reimbursement List shall be the date upon which the City accepts the improvements following Notice of Completion. Reimbursements are to be made by mail to the DEVELOPER at the following address:

CFT NV Developments, LLC
1120 N. Town Center Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89144
Attention: Charlie Shen

5. CITY and DEVELOPER each make the following representations and warranties to the other: (i) it has the legal power, right, and authority to enter this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder, (ii) all requisite action has been taken and all required consents, approvals, and authorizations have been obtained by it in

Page 4 of 6 ends

connection with entering into this Agreement, (iii) no further consent of any partner, shareholder, trustee, trustor, beneficiary, creditor, investor, judicial or administrative body, governmental authority or other person or entity is required for it to perform its obligations under Agreement, (iv) the individuals executing this Agreement on its behalf have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind it to the terms and conditions hereof, and (v) upon full execution, this Agreement shall constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of it, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, to the extent permitted by law.

6. The DEVELOPER shall not transfer the rights to reimbursements without the express written consent of the CITY after having submitted a signed and notarized written request for said transfer to the City Engineer.

7. If either DEVELOPER or CITY brings an action, suit or other legal proceeding against the other for any matter relating to or arising out of this Agreement, then the prevailing party in such action or dispute, whether by final judgment, out of court settlement or otherwise, shall be entitled to recover from the other party, in addition to any other relief granted, all costs and expenses of such legal action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the parties.

8. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the CITY and the DEVELOPER as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing and signed by both the CITY and the DEVELOPER.

9. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement is held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any Court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Agreement, or any part thereof.

10. Venue with respect to any disputes arising from this Agreement is proper in the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare.

11. The parties agree that each shall give the other 60 days’ advance written notice and attempt to settle any disputes through mediation prior to filing any legal action in the Superior Court, unless this requirement is expressly waived in writing by both parties.

12. Service of any notices or documents relating to this Agreement is proper through personal service to the City Manager’s Office or Developer’s principal business office at 1120 N. Town Center Drive, Suite 150, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144, or by U.S. Certified Mail or reputable overnight courier service. Service shall be deemed complete upon personal service, upon the first (1st) business day following deposit with reputable overnight courier service, or upon the fifth (5th) calendar day following the post-marked date upon anything served by mail.

Page 5 of 6 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the date and year first above written.
“DEVELOPER”

Signature:

Print name: Charlie Shen
Company: CFT NV Developments, LLC
Title: Manager
“CITY”

CITY OF TULARE,
A Municipal Corporation in the State of California
Marc Mondell
City Manager
ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk and Clerk of
the Council of the City of Tulare
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 6 of 6 ends

A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California )
)
County of Tulare )
On ______________ before me, ________________, Notary Public__, personally appeared _________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
___________________________________
Signature of Notary Public

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Fire
For Council Meeting of: November 15, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Authorize the City Manager to execute and sign a contract with AAA Security, Inc. to provide one security guard for the temporary homeless encampment not to exceed the amount of $141,480.00.

IS PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:

The City of Tulare is developing a temporary homeless encampment on the corner of East Walnut Street and South O Street to provide security and promote positive welfare for the homeless community. The City requests to contract security service with AAA Security, Inc. who will provide one security guard to be on-site at the temporary homeless encampment from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m., 7 days a week, for a period not to exceed 18 months. The security guard will make hourly checks on the encampment and parking area and observe and report any fire, medical issues, fight or acts of violence to 911. The security guard will have a guard house for their comfort and to conduct operations from.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to execute and sign a contract with AAA Security, Inc. to provide one security guard for the temporary homeless encampment not to exceed the amount of $141,480.00.

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☒Yes ☐N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:

General Fund Surplus
Submitted by: Michael Ott Title: Fire Chief
Date: November 7, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ AGENDA ITEM: Consent 11.6

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Finance
For Council Meeting of: November 15, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Accept the monthly investment reports for September and October 2022.

IS PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:

The investment reports for September and October 2022 are submitted for Council review and acceptance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the monthly investment report for September and October 2022.

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☐Yes ☒N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:

N/A
Submitted by: J. Diego Ibanez Title: Chief Financial Officer Date: November 8, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ AGENDA ITEM: Consent 11.7

TYPE OF INVESTMBNT

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT

SUMMARY OF ALL INVESTMENTS
September 30'2022
BOOK
VALUE
MARKET
VALUE
CURI.ENT
YIELD

BOOK VALUE
Uo OF
TOTAL
UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS - SEE PAGE 2
RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS - SEE PAGE 3

TOTAL INVESTMENTS
Respectfully submitted, J. Diego lbanez, Chief Financial Ofifcer 198,340,289 179,861,132 0.799yo

13.135,906 13,135,906 N/A
211,476,195 192,997,038 N/A

93.79%

6.zlYo
100.00%
Note: The City's financial statments will report market values, not book values, at June 30 each year I certify that this report reflects all City investments and complies with the investment policy of the City of Tulare as approved by City Council.

Furthermore, I certiry that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the City's budgeted expenditures for the next six months.

Presented to the City Council on November 15,2022. Presented to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners on November 17,2022 J.b( [t ['t LfnZZDate
1 T'lFinance\l nvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\3- Septe mber, 2O22 investment report.xls

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

SUMMARY OF UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS
September 30,2022

TYPE OF INVESTMENT

ISSUER OF

INVESTMENT
Petty Cash N/A
Checking Account - City Wells Fargo Bank
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) State of California Sub-Total
Fixed Income Investments Various (See page 4'7)
Investments in Safekeeping With BNY Western Trust Company

TOTAL UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS
DATES: INTERESTRATES:

ESTIMATED
EARNINGS:

ACQUISITION STATED BOOK VALUE THIS MONTH ANNUAL

MATURITY CURRENTYIELD PARVALUE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTH THISMONTH NIA
N/A
N/A
On Demand
Various
On Demand
N/A
None
None
N/A

0.365%
N/A

0.319%
N/A

0.880%
N/A

0.799Yo
(394,347)
(61,973)
N/A
N/A
NiA
N/A
127,984
10,665
t27,984
10,665
1,308,760
109,063
r,436,744
1t9,729
BOOK
VALUE
,2, oF
uil0.01Yo

2.72Yo

17.68%

20.41v.

79.59Yo
100.00%

UNREALIZED
GAIN/(LOSS):

N/A 12,900
12,900
N/A 5,395,262
5,39s,262
Balance per bank is $5,302038
N/A 35,064,071
34,669,724
N/A
N/A

N/A N/A
N/A
N/A 40,472,233
40,077,887
(394,347)
(61,973)
(18,084,81 l)
(14,747,602)
N/A
Per BNY WTC
I 57,868,056
139,783,24s
N/A t98,340,289
179,861,132
(t 8,479,1 58)
(14,809,575)
* LAIF rnarket values are based on the most currently available amortized cost information - March 31,2022: 0.9887s3538 - U/I: Unrestricted Investments ) T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\z022-2023 Investment Reports\3- September,2022 investment report.xls

CITY OFTULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

SUMMARY OF RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS
September 30,2022

ACQUISITION
DATE
Various On Demand
Various On Demand
I 1-15-15 I l-15-25
Various On Demand
Various On Dernand
Various On Demand
Various On Dernand
Various On Demand

MATURITY
DATE

STATEI)

INTER-EST RATE
PAR
VALUE
BOOK
VALUE

MARI(ET
VALUE

BALANCES
AS-OF
DATE

TYPE OF INVESTMENT ISSUER OF INVESTMENT
Bond Funds (All are Managed by U'S. Bank Trust Except LAIF):
20 I 8 Lease Revenue and Refunding Bonds (Account No. 244938000) First American Govt Fd U.S. Bank Trust Various
Reserue Fund
Various
Various
Rcerve Fund

1.9600/o
Reerve Fund
N/A 3,405,81 I 3,405,811 09-30-22
3,405,811 3,405,811
2015 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds (Account No. 2615940000) First American Govt Fd U.S. Bank Trust
First American Govt Fd U.S. Bank Trust
Investment Repuchase GIC Bayerische Landesbank
2016 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds (Account No. 23 1687000) U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
2020 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds (Account No. 230396000) U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
2017 Water Revenue Bonds (Account No- 219189000)
U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
2020 Water Revenue Borrds (Account No. 250953000)
U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
2017 Successor Agency Tax Allocation Bonds - Series A & B (Account No. 24534600) U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
TOTAL RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS Book Value 96 of Total Investments = Various N/A l,107,100
I,1 07, 100
09-30-22
Various N/A 16j02
---- 16,-frr
09-30-22
Various N/A I,107, 1 00
I,1 07,1 00
I,107 100 09-30-22
1,1 07,1 00
Various N/A 648,3 88
648,388
648,388 09-30-2022
648,388
Various N/A 1.769,182 1,769,182 09-30-2022
769 182 t,769,t82

6.21% 13,135,906 13,135,906
N/A
N/A
N/A
t7
49,321
5,032,685
5,082,023
t7
49,321
5,032,68s
5,082,023
09-30-22
09-30-22
09-30-22
1,107,100
1,1 07,1 00
t6,302
-- t6,-frr
J T:\FInance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\3- september, 2022 inve5tment report.xls

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS
September 30,2022
DATES INTEREST RATES:

ACQUISITION STATED

UNREALIZED
GAIN/(LOSS):

BOOK VALUE THIS MONTH

PAR VAI-TJE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTH

ESTIMATED
EARNINGS:

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT

CUSIP NUMBER
U.S. GOVERNMBNT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS
Federal Fann Credit Bks Funding Corp
31338Lt47
Federal National Mortgage Assn
3t36G4Ts2
Federal National Mortgage Assn
3 I 36G41J50
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3I34GVVX3
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GV856
Federal Home Loan Banks
313OAJRE1
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3 l34GVT65
Federal National Mortgage Assn
3 1 36G4YU I
Federal National Moftgage Assn
3136G42E2
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3l34GWUE4
Federal Ilome Loan Mtg Corp
3134GWUV6
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GWX43

MATURITY CURRENT YIELD
ANNUAL

THIS MONTH
06-t7 -20
06-17-24 c
08-25-20
02-25-25 c
08-27-20
05-27-25 c
06-03-20
05-28-25 c
06- l 0-20
06-10-25 c
06-24-20
06-24-25 c
06-30-20
06-30-25 c
07 -t5-20
07-15-25 c
08-26-20
08-26-25 c
09-30-20
09-30-25 c

0.580%

0.600%

0.520o/o

0.550%

0.600%

0.630%

0.750%

0.'180%

0.700%

0.740Yr

0.7s0%

0.790%

0.800%

0.850%

0.730%

0.770%

0.500%

0.530%

0.500%

0.s40vo
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
868,056
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
Per BNY WTC
2,000,000
I,871,000
2,000.000
1,8 l 9,480
2,000,000
1,805,860
2,000,000
1,81 1,180
2,000,000

1.806, I 80
868,056
783,750
2,000,000
1,8 17,700
2,000.000
I,803,380
2,000,000
t,'t95,060
2,500,000
2,220,500
( 1 2e,000)
(108.180)
( l 80,520)
(l 50,780)
(r94,140)
(16 1,s20)
( 1 88,820)
( I 53,980)
(193,820)
( I 58,540)
(84,306)
(69,697)
(l 82,300)
(t47,820)
(196,620)
(162,400)
(204,940)
(167,720)
(279,s00)
(233,e50)
11,600
967
r 0,400
867
12,000
1,000
15,000
1,250
14,000
t,167
6,5 10
543
r 6,000
l,333
r 4,600
t,217
10,000
833
12,500
1,042
09-30-20
09-30-25 c
l0-02-20
l0-02-25 c
I 0- I 5-20
l0-15-25 c

0.520Y.

0.560%

0.550Yo

0.590Yo

0.s50%

0.590%
2,500,000
) ))) 7)\
3,000,000
2,668,830
3,000,000

2.66s.350
(277 ,67 s)
(232,0s0)
(33 l, r70)
(276,360)
(334,650)
(278,9 10)
13,000
1,083
16,500
1,37 5
16,500
1,375
- CONTINUED ON PAGE 5 -
4 t,\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\3- September,2022 investment report.xls Federal I{ome Loan Mtg Corp
3l34GWXX9

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
September 30,2022
DATES: INTERESTRATES

ACQUISITION STATED BOOK VALUE

UNREALIZED
GArN/(LOSS):

THIS MONTH

ESTIMATED
EARNINGS:

ANNUAL

CUSTP NUMBER MATURITY CURRENT YIELD PARVALUE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTH THIS MONTH U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS,
Fedelal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GWY34
Federal National Mortgage Assn
3135G06A6
Federal Farm Credit Bks Funding Corp
3I33EMDZ2
Federal Farm Credit Bks Funding Corp
3133EMEC2
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3l34GW3X2
Federal Ilome Loan Mtg Corp
3t34GW3Z7
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3t34GW21,3
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3l34GW6S0
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3I34GXAP9
Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp
3134GXCSl
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3136GXFA7
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3I34GXDM3
1 0- I 5-20
10-15-25 C
t0-20-20
t0-20-25 c
10-21-20
10-21-25 C
t0-22-20
10-22-25 C
t0-27-20
10-27-25 C
t0-28-20
l0-28-25 C
10-29-20
10-29-25 C
l 1 - l0-20
l1-10-25 c
1t-12-20
t1-t2-25 C
n-25-20
tt-25-25 c
I 1-30-20
tt-26-25 c
t2-0t-20
t2-01-25 c
12-17-20
t2-17-25 C
- CONTTNUED ON
5 Per BNY WTC

0.530vo 3,000,000 3,000,000 (336,300) 15,900

0.s70% 2,663,700 (280.590) 1,325

0.580% 3,000,000 3,000,000 (333,360) 17,400

0.620% 2,666,640 (277,470) 1,450

0.s20% 2,500,000 2,500,000 (282,2s0) 13,000

0.5600/o 2,217,750 (235,800) 1,083

0.530% 2,500,000 2,500,000 (281,750) 13,2s0

0.570% 2,218,250 (23s,250) 1,104

0.62s% 3,000,000 3,000,000 (336,480) 18,750

0.6700/o 2,663,520 (275,010) 1,563

0.600% 2,000,000 2,000,000 (222,s00) 12,000

0.640% 1,777,s00 (184,960) 1,000

0.570% 3,000,000 3,000,000 (336,540) 17,100

0.6t0o/o 2,663,460 (280,170) 1,425

0.6t0% 3,000,000 3,000,000 (336,120) 18,300

0.650% 2,663,880 (279.240) 1,s25

0.600% 2,000,000 2,000,000 (224,980) 12,000

0.6400/o 1,775,020 (187.040) 1,000

0.6250/o 3,000,000 3,000,000 (342,930) 18,750

0.660% 2,657,070 (280,770) 1,563

0.650% 2.000,000 2,000,000 (224,560) 13,000

0.700% t,775,440 (185.900) 1,083

0.620% 1,500,000 1.500,000 (170,370) 9,300

0.670% 1,329,630 (116,505) 77s

0.540% 2.500,000 2,500,000 (293,200) 13,500

0.580% 2,206.800 (244,375) 1,12s
PAGE 6 -
T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\3- Sept€mber,2022 investment report.xls Federal Fann Credit Bks Funding Corp
3133EMKT8

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
September 30,2022

UNREALIZED ESTIMATED
DATES: EARNINGS: INTEREST RATES

ACQUISITION STATED BOOK VALLTE TIIIS MONTH ANNUAL

CIJSIP NUMBER MATURITY CURRENT YIELD PAR VALUE MARKET VALUE LAST MONTII THIS MONTH GAINi(LOSS):

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS, CONTINUED
Federal Home l,oan Mtg Corp
3I34GXFVI
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GXHD9
Federal Home Loan Mtg Colp
3134GXJX3
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3t34GXIZ8
Federal Home Loan Banks
3l30AKQ74
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GXKJ2
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OAKPC4
Federal National Mortgage Asso.
3 I 35G06R9
Federal Home Loan Banks
3l30AL3S1
Federal Home Loan Banks
313OAKYU4
Fedelal Home Loan Banks
313OALCW2
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OAKZ25
12-17-20
**
t2-17-25 C
12-23-20
t2-23-25 C
0 I -05-2 I
01-05-26 C
0t-07-2t
01-07-26 C
0t-22-21
0t-22-26 C
01-22-21
0t-22-26 C
0t-28-21
0t-28-26 C
0t-28-21
0t-28=26 c
02-17-21
02-17-26 C
02-24-21
02-24-26 c
02-25-2t
02-25-26 c
02-26-2t
02-26-26 c
03- I 0-2 I
03-10-26 c

0.62s%

0.6'70%

0.700%

0.750%

0.550%

0.590%

0.520%

0.560%

0.625%

0.670%

0.550%

0.590%

0.600%

0.640%

0.550%

0.s90%

0.625%

0.670%

0.600%

0.640%

0.625%

0.670%

0.650%

0.700%

0.800%

0.860%
2,000,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,770,460
3,000,000
2,660,970
2,500,000
2,203,525
2,000,000
l;760,660
2,500,000
2,202,000
2,500,000
2,t99,92s
2,000,000
1,7s9,060
2,000,000
1,758,900
3,000,000
2,635,980
3,000,000
2,631,'.t50
3,000,000
2,633,880
3,000,000
2,635,890
3,000,000
2,655,900
(229,s40)
(190,320)
(339,030)
(278,780)
(296,47s)
(246,92s)
(239,340)
(199,620)
(298,000)
(247,700)
(300,07s)
(249,800)
(240,940)
(200,560)
(24 1,1 00)
(200,680)
(364,020)
(302,s80)
(368,250)
(306,330)
(366,120)
(303,960)
(364,1 10)
(30 l,920)
(344, l 00)
(280,740)
12,500
1,042
2 1,000
1,750
13,7 50
1,146
10,400
867
15,625
1,302
t3,7 50
1,146
12,000
1,000
I 1,000
917
18,750
I,563
r 8,000
I,500
18,750
1,563
19,500
t,625
24,000
2,000
- CONTINUED ON PAGE 7 -
6 T'\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\3- Septembet,2022 investment report.xls Federal Home Loan Banks
3 I3OALFS8

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
September 30,2022

UNREALIZED ESTIMATED
DATES: INTERESTRATES: EARNINGS:

ACQUISITION STATED BOOK VALUE THIS MONTH ANNUAL

CUSIP NUMBER MATURITY CURRENT YIELD PARVALUE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTH THIS MONTH GAIN/(LOSS):

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS. CONTINUED
Federal Home Loan Banks
3130ALKQ6
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OALXVl
Federal Home Loan Banks
3 t3OAMWU2
Federal Home Loan Banks
3130AN2L3
Federal Home Loan Banks
3l30AN4R8
Federal Flome Loan Banks
3I3OANFT2
Fedelal I{orne Loan Banks
3I3OANLZ1
Federal Home Loan Banks
3130ANM56
Federal Home Loan Banks
313OANUX6
Federal Flome Loan Banks
313OANXS4
Federal Home Loan Banks
313OANXU9
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OANYR5
03-30-2 I
03-30-26 C
04-22-2r
04-22-26 C
06-30-21
06-30-26 C
07-13-21
07-t3-26 C
07-29-21
07-29-26 C
08-24-21
08-24-26 C
08-26-21
08-26-26 C
08-27-21
08-27-26 C
09-28-21
09-28-26 C
09-28-21
09-28-26 C
09-3 0-2 1
09-30-26 c
09-30-2 l
09-30-26 c
10-21-21
10-21-26 C

1.030%

1.090%
l.100%

1.1600/o

1.000%

1.0600/o
t.020%

1.080%

1.125%

1.190o/o

1.0s0%
r.120%

0.900%

0.960%
t.0s0%

1. l 10%

1.100%
t.170%

0.900%

0.9600/o

1.000%

1.030%

0.950o/o

1.010%

1.000%

1.060%
2,500,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,500,000

2.500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,500,000

2.500,000
Per BNY WTC
2,500,000
2,220,350
2,500,000
2,221,550
3,000,000
2,641,200
3,000,000
2,640,330
3,000,000
2,647,650
3,000,000
2,634,330
2,500,000
2,182,075

2.500.000
2,194,750
3,000,000
2,632,350
3,000,000
2,611,080
3,000,000
2,62t,310
2,500,000
2,179.975
2,500,000
2, I 8 1.450
(279,650)
(225,950)
(278,450)
(225,ss})
(358,800)
(290,160)
(3s9,670)
(290,370)
(3s2,3s0)
(282,1 80)
(36s,670)
(2e4,4s0)
(317,92s)
(258,600)
(305,250)
(245,800)
(367,650)
(294,900)
(3 88,920)
(3 16,380)
(378,690)
(305,970)
(320,02s)
(2s9,475)
(3 I 8,550)
(256,350)
25,750
2,146
27,500
2,292
30,000
2,500
30,600
2,550
33,750
2,813
3 1,500
2,625
22,500
1,875
26,250
2,188
33,000
2,750
27,000
2,2s0
30,000
2,500
23,750
1,979
25,000
2,083
- CONTINUED ON PAGE 8 -
Federal Home Loan Banks
3 I 3OAPCD5
7 T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\3- Septembet,2022 investment report.xls

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
September 30,2022
DATES: INTERESTRATES:

ACQUISITION STATED

CUSIP NUMBER MATURITY CURRENTYIELD PARVALUE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTH THIS MONTII

BOOK VALIJE

UNREALIZBD
GArN/(LOSS):

THIS MONTH

ES'I'IMATED
EARNINGS:

ANNUAL
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS. CONTINUED
Federal Horne Loan Bks
3 130APJ55
Federal Home Loan Bks
3l3OAPJB2
Federal Home Loan Bks
3l3OAPDQ5
Federal Home Loan Bks
313OAPFQ3
Federal Home Loan Bks
3I3OAPFR1
Federal Home Loan Bks
3I3OAPFU4
Federal Home Loan Bks
3 13OAPLP8
Federal Horne Loan Bks
3I3OAPNK7
Federal Home Loan Bks
3 l3OAPPL3
Federal Home Loan Bks
3I3OAPXT7
Federal Home Loan Bks
3130ARA68

TOTAL FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS
**All are in safekeeping with BNY Western Trust Company 10-26-21
10-26-26 C
t0-26-21
t0-26-26 C
t0-28-21
10-28-26 C
t0-28-21
t0-28-26 C
10-28-21
10-28-26 C
10-28-21
10-28-26 C
l1-16-21
tl-16-26 c
I l-18-21
l l-18-26 C
11-23-21
11-23-26 c
l2-17-21
12-17-26 C
03-29-22
03-29-27 C
l.250Yo

1.3r0%

1.125%
t.r90%

1.250%

1.320%

1.100%
l.l7 0o/o

1.120o/o
l.l90Yr

1.050%
t.l200A
t.375%
t.440%
l.375Yo

1.440o/o
r.450%
l.510Yo

1.6000/0

1.6700/r

2.350o/o

2.390o/o
N/A

0.880%
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
N/A
Per BNY WTC
3,000,000
2,642,700
3,000,000
2,629,290
3,000,000
2,642,370
2,000,000
I,750,800
2,000,000
t,752,260
2,000,000
1,747 ,200
2,500,000
2,209,800
3,000.000
2,65t,400
3,000,000
2,6s8,390
2,000,000
1,789,360
2,000,000
1,823,r20
(34 1,6 1 0)
(266,250)
(2 1 0,640)
( r 68,800)
( I 76,880)
(124,660)
43,500
3,625

32.000

2.667
47,000
3,917
(357,300)
(283,290)
(370,710)
(296,850)
(357,630)
(283,650)
(249,200)
( I 99,e80)
(247,740)
(198,520)
(252,800)
(203,600)
(290,200)
(227,575)
(348,600)
(273,390)

37.500
3,125
33,750
2,8 13
37,500
3,125
22,000
1,83 3
22,400
1,867
21,000
1,750
34,375
2,865
41,250
3,43 8
I 57,868,056
139,783,245
(18,084,81r)
(14,747,602)
1,308,760
I 09,063
- Ull: Unrestricted Investments
8 T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\3- 5eptember,2022 investment report.xls

TYPE OF INVESTMENT

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT

SUMMARY OF ALL INVESTMENTS
October 31,2022
BOOK
VALUE
MARKET
VALUE

CURRENT
YIELD

BOOK VALUE
Vo OF
TOTAL
TINRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS - SEE PAGE 2
RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS. SEE PAGE 3

TOTAL INVESTMENTS
198,340,289 179,232,511 0.802%
13,135,906 13,135,906 N/A
211,476,195 192,368,417 N/A

93.79%

6.21o/o
100.00%
Note: The City's financial statments will report market values, not book values, at June 30 each year I certify that this report reflects all City investments and complies with the investment policy of the City of Tulare as approved by City Council.

Furthermore, I certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the City's budgeted expenditures for the next six months.

Presented to the City Council on November 15,2022 Presented to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners on November 17,2022 Respectfully submitted, J. Diego lbanez, Chief Financial Ofifcer -J.>" Lr[r lq-o* Date
I T,\Fln"nce\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\4- October, 2022 investment report.xls

TYPE OF INVESTMENT

ISSUER OF

INVESTMENT
Petty Cash N/A
Checking Account - Cify Wells Fargo Bank
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) State of California Sub-Total
Fixed Income Investments Various (See page 4-7)
Investments in Safekeeping With BNY Western Trust Company

TOTAL UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

SUMMARY OF UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS
October 31,2022
DATES: INTERESTRATES:

N/A
N/A
N/A

ACQUISITION STATED

MATURITY CURRENTYIELD PARVALUE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTH THISMONTH N/A
None
N/A
None
12,900
12,900
N/A 5,395,262
5,395,262
Balance per bank is $5,302038
N/A 35,064,07 |
34,669,724
(394,347)
(6r,973)
BOOK
VALUE
,n, oF
UT0.0t%

2.72%

17.68Yo

20.4t%

79.5901.
100.00%

BOOK VALUE

UNREALIZED
GAINi(LOSS):

THIS MONTH

ESTIMATED
EARNINGS:

ANNUAL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
t27,984
10,665
t27,984
10,665
1,308,760
109,063
1,436,744
tt9,'729
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
C)n Demand
Various
On Demand
N/A

0.365%
N/A

0.319%
N/A

0.880%
N/A

0.802Vo
N/A
N/A
N/A
40,472,233
40,0'17,887
Per BNY WTC
I 57,868,056
139,1s4,624
(394,347)
(6r,e73)
(t8,713,432)
(18,054,341)
t98,340,289
179,232,5r1
(19,r07,778)
(18,1 16,3 14)
* LAIF market values are based on the most currently available amortized cost information 'Match 31,2022'. 0.98 8753 53 8 - U/l = Unrestricted Investments 2 T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\z022-2023 lnvestment Reports\4- October, 2022 investment report.xls

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

SUMMARY OF RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS
October 31,2022
STATED

INTEREST RATE
PAR
VALUE
BOOK
VALUE
MARKET
VALUE

BALANCES
AS.OF

DATE TYPE OF INVESTMENT ISSUER OF INVESTMENT
Bond Funds (All are Managed by U.S. Bank Trust Except LAIF):
2018 Lease Revenue and Refunding Bonds (Account No. 244938000) First American Govt Fd U.S. Bank Trust

ACQUISITION
DATE

MATURITY
DATE
Various
Various
I t-15-15
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
On Demand
On Demand
Various
Rescrve Fund
Various
Various
Raervc Fund
t.960%
Rescn,c Fund
t7
49,321
5,032,685
5,082,023
10-31-22
08-31-22
l0-
t0-31-22
t0-3t-22
10-31-22
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
t7
49,32t
3,405,8 I I

3.405,8 I l
3,405,81 I 10-30-22
3,405,81I
20 I 5 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds (Account No. 26 I 5940000) First American Govt Fd U.S. Bank Trust
First American Govt Fd U.S. Bank Trust
lnvestment Repuchase GIC Bayerische Landesbank
20 I 6 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds (Account No. 23 I 687000) U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
2020 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds (Account No. 230396000) U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
2017 Water Rsvenue Bonds (Account No. 219189000)
U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
2020 Water Revenue Bonds (Account No. 250953000)
U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
2017 Successor Agency Tax Allocation Bonds - Series A & B (Account No.24534600) U S Bk Mmkt U.S. Bank Trust
TOTAL RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS Book Value % of Total Inveslments = I 1-15-25
On Demand Various
On Demand Various
On Demand Various
On Demand
On Demand
5,032,685
5,082,023
I,107,100
1,107,100
t6,302
--- r6,-frT
1,107,100 r0-31-22
t01 100
16,302 -----a@
N/A 1,107,100 I,1 07,1 00
107.100 1,107,100
Various N/A 648,3 8 8 648,388 10-3r-22
648,t 8 8 648,388
Various N/A 769 182 1,769,t82 10-31-22
769,t82 1,'769,182

6.21% 13,t35,906 13,135,906
3 T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\4- October,2022 investment report.xls

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT' CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS
October 31,2022
DATES: INTEREST RATES:

UNREALIZED
GAIN/(LOSS):

ESTIMATED
EARNINGS:

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT

CUSIP NUMBER
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS
Federal Farm Credit Bks Funding Corp
3I33ELI47
Federal National Morlgage Assn
3136G4T52
Federal National Mortgage Assn
3136G4U50
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GVVX3
Federal Home Loan Mtg CotP
3134GVB56
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OAJREI
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3 l34GVT65
Federal National Mortgage Assn
3l36G4YU1
Federal National Mortgage Assn
3136G42E2
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3t34GWUE4
Federal Home Loan Mtg CorP
3l34GWUV6
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GWX43

ACQUISITION STATED BOOK VALUE THIS MONTH ANNUAL

MATURITY CURRENTYIELD PARVALUE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTH THISMONTH 06-r7 -20
06-17-24 c
08-2s-20
02-25-25 c
08-27-20
05-27-25 c
06-03-20
05-28-25 c
06-10-20
06-10-25 c
06-24-20
06-24-25 c
06-30-20
06-30-25 c
07-15-20
07-t5-25 c
08-26-20
08-26-25 c
09-30-20
09-30-25 c

0.580%

0.600Yo

0.s20%
0550Yr

0.600V'

0.630Yo

0.750o/o

0.780Yr

0.700Vr

0.740Yo

0.750o/o

0.790o/o

0.800%

0.850%

0.730%

0.77jYo

0.500%

0.530Yo

0.500%

0.540Vo

0.520%

0.560%

0.550Yr

0.590%

0.550Yo

0.s90%
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
868,056
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
Per BNY WTC
2,000,000
t,866,440
2,000,000
1,8 13,520
2,000,000
r,799,920
2,000,000
1,803,260
2,000,000
1,798,240
868,056
78t,024
2,000,000
1,810,360
2,000,000
1,797,140
2,000,000
t,788,720
2,500,000
2,212,300
(1 33,560)
(129,000)
( r 86,480)
( l 80,530)
(200,080)
(194,140)
(t96,740)
(188,820)
(201,760)
(l 93,820)
(87,032)
(84,306)
(189,640)
(1 82,300)
(202,860)
(re6,620)
(211,280)
(204,940)
(287,700)
(279,500)
11,600
967
r 0,400
867
12,000
1,000
15,000
1,250
14,000
t,167
6,510
543
16,000
1,333
14,600
1,217
10,000
833
12,500
1,042
09-30-20
09-30-25 C
t0-02-20
t0-02-25 c
l 0- I 5-20
10-15-25 c
2,500,000
2,2t6,650
3,000,000
2,661,840
3,000,000
2,658,480
(283,350)
(277,675)
(33 8, l 60)
(3 3 1,1 70)
(341,520)
(334,1 70)
13,000
1,083
16,500
t,375
16,500
1,375
- CONTINUED ON PAGE 5 -
4 t:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\4- October,2022 investment report.xls Federal Home Loan Mtg CorP
3l34GWXX9

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
October 31,2022
DATES: INTERESTRATES:

ACQUISITION STATED BOOK VALUE

UNREALIZED
GArN/(LOSS):

THIS MONTH

ESTIMATED
EARNINGS:

ANNUAL

CUSIPNUMBER MATURITY CURRENTYIELD PARVALUE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTH THIS MONTH U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS. CONTINUED
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3l34GWY34
Federal National Mortgage Assn
3135G06A6
Federal Farm Credit Bks Funding Corp
3I33EMDZ2
Federal Farm Credit Bks Funding Corp
3133EMEC2
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3r34GW3X2
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3t34GW3Z7
Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp
3134GWZL3
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GW6S0
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GXAP9
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3I34GXCS1
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3I36GXFA7
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GXDM3
Per BNY WTC
0530% 3,000,000 3,000,000 (343,140) 15,900

0.570% 2,656,860 (336,300) 1,32s

0.580% 3,000.000 3,000,000 (342,330) 17,400

0.620% 2,6s7,670 (333,360) 1,450

0.520o/o 2,500,000 2,500,000 (289,600) 13,000

0.560Yo 2,210,400 (282,250) 1,083

0.530o/o 2,500,000 2,500,000 (289,150) 13,250

0.s70% 2,210,850 (281,750) 1,104

0.625% 3,000,000 3,000,000 (336,060) 18,750

0.670% 2,663,940 (336,480) 1,563

0.600% 2,000,000 2,000,000 (222,800) 12,000

0.640% 1,777,200 (222,500) 1,000
Q570yo 3,000,000 3,000,000 (344,010) 17,100

0.610% 2,655,990 (336,540) t,42s

0.6100/o 3,000,000 3,000,000 (345,600) 18,300

0.6500A 2,654,400 (336,120) 1,525

0.6000/o 2,000,000 2,000,000 (231,320) 12,000

0.6400/o 1,768,680 (224,980) 1,000

0.625yo 3,000,000 3,000,000 (352,440) 18.750

0.660% 2,647,560 (342,930) 1,563

0.650Vo 2,000,000 2,000,000 (231,020) 13,000

0.700% 1,768,980 (224,560) 1,083

0.6200/o 1,500,000 1,500,000 (175,215) 9,300

0.670% 1,324,78s (170,370) 775

0.540% 2,500,000 2,s00,000 (301,125) 13,500

0.580% 2,198,875 (293,200) r,t2s
PAGE 6 -
T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\4- October, 2022 investment report.xls I 0- I 5-20
l0-15-25 c
10-20-20
t0-20-25 c
r0-2t-20
r0-2t-25 c
t0-22-20
10-22-25 C
10-27-20
t0-27-25 C
I 0-28-20
t0-28-25 C
10-29-20
10-29-25 C
I 1-10-20
1l-10-25 c
t1-t2-20
t1-12-25 C
1t-25-20
t1-25-25 C
1 l-30-20
tt-26-25 C
t2-01-20
t2-01-25 C
t2-t7-20
12-17-25 C
- CONTINUED ON
5 Federal Falm Credit Bks Funding Corp
3133EMKT8

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
October 31,2022
DATES: INTEREST RATES:

ESTIMATED
EARNINGS:

ACQUISITION STATED BOOKVALUE THISMONTH ANNUAL
CUSIPNUMBER MATURITY CURRENTYIELD PAR VAI,I]E MARKET VALUE LAST MONTH THIS MONTH

UNREALIZED
GAIN/(LOSS):

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGAT
Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp
3I34GXFVI
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3I34GXHD9
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GXJX3
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
3134GXJZg
Federal Home Loan Banks
3l30AKQ74
Federal Home Loan Mtg Colp
3134GXKJ2
Federal Home Loan Banks
313OAKPC4
Federal National Mortgage Asso.
3135G06R9
Fedelal Florne Loan Banks
3l30AL3Sl
Federal Horne Loan Banks
3I3OAKYU4
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OALCW2
Federal Home Loan Banks
3t30AKZ25
12-17-20
12-17-25 c
12-23-20
t2-23-25 C
0 I -05-2 I
0l-05-26 c
0t-07 -21
0t-07-26 c
01-22-21
0t-22-26 C
0t-22-21
01-22-26 C
0t-28-21
0t-28-26 C
01-28-2t
01-28-26 C
02-17-21
02-17-26 C
02-24-21
02-24-26 C
02-25-21
02-25-26 C
02-26-2t
02-26-26 C
03- I 0-2 I
03-10-26 c
Iter BNY WTC

0.625%

0.670%

0.700%

0.750%

0.ssj%
0590%

0.520%

0.s60%

0.625%

0.670%

0.550%

0.590%

0.600%

0.640%
05s0%

0.590%

0.625%

0.6'70%

0.600%

0.640%

0.625%

0.670%

0.650%

0.700%

0.800%

0.860%
2,000,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2,s00,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,763,980
3,000,000
2,650,650
2,s00,000
2,195,125
2,000,000
1,753,980
2,500,000
2,193,3s0
2,500,000
2,191,325
2,000,000
I,752,180
2,000,000
1,752,040
3,000,000
2,624,940
3,000,000
2,620,860
3,000,000
2,622,900
3,000,000
2,624,850
3,000,000
2,644,140
(236,020)
(229,540)
(349,350)
(339,030)
(304,875)
(296,47 s)
(246,020)
(239,340)
(306,6s0)
(298,000)
(308,675)
(300,075)
(24'7,820)
(240,940)
(247,960)
(24r,100)
(375,060)
(364,020)
(379,140)
(368,250)
(3 77, 1 00)
(366, I 20)
(37s, I s0)
(364,1 l0)
(3ss,860)
(344, r 00)
12,500
1,042
2l ,000
1,750
13,750
1,146
10,400
867
15,625
1,302
l3,750
1,146
12,000
l,000
l l,000
917
18,750
1,563
18,000
I,500
18,750
1,563
19,500
1,625
24,000
2,000
- CONTINUED ON PAGE 7 -
6 f'\finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\4- October, 2022 investment report.xls Federal Home Loan Banks
3 l3OALFS8

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
October 31,2022
T]NREALIZED ESTIMATED
DATES: INTERESTRATES: EARNINGS:

ACQUISITION STATED BOOK VALUE THIS MONTH ANNUAL
CTJSIP NUMBER MATURITY CURRENT YIELD PAR VALUE MARKET VALUE LAST MON'[I{ THIS MONTH GAIN/(LOSS):

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS. CONTINUED
Federal Home Loan Banks
3130ALKQ6
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OALXV1
Federal I-lome Loan Banks
313OAMWU2
Federal l-lome Loan Banks
3l30AN2L3
Federal Home Loan Banks
3l30AN4R8
Federal Horne Loan Banks
313OANFT2
F'ederal Home Loan Banks
3I3OANLZl
Federal l-{ome Loan Banks
3l30ANM56
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OANUX6
Federal Home Loan Banks
313OANXS4
Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OANXUg
Federal Home Loan Banks
313OANYR5
03-30-2 I
03-30-26 C
04-22-21
04-22-26 C
06-30-2 1
06-30-26 c
07-13-21
07-13-26 C
07-29-21
07-29-26 C
08-24-21
08-24-26 c
08-26-21
08-26-26 C
08-27-21
08-27-26 C
09-28-21
09-28-26 C
09-28-2t
09-28-26 C
09-30-2 I
09-30-26 C
09-3 0-2 1
09-30-26 C
r0-2r-21
10-2t-26 C
t.030%

1.090%

1.100%
t.160%

1.000%

1.060%

1.020o/o

1.080%

1.125o/o

1.190%

1.050o/o
l.t200A

0.900%

0.9600/o

1.050%
l.l10o/o

1.100%
t.170%

0.900%

0.960%

1.000%

1.030%

0.950%

1.010%

1.000%
t.060%
2,500,000 2,500,000
2,209,925
2,500,000
2,210,775
3,000,000
2,627,430
3,000,000
2,626,350
3,000,000
2,633,250
3,000,000
2,619,660
2,500,000
2,170,000
2,500,000
2,182,550
3,000,000
2,61 7,080
3,000,000
2,596,230
3,000,000
2,606,340
2,500,000
2,167,600
2,500,000
2,169,200
(290,07 5)
(249,6s0)
(289,22s)
(278,450)
(372,570)
(358,800)
(373,650)
(3s9,670)
(366,750)
(352,350)
(380,340)
(365,670)
(330,000)
(317,e2s)
(3 17,450)
(305,250)
(382,920)
(367,650)
(403,770)
(388,920)
(393,660)
(378,690)
(332.400)
(320,02s)
(330,800)
(3 l 8,5s0)
)\ 1\O
2,146
27,500
) )o)
30,000
2,500
30,600
? 550
33,750
2,8 r3
3 1,500
2,62s
?? 500
1,875
26,250

2.1 88
33,000
2,750
27,000
2,250

30.000
2,500

23.750
r,979
25,000
2,083
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,500.000
3,000,000

3.000,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
- CONTINUED ON PAGE 8 -
7 Federal Home Loan Banks
3I3OAPCD5
T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\ - October, 2022 investment report.xls.

CITY OF TULARE

SUMMARY TREASURER'S REPORT, CONTINUED

FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED
October 31,2022
DATES: INTERESTRATES:

ESTIMATED
EARNINGS:

ACQUISITION STATED BOOK VALUE THIS MONTII ANNIJAL
CUSIP NUMBER MATURITY CURRENT YIELD PARVALUE MARKETVALUE LASTMONTI{ THIS MONTH

UNREALIZED
GAIN/(LOSS):

TYPE OF FIXED INCOME INVESTMENT
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OBLIGATIONS. CONTINUED
Federal Home Loan Bks
3 l30APJ55
Federal Home I-oan Bks
3I3OAPJB2
Federal Home Loan Bks
3l3OAPDQ5
Federal Home Loan Bks
313oAPFQ3
Federal Home Loan Bks
313OAPFR1
Federal Ilome Loan Bks
3I3OAPFU4
Federal Horne Loan Bks
3 13OAPLP8
Federal Home Loan Bks
3I3OAPNK7
Federal Flome Loan Bks
3 I 3OAPPL3
Federal Home Loan Bks
3I3OAPXT7
Federal Home Loan Bks
3l30ARA68

TOTAL FIXED INCOME INVESTMENTS
**All are in safekeeping with BNY Western Trust Company t0-26-21
t0-26-26 C
10-26-21
t0-26-26 C
t0-28-21
10-28-26 C
10-28-21
10-28-26 C
10-28-21
10-28-26 C
10-28-21
t0-28-26 C
1r-r6-21
11-16-26 C
I l-18-21
I l-18-26 C

1.250%
1310%

1.r25%

1.190%

1.250o/o

1.320%
l. t00%

1.170%

1.120%

1.190%

1.050%

1.120%
t.375%

1.440%
t.375%
l.440Yo
3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,000.000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
N/A
Per BNY WTC
3,000,000
2,626,710
3,000,000

2.613,570
3,000,000
2,626,320
2,000,000
t,717,740
2,000,000
t,741,720
2,000,000
t,736,780
2,500,000
2,196,200
3,000,000
2,635,080
(373,2e0)
(357,300)
(386,430)
(370,710)
(373,680)
(357,630)
(282,260)
(24e,200)
(258,280)
(247,740)
(263,220)
(252,800)
(303,800)
(2e0,200)
(364,920)
(348,600)
(358,050)
(341"610)
(222,260)
(2 1 0,640)
( I 89,980)
( r 76,880)
37,s00
3,125
33,750
2,813
37,s00
3,12s
22,000
1,833
22,400
r,867
2l,000
1,750
34,375
2,865
41,250
3,43 8
1l-23-21
tt-23-26 C
t2-17-21
t2-17-26 C
03-29-22
03-29-27 C

1.450%

1.510o/o
l.600Yo
L670010

2.350o/o

2.390%
N/A

0.880%
3,000,000
2,64t,950
2,000,000
1,777.740
2,000,000
1,8 r 0,020
43,500
3,625
32,000
2,667
47,000
3,917
I 57.868,056
t39,154,624
(18,713,432)
( 1 8,054,34 1)
I,308,760
1 09,063
8 - Ull: Unrestricted Investments
T:\Finance\lnvestment Reports\2022-2023 lnvestment Reports\4- October, 2022 investment report.xls

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Community & Economic Development For Council Meeting of: November 15, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☐Other ☒None

AGENDA ITEM:

Authorize City of Tulare to apply to the Kings Tulare Continuum of Care on Homelessness local Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (“HHAP”) Round 4 Request for Proposals for a grant award not to exceed $143,415 to finance street outreach and housing placement services for people experiencing homelessness in prioritized encampment area(s) within the City of Tulare.

IS PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:

The California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH), through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Program, provides funding in the form of grants for a range of activities that assist persons who are currently experiencing homelessness or are at risk of experiencing homelessness. The HHAP Round 4 (HHAP 4) funding is a $1 billion block grant program authorized by Health and Safety Code 50218.7, which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 19, 2021.The Kings Tulare Continuum of Care (KTCoC) announced a Request for Proposals (RFP) for HHAP 4 on October 19, 2022. A full overview of the RFP and HHAP Program guidelines are available at the KTCoC website at https://www.kthomelessalliance.org/news/category/ktcoc-releases-hhap-4-rfp .

The exact amount of funds allocated to the KTCoC will be determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). KTCoC anticipates a decrease their allocation from the state in proportion to the region’s decreased Point-In-Time Count numbers (4.7% decrease from 2020 to 2022), therefore the projected allocation to the KTCoC is $1,517,633.23. These HHAP 4 grant funds are then invested in local activities and projects that satisfy HHAP Program guidelines and local funding priorities.

General eligible uses of HHAP 4 grant funds include:
• Rapid rehousing services (e.g., housing placement and deposit and rent assistance); • Operating subsidies in new and existing affordable or supportive housing units; • Non-congregate emergency shelters and navigation centers; • Street outreach;
• Services coordination;
• System support for activities necessary to create regional partnerships and maintain a homeless services and housing delivery system;
• Delivery of permanent housing and innovative housing solutions; • Prevention and shelter diversion to permanent housing; and, • Non-congregate Interim shelter.

AGENDA ITEM: Consent 11.8
Direct service activities must be carried out in accordance with federal regulations cited below and written standards of the local Coordinated Entry System and Every Door Open.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☐Yes ☒N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:

Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) *Contingent on grant award* Submitted by: Traci Myers Title: Community & Economic Development Director Date: November 8, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Engineering Services / Engineering For Council Meeting of: November 15, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☐Other ☒None

AGENDA ITEM:

Receive a presentation by Peters Engineering Group regarding their preparation of a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) for the City of Tulare, conduct a public hearing to receive comment, and provide Council direction regarding the contents, findings and recommendations of the LRSP.

IS PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☒Yes ☐No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:

Federal regulations require each State to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). An SHSP is a statewide data-driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, state, local and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis (or challenge) areas. The SHSP address the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

Preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and contribute to the statewide plan. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges.

AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing 13.1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☐Yes ☒N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:

N/A
Submitted by: Michael Miller Title: City Engineer
Date: November 7, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL
Submitting Department: Community & Economic Development For Council Meeting of: November 15, 2022
Documents Attached: ☒Ordinance ☒Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Adopt a resolution adopting the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-22 – (Fulton Estates), Annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35), General Plan Amendment No. 2022.01 and Zone Amendment No. 748; adopt a resolution requesting the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission take proceedings for annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35) and detachment of the property from County Service Area No. 1; adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 to change the existing General Plan land use designation from Residential Estate to Low Density Residential on approximately 35.62-acres and Community Commercial on approximately 2.86-acres; and pass to print an ordinance approving Zone Amendment No. 748, pre-zoning approximately 35.62-acres of the subject property to R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and approximately 2.86-acres to the C-3 (Retail Commercial) zoning designations to become effective upon annexation into the City limits.

IS PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☒Yes ☐No
BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:

This is a request by Quest Equity to annex into the City limits and subdivide approximately

Following the approval of a resolution of application by the City Council, the applicant will be required to provide documentation and filing fees, and City staff will work to submit an application to the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in order to initiate annexation proceedings.

The subject property is currently subject to the zoning designation established by the County of Tulare. Upon annexation, the project proponents are proposing to establish the underlying zoning designations as R-1-5 (Single-Family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing 13.2
C-3 (Retail Commercial). The proposed R-1-5 and C-3 zoning designations are consistent with the existing/proposed Low Density Residential and Community Commercial land use designations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a resolution adopting the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-22 – (Fulton Estates), Annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35), General Plan Amendment No. 2022.01 and Zone Amendment No. 748.

2. Adopt a resolution requesting the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission take proceedings for annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35) and detachment of the property from County Service Area No. 1.

3. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 to change the existing General Plan land use designation from Residential Estate to Low Density Residential on approximately 35.62-acres and Community Commercial on approximately 2.86-acres.

4. Pass to print an ordinance approving Zone Amendment No. 748, pre-zoning approximately 35.62-acres of the subject property to R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and approximately 2.86-acres to the C-3 (Retail Commercial) zoning designations to become effective upon annexation into the City limits.

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☐Yes ☒N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:

N/A
Submitted by: Steven Sopp Title: Principal Planner
Date: November 15, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________

RESOLUTION 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 2022-22 – (FULTON ESTATES), ANNEXATION NO. 2022-01 (EAST TULARE NO. 35), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-01 AND ZONE AMENDMENT NO. 748
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare held a regular meeting on November 15, 2022 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-22 – (Fulton Estates), Annexation No. 2021-01 (East Tulare No. 35), General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 and Zone Amendment No. 748, and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment after mitigation; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare determined that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tulare, as follows, to wit:

Section 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-22 – (Fulton Estates), Annexation No. 2022-01 (East Tulare No. 35), General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01 and Zone Amendment No. 748 is hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Tulare.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on November 15, 2022.

President of the Council and Ex-Officio
Mayor of the City of Tulare
ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk and Clerk of the
Council of the City of Tulare
1 FULTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Introduction 3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4
I. Aesthetics 11
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources 15
III. Air Quality 21
IV. Biological Resources 26
V. Cultural Resources 34
VI. Energy 39
VII. Geology and Soils 42
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 46
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 49
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 53
XI. Land Use and Planning 58
XII. Mineral Resources 60
XIII. Noise 62
XIV. Population and Housing 65
XV. Public Services 66
XVI. Parks and Recreation 70
XVII. Transportation 72
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 76
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 81
XX. Wildfire 85
Mandatory Finding of Significance 86
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 88
Supporting Information and Sources 94
Part 2 Appendices
Appendix A – CallEEMod Report
Appendix B – California Natural Diversity Data Base Species List Appendix C – Taylored Archaeological Technical Memo
Appendix D – Traffic Impact Study
3 Introduction
The Initial Study has been prepared on behalf of the City of Tulare to address environmental effects of the proposed project, the Fulton Estates Subdivision. The project includes Annexation 22-01, General Plan Amendment 2022-01, Zone Amendment (Pre-Zone) 748, and Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-01. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code 21000 et. Seq. The City of Tulare will act as the Lead Agency for processing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.

Project Background & Purpose
The proposed project involves the developmentof a 185 lot single family residential subdivision and a commercial corner at Oakmore Street and Tulare Avenue (SR-137). The project site is currently in the County and will require annexation into the City of Tulare. The project includes a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from Residential Estate to Low Density Residential and Community Commercial and pre-zoning to R-1-5 and C-3 (Retail Commercial). The proposed project would result in on-site infrastructure improvements, including improvement of existing streets and new city streets within the subdivision.

Construction is proposed to begin in January 2023 and continue for 24 months. See Exhibit 2 for site layout.

Project Location
The project is located on the southwest corner of Oakmore Street and Tulare Avenue (SR-137). (APN 172- 030-010). The site is approximately 38.48 acres and is adjacent to existing residential to the west, north and south and agricultural use to the east.

Other Permits and Approvals
Other permits and approvals required for the Fulton Estates Subdivision are listed below. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive and additional permits and approvals may also be required. • Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFco) Approval of Annexation into Tulare City limits • City of Tulare General Plan Amendment
• City of Tulare Pre-zone
• City of Tulare Tentative Subdivision Map
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP • Caltrans Encroachment Permit for Improvements along Tulare Avenue (SR-137) 4 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1. Project Title: Fulton Estates Subdivision

2. Lead Agency: City of Tulare
411 East Kern
AvenueTulare, CA
93274
(559) 684-4210

3. Applicant: Quest Equity
1878 N. Mooney Blvd.

Tulare, CA 93274
(559) 799-6993

4. Project Location: The project is located on the southwest corner of Oakmore Street and Tulare Avenue (SR-137). APN 172-030-010. See Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map and Exhibit 2: Project Location

5. General Plan Designation The site is designated in the Tulare General Plan as Residential Estate.

6. Zoning Designation: The site is currently in the County and zoned AE-20. The application includes annexation of the subject site into the City of Tulare with a Pre-zone of R1-5 and C-3 (Retail Commercial).

7. Project Description: The proposed project site is currently in the County of Tulare, but within the City of Tulare Sphere of Influence and Urban Development Boundary. The proposed project is the development of 185 single family residential units. The project has access from Tulare Avenue (SR137) and Oakmore Street for the commercial corner and solely via Oakmore for the residential neighborhood. The subdivision will connect to existing development to the west. The proposed project includes on-site infrastructure, including an extension of existing streets and expansion of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Oakmore Street, and new City and other utilities. Construction is proposed from February 2023 through July 2024. See Exhibit 3 for Project Layout.

8. Surrounding Land Use Designations and Settings:

North: Rural Residential (City of Tulare 2035 General Plan), currently existing rural residential South: Rural Residential (City of Tulare 2035 General Plan), currently existing rural residential East: COS North TOD (City of Tulare 2035 General Plan), currently Agriculture West: Low Density Residential (City of Tulare 2035 General Plan), currently existing single family residential

9. Required Approvals: The following discretionary approvals are required from The City of Tulare for the proposed project:
• City of Tulare Annexation
• City of Tulare General Plan Amendment
• City of Tulare Pre-zone
5 • City of Tulare Tentative Subdivision Map

10. Native American Consultation: The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe has requested notification in accordance with AB52. Due to the General Plan application, the City is also required to provide notice and consultation in accordance with SB 18. The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe was notified on January 26, 2022, and responded on February 14, 2022. The tribe requested that a tribal monitor be on site for all ground disturbance related to the project. The City of Tulare has asked the tribe for more information regarding the basis of the request, such as information on the potential presence of Tribal Cultural Resources that would require tribal ground monitoring for all ground disturbance activities on this site. The City has determined that the tribe has not presented substantial evidence to support the notion that Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074(a) of the Public Resources Code, will be impacted by the proposed project; however the City will notify the tribe in the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery of potential Tribal Cultural Resources so that the City may consult with the Tribe on identification and appropriate treatment, pursuant to applicable state law.

11. Parking and access: Vehicular Access to the project will be from Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Oakmore Street for the commercial corner and Oakmore Street for the residential. The subdivision will connect to the existing subdivision to the west through local streets. Each single family residence will provide a two car garage in order to meet parking standards in the City Zoning Ordinance.

12. Landscaping and Design: The landscape and design plans will be required at time the project submits for building permit on the project and will be subject to the City of Tulare’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO).

13. Utilities and Electrical Services: City services (water, sewer, storm drain, law enforcement, fire protection etc.) will be extended to the proposed Project area upon development. 6 Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map

Proposed Project
7 Exhibit 2
Project Location
8 Exhibit 3
Tentative Subdivision Map
- .. --
.... -~·?1 ~:·\ =
..____
,.___
1--
>---- "'
·" >---- '
- ~-
"' -·· ,r.t:·
... ,
~ 11,,,-?-=;;:::=::;;,:r,.
i..,r,,...... "·' _ .
~.,, .~,. I ,.':, r..~ r.; "' rn .. , , ... '"
I".':', (I
! -
7 .
,1."L ,.,. "' II '"' ,., ... ,.,,, r.,, 511
~ I
'" r.t, ''"
>---
~ ,.,, "'· , .. ''" •·•·II"" ,., r,, ,.,, "'· "' ''" "" .,, ~~·~ :-:- ,......,, . ~ _ 1) ,._,____i,--- "' '1 ,.,.___,. \\..·:-.:::: · ~;;::;::::;;;:;:~~:;:::;;::;:::.~~~;,,.;I--,..-=~ r-.::::. - iir~.!PI I .,~•I/ .. , -r.,, r., ,., ~ "'' "' ,.,. ,,,., "'' r,, 11, r:, F L TON ESTATES i:::: ~"T I:: IT · •TN • I. L n;:

Tlrl. • I.•

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.

D Aesthetics □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Public Services D Agriculture and Forest Resources □ Hazards and Hazardous Materials D Recreation D Air Quality □ Hydrology and Water Quality D Transportation 0 Biological Resources D Land Use and Planning @Tribal Cultural Resources 0 Cultural Resources □ Mineral Resources □ Utilities and Service Systems □ Energy □ Noise □ Wildfire
□ Population 0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
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 ofthis 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, therewill 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.

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

D 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 beaddressed.
□ 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.

C/~;?--~22-
Mario Anaya, City Planner, City of Tulare Date
9 10

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 referenced 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 beexplained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would 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 on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as wellas operational impacts.

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, orlessthan 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 is 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.

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:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) 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.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined fromthe earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for theproject.

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 apreviously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identify mitigation measures, if applicable.

I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resource
CodeSection 210999, would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?    
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 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
There are no aesthetic resources identified in the City of Tulare General Plan. As shown in the following photos, the proposed project will not impact any scenic vista from the project site. 12 Photo 1: Photo from southeast corner of subject property.

Photo 2: Photo from northeast corner of subject property. 13 Photo 3: Photo from northwest corner of subject property.

Photo 4: Photo from southwest corner of subject property.

Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are the primary scenic vista within this region and the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan states that view corridors to the mountains should be preserved. The proposed project will not impede on adjacent 14 properties’ view of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, given that the poor air quality in the area obscures the views of the mountains most days, and the project would construct homes that would be compliant with the height limit in the City’s zoning code. The proposed project would not be substantially altering the existing views in the area which are already dominated by homes on three sides of the project site. Therefore there is no impact. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within state scenic highway? There are no Officially Designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Tulare, therefore there is no impact.
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? The proposed project is not currently developed and is adjacent to a non-urbanized area to the east. The proposed project would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings, therefore there is no impact.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affectday or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed project would result in new lighting sources on the project site consistent with adjacent residential development and the commercial development. New lighting sources would include interior lighting from residences, street lighting and commercial lighting. All street and parking lot lighting will be consistent with the City’s lighting standards, which are developed to minimize impacts related to excessive light and glare. Although the project will introduce new light sources to the area, all lighting will be consistent with adjacent residential land uses and the City’s lighting standards. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
15 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in the
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. 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
The proposed projectsite is not under Williamson Act Contract, butis designated as Prime Farmland as shown by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), Exhibit 3. The soil is Nord Fine Sandy Loam. 0 to 2 percent slope.The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) defines this soil as prime 16 farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season.

The project site has not been farmed for approximately seven years and is regularly disced for weed control. The project site does not have access to surface or well water currently. The site surrounding the residential area was recently disced when the site was visiting on June 3, 2022. The site is adjacent to urban development to the west, and developed rural residences to the north and south.

Regulatory Setting
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.Land is included in this program 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:
• Prime Farmland hasthe ideal physical and chemical composition for crop production. It has been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is capable of producing sustained yields.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance has also been used for irrigated production in the four years prior to classification and is only slightly poorer quality than Prime Farmland. • Unique Farmland has been cropped in the four years priorto classification and does notmeetthe criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance but has produced specific crops with high economic value.
• Farmland of Local Importance encompasses farmland that does not meet the criteria for the previous three categories. These may lack irrigation, produce major crops, be zoned as agricultural, and/or support dairy.

City of Tulare General Plan: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan includes the following agricultural resource goals and policies that are potentially applicable to the proposed project:
• COS-P3.1 Protect Interim Agricultural Activity. The City shall protect the viability of existing interim agricultural activity in the UDB to the extent possible. • COS-P3.2 Agricultural Buffers. The City shall require that agricultural land uses designated for long-term protection (in a Williamson Act contract or under a conservation easement located outside the City’s UDB) shall be buffered from urban land uses through the use of techniques including, but not limited to, spatial separations (e.g. greenbelts, open space setbacks, etc.), transitions in density, soundwalls, fencing, and/or berming. • COS-P3.3 Agricultural Disclosures. The City shall require that developers of residential projects, which are within general proximity of agricultural operations in the city, to provide notification to new homeowners within their deeds of the City’s right to farm ordinance. • COS-P3.4 Discourage Leapfrog Development. The City shall discourage leapfrog development (defined as urban development more than 1/2 mile from existing urban development) and development of peninsulas extending into agricultural lands to avoid adverse effects on agricultural operations and contribute to premature conversion. 17 • COS-P3.9 Williamson Act Contracts. The City shall encourage the use of Williamson Act contracts on parcels located outside the UDB.
• COS-P3.10 Williamson Act Contracts near City Limits. The City shall protest the formation of new Williamson Act or Super Williamson Act contracts within the UDB. • COS-P3.11 Williamson Act Non-Renewal in UDB. The City shall support non-renewal or cancellation processes for Williamson Act designated lands within the City of Tulare UDB. • COS-P3.12 Mitigation for Agricultural Land Conversion. The City shall create and adopt a mitigation program to address the conversion of Prime Farmland & Farmland of Statewide Importance within the UDB and outside the city limits to non-agricultural uses. This mitigation program shall:
o Require a 1:1 ratio of agricultural land preserved for every acre of land converted. o Require land to be preserved be equivalent to the land converted, e.g. Prime Farmland, and further require that the land to be preserved has adequate existing water supply to support agricultural use, is designated and zoned for agriculture, is located outside of a city UDB, and is within the southern San Joaquin Valley. o Require mitigation prior to or at time of impact.
o Allow mitigation to be provided either by purchase of agricultural easements or by payment of agricultural mitigation fees, but state that purchase of conservation easements is the preferred form of mitigation. Both purchase of easements and payment of mitigation fees should cover not only the cost of an agricultural easement, but additional costs of transactional fees and administering, monitoring, and enforcing the easement.
o Require easements to be held by and/or mitigation fees to be transferred to a qualifying entity, such as a local land trust with demonstrated experience administering, monitoring and enforcing agricultural easements. o Require the qualifying entity to submit annual status and monitoring reports to the City and to Tulare County.
o Allow stacking of conservation and agricultural easements if habitat needs of species on conservation easement are compatible with agricultural activities/use on agricultural easement.
o Allow exemptions for conversion of land to agricultural tourism uses, agricultural processing uses, agricultural buffers, public facilities, and roadways. • COS-P3.13 Farmland Trust and Funding Sources. The City shall encourage the trust or other qualifying entity to pursue a variety of funding sources (grants, donations, taxes, or other funds) to fund further implementation of mitigation for agricultural land conversion. 18 California Important Farmland
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Local Importance
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Project Site
Exhibit 4: Important Farmland Map
NORTH
■
■
■
■
□
~~~
. {Mj} (:tlimBnJJ
'3~42G □ r-----~
J . ~ I I
A'0llllwn -I :
(ri) ®
t
19 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 non-agricultural use? The proposed site is classified as Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) farmland mapping and monitoring program dated 2018, Exhibit 4. The DOC maps are currently being updated to reflect changes up to 2022. The site does not have access to water and has not been farmed for over five years due to lack of water. A LESA model was run on the subject property resulting in a score of 36.5. A score between zero and 39 points results in a determination that the loss of the agricultural land would not be considered significant.. In conversations with the DOC, they have agreed that if the property has not been farmed in four years and does not have access to water, the map would change to reflect that the property is no longer prime farmland. A formal submittal for review and determination has been provided to the DOC. In addition, the City of Tulare adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the significant impacts resulting from the General Plan and the loss of Farmland. The City’s General Plan (Policy COS-P3.12) requires mitigation for the conversion of Prime Farmland and other Critical Farmland to non-agricultural uses. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-2, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measure AG-1: Prior to development on the project site, the City shall be provided written documentation from the California Department of Conservation that the subject property is no longer considered to be Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Grazing Land; or alternatively, no longer designated as either of those categories of farmland on a revised Important Farmland Map produced by the California Department of Conservation.

Mitigation Measure AG-2: In the absence of the documentation described in Mitigation Measure AG1 demonstrating the change of designation in farmland status, then per City of Tulare General Plan Policy COS-P3.12, agricultural land equivalent to that of the project site will be preserved at a 1:1 ratio for every acre of land converted. Prior to project development, this shall be accomplished through establishment of an agricultural conservation easement in accordance with the city’s farmland mitigation ordinance (Tulare Municipal Code Chapter 10.222). b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? The proposed project site is zoned as AE-20 in the County of Tulare, however the site is designated for rural residential use in the City of Tulare General Plan. Although the proposed use conflicts with the current County designation, it is consistent with the City of Tulare General Plan, subject to the proposed applications. Annexation of the project site, the general plan amendment and pre-zone will eliminate the conflict with County or City zoning. The project site is not in a Williamson Act Contract, therefore impacts are considered less than significant. 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)?
20 The project site is not zoned for forest or timberland production and is not adjacent to any forest land, therefore, there is no impact.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The site does not contain forestland and is not adjacent or in proximity to any forestland or use, therefore there is no impact.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could resultin conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
As discussed above, the proposed project site is considered prime farmland and the project will result in the conversion of agricultural land to residential uses. However, agricultural mitigation as specified in Mitigation Measures AG-1 and AG-2, is proposed to mitigate impacts to prime farmland, and the project will be consistent with land use designated by the City’s general plan as proposed, for residential development. Adjacent farmland will not be converted to nonagricultural use as a result of the proposed project. The impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures: None
21 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. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?    
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment 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?
   
Environmental Setting
This section describes existing air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and in Tulare County. The SJVAB is comprised of eight counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. The air basin is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, Coastal Range to the west and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. These topographical features directly relate to air quality within the SJVAB. Air quality is described in relation to air quality standards for criteria pollutants such as, ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter.

Air quality can be directly affected by the type and density of land use change and population growth.

Tulare County is located in one of the most polluted air basins in the Country. Wind patterns contribute to air quality by restricting access from the west by the Coastal Range and the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east. Southerly airflow is restricted by the Tehachapi Mountains in the south. The result of restricted air flow is an accumulation of air pollutants as they are “trapped” in the basin.

The resulting accumulation of pollutants has resulted in the SJVAB being in nonattainment for several pollutant standards, as described in Table 3-1.
22 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
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
Source: SJVAPCD
Regulatory Setting
Federal Clean Air Act – The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) and set deadlinesfortheir 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.

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, 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. The project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

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 the 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.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) – The SJVAPCD is responsible for enforcing air quality standards in the project area. To meet state and federal air quality objectives, the SJVAPCD adopted the following thresholds of significance for projects:
23 Table 3-2 SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance
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
The following SJVAPCD rules and regulations may apply to the proposed project:
• 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. • 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 will 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 containrequired management practices to limit PM10 emissions during construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and/or other earth moving activities.

Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Construction Phase. Project construction would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: site preparation, grading, building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. The construction related emissions from these activities were calculated using CalEEMod. The full CalEEMod Report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-3 below, project construction related emissions do not exceed the thresholds establishedby the SJVAPCD. 24 Table 3-3 Project Construction Emissions
CO (tpy) ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Emissions Generated from
Project Construction 2.6279 3.3619 5.3100e
-003

2.4445 0.5918 0.2898
SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of Significance 100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.

Operational Phase. Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions. Operational emissions from these factors were calculated using CalEEMod. The Full CalEEMod Report can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3-4 below, the project’s operational emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD.

Table 3-4 Project Operations Emissions
CO (tpy) ROG
(tpy)
SOx
(tpy)*
Nox
(tpy)
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
Emissions Generated from
Project Operations 16.8643 3.4592 0.0431 1.9625 3.0580 1.6408 SJVAPCD Air Quality
Thresholds of Significance 100 10 27 10 15 15
*Threshold established by SJVAPCD for SOx, however emissions are reported as SO2 by CalEEMod.

Because the emissions from both construction and operation of the proposed project would be below the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and there is no impact. 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?
The SJVAPCD accounts for cumulative impacts to air quality in Section 1.8 “Thresholds of Significance – Cumulative Impacts” in its 2015 Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. The SJVAPCD considered basin-wide cumulative impacts to air quality when developing its significance thresholds. Because construction and operational emissions are below the significance thresholds adopted by the Air District, and compliance with SJVAPCD rules will address any cumulative impacts regarding operational emissions, impacts regarding cumulative emissions would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The project does not include any project componentsidentified by the California Air Resources Board that could potentially impact any sensitive receptors. These include heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, fueling stations, and dry-cleaning operations. The project would not expose 25 sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, therefore there would be no impact. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The project will create temporary localized odors during project construction. The proposed project will not introduce a conflicting land use (surrounding land includes residential and future village development) to the area and will not have any component that would typically emit odors. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
26 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 Wildlife 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 direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
   
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
   
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
   
Environmental Setting
The Project Site currently contains one residence and several out buildings that that will be removed as part of the project. The project site had previously been farmed, but has been out of agricultural production for over seven years. The site has been highly disturbed as a result of periodic grading and discing as part of normal agricultural practices and for weed control since agricultural practices have ceased. The project site was recently disced when the site was evaluated on June 3, 2022. The site will continue to be disced for weed and fire control due to the dry year and county and city requirements.

The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Quick View tool was used to evaluate special status species that may occur in the Tulare Quadrant, species list attached as Appendix B. The Quick View tool indicated nine federally listed, state listed, or special-status wildlife and plant species and their status as 27 shown in Table 4.1 below.

TABLE 4.1 SPECIES LIST

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Swainsons Hawk Buteo Swainson CT
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius Ludovicianus SSC
Burrowing Owl Athene Cunicularia SSC
An Andrenid Bee Andrena Macswaini -
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes Macrotis Mutica FE, CT
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys Nitratoides FE, CE
Alkali-sink Goldfields Lasthenia Chrysantha 1B
San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst Pseudobahia Peirsonii FT, CE, 1B California Jewelflower Caulanthus Californicus FE, CE, 1B The project site is adjacent to urban developed areas to the west, large lot residential uses to the north and south, and agriculture use to the east.

Site inspections were completed on April 7 and June 3, 2022, which involved a grid walk through the property and a closer inspection of the area surrounding the dwelling and buildings containing numerous trees. The site is currently fallow and contains primarily ruderal habitat or non-native weeds such as foxtail grass and Russian thistle (tumbleweeds). It is unlikely that the area supports habitat of value as the site was previously farmed and is frequently disced since agricultural activities ceased to control weeds and for fire control. No wetlands were observed on the site and a query of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services National Wetland Inventory shows no wetlands, ponds or rivers on or adjacent to the Site.

A closer inspection was completed of all the trees and shrubs surrounding the home site to evaluate for birds and nests. Each tree was inspected and no nests were observed. A pair of red-tailed hawks was observed overhead directly to the north of the project site. No Swainsons Hawks or other special status species were observed on or near the site.

Regulatory Setting
Tulare General Plan Environmental Impact Report
The Tulare General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified in 2014 and included mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant which included the following:

BIO – 2 Ground-disturbing and vegetation removal activities associated with construction of projects implemented under the Draft General Plan, Draft TOD or CAP shall be performed outside the breeding season for birds, which is generally from February 1 through August 31. If these activities cannot be implemented outside of the breeding period, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction nest surveys to identify active nests within and adjacent to (up to 500 feet) of the study area. Any active nests identified within and adjacent to the projects shall be avoided by construction activities to prevent failure of the nest(s). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would also apply to this impact. Any off-site lands considered for acquisition to mitigate the loss of lands within the EIR 28 Study Area that are used by migrating waterfowl and other bird species should contain habitat suitable for migratory stopovers for these species.

Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): defines an endangered species as “any species orsubspecies that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species or subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 USC 703-712): FMBTA 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 FMBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

Birds of Prey (CA Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5): Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5), which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls), as well as their nests and eggs. The bald eagle and golden eagle are afforded additional protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668), which makes it unlawful to kill birds or their eggs.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA): prohibits the take of any state-listed threatened and endangered species. CESA defines take as “any action or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill any listed species.” If the proposed project results in a take of a listed species, a permit pursuant to Section 2080 of CESA is required from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

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 & Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
The highly disturbed nature resulting from previous agricultural practices, ongoing discing and development surrounding the subject project site have resulted in the removal of potentially suitable native habitat for sensitive species. A review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as well as the City of Tulare General Plan were completed for the proposed project.

The CNDDB Quick View tool search indicated that the State-listed and/or Federally-listed sensitive species most likely to occur within or near the Project site were Swainson’s Hawk, San Joaquin Kit Fox, Tipton Kangaroo Rat, San Joaquin Adobe Sunburst, and California Jewelflower. The previous agricultural activities and recent discing for weed control have resulted in the removal of any natural landscape suitable for the above-mentioned species. A walking survey of the subject site on April 7 and June 3, 2022, did not result in the identification of habitat or sensitive species on site. The subject property is substantially surrounded by development and a major transportation corridor, except to the east where it is agricultural land currently featuring a walnut orchard. There are also trees on-site that could be nesting opportunities for bird species, however no nests were observed in any tree or 29 shrub on-site. In accordance with the Tulare General Plan EIR, mitigation measures are incorporated below:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, the project shall be constructed, if feasible, outside the nesting season, or between September 1st and January 31st.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: If project activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1- August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 14 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory birds save Swainson’s hawk; the Swainson’s hawk survey will extend to 0.5 miles outside of work area boundaries. If no nesting pairs are found within the survey area, no further action is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Should any active nests be discovered near proposed work areas, Swainson’s hawk nests shall be avoided by 0.5 miles unless this avoidance buffer is reduced through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS. If a construction area falls within this nesting site, construction-free buffers shall be identified on the ground with flagging, fencing, or by other easily visible means, and shall be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Burrowing Owl. A take avoidance survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the species within 14 days prior to the start of construction. This take avoidance survey shall be conducted according to methods described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The survey area shall include all suitable habitat on and within 200 meters of project impact areas, where accessible.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: Burrowing Owl. If project activities are undertaken during the breeding season (February 1-August 31) and active nest burrows are identified within or near project impact areas, a 200-meter disturbance-free buffer shall be established around these burrows, unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through noninvasive methods either that the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. The protected exclusion zone established for the breeding season shall remain in effect until August 31 or, as determined based on monitoring evidence, until the young owl(s) is foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2c: Burrowing Owl. During the nonbreeding season (September 1-January 31), resident owls occupying burrows in project impact areas may be passively relocated to alternative habitat after consulting with the CDFW. Prior to passively relocating burrowing owls, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist in accordance with Appendix E of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012). The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be submitted to the CDFW for review prior to implementation. Relocation of any owls during the nonbreeding season shall be performed by a qualified biologist using one-way doors, which shall be installed in all burrows in the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. The doors shall be removed and the burrows backfilled immediately before the initiation of grading or, if no grading 30 would occur, left in place until the end of construction. To avoid the potential for owls evicted from a burrow to occupy other burrows in the project site, one-way doors shall be placed in all potentially suitable burrows within the impact area when eviction occurs.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3c: Construction activities shall be carried out in a manner that minimizes disturbance to kit foxes in accordance with the USFWS Standardized Recommendations. The applicant shall implement all minimization measures presented in the Construction and On-going Operational Requirements section of the USFWS Standardized Recommendations.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, BIO-1c, BIO-2a, BIO-2b, BIO-2c, BIO-3a, BIO3b, and BIO-3c, will ensure that impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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? During the walking survey on April 7 and June 3, 2022, no riparian habitat was observed on the site.

Development of the proposed project would not impact 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 (CDFW). Therefore, there is no impact. 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 direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No water or other hydrologic features occur within the project site. There are no jurisdictional water features. Therefore, no impacts to state or federally protected wetlands would occur. There is no impact.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 31 species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The project does not contain streams or other waterways that could be used by migratory fish or as a wildlife corridor for other wildlife species. To the east the project is bordered by agriculture use. To the west it is bordered by existing residential. To the north and south, the project is bordered by existing rural residential properties. As such, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish, wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites, therefore there is no impact. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City of Tulare General Plan contains a requirement to preserve and maintain Oak (Quercus sp.) species and associated habitats. The walking survey conducted on April 7 and June 3, 2022 did not reveal any protected oak trees or associated habitat located on-site, therefore there is no impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: If project activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1-August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 14 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory birds save Swainson’s hawk; the Swainson’s hawk survey will extend to 0.5 miles outside of work area boundaries. If no nesting pairs are found within the survey area, no further action is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: (Take Avoidance Survey). A take avoidance survey for burrowing owls 32 shall be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the species within 14 days prior to the start of construction. This take avoidance survey shall be conducted according to methods described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). The survey area shall include all suitable habitat on and within 200 meters of project impact areas, where accessible.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: (Avoidance of Active Nests and Roosts). If project activities are undertaken during the breeding season (February 1-August 31) and active nest burrows are identified within or near project impact areas, a 200-meter disturbance-free buffer shall be established around these burrows, unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through noninvasive methods either that the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. The protected exclusion zone established for the breeding season shall remain in effect until August 31 or, as determined based on monitoring evidence, until the young owl(s) is foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2c: (Passive Relocation of Resident Owls). During the nonbreeding season (September 1-January 31), resident owls occupying burrows in project impact areas may be passively relocated to alternative habitat after consulting with the CDFW. Prior to passively relocating burrowing owls, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist in accordance with Appendix E of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012). The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be submitted to the CDFW for review prior to implementation.

Relocation of any owls during the nonbreeding season shall be performed by a qualified biologist using one-way doors, which shall be installed in all burrows in the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. The doors shall be removed and the burrows backfilled immediately before the initiation of grading or, if no grading would occur, left in place until the end of construction. To avoid the potential for owls evicted from a burrow to occupy other burrows in the project site, one-way doors shall be placed in all potentially suitable burrows within the impact area when eviction occurs.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Preconstruction surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox shall be conducted on and within 200 feet of the project site, no more than 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities on the site. The primary objective is to identify kit fox habitat features (e.g., potential dens and refugia) on and adjacent to the site and evaluate their use by kit foxes. Protection provided by dens for shelter, escape, cover, and reproduction is vital to the survival of San Joaquin kit foxes. For San Joaquin kit foxes, the ecological value of potential, known, and natal/pupping dens differs; therefore, each den type requires the appropriate level of protection.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3b: Should active kit fox dens be detected during preconstruction surveys, the Sacramento Field Office of the USFWS and the Fresno Field Office of CDFW shall be notified. A disturbance-free buffer shall be established around the burrows in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, to prevent access to the occupied den by construction equipment and personnel who are not biologists, and to be maintained until an agency-approved biologist has determined that the burrows have been abandoned. After construction activities would no longer affect the den, all fencing and flagging shall be removed to avoid attracting attention to the den by other animals or humans. All onsite flagging and buffer delineations shall be kept in good working order for the duration of activity near the den or until the den is determined to be unoccupied, whichever occurs first. 33 Mitigation Measure BIO-3c: Construction activities shall be carried out in a manner that minimizes disturbance to kit foxes in accordance with the USFWS Standardized Recommendations. The applicant shall implement all minimization measures presented in the Construction and On-going Operational Requirements section of the USFWS Standardized Recommendations. 34 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 formal cemeteries?    
Environmental Setting
Generally, the term cultural resources describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, building, bridges, roadways and tribal cultural resources. As defined by CEQA, historical resources includes sites, structures, objects or districts that may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Such resources are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission. The City of Tulare has one site listed on the National Register of Historic Places: Tulare High School Auditorium and Administration Building.

The Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJIC) conducted a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Record Search for the project site on February 21, 2022. According to the results of the records search, no evidence was found that the Project boundary has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Two surveys were identified within one-half mile of the subject site; however, the two surveys were not applicable to the project site. The SSVIC records search revealed no evidence of recorded cultural resources within the project area, nor within 0.5 radius of the project area. See report from Taylored Archaeology, which includes the record search, Appendix C.

The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe has requested notification in accordance with AB52. Due to the General Plan application, the City is also required to provide notice and consultation in accordance with SB

18. The Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe was notified on January 26, 2022, and responded on February 14, 2022. The tribe requested that a tribal monitor be on site for all ground disturbance related to the project.

The City of Tulare has agreed to this request and is including a mitigation measure requiring notification of the Tachi Yokut Tribe ten days prior to any ground disturbance activities and allow a tribal monitor onsite during those activities. The City of Tulare has asked the tribe for more information regarding the basis of the request, such as information on the potential presence of Tribal Cultural Resources that would require tribal ground monitoring for all ground disturbance activities on this site. The City has determined that the tribe has not presented substantial evidence to support the notion that Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074(a) of the Public Resources Code, will be impacted by the proposed project; however the City will notify the tribe in the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery of potential Tribal Cultural Resources so that the City may consult with the Tribe on identification and appropriate treatment, pursuant to applicable state law.
35 Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.

California Historic Register: The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. California Historical Landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific, religious, experimental, or other value. In order for a resource to be designated as a historical landmark, it must meet the following criteria:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California).
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California. • A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.

City of Tulare General Plan: The City of Tulare General Plan includes the following goals and policies pertaining to cultural and historic resources:

Land Use Element
LU-P13.15 Architectural Heritage. The City shall encourage expressions of its cultural and historicheritage in key central area architectural and other physical design elements (such as murals and/or community art), as well as through encouragement of related cultural events and celebrations.

Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal COS-5 To manage and protect sites of cultural and archaeological importance for the benefitof present and future generations.

COS-P5.1 Archaeological Resources. The City shall support efforts to protect and/or recover archaeological resources.

COS-P5.2 Evaluation of Historic Resources. The City shall use appropriate State and Federal standards in evaluating the significance of historical resources that are identified in the city.

COS-P5.3 Historic Preservation. The City shall encourage the preservation of historic residences and neighborhoods wherever appropriate.

COS-P5.4 Historic Buildings. The City shall encourage the preservation and adaptive use of historicbuildings, particularly in the downtown.

COS-P5.5 Historic Structures and Sites. The City shall support public and private efforts to preserve, rehabilitate, and continue the use of historic structures, sites, and districts. Where applicable, preservation efforts shall conform to the current Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsfor the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Building. 36 COS-P5.6 Protection of Resources with Potential State or Federal Designations. The City shall encourage the protection of cultural and archaeologicalsites with potential for placement on theNational 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.

COS-P5.7 State Historic Building Code. The City shall utilize the State Historic Building Code for designated properties.

COS-P5.8 Design Compatibility with Historic Structures. The City shall ensure design compatibility of new development within close proximity to designated historic structures and neighborhoods.

COS-P5.9 Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological/ paleontological resources are discovered during site excavation, grading, or construction, the City shall require that work on the site be suspended within 100 feet of the resource until the significance of the features can be determined by a qualified archaeologist/ paleontologist. If significant resources are determined to exist, an archaeologistshall make recommendations for protection or recovery of the resource. City staff shall consider such recommendations and implement them where theyare feasible in light of project design as previously approved by the City.

COS-P5.10 Discovery of Human Remains. Consistent with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5), if human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, it is necessary to comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (Public Resources Code Sec. 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on the project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
• The Tulare County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that noinvestigation of the cause of death is required; and
• If the remains are of Native American origin, The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a timely recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant, or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission, or • The landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects any timely recommendations of the descendent, and mediation conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission has failed to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

COS-P5.11 Impact Mitigation. If preservation of cultural/historical resources is not feasible, the City shall make every effort to mitigate impacts, including relocation of structures, adaptive reuse, preservation of facades, and thorough documentation and archival of records.

COS-P5.12 Mitigation Monitoring for Historical Resources. The City shall develop standards for monitoring mitigation measures established for the protection of historical resources prior to development. 37 COS-P5.13Alterationof SiteswithIdentifiedCulturalResources.Whenplanning any development or alteration of a site with identified cultural or archaeological resources, consideration should be given to ways of protecting the resources. The City shall permit development in these areas only after a site-specific investigation has been conducted pursuant to CEQA to define the extent andvalue ofresource, andmitigation measures proposed for any impactsthe development may haveon the resource.

COS-P5.14 Education Program Support. The City shall support local, state, and national educationprograms on cultural and archaeological resources.

COS-P5.15 Solicit Input from Local Native Americans. The City shall 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.

COS-P5.16 Confidentiality of Archaeological Sites. The City shall, within its power, maintain confidentiality regarding the locations of archaeological sites in order to preserve and protect resourcesthat are determined to exist. An archaeologist/paleontologist shall make recommendations for protection or recovery of the resource. City staff shall consider such recommendations and implement them where they are feasible in light of project design as previously approved by the City.

COS-P5.17 Cooperation of Property Owners. The City shall encourage the cooperation of propertyowners to treat cultural resources as assets rather than liabilities and encourage public support for the preservation of these resources.

COS-P5.18 Archaeological Resource Surveys. Prior to project approval, the City shall require project applicant to have a qualified archaeologist conduct the following activities: (1) conduct a record search at the Regional Archaeological Information Center located at California State University Bakersfield and other appropriate historical repositories, (2) conduct field surveys where appropriate, and (3) prepare technical reports, where appropriate, meeting California Office of Historic Preservation Standards (Archaeological Resource Management Reports).

Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
There are no known historical resources on or near the subject property that would be impacted by the proposed project, therefore there is no impact.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are no known archaeological resources located within the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 which require that if any remains are discovered, construction shall stop and appropriate authorities be notified. Authorities include the County Coroner and archaeologist and, if remains are determined to be pre-historic, the NAHC shall be consulted. CUL-1 and CUL-2 will ensure that potential impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
38 There are no known human remains buried in the project vicinity. If human remains are unearthed during development, there is a potential for a significant impact. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 will ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find.

If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted to mitigate any adverse effects.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removaland nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
39 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
Energy conservation requires consideration of energy implications in project decisions, including a discussion of the potential energy impacts with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. A project would be considered inefficient wasteful and unnecessary if it violated existing energy standards, had a negative effect on local and regional energy supplies and requirement for additional capacity, or had a negative effect on peak and base period demands for electricity and other energy forms.

The California Energy Commission updates the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) every three years as part of the California Code of Regulations. The standards were established in 1978 in effort to reduce the state’s energy consumption. The standards apply to new construction, and additions and alteration to residential and nonresidential buildings and related to various energy efficiencies including but not limited to ventilation, air conditioning, and lighting.

Southern California Edison provides electrical service to the City of Tulare and Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) Company provides natural gasservicesto the project area.

Regulatory Setting
California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards and requirements for appliance energy efficiency. The standards apply to a broad range of appliances sold in California.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is a broad set of standards designed to address the energy efficiency of new and altered homes and commercial buildings.

These standards regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 requirements are enforced locally by the City of Tulare Building Department.

California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen): CalGreen is a mandatory green building code thatsets minimum environmental standards for new buildings. It includes standards for volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting materials, water conservation, and construction waste recycling City of Tulare Climate Action Plan (2011): The City of Tulare Climate Action Plan establishes the following Goals and Policies related to energy efficiency and conservation:
40 Goal 1: Increase energy efficiency and conservation.

1.1 Increase energy efficiency in existing City buildings and facilities through Facility Improvement Measures and by retrofitting Edison-owned streetlights. (City measure)

1.2 Design new City buildings and facilities to exceed California Energy Code requirements by 15%. (City measure)

1.3 Increase energy efficiency in new commercial and residential development and require new residential and commercial development to achieve enhanced energy efficiency and exceed California Energy Code requirements by 15%.

1.4 Reduce the urban heat island effect to cool the local climate and reduce energy consumption by maintaining current rates of public tree planting and increased shading on private property, high albedo surfaces, and cool surfaces.

1.5 Achieve a 20% reduction in water use by 2020 (20X2020) to reduce energy consumed for groundwater pumping.

1.6 Facilitate energy efficiency improvements within the residential building stock.

1.7 Support commercial and industrial profitability and energy efficiency through programs and partnerships.

1.8 Promote voluntary energy efficiency retrofits in the commercial and industrial sectors through financing and incentive programs.

1.9 Require stationary equipment in new industrial development to comply with best practice energy efficiency standards.

1.10 Continue to partner in regional initiatives that encourage achievement of regional energy efficiency targets.

Discussion
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The project proposes the construction of 185 residential units which will result in additional energy consumption, however this energy use in not unnecessary or inefficient as evaluated below.

Construction
During project construction there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and operation of construction equipment. This energy consumption will be short-term and temporary. There are not unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require use of equipment that will be more energy intensive than used for comparable activities. Construction will include site preparation, building construction, paving and architectural coatings. The primary source of energy for construction will be diesel and gasoline.

All equipment shall conform to current emission standards and related fuel efficiencies including applicable California Ari Resources Board (CARB) regulations, California Code of Regulations (Title 13, Motor Vehicles) and Title 24 standards. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that short-term, temporary construction activities do not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Operations
Project operation involves the heating, cooling, use of equipment, and vehicle trips. Energy consumption for operations will involve natural gas, electricity and fuel. Energy and natural gas were estimated using CalEEMod 41 (Appendix A) and vehicle trips were estimated through and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis(Appendix D).

This energy use is justified by the energy-efficient nature of the proposed project and would be limited to the greatest extent possible through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.

Because the proposed project will comply with all energy efficiency standards required under Title 24, Section 6, and these standards were specifically developed to achieve net zero energy for residential projects, it can be presumed that the project will achieve net zero energy. The impactis less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project will be designed to meet Title 24 and CALGreen requirements. Compliance with these standards will be enforced by the City of Tulare Building Division, therefore there is no impact Mitigation Measures: None Required.
42 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 waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
   
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
   
Environmental Setting
Geologic Stability and Seismic Activity
• Seismicity: Tulare County is considered to be a low to moderate earthquake hazard area. The San Andreas Fault is the longest and most significant fault zone in California and is approximately 40 miles west of the Tulare County Boundary. Owens Valley fault zone is the only active fault located within Tulare County.

Section 5 of the 2017 Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the project site as likely to experience low to moderate shaking from earthquakes and may experience higher levels if an earthquake were to occur in or near the County. Ground shaking can result in other geological impacts, including liquefaction, landslides, lateralspreading, subsidence, or collapse. 43 • Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near-saturated soilslose cohesion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of severe vibratory motion. The relatively rapid loss of soil shear strength during strong earthquake shaking results in temporary, fluid-like behavior of the soil, which can result in landslides and lateral spreading. No specific countywide assessment of liquefaction has been performed; however, the 2017 Tulare Multi- Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the risk of liquefaction within the county as low because the soil types in the area either too coarse or too high in clay content to be suitablefor liquefaction. • Landslides: Landslides refer to a wide variety of processes that result in the downward and outward movement of soil, rock, and vegetation under gravitational influence. Landslides can becaused by both natural and human-induced changes in slope stability and often accompany other natural hazard events, such as floods, wildfire, or earthquake. Eastern portions of the County are considered to be at a higher risk of landslides where steep slopes are present. However, the majority of the County, including the proposed project site, is considered to be at low risk of landslides and mudslides because of its flat topography. The 2017 Tulare Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan states that occurrence of landslide events within populated areas of Tulare County is unlikely. • Subsidence: Land Subsidence refers to the vertical sinking of land as a result of either manmade or natural underground voids. Subsidence has occurred throughout the Central Valley at differing rates since the 1920’s as a result of groundwater, oil, and gas withdrawal. During drought years, Tulare County is prone to accelerated subsidence, with some areassinking up to 28 feet. Although western portions of the County show signs of deep and shallow subsidence, the majority of the County, including the proposed project site, is not considered to be at risk of subsidence related hazards.

SoilsInvolved in Project: According to the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service the proposed project involves construction on one soil type, Nord Fine Sandy Loam, 0-2 percent slope.

The Nord series consists of very deep, well drainedsoils formed primarily from granitic and sedimentary rocks.

The Nord series is a member of a coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic cumulic Haploxerolls taxonomic class and are found inflood plains and alluvial fans.

Regulatory Setting
California Building Code: The California Building Code (CBC) contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment.

City of Tulare General Plan: The Safety Element of the City of Tulare General Plan includes the following goals and policies regarding soils and geology.

SAF-P1.4 Building and Codes. Except as otherwise allowed by State law, the City shall ensure that all new buildings intended for human habitation are designed in compliance with the latest edition of the California Building Code, California Fire Code, and other adopted standards based on risk (e.g., seismic hazards, flooding), type of occupancy, and location (e.g., floodplain, fault). 44 SAF-P1-7 Site Investigations. The City shall require applicants to conduct site investigations in area planned for new development to determine susceptibility to landslides, subsidence/settlement, contamination and/or flooding.

Goal SAF-4 To protect people and property from seismic and geotechnical hazards.

SAF-P4.4 Alquist-Priolo Act Compliance. The City shall not permit any structure for humanoccupancy to be placed within designated Earthquake Fault Zones (pursuant to and as determinedby the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act; Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.5) unless the specific provisions of the Act and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations have been satisfied.

SAF-P4.5 Subsidence. The City shall confirm that development is not located in any known areas of active subsidence. If urban development may be located in such an area, a special safety study will be prepared and needed safety measures implemented.

Discussion
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including therisk 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.

There are no active faults mapped in the project area according to the Tulare County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Further the project is not located in an Alguist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Although the project is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity, the project could be affected by ground shaking fromnearby faults. The potential for strong seismic ground shaking on the project site is not a significant environmental concern due to the infrequent seismic activity of the area and distance to the faults. The project has no potential to indirectly or directly cause the rupture of an earthquake fault, therefore, the risk of loss, injury or death involving a rupture of a known earthquake fault would be lessthan significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
According to the Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the project site is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity. The proposed project does not include any activities or components which could feasibly cause strong seismic ground shaking, either directly or indirectly, therefore there is no impact.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No specific countywide assessment of liquefaction has been performed; however, theTulare County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the risk of liquefaction within the county as low because the soil types are unsuitable for liquefaction. According to state soils maps, the project site consists mostly of Nord fine sandy loam and does not contain soils suitable for liquefaction, therefore there is no impact.
iv. Landslides?
The proposed project site is generally flat and there are no hill slopes in the area. As such, there is 45 almost no potential for landslides, therefore there is no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Development of the project will require typical site preparation activities such as grading and trenching which may result in the potential for short term soil disturbance or erosion impacts. Construction would also involve the use of water which may cause further soil disturbance. Such impacts will be addressed through compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) which requires new development to implement measures to minimize soil erosion related to construction.

Construction-related impacts related to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by SWPPP, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction. Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction, and because required BMP’s would prevent significant impacts related to erosion the impacts from the proposed project will be less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateralspreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
The soils associated with the project site, Nord Fine Sandy Loam, are considered stable and have a low capacity for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The project does not involve a substantial grade change to the topography to the point that it would increase the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, therefore there is no impact. d) Would the project be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform BuildingCode (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The soils of the project site consist 100% of Nord Fine Sandy Loam. The Nord soils consists of very deep, well drained soils, which are not considered expansive soil. Expansive soils contain large amounts of clay, which absorb water and cause the soil to increase in volume. Conversely, the soil of the project site are granular, well- draining, and therefore have a limited ability to absorb water or exhibit expansive behavior, therefore there is no impact.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed project will become part of the existing City wastewater infrastructure and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, therefore there is no impact. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As discussed in the Cultural Resources Section, there are no unique geologic features and no known paleontological resources located within the project area, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required.
46 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
   
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
   
Environmental Setting
The SJVPCD had adopted the following documents and policies applicable to projects within the San Joaquin Valley:
• Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for new Projects under CEQA, and,
• District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA when Serving as the Lead Agency.

This guidance and policy are the reference documents in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts adopted in March of 2015. Consistent with the District Guidance and District Policy above, SJVAPCD acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds, and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment. • If a project complies with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emission with the geographic area in which the project is located, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.
• If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS); and, • If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that it’s GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent compared to Business as Usual.

In the event that a local air district’s guidance for addressing GHG impacts does not use numerical GHG emissions threshold, at the lead agency’s discretion, a neighboring air district’s GHG threshold may be used to determine impacts. In December 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted an interim GHG significance threshold for project where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD adopted a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2 eq/year for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, plus annual operations emissions. Table 8-1 shows the years GHG emissions generated by the project for construction, which would be amortized over 30 years and the annual operations emissions of 2,784.12 MT/year, which is substantially lower than the 10,000 MT/year established by the SCAQMD. 47 TABLE 8-1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS MT/year
SCAQMD GHG THRESHOLD 10,0000
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 471.89
Source : CalEEMod, Appendix A
Regulatory Setting
City of Tulare Climate Action Plan: The City of Tulare Climate Action Plan identifies the following goals and policies to reduce GHG emissions related to new development:

Measure 1.3: Energy Efficiency in New Development: Increase energy efficiency in new commercial and residential development and require new residential and commercial development to achieve enhanced energy efficiency and exceed California Energy Code requirements by 15%. • 1.3.1 Implement the minimum CALGreen standards for energy efficiency contained in 2008 Title 24 standards, effective January 1, 2010.
• 1.3.2 By 2015, amend the building code and other codes as applicable to require new construction to meet CALGreen measures (A4.203.1 and A.5.203.1.1), as applicable. • 1.3.3 Work with Southern California Edison to implement smart grid technology in new development.

Discussion
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may havea significant impact on the environment.

Greenhouse gas emissions for the construction and operation of the proposed project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The CalEEMod report can be found in Appendix A.

Construction: Greenhouse gasses would be generated during construction from activities including site demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. The CalEEMod Emissions report predicts that this project will create a maximum of 471.89 MT of CO2e emissions per year during construction. Because the SJVAPCD does not have numeric thresholds for assessing the significance of construction-related GHG emissions, predicted emissions from project construction were compared to SCAQMD thresholds for construction related GHG emissions. The SCAQMD currently has a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for construction emissions amortized over a 30-year project lifetime. Because project construction would generate far less GHG emissionsthan thisthreshold, impactsrelated to GHGemissions during project construction would be less than significant.

Operation: Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term greenhouse gas emissions associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, as well as mobile emissions.

Project GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod. The project is estimated to produce 2,784.12 MT of C02e per year. The Tulare Climate Action Plan identifies a baseline (2006) of 820,291 metric tons of 48 carbon dioxide equivalent. The project operations emissions are less than 0.34% of the total GHG emissions for Tulare. Based on the above assessment, project emissions impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and Local rules pertaining to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The project will not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation developed to reduce GHG emissions. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
49 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
   
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard or
excessive noise to the public or the environment?
   
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
   
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
   
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
   
Environmental Setting
The project site is not located within two miles of a pubic airport, but is within one-half a mile from the nearest schools; Alpine Vista School and Mission Oak High School.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s(DTSC’s) Envirostor database was used to identify any sites known to be associated with releases of hazardous materials or wastes within the project area, in accordance with Government Code Section 65962.5. No sites were identified in the DTSC research on the subject project.

Regulatory Setting
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.). The Toxic Substance Control Act was enacted by Congress in 1976 and authorizes the EPA to regulate any chemical substances determined to cause an unreasonable risk to public health or the environment.
50 Hazardous Waste Control Law, Title 26. The Hazardous Waste Control Law creates hazardous waste management program requirements. The law is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations(CCR), which containsrequirementsforthe following aspects of hazardouswaste management:
• Identification and classification;
• Generation and transportation;
• Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; • Treatment standards;
• Operation of facilities and staff training; and
• Closure of facilities and liability requirements.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 11. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations contains regulations for the identification and classification of hazardous wastes. The CCR defines a waste as hazardous if it has any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity.

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985. Pursuant to the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985, local agencies are required to develop “area plans” for response to releases of hazardous materials and wastes. Tulare County maintains a HazardousMaterial Incident Response Plan to coordinate emergency response agencies for incidents and requires the submittal of business plans by persons who handle hazardous materials.

City of Tulare General Plan: The City of Tulare General Plan includes the following goals and policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials:
• LU-P11.19 Recycling of Hazardous Materials. The City shall require the proper disposal and recycling of hazardous materials.

Goal SAF-1 To regulate future development to ensure the protection of public health and safety from hazards and hazardous materials and the adequate provision of emergency services.

Goal SAF-5 To protect people from the harmful effects of exposure to hazardous materials. • SAF-P5.2 Hazardous Materials Studies. The City shall ensure that the proponents of new development projects address hazardous materials concerns through the preparation of Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies for each identified site as part of the design phase for each project. Recommendations required to satisfy Federal or State cleanup standards outlined in the studies will be implemented as part of the construction phase for each project.
• SAF-P5.3 Transporting Hazardous Materials. The City shall strive to ensure hazardous materials are used, stored, transported, and disposed of in a safe manner, in compliance with local, State, and Federalsafety standards.

Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. The use of such materials 51 would be considered minimal and would not require these materials to be stored in bulk form. As a primarily residential use, the project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than the small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of residential structures and landscaping. The commercial use is not anticipated to include the storage or use of hazardous materials, however any use will be subject to current City, State and Federal regulations forthe storage of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The proposed projectis primarily a residentialsubdivision with a commercial component. There is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the project that could result in release of hazardous materials into the environment, other than any potential accidental releases of standard fuels, solvents, or chemicals encountered during typical construction of a residential subdivision. Should an accidental hazardous release occur or should the project encounter hazardous soils, existing regulations for handling hazardous materials require coordination with the California Department ofToxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The projectis primarily a residential subdivisionwith a commercial component that is not anticipated to include a use that will involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of residential structures and landscaping. The commercial uses have not been determined and will be evaluated by the City of Tulare upon development. The commercial development will be required to comply with any City, State or Federal laws regarding hazardous material. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of acutely hazardous materials or waste, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The site is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), therefore there is no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazardor excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport. The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, therefore there is no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
52 The City’s site plan review procedures ensure compliance with emergency response and evacuation plans, therefore there is no impact.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The land surrounding the project site is developed with urban uses and agricultural uses and are not considered to be wildlands. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
53 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise sustainably
degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
   
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:
   
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?    
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
   
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
   
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones risk the
release of pollutants due to project inundation?     e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater movement plan?
   
Environmental Setting
The project site is within the Tulare City Limits and as such, will be required to connect to water and stormwater services. The City has reviewed the project to determine adequate capacity in these systems and to ensure compliance with any applicable connection or discharge requirements. The review of the project resulted in a determination that the project would not require or result in the location or construction of new or expanded facilities and as such, would not cause significant effects. The City water supply is from groundwater. The City is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and is within the Kaweah Subbasin.

Groundwater: The City of Tulare water system consists of 23 active wells, a 125,000 gallon water storage tower, two - 2 million gallon concrete storage tanks, one - 1.5 million gallon concrete storage tank, 7 well sites with granulated activated carbon (GAC) treatment filters, 277 miles of water transmission and distribution mains, and over 2,500 fire hydrants. The City’s water supply comes from a series of deep groundwater wells scattered throughout the city and pumped into an interconnected water system.

Additionally, the City of Tulare, City of Visalia, and the Tulare Irrigation District have joined a Joint Power Authority (JPA) Agreement to form the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). The JPA states 54 the Board of Directors is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014.

Surface Waters: None of the City’s potable water issupplied through surface water. However, the City ofTulare does purchase surface water from the Tulare Irrigation District to be used for groundwater recharge.

Regulatory Setting
Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act (CWA) is enforced by the U.S. EPA and was developed in 1972 to regulate discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Act made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is obtained.

Central Valley RWQCB: The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be required.

City of Tulare General Plan: The City of Tulare General Plan contains the following goals and policies related to water resources:
• LU-P11.3 System Expansion. The City shall require new development be responsible for expansion of existing facilities such as water systems, sewer systems, storm drainage systems, parks and other capital facilities made necessary to serve the new development. • LU-P11.4 Water Supply System. The City shall require that water supply systems be adequate to serve the size and configuration of land developments. Standards as set forth in the subdivision ordinance shall be maintained and improved as necessary.
• LU-P11.5 Water Supply for New Development. For all new development, prior to the approval of any subdivision applications, the developers shall assure that there is sufficient available water supply to meet projected buildout.
• LU-P11.6 Adequate System Maintenance. The City shall require maintenance funding for streets, storm drainage, and ponding basins for new development. • LU-P11.7 Adequate Infrastructure Capacity. The City shall only approve new development when it can be demonstrated by the applicant that adequate system capacity in the service area is or will be available to handle increases related to the project.
• LU-P11.9 Adequate City Service Capacity. The City shall only approve new development when it can be demonstrated by the applicant that adequate public service capacity in the area is or will be available to handle increases related to the project. School capacity will be discussed in the review of each development, and the City will ensure early coordination with the school districts serving the site. School capacity will be addressed as allowed under State law. • LU-P11.17 Fair Share Improvements. The City shall ensure new development is required to participate on a fair-share basis in the completion of improvements to the existing sewer system, and/or the construction of new sewer trunk lines as described in the City's adopted Sewer MasterPlan. 55 • COS-P1.1 Regional Groundwater Protection. The City shall work with Tulare County and special districts to help protect groundwater resources from overdraft by promoting water conservation and groundwater recharge efforts.
• COS-P1.8 Water Conservation. The City shall promote efficient water use and reduced water demand by:
a. Requiring water-conserving design and equipment in new construction. b. Encouraging water-conserving landscaping and other conservation measures. c. Encourage retrofitting existing development with water conserving devices. d. Providing public education programs.
e. Distributing outdoor lawn watering guidelines.
f. Promoting water audit and leak detection programs.
g. Enforcing water conservation programs.
• COS-P1.11 Water for Irrigation. Whenever possible, the City shall require new development to use recycled or non-potable water for irrigation in landscaped areas.

Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Because the project site is greater than one acre in size, the developer will be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction activity. The SWPPP will estimate the sediment risk associated with construction activities and include best management practices (BMP) to control erosion. BMP’s specific to erosion control, sediment, tracking and waste management controls. Implementation of the SWPPP minimizes the potential for the project to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. These provisions minimize the potential for the project to violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Further runoff resulting from the project would be managed by the City in compliance with the Storm Drain Master Plan in addition to approved grading and drainage plans. Compliance with existing regulation including the General Construction Permit, BMP’s and Storm Drain Master Plan will result in impacts to water quality and waste discharge to be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management ofthe basin?
Waterservices will be provided by the City of Tulare upon development. The City of Tulare long term water resource planning is addressed in the City 2021 Urban Water Management Plan. Because the project has been previously accounted for and analyzed with the General Plan as residential use, it can be presumed that the existing and planned water system and supply should be adequate to serve the project and the project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The proposed project would be proposing smaller lots, which tend to use less water due to less outdoor irrigation needs, and a portion which will be developed as retail commercial with a net reduction in outdoor irrigation needs compared to the large lot residential assumed at this location in the General Plan. In addition, the project will be required to comply with the California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscape etc.
56 The Project would result in a reduction in percolation to the groundwater basin, because the project would create an increase in the amount of paved and impervious surfaces. However, the project has been reviewed by the City of Tulare Public Works Director and Engineer who have determined that the Project will not have a significant impact on the existing water system, and would tie into the existing water infrastructure for this part of the City. For example, there is an existing regional basin that this project would tie into and divert stormwater flows to for percolation back into the ground to replenish groundwater supplies.

Therefore, since the proposed project would not substantially decrease water supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, the Project would have a, less than significant impact on groundwater resources. c) Substantially alterthe existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream orriver or through the addition of impervioussurfaces, in a manner, which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The proposed project includes the construction and operation of residential homes and a commercial development on formerly agricultural land. During construction, and in compliance with the project’s SWPPP, construction related erosion controls and BMP’s would be implemented to reduce potential impact related to erosion and siltation. The BMP’s would include, but are not limited to, covering and/or binding the soil surfaces to prevent soil from being detached and transported by water or wind and the use of barriers such as straw bales and sandbags to control sediment. The project will increase impervious surface with the installation of paving of streets and parking lot, concrete pads for homes and commercial buildings and sidewalks. In order to adequately capture and discharge stormwater runoff, the project will be conditioned to be constructed to City standards. Improvement plans will be reviewed by City staff for approval prior to construction. This review and approval will result in impacts that are less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would resultin flooding on- or offsite?
The project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces within the project site, which may result in an increase in surface runoff. However, the project will connect to an existing stormwater retention basin which has been determined by City staff to contain capacity to hold all stormwater runoff, therefore impacts will be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The proposed project would include the construction and operation of 185 low-density residential units and a 2.86 acre commercial site. New impervious surfaces, such as the roads and driveways, collect automobile derived pollutants such as oils, greases, rubber and heavy metals. During storms, pollutants would be transported into the drainage systems by surface runoff. Due to the increase in population and impervious surfaces within the site, there would be an increase in pollutants in surface runoff. As a result, an increase in point source and non-point source pollution may result from increases in urban development. The project, as a residential project, is not a source which would otherwise create substantial degradation of water quality. Uses on the commercial site have not been determined and will be evaluated by the City when developed. Upon compliance with the City’s SWMP, Engineering 57 Standards, General Plan, and City Ordinance requirements, impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Although the project would result in an increase to impervious surfaces, the project will not alter the drainage patterns, as the site is relatively flat. Because project specific grading and drainage plans are required to be reviewed by the City before construction, it will be required to comply with all City standards by connecting to an existing stormwater basin. The project would not redirect flood flows, therefore there is no impact.
d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The proposed project is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone. There are no rivers, reservoirs, ponds or lakes within the site. Since the project is not located in an area that is susceptible to inundation, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. As such, there is no impact. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was adopted by the Mid-Kaweah GSA in December 2019.

The plan was reviewed for consistency with the proposed project and it was determined that the proposed project does not conflict with and would not obstruct implementationof the GSP. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
58 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?    
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
   
Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is located just outside the city limits of Tulare. The site is currently designated Residential Estate in the Tulare General Plan. The proposed project includes a general plan amendment to change the designation from Residential Estate to Low Density Residential and pre-zone the property R1-5, Single Family Residential (5,000 square feet minimum) and C-3 Retail Commercial.

Regulatory Setting
City of Tulare General Plan
The following goals and policies in the City of Tulare General Plan are applicable to the project site’s residential land use designation:

Goal LU-3 To designate, protect, and provide land to ensure sufficient residential developmentcapacity and variety to meet community needs and projected population growth. • LU-P3.1 Neighborhood Housing Mix. The City shall encourage mixed use neighborhoods to have a variety of housing types and densities to help create an overall healthy, balanced community. • LU-P3.4 Jobs-Housing Balance. The City shall consider the effects of city land use proposals and decisions on the Tulare County area and the efforts to maintain a regional jobs housing balance. • LU-P3.5 Future Residential Development. The City shall direct future residential development to areas adjacent or in close proximity to existing and future neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial areas to further Tulare as a self-sufficient, full-service city. • LU-P3.9 Planned Development. The City shall encourage the use of planned development provisions in residential developments to provide flexibility, to meet various socio-economic needs, and to address environmental and site design constraints.
• LU-P3.10 Affordable Housing. The City shall encourage the development of affordable housing to ensure that a variety of housing options are available to all income, age, and cultural groups.

Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The project proposesthe development of 185 low-density residential units on approximately 35.62 acres and a 2.86 acre commercial site within the City of Tulare. The project would not act as a physical barrier within a community, therefore there is no impact.
59 b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
60 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
   
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other lands use plan?
   
Environmental Setting
There are no mineral resource zones in Tulare County and there is no mineral extraction occurring on or adjacent to the proposed project site.

Regulatory Setting
California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act: The California State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was adopted in 1975 to regulate surface mining to prevent adverse environmental impacts and to preserve the State’s mineral resources. The Act is enforced by the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mine Reclamation.

City of Tulare General Plan: The following mineral resource goals and policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Tulare General Plan are potentially applicable to the proposed project:

Goal COS-8 To protect the current and future extraction of mineral resources that are important to the City’s economy while minimizing impacts of this use on the public and the environment. • COS-P8.3 Future Resource Development. Provide for the conservation of identified and/or potential mineral deposits within the UDB as areas for future resource development. • COS-P8.5 Incompatible Development. Proposed incompatible land uses shall not be on lands containing, or adjacent to, identified mineral deposits or along key access roads, unless adequate mitigation measures are adopted or a statement of overriding considerations stating public benefits and overriding reasons for permitting the proposed use are adopted. • COS-P8.10 Resources Development. The City will promote the responsible development of identified and/or potential mineral deposits.

Discussion
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The project site has no known mineral resources that would be of a value to the region and the residents of the state, therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of regionally or locally important mineral resources. Therefore, there is no impact.
61 b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other lands use plan? There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the project site is not designated under the City’s or County’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
62 XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
   
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?    
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
   
Environmental Setting
Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is the variation in air pressure that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur at least 20 times per second, they can be detected by the human ear.

The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz).

Ambient noise isthe “background” noise of an environment. Ambient noise levels on the proposed projectsite are primarily due to traffic and construction occurring near the site. Construction activities usually result in an increase in sound above ambient noise levels.

The closest noise sensitive receptors are the residents of the single family residential properties to the west, north and south.

Regulatory Setting
City of Tulare General Plan: The Noise Element of the City of Tulare General Plan is responsible for establishing noise standards within the City and includes the following goals and policies related to noise that may be applicable to the project.

Goal NOI-1 Protect the citizens of Tulare County from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise. • NOI-P1.5 Construction Noise. Reduce noise associated with construction activities by requiring properly maintained mufflers on construction vehicles, requiring the placement of stationary construction equipment as far as possible from developed areas, and requiring temporary acoustical barriers/shielding to minimize construction noise impacts at adjacent receptors. Special 63 attention should be paid to noise-sensitive receptors (including residential, hospital, school, and religious land uses).
• NOI-P1.6 Limiting Construction Activities. The City shall limit construction activities to the hours of 6 am to 10 pm, Monday through Saturday.
• NOI-P1.18 Construction-related Vibration. Evaluate individual projects that use vibrationintensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers, near sensitive receptorsfor potential vibration impacts. If construction-related vibration is determinedto be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as use of less- vibrationintensive equipment or construction techniques,should be implemented during construction (e.g., drilled piles to eliminate use of vibration-intensive pile driver).

Discussion
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permeant increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general planor noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 24 months and will involve temporary noise sources.

The City of Tulare General Plan and Noise Ordinance does not identify noise thresholds for noise sources related to construction, however the General Plan does require the implementation of noise reduction measures for all construction equipment and limits noise generating activities related to construction to daytime hours Monday through Saturday between 6:00 AM and 10:00PM.

Long term noise levels resulting from the project would include single-family homes, which are not normally associated with high operational noise levels.

Because noise generated from construction would be temporary, construction activities would comply with all measures established by the City to limit construction related noise impacts, and operational noise would be consistent with adjacent land uses, therefore the impact is less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The City of Tulare General Plan states that projects that use vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers, near sensitive receptors must be evaluated for potential vibration. Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural. Table 13-1, below, shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment. 64 Table 13-1: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Peak Particle Velocity @ 25
feet (inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity @
100 feet (inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.010
Pile Driving (Impact) 1.518 0.190
Pile Driving (Sonic) 0.734 0.092
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210 0.026
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur when the infrastructure such as grading, utilities, and foundations are constructed. Operating cycles for the types of construction equipment used during construction may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). These estimations of noise levels take into account the distance to the receptor, attenuation from molecular absorption and anomalous excess attenuation.

The most significant source of groundborne vibrations during the project’s construction would occur from the use of vibratory compactors. Table 8, above, indicates that vibratory compactors would generate typical vibration levels of 0.210 inches per second at a distance of 25 feet. The threshold for architectural damage to buildings is 0.20 inches per second. While there are existing residences adjacent to the proposed project, vibratory compactors/rollers would be used only on a limited and interval basis during compaction, and would be moving throughout the site, instead of stationary or operated longterm in the same location to the extent it would damage buildings due to longer-term extended use.

Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or, an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located in an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport., therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
65 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
   
Environmental Setting
The United States Census Bureau estimated the population in the City of Tulare to be 69,200 in 2020. This is an increase from the 2010 census, which counted the population in the City of Tulare to be 59,469.

Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example by new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The United States Census Bureau estimated the population in the City of Tulare to be 69,200 persons in 2020. The project proposes to construct 185 new low-density residential units. The City of Tulare General Plan states that the City’s average household size is 3.35 persons. Based on this average household size, the anticipated population increase as a result of the proposed project is 620 persons. This would be an increase of less than one percent beyond existing conditions. The construction of housing atthislocation would not be unplanned, as the City’s General Plan designated the proposed project site for residential development, and anticipated an additional 42,020 residents over the 20 year planning period of the General Plan, with a total population of over 100,000 residents in 2035. Therefore, this project would be consistent and supportive of the residential growth planned for in the City’s General Plan, and impacts to population growth are considered less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project does involve the removal of one residence, which will be demolished to accommodate the project. The property is occupied by one person who is the seller of the property and plans to relocate following the sale. The proposed demolition of the residence will not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing , therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
66 XV.PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable serve ratios, response times
of other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other public facilities?    
Environmental Setting
Fire: Once annexed, the project site will be served by the City of Tulare Fire Department.

Police: The City of Tulare Police Department will provide law enforcement services to the proposed project site upon annexation and development.

Schools: The proposed projectsite islocated within the Tulare City School District and Tulare Joint Union High School District. Students living at the project site will attend Alpine Vista Elementary School, Live Oak Middle School and Mission Oak High School. The closest schools are Alpine Vista Elementary and Mission Oak High School, both campuses located just under one-half mile southwest of the project site. Funding for schools is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. Seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.”
Parks: According to the City General Plan EIR, the City maintains a total of 363 acres of land within its Parks Division, including 295.65 acres of park land, 35 acres of Landscape and Lighting Districts, and approximately 32 acres of green belts, medians, tree-lined streets, and building landscapes. The proposed project includes a 23,700 square foot pocket park to meet the requirement for a neighborhood park within the subdivision.

Regulatory Setting
Objectives and Policies relating to Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, Parkland, and School Facilities are included in the Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element of the Tulare’s General Plan.

The Goals and Policies potentially applicable to the proposed project are as follows:
• COS-P4.1 Parkland/Open Space Standards: The City’s goal is to provide 4 acres of developed parkland 67 per 1,000 residents. New residential or mixed use developments containing a residentialcomponent may be required to provide parkland, or pay in-lieu fees, in this ratio as directed by the City. • LU-P11.3 System Expansion: The City shall require new development be responsible for expansionof existing facilities such as water systems, sewer systems, storm drainage systems, parks, and other capital facilities made necessary to serve the new development. • LU-P11.9: Adequate City Service Capacity: The City shall only approve new development when it can be demonstrated by the applicant that adequate public service capacity in the area is or will be available to handle increases related to the project. School capacity will be discussed in the review of each development, and the City will ensure early coordination with the school districtsserving the site. School capacity will be addressed as allowed under State law. • LU-P11.26 Evaluate Fiscal Impacts: The City shall evaluate the fiscal impacts of new developmentand encourage a pattern of development that allowsthe City to provide and maintain a high levelof urban services (including, but not limited to, water, sewer, transportation, fire stations, policestations, libraries, administrative, and parks), and community facilities and utility infrastructure, as well as attract targeted businesses and a stable labor force.

Discussion
a) Would the projectresultin substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable serve ratios, response times of other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
The City of Tulare Fire Department will provide fire protection services to the proposed development. The closest fire station is Tulare Fire Department Station 61, located at 800 S. Blackstone Street, approximately 1 ½ miles southwest from the project site. The addition of 197 residential units along with commercial development will increase the demand for fire protection services. However, as analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR, the need for new fire service facilities is assessed as the City continues to grow and develop within the growth boundary in the City’s General Plan. The development of 197 single-family residential units and the proposed commercial development alone will not require the alteration of existing or construction of new fire services facilities, but would contribute to the cumulative need for increased fire protection services. The increase in service demand will be compensated by the development impact fee of $246 per dwelling unit and $0.36 per square foot of commercial development, which is consistent with City Resolution Number 03-4988. Therefore, the total development fee would be $48,462 plus fees for the commercial portion of the development. The development impact fees are the proposed project’s fair share contribution towards cumulative increases in demand for fire protection services.

The timing of when new fire service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts to a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded fire service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.
68 b. Police protection?
The Tulare Police Department will provide services to the proposed development. The Tulare Police Department is located at 260 South M Street, approximately 2 miles southwest from the project site. The addition of 197 single-family residential units and the proposed commercial development will increase the demand for police protection services. However, as analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR, the need for new police service facilities is assessed as the City continues to grow and develop within the growth boundary in the City’s latest General Plan. The development of 197 single-family residential units and the proposed commercial development alone will not require the alteration of existing or construction of new police service facilities, but would contribute to the cumulative need for increased police protection services. The increase in service demand will be compensated by the development impact fee of $202 per dwelling unit and $0.25 per square foot of commercial development, which is consistent with City Resolution Number 03-4988. Therefore, the total development fee would be $39,794 plus fees for the commercial portion of the development. The development impact fees are the proposed project’s fair share contribution towards cumulative increases in demand for police protection services.

The timing of when new police service facilities would be required or details about size and location cannot be known until such facilities are planned and proposed, and any attempt to analyze impacts to a potential future facility would be speculative. As new or expanded police service facilities become necessary, construction or expansion projects would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.
c. Schools?
The proposed project is within the Tulare City Elementary School District and Tulare Joint Union High School District. Since the proposed project includes the addition of 185 single-family residential units, the number of students in the school district will increase. The project will pay school development impact fees to the school districts at the time of building permit issuance in compliance with Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. Seq.. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation” therefore impact are less than significant. d. Parks?
The addition of 185 new residential units would result in more use at existing parks. The project is located within a half-mile to the future park adjacent to Alpine Vista School. The City’s 2035 General Plan Policy states that new residential development may be required to provide additional parkland or pay in-lieu fees. The project is providing a 23,700 square foot pocket park to meet the requirement of .86 acres per 1,000 persons that are not met by payment of impact fees and the developer shall pay the development impact fee of $2,718 per dwelling unit, which is consistent with Policy COS-P4.1 ofthe General Plan. Since the project would contribute its fair share to parks facilities through payment of in-lieu fees and providing a pocket park to meet the need for neighborhood park, the impact is less than significant. e. Other public facilities?
Water and wastewater services for the proposed development would be serviced by the City of Tulare.

The additional 185 residential units will increase the demand for water and wastewater facilities.

According to Tulare’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Element, the City states that new development must be responsible for expanding existing water and sewage systems. Therefore, the developer shall pay the required development impact fees to accommodate the expansion of existing systems. The 69 development impact fees for water facilities ($3,392 per unit), groundwater recharge ($2,163 per acre), sewer facilities ($2,125 per unit), and storm water facilities ($1,796). general city facilities fees of $375 per dwelling unit will also compensate for the increased demand for public facilities and services.

Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
70 XVI. PARKS AND RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
   
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
   
Environmental Setting
According to the City General Plan EIR, the City maintains a total of 363 acres of land within its Parks Division, had including 295.65 acres of park land , 35 acres of Landscape and Lighting Districts, and approximately 32 acres of green belts, medians, tree-lined streets, and building landscapes in 2014, or 4.9 acres per 1,000 at the time. The closest existing neighborhood or community park is Live Oak Park, located approximately onehalf mile northwest of the project site. The closest future park will be located within the Farrar Estates Subdivision, which is within one-quarter mile from the project. The project is providing a 23,700 square foot pocket park as part of the project. Based on a current population of 69,200 as shown in the 2020 census, the City currently has 4.3 acres per 1,000 residents.

Regulatory Setting
City of Tulare General Plan: The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of Tulare General Plan contains the following recreational resource goals and policies potentially applicable to the project.

Goal COS-4 To provide parks and recreation facilities and servicesthat adequately meet the existingand future needs of all Tulare residents.
• COS-P4.1 Parkland/Open Space Standards. The City’s goal is to provide 4 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. New residential or mixed use developments containing a residentialcomponent may be required to provide parkland, or pay in-lieu fees, in this ratio as directed by the City. • COS-P4.5 Fair Share Responsibilities. The City shall ensure all future residential development is responsible for its fair share of the City’s cumulative park and recreational service and facilities maintenance needs.
• COS-P4.6 Land Dedication. The City shall continue its practice of requiring the dedication of community and neighborhood park lands as a condition of approval for large residential development projects (50 or more lots), if applicable.
• COS-P4.7 Fees In Lieu of Parkland Dedication. The City shall allow the payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication, especially in areas where dedication is not feasible, as provided under the Quimby Act.
71 Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased use of existing parks and other recreational facilities, however the project would contribute its fair share to parks facilities through the payment of park development impact fees, in the amount of $2,718, which will be used to provide additional community park and trails acreage in the City. To meet the need for neighborhood parks, the project includes a 23,700 square foot pocket park. The addition of the 185 residential units will not result in the City parks ratio being less than the four acres per 1,000 therefore the impact is less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project includes a 23,700 square foot pocket park, which is not anticipated to have a physical effect on the environment beyond the scope of this document. The construction of these recreational facilities as part of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment due to soil compaction, damage to vegetation and wildlife, or decreased water quality, due to the disturbed state of the site and lack of biological resources. For more information regarding these specific impacts, refer to the Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, and Geology, Soils, and Seismicity sections of this IS-MND document. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
72 XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
   
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with the CEQA
guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (B)?    
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
   
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Environmental Setting
City of Tulare adopted guidelines, and screening criteria and thresholds for evaluating projects in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (B). The City criteria is to use map-based screening for residential and office/industrial projects, with travel forecasting data from Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), and apply the recommendations for VMT thresholds as shown in Table 6 in the Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment, Exhibit D attached.

Vehicular Access: Vehicular access to the project is available from Tulare Avenue (SR 137) and Oakmore Street as well as interior streets to the development. Tulare Avenue (SR 137) is identified in the City General Plan as a major arterial street, Oakmore is identified as an arterial street.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Connectivity: The project will install sidewalks along the north and east side of the project and within the project itself on the local streets.

Regulatory Setting
City of Tulare Improvement Standards: The City of Tulare’s Improvement Standards are developed and enforced by the City of Tulare’s Engineering Division to guide the development and maintenance of City Roads. The cross section drawings contained in the City Improvement Standards dictate the development of roads within the City.9
Tulare City General Plan: The Transportation and Circulation Element of the City of Tulare General Plan contains the acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for roadways. • TR-P2.3 Level of Service Standard. The City shall maintain Level of Service “D,” as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council), as the minimum desirable service level at which freeways, arterial streets, collector streets, and their intersections should operate. • TR-P2.6 Highway Right-of-Way. The City shall work with Caltrans to ensure that new development projects include the dedication of land to match the ultimate right-of-way as delineated in the 73 Caltrans Transportation Concept Reports.
• TR-P2.10 Roadway Improvements. The City shall improve existing roadway links and intersections which are identified as operating below Level of Service “D” standard or have other significant existing safety or operational deficiencies.
• TR-P2.14 Driveway/Curb Cut Consolidation. The City shall encourage the consolidation of driveways, access points, and curb cuts along existing developed major arterials or arterials when new development or a change in the intensity of existing development or land uses occurs or when traffic operation or safety warrants.
• TR-P2.27 Orientation of Subdivision Away from Arterials. The City shall require residential development to be oriented away (side-on or rear-on) from major arterials and arterials, and properly buffered from these roadway types to preserve the carrying capacity on the street and protect the residential environment. No single family residence driveways are allowed on collector streets.
• TR-P6.2 Provision of Sidewalks for new Development. The City shall require all new development to provide sidewalks or other suitable pedestrian facilities. Whenever feasible, pedestrian paths should be developed to allow for unobstructed pedestrian flow to major destinations such as bus stops, schools, parks, and shopping centers.

Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The project consists of the construction of 185 low-density residential units and a neighborhood commercial center, as well as on- site circulation-related infrastructure improvements, including new local residential streets. The proposed project would include frontage improvements, including sidewalks, which would be an improvement to pedestrian accessibility over existing conditions. Any congestion during construction would be temporary. Vehicular access to the project site would be available primarily on Oakmore Street, and also via Tulare Avenue. All improvements, including those related to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, are subject to City review and approval to ensure compliance with all plans, ordinances, and policies related to circulation. The proposed project will not conflict with the City’s circulation plan and standards. Therefore, there is no impact. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
The proposed project was evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, in the report “Traffic Study and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Mixed Use Project”, attached as Appendix D. The following discussion summarizes the conclusions from the full report found in Appendix D.

The following table summarizes the results of the traffic model runs for each component. It should be noted that at the time TCAG prepared the VMT evaluation the Fulton Estates Project proposed 198 residential units. The revised Project description includes only 185 residential units. The results below would not be substantially different with the lower residential unit count. The residential per capita VMT should be approximately the same, while the increase in VMT for the retail component should be similar.
74 Fulton Estates Project Assessment by Land Use
Fulton Estates
Land Use
Regional
Average Trip
Length or
Regional VMT
85% Threshold
VMT Target
Fulton Estates
Project VMT
Over Threshold
or Net Increase
(yes or no)
Significant
(yes/no)
Residential
(per capita)

11.7 9.94 11.2 Yes Yes
Retail 13,682,798 n/a 13,684,033 +1,235 (+0.00%) TBD
Based on the assessment impacts were determined to be significant as they exceeded the 85% Threshold.

In order to mitigate these impacts, the development will include the following mitigation measures from the state guidelines for mitigating for VMT.
• Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare: The Fulton Estates project introduces retail commercial that brings goods and services along with the housing to the east Tulare area, thus providing access to goods closer than traveling to other areas of Tulare. The retail area will provide goods and services not only to the 185 lots, but to the additional 150 plus single family homes within ½ mile of the retail center. This center will assist in reducing their current vehicle miles traveled and will result in an overall reduction of vehicle miles travelled in the region.
• Incorporate regional electric vehicle network: The developer will incorporate at least one electric vehicle charging station in the retail center.
• Incorporate regional electric vehicle network: The home builder will offer, as an option, the installation of a vehicle charging station in each residence. • Locate the project near transit: The project is located nearby Route 7 of the Tulare Intermodal Express (TIME) which currently goes to Morrison, one half mile to the west. • Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks: The project will extend the pedestrian facilities along Tulare Avenue (SR 137) and along Oakmore. These pedestrian facilities will provide access from the proposed project and the surrounding area to the proposed retail commercial. • Provide bicycle parking: The project will developer will install bike racks at the retail center. • Increase the mix of uses within the project or within the project’s surroundings: The project, when looked at as a whole, is a mixed use project which will yield substantial trip reduction through the integration of residential and retail in close proximity.

The above listed items will be incorporated as mitigation measures, which will result in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b). Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant with the incorporation the following mitigation measures:
• Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: The developer shall incorporate at least one electric vehicle charging station in the retail center.
• Mitigation Measure TRAN-2: The developer shall offer, as an option, the installation of a vehicle charging station in each residence.
• Mitigation Measure TRAN-3: The project shall extend the pedestrian facilities along Tulare Avenue (SR 137) and along Oakmore.
75 • Mitigation Measure TRAN-4: The developer shall install bike racks at the retail center. • Mitigation Measure TRAN-5: The project shall be developed as a mixed-use project, as proposed. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No geometric design feature associated with the project would pose a hazard to the public and there would be no incompatible uses. There would be no impact.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency access to the commercial site would be from Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Oakmore Street. These access points provide emergency access consistent with City standards, and are reviewed by the City’s Fire Department.

Therefore, there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures:
• Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: The developer shall incorporate at least one electric vehicle charging station in the retail center.
• Mitigation Measure TRAN-2: The developer shall offer, as an option, the installation of a vehicle charging station in each residence.
• Mitigation Measure TRAN-3: The project shall extend the pedestrian facilities along Tulare Avenue (SR 137) and along Oakmore.
• Mitigation Measure TRAN-4: The developer shall install bike racks at the retail center. • Mitigation Measure TRAN-5: The project shall be developed as a mixed-use project, as proposed. 76 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically definedin
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in alocal
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
   
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
   
Environmental Setting
Of the main groups inhabiting the Tulare County area, the Southern Valley Yokuts occupied the largest territory. The Yokuts numbered about 25,000 and were clustered into about fifty independent local subtribes. Historians believe approximately 22 villages stretched from Stockton northerly to the Tehachapi Mountainssoutherly, although most were concentrated around Tulare Lake, Kaweah River and itstributaries.

As a result, numerous cultural resource sites have been identified in Tulare County.

Cultural Resources Record Search and Native American Consultation: A records search was conducted on behalf of the Applicant at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center (AIC), to determine if historical or archaeological sites had previously been recorded within the study area, if the project area had been systematically surveyed by archaeologists priorto the initialstudy, and/or whether the region of the field project was known to contain archaeological sites and to thereby be archaeologically sensitive.

The City of Tulare has agreed to this request and is including a mitigation measure requiring notification of the Tachi Yokut Tribe ten days prior to any ground disturbance activities and allow a tribal monitor onsite during those activities. The City of Tulare has asked the tribe for more information regarding the basis of the request, such as information on the potential presence of Tribal Cultural Resources that would require tribal ground monitoring for all ground disturbance activities on this site. The City has determined that the tribe has 77 not presented substantial evidence to support the notion that Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074(a) of the Public Resources Code, will be impacted by the proposed project; however the City will notify the tribe in the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery of potential Tribal Cultural Resources so that the City may consult with the Tribe on identification and appropriate treatment, pursuant to applicable state law.

Definitions
• Historical Resources: Historical resources are defined by CEQA as resources that are listed in or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, resources that are listed in a local historical resource register, or resources that are otherwise determined to be historical under California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. Under these definitions Historical Resources can include archaeological resources, Tribal cultural resources, and Paleontological Resources.
• Archaeological Resources: As stated above, archaeological resources may be considered historical resources. If they do not meet the qualifications under the California Public Resources Code 21084.1 or California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, they are instead determined to be “unique” as defined by the CEQA Statute Section 21083.2. A unique archaeological resource is an artifact, object, or site that: (1) contains information (for which there is a demonstrable public interest) needed to answer importantscientific research questions; (2) has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
• Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR): Tribal Cultural Resources can include site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects, which are of cultural value to a Tribe. It is either listed on or eligible for the CA Historic Register or a local historic register, or determined by the lead agency to be treated as TCR.
• Paleontological Resources: For the purposes of this section, “paleontological resources” refers to the fossilized plant and animal remains of prehistoric species. Paleontological Resources are a limited scientific and educational resource and are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its ecology. Fossilized remains,such as bones, teeth,shells, and leaves, are found in geologic deposits (i.e., rock formations). Paleontological resources generally include the geologic formations and localities in which the fossils are collected.

Regulatory Setting
National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act was adopted in 1966 to preserve historic and archeological sites in the United States. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation offices.

California Historic Register: The California Historic Register was developed as a program to identify, evaluate, register, and protect Historical Resources in California. California Historical Landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic,scientific,religious, experimental, or other value. In orderfor a resource to be designated as a historical landmark, it must meet the following criteria:
78 • The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California).
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California. • A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder.

City of Tulare General Plan: The City of Tulare General Plan includes the following goals and policies pertaining to tribal cultural resources:

Goal COS-5 To manage and protect sites of cultural and archaeological importance for the benefit of present and future generations.
• COS-P5.1 Archaeological Resources. The City shall support efforts to protect and/or recover archaeological resources.
• COS-P5.6 Protection of Resources with Potential State or Federal Designations. The City shall encourage the protection of cultural and archaeological sites with 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 ofstatewide orlocalsignificance and have anthropological, cultural, military,political, architectural, economic, scientific, religious, or other values. • COS-P5.9 Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological/ paleontological resources are discovered during site excavation, grading, or construction, the City shall require that work on the site be suspended within 100 feet of the resource until the significance of the features can be determined by a qualified archaeologist/ paleontologist. If significant resources are determined to exist, an archaeologistshall make recommendationsfor protection or recovery of the resource. City staff shall consider such recommendations and implement them where they are feasible in light of project design as previously approved by the City. • COS-P5.10 Discovery of Human Remains. Consistent with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5), if human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, it is necessary to comply with State lawsrelating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (Public Resources Code Sec. 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on the project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
- The Tulare County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
- If the remains are of Native American origin,
▪ The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a timely recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavationwork, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the humanremains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. ▪ The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant, or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after beingnotified by the commission, or
79 ▪ The landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects any timely recommendations of the descendent, and mediation conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission has failed to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. • COS-P5.11 Impact Mitigation. If preservation of cultural/historical resources is not feasible, the City shall make every effort to mitigate impacts, including relocation ofstructures, adaptive reuse, preservation of facades, and thorough documentation and archival of records. • COS-P5.12 Mitigation Monitoring for Historical Resources. The City shall develop standards for monitoring mitigation measures established for the protection of historical resources prior to development.
• COS-P5.13 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. The City shall permit development in these areas only after a site-specific investigation has been conducted pursuant to CEQA to define the extent and value of resource, and mitigation measures proposed for any impacts the development may have on the resource.
• COS-P5.14 Education Program Support. The City shall support local, state, and national education programs on cultural and archaeological resources.
• COS-P5.15 Solicit Input from Local Native Americans. The City shall 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. • COS-P5.16 Confidentiality of Archaeological Sites. The City shall, within its power, maintain confidentiality regarding the locations of archaeological sites in order to preserve and protect resources that are determined to exist. An archaeologist/paleontologist shall make recommendations for protection or recovery of the resource. City staff shall consider such recommendations and implement them where they are feasible in light of project design as previously approved by the City.
• COS-P5.17 Cooperation of Property Owners. The City shall 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.
• COS-P5.18 Archaeological Resource Surveys. Prior to project approval, the City shall require project applicant to have a qualified archaeologist conduct the following activities: (1) conduct a record search at the Regional Archaeological Information Center located at California State University Bakersfield and other appropriate historical repositories, (2) conduct field surveys where appropriate, and (3) prepare technical reports, where appropriate, meeting California Office of Historic Preservation Standards (Archaeological Resource Management Reports).

Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural 80 resource, nor is it listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. Based on the results of the records search, no previously recorded tribal cultural resources are located within the project site. Although no historical resources were identified, the presence of remainsor unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL 1, and CUL 2 will ensure that impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The lead agency has not determined there to be any known cultural resource on the project site that would meet the criteria in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 therefore there is no impact. If a resource is discovered, the implementation of MitigationMeasures CUL 1, CUL 2, and CUL 3 previously listed under Cultural Resources will ensure that any impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measures:

See CUL 1, CUL 2
81 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
   
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
   
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
   
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
   
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
   
Environmental Setting
The City of Tulare utilities and service systemsinclude wastewater treatment, storm water drainage facilities, water supply, landfill capacity, and solid waste disposal.

Wastewater: Wastewater will be collected and treated at the City’s wastewater treatment facility, which is located at the intersection Paige Ave. and West St.

Solid Waste: Solid waste collection service is provided by the City of Tulare Solid Waste Division. Solid waste disposal will be provided by the Tulare County Solid Waste Department, which operates two landfills and six transfer stations within the county. Combined, these landfills receive approximately 300,000 tons of solid waste per day.

Water: Water for the proposed development will be provided by the City of Tulare. The City’s primary water source is groundwater. Existing water entitlements currently provide water to the proposed projectsite.

Implementation of the proposed project will not require additional water entitlements.

Storm Drainage: Tulare is currently in an agreement with Tulare Irrigation District (TID). The City pumps 82 storm water into canals owned by TID. Storm water is also disposed and detained in storm drainage detention and retention basins throughout the City. Tulare actively improves its storm drainage system to accommodate new urban development.

Regulatory Setting
CalRecycle: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Natural Resources – Division 7 contains all current CalRecycle regulations regarding nonhazardous waste management in the state. These regulations include standards for the handling of solid waste, standards for the handling of compostable materials, design standards for disposal facilities, and disposal standards for specific types of waste.

Central Valley RWQCB: The Central Valley RWQCB requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for projects disturbing more than one acre of total land area. Because the project is greater than one acre, a SWPPP to manage stormwater generated during project construction will be required.

The Central Valley RWQCB regulates Wastewater Discharges to Land by establishing thresholds for discharged pollutants and implementing monitoring programs to evaluate program compliance. This program regulates approximately 1500 dischargers in the region.

The Central Valley RWQCB is also responsible for implementing the federal program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES Program is the federal permitting program that regulates discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the U.S. Under this program, a NPDES permitis required to discharge pollutants into Waters of the U.S. There are 350 permitted facilities within the Central Valley Region.

Discussion
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment orstormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed project will require the extension of existing utility services into the project area. This is not anticipated to cause a significant environmental effect because extension/relocation would occur within the right-of-way prior to street construction or expansion. The proposed project was analyzed for consistency with adopted City Utility Master Plans and was found to be consistent by City staff, therefore impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Construction
The City currently uses groundwater pumped from the Tulare Lake Basin to meet all of its water demand.

Like any activity in Tulare, groundwater would be used for construction. Water would be used for purposes of dust control during grading and construction as well as for minor activities such as washing of construction equipment and vehicles. Water demands generated by the Project during the construction phase would be temporary and not substantial. It is anticipated that groundwater supplies would be adequate to meet construction water demands generated by the Project without depleting the underlying aquifer or lowering the local groundwater table. Therefore, Project construction would not deplete groundwater supplies and impacts would be less than significant. 83 Operation
The City of Tulare 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) describes that the City would have available water supply for normal year, single-year, and multi-dry year scenarios to accommodate development growth within the City limits and within the City’s urban development boundary, including the proposed project site. The proposed Project consists of 197 dwelling units and the average household size in Tulare is 3.49 (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25010), therefore the Project will house approximately 688 people. According to the City’s 2020 UWMP, the actual water used in 2020 was 219 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) (City of Tulare, 2021). Therefore, the proposed Project would result in an estimated water demand of 150,672 gallons per day (688 people x 219 gallons/day = 150,672 gallons/day) or 168.8 acre-feet per year).

The proposed project would generate an annual water demand that would be well within the limits of the water demand, as described in the UWMP. In addition, the proposed project would be proposing smaller lots and a portion which will be developed as retail commercial, which tends to use less water due to less outdoor irrigation needs, with a net reduction in outdoor irrigation needs compared to the large lot residential assumed at this location in the General Plan. In addition, the project will be required to comply with the California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscape etc.

While the Mid-Kaweah Sub basin is one of many in the San Joaquin Valley that is critically over-drafted, the City has developed strategies to assure that this source of supply remains available and viable in future years. For example, the City maintains the Water Conservation Ordinance to eliminate waste of water and will continue to periodically drill new supply wells in the future. Additionally, the City has joined the City of Visalia and the TID to form the Mid-Kaweah Joint Powers Authority (MKJPA) in an attempt to create a coordinated plan for the Sub basin. The Project will follow requirements as applicable in the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Given that the water needed for the Project’s construction and operations are nominal, the Project’s construction and operations would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or conflict with any future adopted groundwater management plan.

The City has also invested significantly in their detention basins to increase their recharge capacity. The project would change uses on the site from vacant, fallowed former agricultural land to a single-family 197 lot residential subdivision and a neighborhood commercial center, and would result in a reduction in percolation to the groundwater basin, because the project would create an increase in the amount of paved and impervious surfaces. However, this impact would be greatly reduced by the stormwater infrastructure which will drain water flows on the site and direct those to the existing regional stormwater basin located approximately one-half mile southwest from the project site. The Project has been reviewed by the City of Tulare Engineer who has determined that the Project will not have a significant impact on the existing water system, and would tie in to the existing water infrastructure for this part of the City. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater resources.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Wastewater generated by the project would be collected and treated at the City’s domestic Wastewater 84 Treatment Facilities (WWTF). Although the proposed project will increase in wastewater generation due to the addition of 185 residential units and the commercial development, the wastewater produced would not exceed the City’s WWTF capacity of 6.0 MGD. The impact is less than significant. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Solid waste collection service will be provided by the City of Tulare and waste disposal will be provided by the County. Additional solid waste is anticipated as a result of project implementation; however, the project does not include any components that would generate excessive waste and the existing landfills have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, therefore the impact is less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
This proposed project conforms to all applicable management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. The development will comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste, and will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to disposal ofsolid waste, including recycling, therefore there is no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
85 XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
   
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
   
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes?    
Regulatory Setting
a), b), c), d): The project site is not within or near a state responsibility area or area classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, therefore there is no impact to an adopted emergency plan or emergency evacuation plan, would not exacerbate wildfire risks, or require the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. In addition, the project will not expose people or structures to significant risk of flooding, landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes.

Mitigation Measures: None Required
86 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have the potential
substantially to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
   
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
   
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
   
Discussion
a) Doesthe project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment,substantially reducethe habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrictthe range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
This initial study/mitigated negative declaration found the project could have significant impacts on agricultural, biological, cultural, transportation, and Tribal cultural resources. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures for each respective section would ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
87 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. All planned projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform to the 2035 City of Tulare General Plan and the Tulare Municipal Code. The Project would also be required to mitigate for Project-specific impacts and provide appropriate engineering to ensure the Project meets all applicable federal, State and local regulations and codes. As currently designed, and with compliance of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact. Thus, with incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be less than cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The ways in which people can be subject to substantial adverse effects from projects include: potential exposure to significant levels of local air pollutants; potential exposure to seismic and flooding hazards; potential exposure to hazardous materials; potential exposure to contamination from hazardous materials; potential exposure to traffic hazards; and potential exposure to excessive noise levels. The risks from these potential hazards would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with existing laws, regulations, or requirements. All of the Project’s impacts, both direct and indirect, that are attributable to the Project were identified and mitigated to a less than significant level.

As shown in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Project proponent has agreed to implement mitigation substantially reducing or eliminating impacts of the Project.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not either directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because all potentially adverse direct impacts of the proposed Project are identified as having no impact, less than significant impact, or less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. 88 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Asrequired by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6,subd.(a)(1), aMitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram (MMRP) has been prepared for the project in order to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been created based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Fulton Estates Mixed-Use Project proposed by Quest Equity in the City of Tulare.

The first column of the table identifies the mitigation measure. The second column names the party responsible for carrying out the required action.

The third column, “Timing of Mitigation Measure” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The fourth column, “Responsible Party forMonitoring,” names the party ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last column willbe used by the City of Tulare to ensure that the individual mitigation measures have been monitored.

Plan checking and verification of mitigation compliance shall be the responsibility of the City of Tulare.

MITIGATION MEASURE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR

IMPLEMENTATION

IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY FOR

MONITORING

VERIFICATION
Agricultural Resources
Mitigation Measure AG-1: Prior to development on
the project site, the City shall be provided written
documentation from the California Department of
Conservation that the subject property is no longer
considered to be Prime Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Grazing
Land; or alternatively, no longer designated as
either of those categories of farmland on a revised
Important Farmland Map produced by the California
Department of Conservation.

Applicant/Developer/Builder Prior to start of
construction
City of Tulare
Mitigation Measure AG-2: In the absence of the
documentation described in Mitigation Measure
AG-1 demonstrating the change of designation in
farmland status, then per City of Tulare General Plan
Policy COS-P3.12, agricultural land equivalent to
Applicant/Developer/Builder Prior to start of
construction
City of Tulare
89 that of the project site will be preserved at a 1:1
ratio for every acre of land converted. Prior to
project development, this shall be accomplished
through establishment of an agricultural
conservation easement in accordance with the city’s
farmland mitigation ordinance (Tulare Municipal
Code Chapter 10.222).

Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: In order to avoid
impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, the
project will be constructed, if feasible, outside the
nesting season, or between September 1st and
January 31st.

Applicant/Developer/Builder Ongoing City of Tulare
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: If project activities
must occur during the nesting season (February 1-
August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct
preconstruction surveys for active raptor and
migratory bird nests within 14 days prior to the start
of these activities. The survey will include the
proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within
500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors
and migratory birds save Swainson’s hawk; the
Swainson’s hawk survey will extend to 0.5 miles
outside of work area boundaries. If no nesting pairs
are found within the survey area, no further action
is required.

Applicant/Develpor/Builder 14 days prior to
construction
City of Tulare
Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Should any active nests
be discovered near proposed work areas,
Swainson’s hawk nests shall be avoided by 0.5 miles
unless this avoidance buffer is reduced through
consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS. If a
construction area falls within this nesting site,
construction-free buffers shall be identified on the
Applicant/Developer/Builder Ongoing City of Tulare
90 ground with flagging, fencing, or by other easily
visible means, and shall be maintained until the
biologist has determined that the young have
fledged.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a Burrowing Owl. A take
avoidance survey for burrowing owls shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable of
the species within 14 days prior to the start of
construction. This take avoidance survey shall be
conducted according to methods described in the
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG
2012). The survey area shall include all suitable
habitat on and within 200 meters of project impact
areas, where accessible.

Applicant/Developer/Builder Within 14 days of
ground disturbing
activities
City of Tulare
Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: Burrowing Owl. If
project activities are undertaken during the breeding
season (February 1-August 31) and active nest
burrows are identified within or near project impact
areas, a 200-meter disturbance-free buffer shall be
established around these burrows, unless a qualified
biologist approved by CDFW verifies through
noninvasive methods either that the birds have not
begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles
from the occupied burrows are foraging
independently and are capable of independent
survival. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates
otherwise. The protected exclusion zone established
for the breeding season shall remain in effect until
August 31 or, as determined based on monitoring
evidence, until the young owl(s) is foraging
independently or the nest is no longer active.
.

Applicant/Developer/Builder Ongoing City of Tulare
91 Mitigation Measure BIO-2c: Burrowing Owl. During
the nonbreeding season (September 1-January 31),
resident owls occupying burrows in project impact
areas may be passively relocated to alternative
habitat after consulting with the CDFW. Prior to
passively relocating burrowing owls, a Burrowing
Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared by a qualified
biologist in accordance with Appendix E of the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).

The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be
submitted to the CDFW for review prior to
implementation. Relocation of any owls during the
nonbreeding season shall be performed by a
qualified biologist using one-way doors, which shall
be installed in all burrows in the impact area and
left in place for at least two nights. The doors shall
be removed and the burrows backfilled immediately
before the initiation of grading or, if no grading
would occur, left in place until the end of
construction. To avoid the potential for owls evicted
from a burrow to occupy other burrows in the
project site, one-way doors shall be placed in all
potentially suitable burrows within the impact area
when eviction occurs.

Applicant/Developer/Builder Ongoing City of Tulare
Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Kit Fox.

Preconstruction surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox
shall be conducted on and within 200 feet of the
project site, no more than 30 days prior to the start
of ground disturbance activities on the site. The
primary objective is to identify kit fox habitat
features (e.g., potential dens and refugia) on and
adjacent to the site and evaluate their use by kit
foxes. Protection provided by dens for shelter,
Applicant/Developer/Builder Within 30 days
prior to ground
disturbance
activities
City of Tulare
92 escape, cover, and reproduction is vital to the
survival of San Joaquin kit foxes. For San Joaquin kit
foxes, the ecological value of potential, known, and
natal/pupping dens differs; therefore, each den type
requires the appropriate level of protection.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3b Kit Fox. Should active
kit fox dens be detected during preconstruction
surveys, the Sacramento Field Office of the USFWS
and the Fresno Field Office of CDFW shall be
notified. A disturbance-free buffer shall be
established around the burrows in consultation with
the USFWS and CDFW, to prevent access to the
occupied den by construction equipment and
personnel who are not biologists, and to be
maintained until an agency-approved biologist has
determined that the burrows have been
abandoned. After construction activities would no
longer affect the den, all fencing and flagging shall
be removed to avoid attracting attention to the den
by other animals or humans. All onsite flagging and
buffer delineations shall be kept in good working
order for the duration of activity near the den or
until the den is determined to be unoccupied,
whichever occurs first.

Applicant/Developer/Builder Ongoing City of Tulare
Mitigation Measure BIO-3c: Kit Fox. Construction
activities shall be carried out in a manner that
minimizes disturbance to kit foxes in accordance
with the USFWS Standardized Recommendations.

The applicant shall implement all minimization
measures presented in the Construction and Ongoing Operational Requirements section of the Standardized Recommendations.

Applicant/Developer/Builder Ongoing City of Tulare
Cultural Resources
93 Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If cultural
resources are encountered during grounddisturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS
1983) should be contacted immediately to
evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be
significant under CEQA, additional work such
as data recovery excavation and Native
American consultation may be warranted to
mitigate any adverse effects.

Applicant and construction
contractor
Ongoing during
construction
City of Tulare
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: The discovery of
human remains is always a possibility during
ground disturbing activities. If human remains
are found, the State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made a determination of
origin and disposition pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the
human remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
which will determine and notify a most likely
descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete
the inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification and may recommend scientific
removaland nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native
American burials.

Applicant and construction
contractor
Ongoing during
construction
City of Tulare
Transportation City of Tulare
94 Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: The developer
shall incorporate at least one electric vehicle
charging station in the retail center.

Applicant/Develpor/Builder Upon Construction City of Tulare Mitigation Measure TRAN-2: The developer
shall offer, as an option, the installation of a
vehicle charging station in each residence.

Applicant/Develpor/Builder Upon Construction City of Tulare Mitigation Measure TRAN-3: The project shall
extend the pedestrian facilities along Tulare
Avenue (SR 137) and along Oakmore.

Applicant/Develpor/Builder With Project Design City of Tulare Mitigation Measure TRAN-4: The developer
shall install bike racks at the retail center.

Applicant/Develpor/Builder Upon Construction City of Tulare Mitigation Measure TRAN-5: The project shall
be developed as a mixed-use project, as
proposed.

Applicant/Develpor/Builder With Project Design City of Tulare 95 Supporting Information and Sources

1. City of Tulare General Plan

2. City of Tulare General Plan EIR

3. City of Tulare Climate Action Plan

4. City of Tulare Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan

5. City of Tulare Zoning Ordinance

6. City of Tulare Sewer System Master Plan

7. Engineering Standards, City of Tulare

8. California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

9. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)

10. SJVAPCD Regulations and Guidelines

11. AB 3098 List

12. Flood Insurance Rate Maps

13. California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook

14. 2021 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines

15. California Building Code

16. Guidance for Land Use Agencies in Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA

17. Southcoast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

18. California Energy Commission. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

19. Phase 1: Krazan Associates November 21, 2021

20. Department of Toxic Substance Control Envirostar

21. California Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)

22. Tulare County Association of Governments

23. US Census (2020).

24. California Department of Construction, personal contac 96 FULTON ESTATES

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIN
PART 2
APPENDIX A - CALEEmod Report
APPENDIX B - California Natural Diversity Data Base Species List APPENDIX C - Taylored Archaeological Technical Memo
APPENDIX D - Traffic Impact Study

APPENDIX A
CALEEmod Report
Fulton Estates
Tulare County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Population based on the City of Tulare General Plan of 3.35 persons per unit.

Woodstoves - Wood fireplaces are not permitted. Fireplaces are an option and not mandatory.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 197.00 Dwelling Unit 35.62 354,600.00 660 User Defined Commercial 1.00 User Defined Unit 2.86 0.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 63.96 35.62
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 2.86
tblLandUse Population 563.00 660.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied - ---t· -
- ••• L ••
- ---1---
---
' '
,..... •••
- ---t----t - -
' '

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1715 1.7246 1.2743 2.5400e0030.5120 0.0798 0.5918 0.2161 0.0737 0.2898 0.0000 223.1143 223.1143 0.0668 2.1000e004224.8469 2023 0.2746 2.4445 2.6279 5.3100e0030.3341 0.1083 0.4424 0.1088 0.1012 0.2100 0.0000 466.9079 466.9079 0.1009 8.2600e003471.8909 2024 0.2256 1.9051 2.3865 4.7000e0030.0923 0.0815 0.1738 0.0250 0.0767 0.1016 0.0000 413.2009 413.2009 0.0739 9.6600e003417.9261 2025 0.2088 1.7679 2.3477 4.6500e0030.0919 0.0700 0.1619 0.0249 0.0658 0.0907 0.0000 408.8683 408.8683 0.0730 9.3400e003413.4766 2026 3.3619 0.2824 0.4856 7.9000e0047.0600e0030.0135 0.0206 1.8800e0030.0125 0.0144 0.0000 69.7367 69.7367 0.0189 2.0000e00470.2677 Maximum 3.3619 2.4445 2.6279 5.3100e0030.5120 0.1083 0.5918 0.2161 0.1012 0.2898 0.0000 466.9079 466.9079 0.1009 9.6600e003471.8909 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
-
- - - -t - - - -t - - - -t - - - -t - - - -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
- - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
----· ----· ----· ----· ---- I I I I
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
----·----·----·----·----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
- - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
- - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
- - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - ·r - - - -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; ; ; ;;c;;; ;;c;;; ;;c;;; ;;c;;;;;
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1715 1.7246 1.2743 2.5400e0030.5120 0.0798 0.5918 0.2161 0.0737 0.2898 0.0000 223.1140 223.1140 0.0668 2.1000e004224.8467 2023 0.2746 2.4445 2.6279 5.3100e0030.3341 0.1083 0.4424 0.1088 0.1012 0.2100 0.0000 466.9074 466.9074 0.1009 8.2600e003471.8905 2024 0.2256 1.9051 2.3865 4.7000e0030.0923 0.0815 0.1738 0.0250 0.0767 0.1016 0.0000 413.2006 413.2006 0.0739 9.6600e003417.9257 2025 0.2088 1.7679 2.3477 4.6500e0030.0919 0.0700 0.1619 0.0249 0.0658 0.0907 0.0000 408.8679 408.8679 0.0730 9.3400e003413.4763 2026 3.3619 0.2824 0.4856 7.9000e0047.0600e0030.0135 0.0206 1.8800e0030.0125 0.0144 0.0000 69.7366 69.7366 0.0189 2.0000e00470.2676 Maximum 3.3619 2.4445 2.6279 5.3100e0030.5120 0.1083 0.5918 0.2161 0.1012 0.2898 0.0000 466.9074 466.9074 0.1009 9.6600e003471.8905 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 8-1-2022 10-31-2022 1.0031 1.0031
2 11-1-2022 1-31-2023 1.3085 1.3085
3 2-1-2023 4-30-2023 0.7800 0.7800
4 5-1-2023 7-31-2023 0.5697 0.5697
5 8-1-2023 10-31-2023 0.5703 0.5703
6 11-1-2023 1-31-2024 0.5595 0.5595
7 2-1-2024 4-30-2024 0.5235 0.5235
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----· ----· ---- I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
----·----·----·----·----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I ---·r··--r··-·r··--r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 8 5-1-2024 7-31-2024 0.5340 0.5340
9 8-1-2024 10-31-2024 0.5346 0.5346
10 11-1-2024 1-31-2025 0.5234 0.5234
11 2-1-2025 4-30-2025 0.4821 0.4821
12 5-1-2025 7-31-2025 0.4972 0.4972
13 8-1-2025 10-31-2025 0.4978 0.4978
14 11-1-2025 1-31-2026 0.4407 0.4407
15 2-1-2026 4-30-2026 1.9564 1.9564
16 5-1-2026 7-31-2026 1.5738 1.5738
Highest 1.9564 1.9564

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 2.4962 0.1981 8.0859 0.0221 1.0895 1.0895 1.0895 1.0895 144.0018 87.7313 231.7330 0.6771 1.5600e003249.1270 Energy 0.0255 0.2182 0.0929 1.3900e0030.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0000 531.2857 531.2857 0.0284 7.4800e003534.2245 Mobile 0.9375 1.5462 8.6855 0.0196 1.9338 0.0171 1.9509 0.5175 0.0161 0.5336 0.0000 1,814.560 7 1,814.560
7 0.1000 0.0984 1,846.376
3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 48.2307 0.0000 48.2307 2.8504 0.0000 119.4894 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0721 17.3397 21.4118 0.4197 0.0101 34.9001 Total 3.4592 1.9625 16.8643 0.0431 1.9338 1.1243 3.0580 0.5175 1.1232 1.6408 196.3045 2,450.917 3 2,647.221
8 4.0755 0.1175 2,784.117
3 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----r····r··--r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
____
I
____
I
____
I
____
I
____

I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
----·----·----·----·----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----~----~----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----r····r··--r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
____
I
____
I
____
I
____
I
____
........................
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.7703 0.0905 1.4935 5.5000e0040.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 87.7313 87.7313 3.9300e0031.5600e00388.2957 Energy 0.0255 0.2182 0.0929 1.3900e0030.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0000 531.2857 531.2857 0.0284 7.4800e003534.2245 Mobile 0.9375 1.5462 8.6855 0.0196 1.9338 0.0171 1.9509 0.5175 0.0161 0.5336 0.0000 1,814.560 7 1,814.560
7 0.1000 0.0984 1,846.376
3 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 48.2307 0.0000 48.2307 2.8504 0.0000 119.4894 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0721 17.3397 21.4118 0.4197 0.0101 34.9001 Total 2.7333 1.8550 10.2718 0.0216 1.9338 0.0488 1.9826 0.5175 0.0478 0.5653 52.3027 2,450.917 3 2,503.220
0 3.4024 0.1175 2,623.286
1 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 8/1/2022 10/7/2022 5 50
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/8/2022 11/18/2022 5 30 3 Grading Grading 11/19/2022 3/3/2023 5 75
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

20.99 5.48 39.09 49.93 0.00 95.66 35.17 0.00 95.75 65.55 73.36 0.00 5.44 16.52 0.00 5.78 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----~ ----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' '
- I I I I ----r----r----r----r---- ' ' ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' - I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I - I I I I ---·r····r··--r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ••• _I ••• _I ••• _I ••• _I ••••

I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
----·----·----·----·----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ----~----~----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I ----r----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I ---·r····r··--r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I ----r--·-r··--r----r----

I I I I I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---r---t --

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
---r---L - -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
---r---L ..

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-- ---r---,

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------1- - -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I I ----r----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I I ----r--·-r··--r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I I ----r--·-r··--r----r----I I I I I I I I
•••• I

I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' '
- I I I I ----r--·-r··--r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I I ----r----r----r----r---- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' ••• _I ••• _I ••• _I ••• _I •••• ........................ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ............. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 4 Building Construction Building Construction 3/4/2023 1/2/2026 5 740 5 Paving Paving 1/3/2026 3/20/2026 5 55
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/21/2026 6/5/2026 5 55 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 718,065; Residential Outdoor: 239,355; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 45
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 225
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ---:----1-- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- ... ---~-- I I I I 1 I I I I __ .._ ___ L •• I I I I I I I I I I I I --i ---. 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ··t---+-- .. ' '
' '
--
-- --+ --
i
---

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0660 0.6430 0.5149 9.7000e0040.0311 0.0311 0.0289 0.0289 0.0000 84.9756 84.9756 0.0239 0.0000 85.5723 Total 0.0660 0.6430 0.5149 9.7000e0040.0311 0.0311 0.0289 0.0289 0.0000 84.9756 84.9756 0.0239 0.0000 85.5723 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 71.00 21.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 14.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied - - + - - - - 7 - - - - + - - ~---··· ' - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----+--! __ ! __ ! __ : _+ I I I I I I I I I I -----+--------------+ -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : : : : I I I I I I 1----+---~---~---~---~---L .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,_ __ ...., __ : -- : -- : -- : --t -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .,_ __ _,._ •• L ••• L ••• L ••• L •• -~ •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----•---~---~---~---~---~ -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----•--~--~--~--~·-t-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1---+--.L--.L--.L--.L--+ - - ---
-
----
--
----

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4300e0031.0500e0030.0113 3.0000e0052.9900e0032.0000e0053.0000e0037.9000e0042.0000e0058.1000e0040.0000 2.4515 2.4515 9.0000e0058.0000e0052.4788 Total 1.4300e0031.0500e0030.0113 3.0000e0052.9900e0032.0000e0053.0000e0037.9000e0042.0000e0058.1000e0040.0000 2.4515 2.4515 9.0000e0058.0000e0052.4788 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0660 0.6430 0.5149 9.7000e0040.0311 0.0311 0.0289 0.0289 0.0000 84.9755 84.9755 0.0239 0.0000 85.5722 Total 0.0660 0.6430 0.5149 9.7000e0040.0311 0.0311 0.0289 0.0289 0.0000 84.9755 84.9755 0.0239 0.0000 85.5722 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0300e0037.6000e0048.1100e0032.0000e0052.1500e0031.0000e0052.1600e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.7651 1.7651 7.0000e0056.0000e0051.7848 Total 1.0300e0037.6000e0048.1100e0032.0000e0052.1500e0031.0000e0052.1600e0035.7000e0041.0000e0055.8000e0040.0000 1.7651 1.7651 7.0000e0056.0000e0051.7848 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2949 0.0000 0.2949 0.1515 0.0000 0.1515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0476 0.4963 0.2955 5.7000e0040.0242 0.0242 0.0223 0.0223 0.0000 50.1590 50.1590 0.0162 0.0000 50.5646 Total 0.0476 0.4963 0.2955 5.7000e0040.2949 0.0242 0.3191 0.1515 0.0223 0.1738 0.0000 50.1590 50.1590 0.0162 0.0000 50.5646 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2096 0.0000 0.2096 0.0625 0.0000 0.0625 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0544 0.5827 0.4356 9.3000e0040.0245 0.0245 0.0226 0.0226 0.0000 81.8019 81.8019 0.0265 0.0000 82.4633 Total 0.0544 0.5827 0.4356 9.3000e0040.2096 0.0245 0.2342 0.0625 0.0226 0.0851 0.0000 81.8019 81.8019 0.0265 0.0000 82.4633 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1500e0038.4000e0049.0100e0032.0000e0052.3900e0031.0000e0052.4000e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 1.9612 1.9612 7.0000e0057.0000e0051.9831 Total 1.1500e0038.4000e0049.0100e0032.0000e0052.3900e0031.0000e0052.4000e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 1.9612 1.9612 7.0000e0057.0000e0051.9831 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2096 0.0000 0.2096 0.0625 0.0000 0.0625 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0544 0.5827 0.4356 9.3000e0040.0245 0.0245 0.0226 0.0226 0.0000 81.8018 81.8018 0.0265 0.0000 82.4632 Total 0.0544 0.5827 0.4356 9.3000e0040.2096 0.0245 0.2342 0.0625 0.0226 0.0851 0.0000 81.8018 81.8018 0.0265 0.0000 82.4632 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2548 0.0000 0.2548 0.0874 0.0000 0.0874 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0747 0.7766 0.6312 1.4000e0030.0321 0.0321 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 122.7042 122.7042 0.0397 0.0000 123.6964 Total 0.0747 0.7766 0.6312 1.4000e0030.2548 0.0321 0.2869 0.0874 0.0295 0.1169 0.0000 122.7042 122.7042 0.0397 0.0000 123.6964 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5700e0031.1000e0030.0122 3.0000e0053.5800e0032.0000e0053.6000e0039.5000e0042.0000e0059.7000e0040.0000 2.8468 2.8468 1.0000e0049.0000e0052.8767 Total 1.5700e0031.1000e0030.0122 3.0000e0053.5800e0032.0000e0053.6000e0039.5000e0042.0000e0059.7000e0040.0000 2.8468 2.8468 1.0000e0049.0000e0052.8767 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2548 0.0000 0.2548 0.0874 0.0000 0.0874 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0747 0.7766 0.6312 1.4000e0030.0321 0.0321 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000 122.7041 122.7041 0.0397 0.0000 123.6962 Total 0.0747 0.7766 0.6312 1.4000e0030.2548 0.0321 0.2869 0.0874 0.0295 0.1169 0.0000 122.7041 122.7041 0.0397 0.0000 123.6962 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.5179 Total 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.5179 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1691 1.5464 1.7462 2.9000e0030.0752 0.0752 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 249.1901 249.1901 0.0593 0.0000 250.6721 Total 0.1691 1.5464 1.7462 2.9000e0030.0752 0.0752 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 249.1901 249.1901 0.0593 0.0000 250.6721 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5500e0030.1017 0.0307 4.6000e0040.0149 6.5000e0040.0156 4.3100e0036.2000e0044.9300e0030.0000 43.8819 43.8819 2.0000e0046.6000e00345.8537 Worker 0.0267 0.0187 0.2075 5.3000e0040.0608 3.2000e0040.0611 0.0162 2.9000e0040.0165 0.0000 48.2848 48.2848 1.6600e0031.5600e00348.7921 Total 0.0292 0.1204 0.2382 9.9000e0040.0757 9.7000e0040.0767 0.0205 9.1000e0040.0214 0.0000 92.1667 92.1667 1.8600e0038.1600e00394.6458 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1691 1.5464 1.7462 2.9000e0030.0752 0.0752 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 249.1898 249.1898 0.0593 0.0000 250.6718 Total 0.1691 1.5464 1.7462 2.9000e0030.0752 0.0752 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 249.1898 249.1898 0.0593 0.0000 250.6718 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0100e0030.1239 0.0365 5.5000e0040.0182 8.0000e0040.0190 5.2600e0037.6000e0046.0200e0030.0000 52.6500 52.6500 2.4000e0047.9100e00355.0130 Worker 0.0298 0.0200 0.2322 6.2000e0040.0741 3.6000e0040.0745 0.0197 3.3000e0040.0200 0.0000 56.8286 56.8286 1.8100e0031.7500e00357.3952 Total 0.0328 0.1439 0.2687 1.1700e0030.0923 1.1600e0030.0934 0.0250 1.0900e0030.0261 0.0000 109.4786 109.4786 2.0500e0039.6600e003112.4082 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.5175 Total 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.5175 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Total 0.1785 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6549 302.6549 0.0711 0.0000 304.4335 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.9400e0030.1229 0.0357 5.4000e0040.0181 7.9000e0040.0189 5.2400e0037.6000e0046.0000e0030.0000 51.5223 51.5223 2.3000e0047.7300e00353.8312 Worker 0.0274 0.0176 0.2129 6.0000e0040.0738 3.4000e0040.0741 0.0196 3.1000e0040.0199 0.0000 54.6911 54.6911 1.6200e0031.6100e00355.2119 Total 0.0303 0.1406 0.2486 1.1400e0030.0919 1.1300e0030.0931 0.0249 1.0700e0030.0259 0.0000 106.2134 106.2134 1.8500e0039.3400e003109.0431 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Total 0.1784 1.6273 2.0991 3.5200e0030.0689 0.0689 0.0648 0.0648 0.0000 302.6545 302.6545 0.0711 0.0000 304.4331 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.3700e0030.0125 0.0161 3.0000e0055.3000e0045.3000e0045.0000e0045.0000e0040.0000 2.3192 2.3192 5.5000e0040.0000 2.3328 Total 1.3700e0030.0125 0.0161 3.0000e0055.3000e0045.3000e0045.0000e0045.0000e0040.0000 2.3192 2.3192 5.5000e0040.0000 2.3328 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e0059.4000e0042.7000e0040.0000 1.4000e0041.0000e0051.4000e0044.0000e0051.0000e0055.0000e0050.0000 0.3875 0.3875 0.0000 6.0000e0050.4049 Worker 1.9000e0041.2000e0041.5200e0030.0000 5.7000e0040.0000 5.7000e0041.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.4051 0.4051 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4088 Total 2.1000e0041.0600e0031.7900e0030.0000 7.1000e0041.0000e0057.1000e0041.9000e0041.0000e0052.0000e0040.0000 0.7927 0.7927 1.0000e0057.0000e0050.8137 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.3700e0030.0125 0.0161 3.0000e0055.3000e0045.3000e0045.0000e0045.0000e0040.0000 2.3192 2.3192 5.5000e0040.0000 2.3328 Total 1.3700e0030.0125 0.0161 3.0000e0055.3000e0045.3000e0045.0000e0045.0000e0040.0000 2.3192 2.3192 5.5000e0040.0000 2.3328 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r---- -I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r---- -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0252 0.2360 0.4009 6.3000e0040.0115 0.0115 0.0106 0.0106 0.0000 55.0530 55.0530 0.0178 0.0000 55.4981 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0252 0.2360 0.4009 6.3000e0040.0115 0.0115 0.0106 0.0106 0.0000 55.0530 55.0530 0.0178 0.0000 55.4981 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1300e0037.0000e0048.8300e0033.0000e0053.2900e0031.0000e0053.3000e0038.7000e0041.0000e0058.9000e0040.0000 2.3537 2.3537 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.3752 Total 1.1300e0037.0000e0048.8300e0033.0000e0053.2900e0031.0000e0053.3000e0038.7000e0041.0000e0058.9000e0040.0000 2.3537 2.3537 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.3752 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0252 0.2360 0.4009 6.3000e0040.0115 0.0115 0.0106 0.0106 0.0000 55.0529 55.0529 0.0178 0.0000 55.4980 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0252 0.2360 0.4009 6.3000e0040.0115 0.0115 0.0106 0.0106 0.0000 55.0529 55.0529 0.0178 0.0000 55.4980 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0500e0036.5000e0048.2400e0032.0000e0053.0700e0031.0000e0053.0800e0038.2000e0041.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 2.1968 2.1968 6.0000e0056.0000e0052.2169 Total 1.0500e0036.5000e0048.2400e0032.0000e0053.0700e0031.0000e0053.0800e0038.2000e0041.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 2.1968 2.1968 6.0000e0056.0000e0052.2169 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 3.3282 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.7000e0030.0315 0.0498 8.0000e0051.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0030.0000 7.0214 7.0214 3.8000e0040.0000 7.0310 Total 3.3329 0.0315 0.0498 8.0000e0051.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0030.0000 7.0214 7.0214 3.8000e0040.0000 7.0310 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-
----
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - --~ - - --1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
----: ---------
1----.---•------·------1----t I
---
-
----
-

I I I I I I
--- ----t-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1
I

I I I I I
----~ --
-------
I
I

I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I
I
I
- - - -~ - - - -1-----1

I I I I I I
====L====

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----· ----· ----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..........................

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ---·r··--r··--

I I I I I I I I I I I I
-
I I ----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I ----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
; ; ; ;c;;; ;c;;;;
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.9375 1.5462 8.6855 0.0196 1.9338 0.0171 1.9509 0.5175 0.0161 0.5336 0.0000 1,814.560 7 1,814.560
7 0.1000 0.0984 1,846.376
3 Unmitigated 0.9375 1.5462 8.6855 0.0196 1.9338 0.0171 1.9509 0.5175 0.0161 0.5336 0.0000 1,814.560 7 1,814.560
7 0.1000 0.0984 1,846.376
3 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 1,859.68 1,879.38 1684.35 5,179,275 5,179,275 User Defined Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1,859.68 1,879.38 1,684.35 5,179,275 5,179,275
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 38.40 22.60 39.00 86 11 3 User Defined Commercial 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.509869 0.051139 0.167106 0.174849 0.031609 0.007996 0.012006 0.015707 0.000636 0.000471 0.023554 0.001465 0.003592 User Defined Commercial 0.509869 0.051139 0.167106 0.174849 0.031609 0.007996 0.012006 0.015707 0.000636 0.000471 0.023554 0.001465 0.003592

5.0 Energy Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ---+ ..

I I I I I I I I
- - - - -t - - . -
----1-. -

I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - --t .... I I I
----1-. -

I I I I I I I I I
- -- --t .... I I
I
--- ..... I I I
I ---1- .. I I I I I I
- ----t---- I
I . I I . I I
-I I
I I I ,__
----1-. -
I I
- ••• • L ••••

I I I I I I I
----·····
----1- ..

I I I I • ... I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - --t ....
----1-. -

I I I I I I I
-I ' I I
--- --~ -- I I I
- ----t---- I I I
-"---1- ...

I I I I I I I I ' I
- ----t---- ,__ - -t - - I I
I
- --t--
- I
I I I I ---1-. - I
- I I I

I I I I
I I - - - --t .... I ' I ' I I .. .. I I I I

I I I I I I I I
----1- ..

I
----
_.,L_ .,__ I
- ----t---- I I I I I I I I I I I ,__ - - - I I ---1-. - - ----t---- -
I
I I I I I I I I I . ·: ..
- I
I I
- - - --t ....
--- - - •• I
I
-

I I I I I
- -- --t ....

I ' I
- I
I I
•• £" ••
I I
- ----t----

I I I I I I
•• - .L ••••
. . . .. . . . .
.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 278.5868 278.5868 0.0235 2.8500e003280.0240 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 278.5868 278.5868 0.0235 2.8500e003280.0240 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0255 0.2182 0.0929 1.3900e0030.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0000 252.6988 252.6988 4.8400e0034.6300e003254.2005 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0255 0.2182 0.0929 1.3900e0030.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0000 252.6988 252.6988 4.8400e0034.6300e003254.2005

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied- - - -~ - - - -~ - - - ·t - . - . I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ .... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ .... I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ .... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 .... l .... l .... L •••• ' ' ' ---------~4444.4444.4444····· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----~ ----~ ----~ -... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ -... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ .... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ -... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ .... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ -... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ .... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ -... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ----~ ----~ ----~ .... I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1
.... l .... l .... L ••••
. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

4.7354e
+006

0.0255 0.2182 0.0929 1.3900e0030.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0000 252.6988 252.6988 4.8400e0034.6300e003254.2005 User Defined
Commercial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0255 0.2182 0.0929 1.3900e0030.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0000 252.6988 252.6988 4.8400e0034.6300e003254.2005 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

4.7354e
+006

0.0255 0.2182 0.0929 1.3900e0030.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0000 252.6988 252.6988 4.8400e0034.6300e003254.2005 User Defined
Commercial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0255 0.2182 0.0929 1.3900e0030.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0176 0.0000 252.6988 252.6988 4.8400e0034.6300e003254.2005 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ---- - - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11
I

I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~ ----1-----11
-----+---4----·----,1----1 I
------

I I I I I
1 I I I I I I
---- ----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11
I I I
I
I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1----1

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11
I

I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----'----
...... 4.4444
I I
1---1---+----L--------~
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11
I

I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~ ----1-----11
-----+---4----·----------

I I I I I
1 I I I I I I
1 ----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11
I I I
I
I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
- - - -~- - - -1----1

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----'----
441414.441414
I I
1---1---+----L--------~

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.57087e
+006
278.5868 0.0235 2.8500e003280.0240
User Defined
Commercial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 278.5868 0.0235 2.8500e003280.0240
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.57087e
+006
278.5868 0.0235 2.8500e003280.0240
User Defined
Commercial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 278.5868 0.0235 2.8500e003280.0240
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied --- - - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I I
- - - - - - - -1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----·----
...... 4 ....... 4
I I
1---1---+----L----1---~
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----·----
441414.441414
I I
1---1---+----L----1---~
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.7703 0.0905 1.4935 5.5000e0040.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 87.7313 87.7313 3.9300e0031.5600e00388.2957 Unmitigated 2.4962 0.1981 8.0859 0.0221 1.0895 1.0895 1.0895 1.0895 144.0018 87.7313 231.7330 0.6771 1.5600e003249.1270 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied -
-
--- --··t····

I I I I I I
----~ ----

I I I I I I
•••• L ••••
'
----
.. ---•----····· I
------
-
--

I I I I I I
----~ ----

I I I I I I
----L .... . . . .. . . . .

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.3328 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.3849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.7345 0.1812 6.6238 0.0220 1.0814 1.0814 1.0814 1.0814 144.0018 85.3419 229.3437 0.6748 1.5600e003246.6803 Landscaping 0.0440 0.0169 1.4621 8.0000e0058.1000e0038.1000e0038.1000e0038.1000e0030.0000 2.3894 2.3894 2.2900e0030.0000 2.4467 Total 2.4962 0.1981 8.0859 0.0221 1.0895 1.0895 1.0895 1.0895 144.0018 87.7313 231.7330 0.6771 1.5600e003249.1270 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ---·r····r··--r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ••• _I ••• _I ••• _I ••••
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
----·----·----·----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----~----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ---·r····r··--r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ----r--·-r··--r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------
I I I ----r--·-r··--r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -
I I I ----r--·-r··--r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I ----r--·-r··--r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ••• _I ••• _I ••• _I •••• . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.3328 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.3849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 8.6200e0030.0737 0.0314 4.7000e0045.9600e0035.9600e0035.9600e0035.9600e0030.0000 85.3419 85.3419 1.6400e0031.5600e00385.8490 Landscaping 0.0440 0.0169 1.4621 8.0000e0058.1000e0038.1000e0038.1000e0038.1000e0030.0000 2.3894 2.3894 2.2900e0030.0000 2.4467 Total 1.7703 0.0905 1.4935 5.5000e0040.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 87.7313 87.7313 3.9300e0031.5600e00388.2957 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ----~ ----~ ----~ ----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ---·r····r··--r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ••• _I ••• _I ••• _I ••••
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
----·----·----·----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- ----~----~----~----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ----r----r----r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ---·r····r··--r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I ----r--·-r··--r----

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
I I I ----r----r----r----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ••• _I ••• _I ••• _I •••• . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 21.4118 0.4197 0.0101 34.9001
Unmitigated 21.4118 0.4197 0.0101 34.9001

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

12.8353 /

8.09185

21.4118 0.4197 0.0101 34.9001
User Defined
Commercial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 21.4118 0.4197 0.0101 34.9001
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied -
- - - - -t - - - -

I I I I I I
----t----

I I I I I
1 ----t----

I I I I I
1 •••••••••
----~----·1---~

I I I I I
I
----~ ---_,._ __ _.

I I I I I I
----~ ---_,._ __ _.

I I I I I I
- - - _I - - - - 44 _____ 44 ....

I
____ ._ __ .. ____ L----•1---~

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

12.8353 /

8.09185

21.4118 0.4197 0.0101 34.9001
User Defined
Commercial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 21.4118 0.4197 0.0101 34.9001
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 48.2307 2.8504 0.0000 119.4894
Unmitigated 48.2307 2.8504 0.0000 119.4894
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied -- - - - -~ - - - -1----1

I I I I I
I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
----'----
...... 4_ ...... 4
I 1-------•----L----1---~
-
-
-
- - - ·t - - - -

I I I I I I
----t----

I I I I I
1 iiiiiiii.iiiiiiii
----t----

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
237.6 48.2307 2.8504 0.0000 119.4894
User Defined
Commercial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 48.2307 2.8504 0.0000 119.4894
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
237.6 48.2307 2.8504 0.0000 119.4894
User Defined
Commercial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 48.2307 2.8504 0.0000 119.4894
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied --
----~----1-----1
I I
I
I I I
----~----1----1

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
.;.;.;.;1.;.;.;.;
I
1---t---~----L•-••t---1
- - - -~ - - - -1----1
I I
I
I I I
- - - -~- - - -1----1

I I I I I I
----~----1-----11

I I I I I I
.;.;.;.;~.;.;.;.;
I
1---t---~----L•-••t---1

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 38 Date: 4/6/2022 9:53 AM Fulton Estates - Tulare County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

APPENDIX B
California Natural Diversity Data Base Species List
CNDDB Quad Species List 9 records.

Eternent
Type
Scl1:inEfic
Mama
Animals - ; ; Buteo
Birds i, swainsoni
.Animals - :: Lanius
: Birds ludovicianus
Animals - · Athene
Birds : cunicularia
1:-===-
Animals - Andrena
, Insects · r macswaini
. Vulpes Animals - ! : macrotis
Mammals ,_ mutica
_ . 1 , Dipodomys · Arnma s - nitratoides
Mammals nitratoides
Plants - Lasthenia
·Vascular chrysantha
Plants - -Pseudobahia
Vascular ,peirsonii
. Plants - Caulanthus
. Vascular · califomicus
CA
Common
N.-:!O''H?.

Eie,nent
Code
Fectera; State
Status
CDi=\fif R~ne Qi;ad
St.att.}s p ·ant (~-och:·
Quad
~Jam0
TaAO:fiOiTtk~
Sert
; · Swainson's : ABNKC19070 None ·hawk
loggerhead ABPBR01030 None
' shrike
burrowing
owl ABNSB10010 None
An andrenid ' IIHYM35130 None
bee
Threatened -
None SSC
None SSC
None
San Joaquin AMAJA03041 _ Endangered Threatened - . kit fox Tipton AMAFD03152 Endangered Endangered - kangaroo rat
alkali-sink
goldfields
San Joaquin
adobe
sunburst
California
jewelflower
PDAST5L030 None None
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered -
: PDBRA31010 • Endangered Endangered -

18.1 1B.1
1B.1
-3611923 TULARE Mapped
_.
·:Animals-
. Birds -
. _Accipitridae -
'Buteo
swainsoni
Animals -
Birds -
3611923 TULARE Unprocessed Laniidae -
Lanius
3611923 TULARE
. ludovicianus
,• AnimalsBirds -
Unprocessed , Strigidae -
'Athene
cunicularia
Animals -
3611923 TULARE Mapped
, Insects -
Andrenidae -
Andrena
3611923 TULARE Mapped
' 3611923 TULARE Unprocessed
3611923 TULARE Mapped
3611923 •TULARE Mapped
3611923 :TULARE . Mapped
. macswaini
Animals-
. Mammals-
: Canidae -
.' Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
· Animals-
.Mammals -
Heteromyidae
- Dipodomys
nitratoides
, nitratoides
Plants -
'Vascular -
Asteraceae -
Lasthenia
c~ry~antha_
Plants -
VascularAsteraceae -
Pseudobahia
peirsonii
Plants -
Vascular -
Brassicaceae '
- Caulanthus
californicus

APPENDIX C
Taylored Archaeological Technical Memo
1 6083 N Figarden Dr., Ste. 616, Fresno, CA 93722
559.797.1572 / [email protected]

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: February 25, 2022
To: Darlene Mata, Environmental Consultant, DR Mata Consulting From: Consuelo Sauls, MA, RPA, Taylored Archaeology
Subject: Cultural Resources Records Search Results Technical Memorandum for Fulton Estates Tentative Subdivision Map Project, City of Tulare, Tulare County, California Introduction
The Fulton Estates Tentative Subdivision Map Project (Project) consists of a residential subdivision, General Plan Amendment 2022-01, Zone Amendment 2022-748, and Annexation No. 2022-01 located in the City of Tulare, California. The Project is currently in unincorporated Tulare County. The proposed Project will develop a 197-lot single family subdivision and related improvements. The Project is currently undergoing environmental evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the City of Tulare serving as lead agency.

Project Location
The proposed Project is located at the southwest corner of East Tulare Avenue/Highway 137 and North Oakmore Street in unincorporated Tulare County, California (Attachment A). The Project boundary is approximately 38.06 acres of rural residential and agricultural land at 3461 East Tulare Avenue on Tulare County Assessor’s Parcel Number 172-030-010 (Project boundary/area). The Project boundary is visible in Township 20 South, Range 25 East, Section 7 on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute series Tulare, California topographic quadrangle map (Attachment A).

Methodology
In order to research potential cultural resources within the Project vicinity, Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resources records search from the Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), at California State University, Bakersfield and reviewed said records in relationship to the Project area. The records search covered the Project area and all land within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project and included a review of the following: the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, the National Register of Historic Places, the California Registry of Historic Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California State Historic Resources Inventory and a review of cultural resources reports on file with the SSJVIC.

Records Search Results
The SSJVIC provided the results of cultural resources records search (File No. 22-070) on February 21, 2022, for the Fulton Estates TSM Project (Attachment B). _A__ Taylored
~ Archaeology
2 6083 N Figarden Dr., Ste. 616, Fresno, CA 93722
559.797.1572 / [email protected]
Previous Studies
The records results indicated two prior cultural resource investigation studies were conducted within the Project area as shown in Table 1 (Mitchell 1957, William Self Associates 1995). Further review of Mitchell 1957 revealed it to only be a narrative book account of the 1851 Mariposa War and not relevant to the Project area. William Self Associates 1995 is a literature review and cultural resource records search. No archaeological pedestrian survey was conducted was part of the William Self Associates 1995 report. A review of the records results revealed no previous archaeological pedestrian surveys within the Project boundary.

Table 1
Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports within the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00041 Self, William 1995 Class I Overview Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P. Proposed Concord to Colton
Pipeline Project
Literature
Review; No
survey of
Project area
TU-01190 Mitchell, Annie R. 1957 Jim Savage and the Tulareño Indians Book; No survey of
Project area
Three previous cultural resource studies were conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area as shown in Table 2 (Schiffman 1987; Parr 2008; and Leach-Palm et. Al 2010).

Table 2
Previous Cultural Resource Investigation Reports 0.5-mile radius of the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00458 Schiffman, Robert A. 1987 Archaeological Investigation for Ranch Acres No.2, Tulare County, California
Archaeological
Field Survey
TU-01353 Parr, Robert E. 2008 Archaeological Survey of 16 Deteriorated Power Poles on Southern California Edison
Company Skinkle, Gillette, Sunset, Granite,
Sargent, Zante, Cattle, and Hack, 12kV
Circuits, Tulare County, California
Archaeological
Field Survey
3 6083 N Figarden Dr., Ste. 616, Fresno, CA 93722
559.797.1572 / [email protected]
Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-01498 Leach-Palm, Laura,
Brandy, Paul, King, Jay,
Mikkelsen, Pat, Seil,
Libby, Hartman, Lindsay
and Bradeen, Jill
2010 Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans
District 6 Rural Conventional Highways in
Fresno, Western Kern, Kings, Madera, and
Tulare Counties
Archaeological
and
Architectural
History Field
Survey
The SSVJIC records search revealed no evidence of recorded cultural resources in the Project boundary, nor within a 0.5-miles radius of the Project area.

Conclusion
Based on the results of the SSJVIC records search, no evidence was found that the Project boundary has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. There are no cultural resources recorded on, or within a

0.5-miles radius of, the Project boundary. Based upon the limited information available, the chance of encountering subsurface archaeological or historical resources on the Project boundary is undetermined.

In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological remains during development or grounddisturbing activities on the Project boundary, the Project contractor should stop work in the immediate vicinity and follow the City of Tulare 2035 General Plan Policy COS-P5.9 (Discovery of Archaeological Resources) as shown in Attachment C. If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Project contractor should immediately contact the Tulare County Coroner and follow City of Tulare 2035 General Plan Policy COS-P5.10 (Discovery of Human Remains) as shown in Attachment C.

Sincerely,
Consuelo Sauls, MA, RPA
Archaeologist
Attachment A: Project Maps
Attachment B: Records Search Results Letter
Attachment C: City of Tulare 2035 General Plan Policies _A Taylored
~ ~Archaeology

ATTACHMENT A
Project Maps
Figure 1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California.

M .:1cle ra
.,.
almga
Avenal
'335ft
l.:.Jrl J
N
A
Fr sno
L n oore
K1n9
~-
?920tr
C .-n1ion Pfa 1n
N on .. l\.lonum-nt
0 5
--
10 20
V 1s allo
Porte 1lle
e lo,
.....
s
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, lntermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAQ, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, K'tidaster
NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri CJ\ina (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
30 Miles
40 Figure 2 Project location on the USGS Tulare, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle. .,,
.. "
,.do
----·'
·-----'-
Figure 3 Aerial view of the Project boundary.

Fulton Estates

ATTACHMENT B
Records Search Results Letter
2/21/2022

Consuelo Sauls
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Dr. Ste. 616
Fresno, CA 93722

Re: Fulton Estates TSM
Records Search File No.: 22-070
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Tulare USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS data
Resources within project area: None
Resources within 0.5 mile radius: None
Reports within project area: TU-00041, 01190
Reports within 0.5 mile radius: TU-00458, 01353, 01498
Note:

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

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

California
Historical
R esources
Information
~ ys t e rn
Fresno
Kern
King s
Mader a
Tular e
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
California State University, Bakersfield
Mail Stop: 72 DOB
9001 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, California 93311-1022
(661) 654-2289
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.csub.edu/ssjvic
Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/cultural-studies/california-historical-bridges-tunnels Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1 and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Jeremy E David
Assistant Coordinator

ATTACHMENT C
City of Tulare 2035 General Plan Policies

CONSERVATION AND OPE N SPACE ELEMENT
4-14 CITY OF TULARE GENERAL PLAN 2035
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.

COS-P5.7 State Historic Building Code. The City shall utilize the State Historic Building Code for designated properties.

COS-P5.8 Design Compatibility with Historic Structures. The City shall ensure design compatibility of new development within close proximity to designated historic structures and neighborhoods.

COS-P5.9 Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are discovered during site excavation, grading, or construction, the City shall require that work on the site be suspended within 100 feet of the resource until the significance of the features can be determined by a qualified archaeologist /paleontologist. If significant resources are determined to exist, an archaeologist shall make recommendations for protection or recovery of the resource. City staff shall consider such recommendations and implement them where they are feasible in light of project design as previously approved by the City.

CONSERVATION AND OPE N SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF TULARE GENERAL PLAN 2035 4-15
♦ The Tulare County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
♦ If the remains are of Native American origin,
- The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a timely recommendation to the landowner or the
person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
- The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission, or
- The landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects any timely recommendations of the descendent, and mediation conducted by the Native American Heritage
Commission has failed to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

COS-P5.13 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. The City shall permit development in these areas only after a site specific investigation has been conducted pursuant to CEQA to define the extent and value of re- January 26, 2022
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe
Rueben Barrios Sr., Chairperson
P.O. Box 8
Lemoore, CA 93245

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, SB 18 Tribal Consultation Government Code §65352.3 and, AB 52 §21080.3.1 Dear Tribal Chairperson:

The City of Tulare has begun to process the following applications: Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-01 - Fulton Estates, General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01, Zone Amendment No. 748, and Annexation No 22-01. The proposed project would develop a 197-lot single family residential subdivision and related improvements. The proposed project would also change the existing General Plan designations on a portion of the subject property located at the southwest comer of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Oakmore Street from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial in order to accommodate future commercial development of a portion of the site. In order to facilitate the development, the proposed project would annex an approximately 38.48-acre area into the City limits of the City of Tulare. The project would also pre-zone the proposed annexation area from the existing AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive, 20- acre parcel size) (County) to the R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and C-3 (Retail Commercial) zone districts. The project site is located on the southwest comer of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Oakmore Street (APN 172-030-010).

The Project site is within the Tulare USGS quadrangle. It is located in Section 7, Township 20S, Range 25E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (BDM&M). An aerial image of the project site has been included (attached).

In compliance with SB 18 and AB 52, and pursuant to Government Code §65352.3 and 21080.3.1 this Department is requesting your review and comments on the potential impacts on cultural places associated with your tribe by this proposal. Your participation is important at this early stage of processing to ensure that cultural places important to your tribe are identified, and the potential impacts associated with implementation of the project are mitigated. 411 E. Kem Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov If you have not responded by April 27, 2022, this Department will assume your tribe has declined consultation as per Government Code §65352.3. Notification of the availability of public hearing notices will continue to be provided, even if consultation is declined.

Should you have any comments or questions please contact me at (559) 684-4216 or at [email protected].

Enclosures: Aerial Image
Site Plan
411 E. Kem Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov January 26, 2022
Tubatulabals of Kem Valley
Robert L. Gomez, Jr., Tribal Chairperson
P.O. Box226
Lake Isabella, CA 93240

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, SB 18 Tribal Consultation Government Code §65352.3
Dear Tribal Chairperson:

In compliance with SB 18 pursuant to Government Code §65352.3, this Department is requesting your review and comments on the potential impacts on cultural places associated with your tribe by this proposal. Your participation is important at this early stage of processing to ensure that cultural places important to your tribe are identified, and the potential impacts associated with implementation of the project are mitigated. 411 E. Kem Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov If you have not responded by April 27, 2022, this Department will assume your tribe has declined consultation as per Government Code §65352.3. Notification of the availability of public hearing notices will continue to be provided, even if consultation is declined.

Should you have any comments or questions please contact me at (559) 684-4216 or at [email protected]. gov.

Steven Sopp
Senior Planner
Enclosures: Aerial Image
Site Plan
411 E. Kem Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov January 26, 2022
Tule River Indian Tribe
Neil Peyron, Chairperson
P.O. Box 589
Porterville, CA 93257

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, SB 18 Tribal Consultation Government Code §65352.3
Dear Tribal Chairperson:

The City of Tulare has begun to process the following applications: Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-01 - Fulton Estates, General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01, Zone Amendment No. 748, and Annexation No 22-01. The proposed project would develop a 197-lot single family residential subdivision and related improvements. The proposed project would also change the existing General Plan designations on a portion of the subject property located at the southwest comer of Tulare A venue (SR-13 7) and Oakmore Street from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial in order to accommodate future commercial development of a portion of the site. In order to facilitate the development, the proposed project would annex an approximately 38.48-acre area into the City limits of the City of Tulare. The project would also pre-zone the proposed annexation area from the existing AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive, 20- acre parcel size) (County) to the R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and C-3 (Retail Commercial) zone districts. The project site is located on the southwest comer of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Oakmore Street (APN 172-030-010).

Should you have any comments or questions please contact me at (559) 684-4216 or at tulare.ca. ov.

Steven Sopp
Senior Planner
Enclosures: Aerial Image
Site Plan
411 E. Kem Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
January 26, 2022
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
11 79 Rock Haven Ct.

Salinas, CA 93906
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, SB 18 Tribal Consultation Government Code §65352.3
Dear Tribal Chairperson:

The City of Tulare has begun to process the following applications: Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-01 - Fulton Estates, General Plan Amendment No. 2022-01, Zone Amendment No. 748, and Annexation No 22-01. The proposed project would develop a 197-lot single family residential subdivision and related improvements. The proposed project would also change the existing General Plan designations on a portion of the subject property located at the southwest corner of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Oakmore Street from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial in order to accommodate future commercial development of a portion of the site. In order to facilitate the development, the proposed project would annex an approximately 38.48-acre area into the City limits of the City of Tulare. The project would also pre-zone the proposed annexation area from the existing AE-20 (Agricultural Exclusive, 20- acre parcel size) (County) to the R-1-5 (Single-family Residential, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and C-3 (Retail Commercial) zone districts. The project site is located on the southwest comer of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Oakmore Street (APN 172-030-010).

In compliance with SB 18 pursuant to Government Code §65352.3, this Department is requesting your review and comments on the potential impacts on cultural places associated with your tribe by this proposal. Your participation is important at this early stage of processing to ensure that cultural places important to your tribe are identified, and the potential impacts associated with implementation of the project are mitigated. 411 E. Kern Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov If you have not responded by April 27, 2022, this Department will assume your tribe has declined consultation as per Government Code §65352.3. Notification of the availability of public hearing notices will continue to be provided, even if consultation is declined.

Should you have any comments or questions please contact me at (559) 684-4216 or at tulare.ca. ov.

Steven Sopp
Senior Planner
Enclosures: Aerial Image
Site Plan
411 E. Kem Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov January 26, 2022
Kem Valley Indian Community
Julie Turner, Secretary
P.O. Box 1010
Lake Isabella, CA 93240

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, SB 18 Tribal Consultation Government Code §65352.3
Dear Tribal Chairperson:

Should you have any comments or questions please contact me at (559) 684-4216 or at tulare.ca.

Steven Sopp
Senior Planner
Enclosures: Aerial Image
Site Plan
411 E. Kem Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov January 26, 2022
Kem Valley Indian Community
Robert Robinson
P.O. Box 1010
Lake Isabella, CA 93240

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, SB 18 Tribal Consultation Government Code §65352.3
Dear Tribal Chairperson:

Should you have any comments or questions please contact me at (559) 684-4216 or at [email protected].

Jv
Enclosures: Aerial Image
Site Plan
411 E. Kem Avenue • Tulare, California 93274 • 559.684.4217 • www.ci.tulare.ca.gov

=--
=
~. J1.
~
..
.I',
JI,
,if.
.!'.
.

J!,
r.
.?.
~
,P,
J!.
.!:.
"~ ..

M
.!I.
.!'.

J!.
\J =
' .J.
::.
...

I
... ".
!u
~
f;;

TIJLARE A VENUE
=----..

L =-l~ .£. ~ .:;. , " ;:!. ::.

I
!,-rR.EJ..'T ·
~ J.'t ~ ~ . .In .!!!. m .!:!
;in ,I,!~ .It: ~ .I::, ll! I.!!. ,U?.
'
.!!!. 12! , .. ~ - ~ .!lt jg .!I:
$_ ::. ~ .s ~
i.•. .!!.~ ffe .l!L ~ fA ~ ~ ~ .12\ 8 J:. .:,, .!!. .I.'". ::. Ji. " .m
[:I ' .:. /.IL , ,P.

Il ~ ,J. " j.~ .!!?
' J/, II
,i..
.J.~ I/ .!). ». .r,. .f. J/.
--· TULARE A VENUE
/
~- J:. •-£~~?;_ .!..'! ~ m !!! -~ ;i~~
:: .
~ .!.U "' ,., ~!. ::. ,!!. ::.

STREET
~ JI> .!!!. .., ,!!! , . .!2. !!! "' - -- ~
~ 2 .!l!. ~ l!!
~ .!!I .IS & ~ Jl,
t: ~ ,a!t. ~ !.~ .u ::,
0 8 u ~ ,L'i .., !)!
- '" ~ .l!\ ~
STREET
;.'! "" ,!!I "' "' m .!l: IP. ~ "' - - -- -·
~ .Ul .'!?. .l!! IA .!.'t .!Jl ,~ ,ll: !I!.

STREET
J1. .l!. .f. .I'. ~. J.'.. !!. ;; J:. !!.
rC-3
!ii
~ "' ~7 i;l .. 0
~ ~ I ,!!, -----..::-;:
~t.
.!!.
-
v-·
:!,
~ 7 .?' •
I;; l/. I ~
"' .:. i;l
0 "' ~ .,_
~~l .!-1.
~
"
J1. ,P, ..!:.
+.-.~4 .

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION FOR
FULTON EST ATES i\J~Re GAI..IFORNIA
OWNER
_.,,.,.,,,,

DEVELOPER
PROJECT INFO ~ 1
~~,:,,-~...,-mu/Veo~•~
TOT,.,._~, " •<W"> >c,.

RE!510fHflM./>REA,"b2/'C..
~,t,,ReA, 2-b61<..
0<:I.T, o,tZ,v~u..DI~
~ wt-.~~ l"LOODZOte, X
TOT,.,._ LOT$ l'f1
~::;;:;;,.5000 11W I0)-16 1-\A.X
OEHSITY, 5S?l ~AG.
-~
~ ~ OAKMORESTR.EET' -- • II
~ , I ' r-- J ,, 12.:_ ~,. ., -~,&.-
TULARE A VENUE f_SR-137)
~lW]
0 i
zi ..., I
~ o
w;
w ~ z!
....
o~
z;
w <
~;
I I
~ ~ ir: CJ)
fr w
z IQ <l:

CJ) I-• ~ oo!
o w~ ID " ::::)
CJ) Zlil
> w 03 ;a
j::: I- i _J
z :J ~ IL
D
~~ITE ]

APPENDIX D
Traffic Impact Study
Traffic Evaluation And
Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California

DRAFT REPORT
May 2022
Submitted to the
City of Tulare
411 E. Kern St.

Tulare, Ca. 93274
Prepared for:

Greg Nunley
Quest Equity, LLC
1878 N. Mooney Blvd., Suite J
Tulare, CA 93274
Prepared by
C2 Consult Corp
1401 Wewatta St., Suite 516
Denver, C. 80202
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
This report and the data contained herein have been prepared expressly for the purposes of this project. The use of this data, the conclusions contained in the report or the information provided herein by individuals or agencies is done so at their sole discretion and at their own responsibility. Publication of this document does not warrant the use of the data, the conclusions or the information for any purpose other than that described within this report.

Traffic Evaluation And
Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California

DRAFT REPORT
May 2022
Prepared for:

Greg Nunley
Quest Equity, LLC
1878 N. Mooney Blvd., Suite J
Tulare, CA 93274
Prepared by:

C2 Consult Corp
1401 Wewatta St., Suite 516
Denver, Co 80202
Charles Clouse, Principal
C:\Users\charl\OneDrive\Desktop\C2 Consult\Projects\1341.9 Nunley Development - Fulton Estates\Fulton Estates TIS.doc Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
i | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION………………………………………...……………1
CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING CONDITONS…………………………………..………….4
CHAPTER 3 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION……………………………………………11
CHAPTER 4 – CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT ………………………..………...…14 CHAPTER 5 – VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED
ASSESSMENT……………………………………..………….17

APPENDISES
APPENDIX A – EXISTING CONDITIONS – LEVEL OF SERVICE
CALCULATIONS …………………………………………….25
APPENDIX B – EXISTING CONDITIONS – PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ………………..………………………………….28
APPENDIX C – EXISTING PLUS FULTON ESTATES CONDITIONS –
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS ..………………….30
APPENDIX D – EXISTING PLUS FULTON ESTATES CONDITIONS –
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ………….….33
APPENDIX E – EXISTING PLUS FULTON ESTATES CONDITIONS –

MITIGATED LEVEL OF SERVICE
CALCULATIONS ………………………...………………….35
APPENDIX F – TCAG TRAFFIC MODEL DATA………………………………….40
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
1 | P a g e
Traffic Evaluation And
Vehicle Miles Travelled Assessment
for the Fulton Estates Project
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Study Purpose
The Fulton Estates Mixed Use Project, also known as, the Fulton Estates Project is located in Tulare, California. The project is composed of retail and residential uses. The project occupies approximately 38 acres and lies at the southwest corner of the intersection of Tulare Avenue (State Route 137) and Oakmore Street. Figure 1 shows a vicinity map of the area around the development site, while Figure 5 shows the Fulton Estates site plan.

Study Area
The City of Tulare requested the following items to be evaluated as part of this study. 1) The intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR 137) and Oakmore Street 2) The Vehicle Miles Traveled associated with the Project Traffic Model
For the purposes of evaluating the Fulton Estates Project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled impacts, the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) Regional Traffic Model was used. The Regional Traffic Model was selected after consultation with the City of Tulare and TCAG. This tool provides the best and most reasonable evaluations in Tulare County as it can provide baseline regional vehicle miles traveled data and predict changes in regional vehicle miles traveled as a result of a proposed land use. This model is also used for long range multi-modal transportation planning, community circulation element preparation and air quality analysis. This allows the Fulton Estates Project to be evaluated in the context of both Tulare and regional long-range plans and programs.

C
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
2 | P a g e
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map
Fulton Estates Site
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
3 | P a g e
FIGURE 2: Project Location Fulton Estates Site
Oakmore Street
Tulare Ave. (SR 137)
Mooney Blvd. (SR 63)
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
4 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING CONDITONS
Roadways
Tulare Avenue (SR 137)
Is a state highway which connects Tulare with Lindsay to the east. The highway in this location is a two-lane conventional highway. Directly to the west the highway is developed as a four-lane divided arterial between Mooney Boulevard (State Route 63) and State Route 99 within the City of Tulare.

Oakmore Street (Road 124)
Is designated by the City of Tulare as an arterial street in the City’s Circulation Element.

Analysis Scenarios
This study evaluated the following scenarios at the study intersection:
• Existing Conditions
• Existing Conditions plus the Fulton Estates Project
• Existing Conditions plus the Fulton Estates Project (Mitigated) Study Intersections
The study area for analyzing traffic impacts includes one intersection, Tulare Avenue (SR 137) at Oakmore Street. The intersection location and the site location are shown in Figure 2.

Traffic Counts
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Traffic Impact Analyses for Site Development, the overall purpose of a traffic impact study is to determine the project impacts that are likely to occur to the surrounding street system. In order to accomplish this, analysts need to determine what occurs when the peak of the project generated traffic is combined with the peak of the surrounding street traffic. The publication states that “peak periods [of adjacent streets and highways] are generally the weekday morning (7-9 a.m.) and evening (4-6 p.m.) peak hours, although local area characteristics occasionally result in other peaks (e.g., at major shopping or recreational centers). In order to accommodate these analyses, traffic counts were collected during weekdays during the morning hours of 7:00 to 9:00 AM and the afternoon hours of 3:30 to 5:30 PM.

On April 26, 2022, C2 completed traffic counts between 7am and 9am and 4pm and 6pm at the designated intersection. That traffic data suggested that the peak hours were generally from 7:30 to 8:30am and from 3:30 to 4:30pm. These hours coincide with the operation of both Mission Oaks High School and the College of the Sequoias campuses located on Bardsley Avenue approximately 1 mile south of the Fulton Estates Project site. The existing AM and PM traffic counts at the study intersection are shown in Figure 3.

Analysis Methodology
All level of service analyses performed for this study conform to the practices of the Highway Capacity Manual, and were done using the traffic analysis software HCS (unsignalized) or Synchro 7 (signalized). For signalized intersections, this software allows for optimization of signal timings to minimize traffic delay at each intersection. This process can result in different signal cycle lengths for both the AM and PM peak hours of a given analysis scenario and may also vary between different scenarios. This optimization somewhat reflects traffic agency procedure whereby intersection signal C
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
5 | P a g e
cycle lengths are adjusted for differing traffic conditions and times, based on counts of existing traffic volume.

For analysis purposes, HCM 2010 defines six levels of service for various facility types. The six levels are given letter designations ranging from “A” to “F”, with “A” representing the best operating conditions and “F” the worst. Quantifiable measures of effectiveness that best describe the quality of operation on the subject facility type are used to determine the facilities level of service. For the case of both signalized and unsignalized intersections, the quantifiable measure of effectiveness is average control delay.1
Control delay for two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections, which have stop signs on only the minor street approaches, is on a per-vehicle basis and is computed for the stop-controlled, minorstreet movements and major street left turn movements only, because major-street through movements are theoretically in continual free-flow conditions and therefore experience no delay.

Since there is no aggregation of delay for a TWSC intersection, there is no level of service for an intersection as a whole, but only levels of service for individual minor-street and major-street left turn movements.

The following table shows level of service ratings and their corresponding ranges of average control delay for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections, it also contains a general description of traffic flow associated with each level of service. 1 Control delay, according to the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, page 16-1, includes initial acceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.

C
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
6 | P a g e

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Allowable Delay
Signalized Unsignalized1
Level
of
Service Conditions
Signalized Intersection
Description
Delay
(sec/veh)
Delay
(sec/veh)
“A” Free Flow
Users experience very low delay. Progression
is favorable and most vehicles do not stop at
all.
<10.0 <10.0
“B” Stable
Operations
Vehicles travel with good progression. Some
vehicles stop, causing slight delay.
>10.0 –

20.0 >10.0 – 15.0
“C” Stable
Operations
Higher delays result from fair progression. A
significant number of vehicles stop, although
many continue to pass through the intersection
without stopping.
>20.0 to

35.0 >15.0 – 25.0
“D”
Approachin
g
Unstable
Congestion is noticeable. Progression is
unfavorable, with more vehicles stopping
rather than passing through the intersection.
>35.0 –

55.0 >25.0 – 35.0
“E” Unstable
Operations
Traffic volumes are at capacity. Users
experience poor progression and long delays.
>55.0 –

80.0 >35.0 – 50.0
“F” Forced Flow
Intersection’s capacity is oversaturated,
causing poor progression and unusually long
delays.
>80.0 >50.0
Source: Chapters 16 and 18, Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. 1Unsignalizedintersections include TWSC and AWSC
Level of service for each study intersection in the various analysis scenarios are summarized in tables throughout the report. For signalized intersections, the level of service rating shown represents the overall level of service for the intersection as a whole. For stop-controlled intersections, the level of service rating shown is for each individual traffic movement (excluding major-street through movements) instead of the entire intersection.

Level of Service Standard
The City of Tulare policy is to maintain Level of Service of “D,” as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council), as the minimum desirable service level at which freeways, arterial streets, collector streets and their intersections should operate.

Per its Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS ‘C’ and LOS ‘D’ on State Highway facilities. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State Highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing measures of effectiveness should be maintained.” This standard will apply to the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR 137) at Oakmore Street.

Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
7 | P a g e
11 31
0 AM Peak Hour 455
36 Tulare Ave (SR 137)
3 362
204
Oakmore
69 2
15 310
1 PM Peak Hour 510
18 Tulare Ave (SR 137)
6 440
86 Oakmore
95 1
12 FIGURE 3: Existing Traffic Counts
+
J L
) t
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
8 | P a g e
Existing Conditions (2022)
Existing levels of service at the
study intersection were assessed
using the current lane
configurations, which are limited
to one-lane approaches for all four
legs and using the existing
weekday peak hour traffic
volumes (shown in Figure 3).

Level of service for existing
conditions is summarized in Table

1. Calculations for the existing
conditions are included in
Appendix A.

Based on the existing conditions
assessment, the intersection is currently operating above the Caltrans level of service target standard of C/D with the exception of the northbound approach. That approach is operating at a level of service “D” in the AM peak hour and at “E” in the PM peak hour. This reduced level of service is primarily due to the relationship between the northbound left turn movements and the volumes on the eastbound and westbound approaches.

Signal Warrants
Peak hour traffic signal warrant (Warrant 3, part B) was also prepared for the study intersection.

Based on the exiting peak hour traffic volumes, the warrant is currently met at the unsignalized intersection in the Existing Conditions scenario. This warrant analysis was limited to the peak hour volume warrant only and other conditions may exist which meet other traffic signal warrants. Copies of the warrant analyses are included in Appendix B. Caltrans does not deem the attainment of a single traffic signal warrant as cause for the installation of a traffic signal. Caltrans views that as one of a number of considerations for the warranting of a traffic signal. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. See Appendix B for Warrant 3.

Transit
Tulare is currently served by Tulare
Regional Transit services, which
operates 6 fixed routes, 1 express
bus (to/from Visalia) and dial-a-ride
service within the community. The
hours of operation are Monday
through Friday from 6:15am to
9:15pm, Saturday from 8:15am to
6:15pm and on Sunday from
8:15am to 6:15pm. The routes serve
Tulare and Visalia as well as
connections with Tulare County
Area Transit (TCaT), and Visalia
Table 1:

Existing Conditions
Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Vehicle
Delay LOS
Vehicle
Delay LOS
Tulare Ave (SR 137) at
Oakmore Street
Eastbound approach 8.3 A 8.5 A
Westbound approach 8.8 A 8.6 A
Northbound approach 29.2 D 38.1 E
Southbound approach 14.4 B 12.4 B
~ : ua•.11 Jllffl rrE.n General Public $1.25 $1.50
Children (five and younger w/ fare-paying adult) Free Free Senior/ADA/Medicare Cardholder $1.25 $0.75
Fixed-Route Personal Care Attendant (with ADA passenger) Free Free Monthly General Pass $40.00 $40.00
Monthly Senior/ADNMedicare Pass (60 and over) $33.00 $20.00 Monthly Student Pass $33.00 $33.00
Trip Tickets (book of 20) $25.00 $30.00
General Public S2.50 $3.25
ADA-Certified $2.00 $2.00
ADA Attendant Free Free
Dial•A·Ride Children (seven and younger w/ fare~paying adult) $1.25 $1.25 Children without fare-paying adult $2.25 $2.50
Trip Tickets (book of 10) $25.00 $32.50
ADA Trip Tickets (book of 10) $20.00 $20.00
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
9 | P a g e
Transit (VT). The service does not operate on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day.

Two types of fares can be chosen, regular- and discount- fare. For a local weekday trip the regular fare is $1.50 and the discount fare is $0.75. Discounts are given to people 18 years and under, people 65 years and older, Individuals with disabilities, Medicare Card holders, and Veterans. Tickets can be obtained using Cash, GoPasses, GoCards, and Courtesy Cards. The Monterey Transit operates from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

One route, Route 7 is the route providing service to east Tulare. This route is located on Morrison approximately 900 feet west of the Project. Access to the Route is provided via Tulare Avenue, as well as, through local street connections on the western edge of the residential area. Figure 4 shows the relationship of the Fulton Estates Project to Route 7.

C
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
10 | P a g e
FIGURE 4: Tulare Transit Route Map
Fulton Estates Site
TIME
TularelnterModalExpress
Croa.\\C~
ld
j }'
w - \ '8 !:. " ~ -.,
Easy bus direction~ now on
Go gle Maps
-- Route 1- Northwest Tulare
-- Route 2-So.J east Tulare
-- Route 3- West Tulare
Route 4- No,iheast Tulare
-- Route 5- Southwest Tulare
-- Route 7- East Tulare
-- Route l lX- Tulare Vlsali~
Express Service
0 Tu re Transit Center
J. \'aflma's
4 Tufan, Clffll'IJml) Hruh 1mK
Talon, R .,...1 \tcd1al Cm r
TorJ!<1•
\\ ISi s....,, l lallhan, <nt<r
Sm10rCcater11y lbll
l11lln- llaallbclft ..,,..

Talon, llmn1lml} lie h CIU11<
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
11 | P a g e
Table 2
Fulton Estates Project
Land Use Sq. Ft.
or units
Employees
per 1,000sf
(rate)
Total
Employees
Gas station with convenience 2,500 11
Retail 9,300 2.22 21
Residential - single family 188
Totals 32
Socio- Economic Profile
CHAPTER 3 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Fulton Estates is a mixed-use project proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR 137) at Oakmore Street. This site is located on the eastern edge of the City of Tulare. The Project is located
on approximately 38 acres and will
include just under 3 acres of retail and
slightly over 35 acres of residential land
uses. Figure 5 shows the proposed site
plan and Table 2 provides the details for
each use. Access to the residential
development will be limited to Oakmore
Street and local streets Ryan Avenue
and Hoyt Place, while the retail site will
have access from both Tulare Avenue
and Oakmore Street.

Project Trip Generation
New trips generated by the Fulton Estates Project were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual. This publication provides average rates of trip generation for different building uses, and relates these rates to building size (retail) or dwelling units (residential) whether measured in square feet or other metrics such as number of employees. Trip generation rates are provided for weekdays along with the proportion of trips that are inbound or outbound from the development. The resulting Project trip generation is shown in Table 3.

The estimated Project’s vehicle trips yields 251 trips in the AM peak hour and 380 trips in the PM peak hour. It should be noted
that these estimated Project
trips include pass-by trips
which are vehicles that are in
the existing traffic stream,
which are diverted to the
retail uses. These existing
pass-by trips are totaled into
the driveway volumes, but
only the net increase in trips
are added to the existing
traffic volumes to develop
existing plus project traffic
estimates.

Table 3
Fulton Estates Project
Mixed Use Trip Generation
Land Use
Daily
Trips
AM Peak
Hour Trips
PM Peak
Hour Trips
Enter Exit Enter Exit
Residential 1,859 35 106 117 69
Convenience Market 2,114 55 55 75 75
Specialty Retail Center 436 0 0 19 25
Total Driveway Volume 4,409 90 161 211 169
Peak Hour Pass-by Trips (35) (35) (50) (50)
Peak Hour Trips Added
to Adjacent Streets
55 126 161 119
I
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
12 | P a g e
FIGURE 5: Fulton Estates Project
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
13 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4 – CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT
The Fulton Estates Project’s Vehicle Trip Distribution
The Fulton Estates Project is expected to generally distribute project related trips matching the current travel pattern at the study intersection. Therefore, existing turning movements were used as guidelines for the distribution of vehicular trips to the surrounding streets. The exception would be the accounting for “pass-by” trips associated with the convenience market and the retail uses. These project trips are included in the existing traffic stream and are simply diverted to and from the commercial parcel. They are not associated with the Project trips associated with the residential component of the Fulton Estates Project. The net increase in traffic has been added to the existing traffic volumes at the intersection. It should be noted that a substantial number of Project trips do not enter the intersection because they are distributed to and from the south via Oakmore Street or through the subdivision to the west. Based on this methodology, the Fulton Estates Project’s trips were distributed as shown in Figure 6.

Fulton Estates Project Assessment
The conditions with trips generated from the Fulton Estates Project were assessed by adding the Project’s trips to the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure 3. The Project’s trip assignment is shown in Figure 6, which were added to the existing volumes to estimate the existing plus Project volumes. The combined peak hour traffic volumes used for this assessment are shown in Figure 7.

The lane configurations at the intersection with the completion of the Fulton Estates Project were assumed to include the addition of an eastbound left, thru and right turn lanes, as well as, a northbound left and thru/right turn lanes. The existing single southbound left/thru/right lane and a single westbound left/thru/right lane are anticipated to remain. The Level of Service Calculations for the Existing plus the Fulton Estate Project can be seen in Appendix C.

Based on the existing plus Fulton Estates Project traffic conditions assessment as shown in Table 4, the intersection is projected to operate above the Caltrans level of service target standard of C/D with the exception of the northbound approach. That approach is projected to continue to operate at a level of service “D” in the AM peak hour and is projected to operate at “F” in the PM peak hour. This reduced level of service continues to
be primarily due to the relationship
between the northbound left turn
movements and the volumes on the
eastbound and westbound approaches.

Table 4:

Existing Plus Fulton Estates Project
Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Vehicle
Delay LOS
Vehicle
Delay LOS
Tulare Ave (SR 137)
at Oakmore Street
Eastbound approach 8.3 A 8.5 A
Westbound approach 8.9 A 8.8 A
Northbound
approach

32.4 D 54.3 F
Southbound
approach

14.8 B 14.8 B
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
14 | P a g e AM Peak Hour
4 Tulare Ave (SR 137)
5 25
Oakmore
60 2
13 PM Peak Hour
13 Tulare Ave (SR 137)
7 61
Oakmore
53 7
FIGURE 6: Fulton Estates Trip Assignment at Intersection +
+
+
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
15 | P a g e
11 31
0 AM Peak Hour 455
40 Tulare Ave (SR 137)
3 367
229
Oakmore
129
4 28
310
1 PM Peak Hour 510
31 Tulare Ave (SR 137)
6 447
147
Oakmore
148
1 19
FIGURE 7: Existing Plus Fulton Estates Traffic Counts
+
+
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
16 | P a g e
Signal Warrants
Peak hour traffic signal warrant (Warrant 3, part B) was also prepared for the study intersection with traffic from the Fulton Estates Project added to the existing traffic volumes. Based on the peak hour traffic volumes, the warrant would continue to be met at the unsignalized intersection in the Existing + Project condition scenario. This warrant analysis was limited to the peak hour volume warrant only and other conditions may exist which meet other traffic signal warrants. Copies of the warrant analyses are included in Appendix D. Caltrans does not deem the attainment of a single traffic signal warrant as cause for the installation of a traffic signal. Caltrans views that as one of a number of considerations for the warranting of a traffic signal. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

Project Mitigation Evaluation
While mitigation is not required at this stage of the Project’s development, an analysis was completed with the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR 137) at Oakmore Street. This assessment assumed the lane configuration with the Project completed and was completed to test the feasibility of mitigating the current and projected level of service deficiencies.

The resulting level of service is shown in the table below. The resulting calculations are shown in Appendix E.

The resulting level of service as shown in Table 5 is projected to operate above the Caltrans level of service target standard of C/D. The need and projected timing of the installation of a traffic signal at this location will be determined by Caltrans at a future date. This determination will be based on conditions and evaluations completed
at that time.

The Fulton Estates Project will
contribute its fair share of the cost of
the installation through the payment of
the City of Tulare’s Traffic Signal
Impact Fee. Should that fee program
not include this location in its list of
traffic single locations, then Fulton
Estates will pay its fair share through a proportional share calculation. This calculation should include the existing traffic volumes due to the fact that the Peak Hour Signal Warrant is currently met under the existing traffic volumes.

In either payment methodology, Fulton Estates should pay the fee through the individual building permit process.

Table 5:

Existing Plus Fulton Estates Project (mitigated)
Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Vehicle
Delay LOS
Vehicle
Delay LOS
Tulare Ave (SR 137)
at Oakmore Street 10.3 B 12.3 B
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
17 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5 – VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED ASSESSMENT
On June 26, 2020 the City of Tulare issued guidelines to assist in Implementing Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds in the California Environmental Quality Act Analysis Required by SB 743.

Those guidelines are outlined below.

Background
California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013. It required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts of a proposed project under CEQA. The primary goals of SB 743 are:
• Combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and particulates from mobile (automobile)sources.
• Encourage and help streamline infill development and a diversity of uses instead of typical suburban sprawl development patterns.
• Promote multi-modal transportation networks.
• Eliminate the use of LOS impacts under CEQA as barriers used to stop or delay development of infill residential, commercial, and office projects in congested, though economically vibrant, infill areas.

OPR has decided on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the preferred metric to evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA, which will be mandatory and replace LOS starting July 1, 2020. Transportation and land use planning research shows that VMT used as a performance metric is a much better measure of the true environmental impacts, including secondary impacts such as GHG and AQ impacts, on the transportation system as a whole, and on a city’s increasing costs of maintaining infrastructure for sprawl development.

Project Screening
Many agencies use screening thresholds to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluation of Transportation Impacts suggests that VMT analysis is not needed for the following project types:

1. Projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day

2. Projects within a ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a highquality transit corridor.

3. Affordable housing projects in infill locations

4. Locally serving retail

5. Transit projects, bike projects, pedestrian enhancements, livability enhancements, and street safety improvement projects.

6. Map-based screening – Residential and office projects can be considered to result in lessthan-significant impacts on VMT if they are located within low VMT areas on a map or maps generated for cities or regions using VMT data modeling.

C
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
18 | P a g e
In these cases, project-generated VMT is presumed to be a less-than-significant impact under CEQA and no further detailed VMT analysis is needed. Projects that do not meet the above screening criteria are required to provide analysis of VMT, by using several acceptable VMT quantification models presented in a focused traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer or through using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to estimate VMT for a project based on the number of vehicle trips generated by the type of land use and multiplying them by the average miles per trip.

Assessing Significance of Project VMT Based on VMT Thresholds OPR recommends a threshold of significance of 15% below existing regional VMT per capita (for residential projects) or VMT per employee (for office projects). Thresholds developed by lead agencies for these projects and other types of projects should demonstrate at least 15% below average regional VMT per capita or employee from existing conditions when evaluating a project under CEQA. If a lead agency decides to use a different threshold than the 15% recommended by OPR it should do so by providing substantial evidence to support the use of a different threshold.

VMT Mitigation
When a lead agency identifies a significant impact, it must identify feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially reduce that impact. Additionally, CEQA requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) identify feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts. When a project results in increases in VMT above the thresholds adopted by a lead agency, it must identify feasible mitigation or alternatives that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts. VMT mitigation techniques fall into the following four main categories:

1. Location Design and Urban Form

2. Public Works/Transportation Infrastructure Improvements

3. Transit Upgrades

4. Transportation Demand Management
The selection of particular mitigation measures and alternatives are left to the discretion of the lead agency, and mitigation measures may vary, depending on the proposed project and significant impacts, if any. Although it is well understood what factors and measures can reduce VMT, data is not readily available to quantify these reductions. Quantifying VMT reduction strategies will be a key area of study moving forward, so that they can be used as defensible mitigation measures.

City of Tulare Guidelines
Recommended Screening Criteria & Thresholds for the City of Tulare After reviewing OPR Guidance and examples from jurisdictions throughout the state, including new draft proposals, it is the City criteria to use map-based screening for residential and office/industrial projects, with travel forecasting data from Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG), and apply the recommendations for VMT thresholds as shown in Table 6 below. The basis for this recommendation is based on the likely scenario that the City’s VMT average is almost always lower than the countywide average, given the higher percentage of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses compared to the whole of the county, including most of the unincorporated areas. Using the countywide average as the region of comparison also captures many of the trips in between our city and others, as well as unincorporated areas. This screening criteria and the proposed thresholds are supported by TCAG’s travel data modeling for the region, and correctly achieves the spirit of SB 743 C
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
19 | P a g e
in encouraging regional growth in areas with low VMT or that demonstrate at least a 15% reduction in VMT from the regional average.

Figure 8 shows the existing average trip distance by traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in TCAG’s regional model. The County average trip distance per capita in miles traveled is 11.7 miles. Areas shown in green on the map are areas with average trip distance is below 9.94 miles, representing the 15% reduction from the regional average of 11.7 miles. TAZs shown in yellow/maize represent areas in the City below the regional average, but not meeting the 15% reduction target from the regional average. TAZs shown in red represent areas in the City where the average trip distance is higher than the regional average. The map can be used as a screening threshold for residential and office/industrial to show areas that are already achieving the thresholds indicated in Table 6.

Generally, if a project is located in the areas shown in green, it is likely meeting the thresholds in Table 6, unless there are specific project characteristics that would result in an overall increase in VMT, rather than redistribution of vehicle trips. Ultimately, the thresholds in Table 6 should be used to guide the type of analysis required, depending on the project type.

Table 6
Thresholds by Project Type for the City of Tulare
Project Type Recommended Thresholds
Projects that generate < 110 trips per day Screened Out of Detailed VMT Analysis Projects within a ½ mile of an existing
major transit stop or an existing stop along a
high-quality transit corridor
Screened Out of Detailed VMT Analysis
Affordable Housing Projects in Infill
Locations
Screened Out of Detailed VMT Analysis
Transit projects, bike projects, pedestrian
enhancements, livability enhancements, and
street safety improvement projects.

Screened Out of Detailed VMT Analysis
Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facility or
Public Safety Facility
Screened Out, unless it results in net increase in VMT
Locally Serving Retail Screened Out, unless it results in net increase in VMT Regional Commercial or Retail Attracting
Trips from Throughout the Region
Any net increase in total VMT
General Residential 15% below existing regional average trip length per TAZ Office/Industrial Projects 15% below existing regional average trip length per TAZ Mixed-Use Projects Apply Corresponding Threshold to Each Type of Use, Unless One Use Dominates, Then Consider the Dominant
Use Threshold
Redevelopment Projects Any net increase in total VMT Over Existing Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
20 | P a g e
FIGURE 8: Average Trip Distance by TAZ
Fulton Estates Project Screening Process
To better understand the Fulton Estates Project, it is helpful to provide regional (Tulare County) information on vehicle miles
travelled. This contextual data is
provided as a guide when
evaluating the impacts associated
with Project specific vehicle
miles travel data. Table 7 reflects
baseline information for these
areas as well as the project site
(Traffic Analysis Zones). It
should be noted that the Traffic Analysis Zone containing the Fulton Estates Project also includes the College of the Sequoias Tulare Campus and the Mission Oaks High School Campus. These two unique land uses generate communitywide, as well as, regional trips to and from this Zone. As such Table 7
Baseline Residential VMT Data
Metric (vehicle miles travelled)
Existing Threshold
(15%
reduction)
Tulare County Regional Average VMT
Travelled per Capita

11.7 9.94
Traffic Analysis Zone 1094 Average
Vehicle Miles Travelled per Capita (2018)

14.3 Fulton Estates
Location 1.S0-9 .16

9.16 • 11.HI
1U3-J □□

9.73 10.55
10 9.63
1 10.93

13.67 8.96

8.89 9.148.37 10.48

10.91 11 .85
11 .34

16.85 13.11
----------------------------~-3 91

13.62 11 .25

11.5 Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
21 | P a g e
the average trip length and subsequent average vehicle miles traveled are longer. See Appendix F for data from the TCAG Traffic Model.

FIGURE 9: TCAG’s Traffic Analysis Zones
Fulton Estates Project located in TAZ 1094
Step 1: Screening of Fulton Estates Project
Based on a review of the map provided in the City of Tulare’s guidance, the residential component of the Fulton Estates Project does not qualify for screening because it would not be developed within a “low vehicle miles travelled” area. It should be noted that the mapping (Figure 8) provided by the Tulare County Association of Governments using the Regional Traffic Model This model represents the best available method for evaluation of regional, community and project vehicle miles travelled within Tulare County.

Fulton Estates Traffic
Analysis Zone
, ... 1868 186Q 1871
•
s
<
1002
1878
1014
107e 1028 ; 1020
. l ,I 1870
1044
1000
1074 i
"95 1 ~
l 171'1
1800 "96
1Q02
1112 "
.
i
~
!
Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
22 | P a g e
Step 2: Project Specific Factors
Because of the mixed-use nature of the Fulton Estates Project a second evaluation was completed on the individual components of the proposed project. Using the mixed-use criteria shown in Thresholds by Project Type for the City of Tulare outlined above, the mixed uses of the Project were evaluated.

Again, the Regional Traffic Model was used to assess each of the land use types within the Project.

Those components for analysis purposes are the residential uses and the retail uses. For the Project’s residential uses, the average residential vehicle miles travelled per capita were estimated. For the Project’s retail uses, the net increase or decrease in regional vehicle miles travelled were estimated.

Table 8
Fulton Estates Project Assessment
by Land Use Component
Fulton Estates Land
Use
Regional
Average
Trip Length
or Regional
VMT
85%
Threshold
VMT
Target
Fulton
Estates
Project
VMT
Over
Threshold
or Net
Increase
(yes/no)
Significant
(yes/no)
Residential (per capita) 11.7 9.94 11.2 Yes Yes
Retail 13,682,798 n/a 13,684,033 +1,235
(+0.00%)
TBD
For assessment purposes Table 8 shows the latest estimate from TCAG of the average trip length in the Tulare County region is 11.7 miles. This regional trip length establishes a vehicle miles travel reduction target of 9.94. Using this figure to establish a baseline measurement, residential trips from the Fulton Estates Project were assessed. This regional figure is assumed to represent the per capita trip length, although it reflects only the per trip length. The residential component of the Fulton Estates Project is located in Traffic Analysis Zone 1094. Using the Regional Traffic Model, TCAG estimates that the average trip length per capita for residential trips generated by the Fulton Estates Project is 11.2 miles. This represents 96% (11.2/11.7) of the regional average trip length and is above the State’s Threshold of Significance of 85%.

For the retail component of the Fulton Estates Project a more focused assessment was completed.

This evaluation used the Regional Traffic Model to project the total number of regional vehicle miles travelled without the retail component. Then a second model run was completed to reflect the total number of regional vehicle miles travelled with the retail component added. These two numbers were compared and the net differential was used to determine the potential “impact”. Without the Fulton Estates Project, the daily regional vehicles miles travelled is estimated by TCAG to total 13,682,798.

Traffic Evaluation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment for the Fulton Estates Project
Tulare, California
23 | P a g e
With the addition of the Fulton Estates Retail Components, the daily regional vehicles miles travelled are estimated by TCAG to increase slightly to a total 13,684,033. This represents a regional increase of only 1,235 vehicle miles traveled per day which is a 0.00% increase over the baseline estimate.

Vehicle Miles Travelled Mitigation and Alternatives
The screening evaluation for the Fulton Estates Project shows that both residential and retail uses will general vehicle miles traveled above the statutory thresholds of significance. For the retail use, the evaluation found that with the Fulton Estates Project, the Project needs to reduce the vehicle miles travelled by 1,235 miles and for the residential use needs to reduce the vehicle miles travelled by 824 miles (7,349 Project VMT – 6,525 Target VMT = 824). Therefore, mitigations are proposed to reduce the Project’s vehicle miles traveled by 2,058 miles. Using the Project’s Average Trip Length of 11.2 (per TCAG), the Project needs to reduce 184 vehicle trips to achieve the VMT reduction target. This represents a 4% reduction in Project trips.

As part of the development of the state guidelines for implementation of the new CEQA legislation, the State of California prepared a list of potential mitigation measures to apply to proposed projects that did not meet the requirement of the rule. Several of these examples of potential mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce VMT are described below. However, the selection of particular mitigation measures and alternatives are left to the discretion of the lead agency, and mitigation measures may vary, depending on the proposed project and significant impacts, if any. Further, the State Office of Planning and Research expects that agencies will continue to innovate and find new ways to reduce vehicular travel. Potential measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to:
• Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare.

Tulare City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Tulare City Council
November 15, 2022