Agenda packet — Tulare City Council, December 20, 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, December 20, 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 the month in the Council Chamber located in the Tulare Public Library at 491 North M Street, Tulare, subject to cancellation. 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 Public Comments and/or Public Hearing and General Business items. Please note that there will be approximately a 20-second delay in broadcast for viewers. When calling in, mute device used for viewing the meeting.

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 Public 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 December 20, 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 COMMENT PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - Comments are limited to items to be discussed in closed session. Speaker will be allowed three minutes each.

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. ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING
7:00 p.m. - REGULAR MEETING

7. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING

8. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION

9. PRESENTATIONS

9.1. Spotlight on Excellence – Employee Recognition

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. COUNCIL REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST
6:00 p.m. – SPECIAL MEETING (CLOSED SESSION)
City Council Agenda – Special and Regular Meetings December 20, 2022 City of Tulare Page 3

13. 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.

13.1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only.

13.2. Approve the minutes of the December 6, 2022, special and regular City Council meetings. [Submitted by: M. Hermann]

13.3. Approve the cancellation of the regular meeting of January 3, 2023. [Submitted by: M.

Hermann]

13.4. Adopt a resolution accepting the official canvass and certified Statement of Votes of the November 8, 2022 General Election. [Submitted by: M. Hermann]

13.5. Confirm Councilmember Sigala’s appointment of Erica Cubas to the Planning Commission with a term ending December 31, 2025. [Submitted by: M. Hermann]

13.7. Authorize the purchase of seven APX 4000 Series handheld radios and accessories from J’s Communications of Fresno, California for $25,885.70. [Submitted by: M.

Machado]

13.8. Accept the monthly investments report for November 2022. [Submitted by: D. Ibanez]

Furtado]

Miller]

13.11. Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with MRC GameTime of Sea Girt, NJ, in an amount not to exceed $168,164.01 for the replacement of the playground equipment at Mulcahy Park; authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($16,816.40) of the contract award amount; and approve a one-time use of the City’s Catastrophic Fund in the City Council Agenda – Special and Regular Meetings December 20, 2022 City of Tulare Page 4
amount of $100,316.35 to assist in the replacement of the playground. [Submitted by:

J. Glick]

13.13. Authorize the appropriation of proceeds from the sale of APN 191-350-011 and APN 191-070-015 which total $293,00 to the following to accounts: 1) $100,000 Catastrophic Fund for play structure reimbursement Account Number 690-4690-6301, 2) $150,000 Artist Deposit Reserve Account (Pending City Council Approval) and 3) $43,000 for Economic Development reserve for consultants and advertising as necessary. [Submitted by: D. Ibanez]

14. 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.

15. 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.

15.1. Appoint members to the Police Department Citizen Complaint Review Board and Aviation Committee to fill seats with terms ending December 31, 2022. [Submitted by:

M. Peton]
City Council Agenda – Special and Regular Meetings December 20, 2022 City of Tulare Page 5

16. STAFF UPDATES

17. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

17.1. Naming the Tulare Dog Park for K-9 Bane killed in the line of duty on December 9, 2018. [Councilmember Harrell]

18. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Tulare City Council is Tuesday, January 17, 2023, 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, December 15, 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: December 20, 2022 Agenda Memo
Date: December 15, 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. ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING
7:00 p.m. - REGULAR MEETING

7. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING

8. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION

9. PRESENTATIONS

9.1. Spotlight on Excellence – Employee Recognition

10. 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 Tulare City Council Page 2
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
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.

11. 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.

12. COUNCIL REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST [Time Estimate: 7:30-7:35 p.m.]

13. CONSENT CALENDAR - [Time Estimate: 7:35-7:40 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.

13.1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only.

13.2. Approve minutes of the December 6, 2022, special and regular meetings. [Submitted by: M. Hermann] The minutes of the December 6, 2022, special and regular meetings are submitted for Council approval. Staff recommends Council approve as presented.

13.3. Approve the cancellation of the regular meeting of January 3, 2023. [Submitted by: M. Hermann] Staff requests Council consider and approve the cancellation of the regular meeting scheduled January 3, 2023 due to the holiday. City administrative offices are closed Friday, December 23, Monday, December 26, Friday, December 30, and Monday, January 2. In addition, several staff will be on vacation during this time. This does not allow sufficient time for staff to prepare for the meeting on January

3. Staff recommends Council approve the cancellation of the regular meeting of January 3, 2023.

13.4. Adopt a resolution accepting the official canvass and certified Statement of Votes of the November 8, 2022 General Election. [Submitted by: M. Hermann] On June 7, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 2022-24 to place a measure on the ballot of the November 8, 2022 General Election regarding a cannabis business tax ordinance (Measure Y). The Tulare County Registrar of Voters conducted the official canvass and certified the election results on November 30, 2022 (attached). The total number of votes cast in the City of Tulare for Measure Y was 12,373 with 8,074 (65.25%) voting yes and 4,299 (34.75%) voting no. As a result, with Measure Y receiving approval by a majority of voters (more than 50%), the Measure carries and is adopted by the People of the City of Tulare. Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution accepting the official canvass and certified Statement of Votes of the November 8, 2022 General Election.

Tulare City Council Page 3
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022

13.5. Confirm Councilmember Sigala’s appointment of Erica Cubas to the Planning Commission with a term ending December 31, 2025. [Submitted by: M.

Hermann] The City of Tulare has eight boards, commissions, and committees with members appointed by the City Council. From time to time, vacancies occur due to expiring terms and resignations.

The Planning Commission currently has one vacancy due to the recent resignation of Commissioner Jorge Diaz whose term ends on December 31, 2025. This vacant seat is appointed by Council Seat 1 which gives Councilmember Sigala the responsibility of appointing a new member to fill this vacancy. Councilmember Sigala advised that, of the applications submitted, he is appointing Erica Cubas to complete the unexpired term. This appointment is subject to Council approval. Staff recommends Council confirm Councilmember Sigala’s appointment of Erica Cubas to the Planning Commission with a term ending December 31, 2025.

13.6. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2022-17 repealing and replacing Title 3, Fire Regulations, adding Chapter 7.05 to Title 7, Health and Sanitation, amending Section 7.28.030 of Chapter 7.28 of Title 7, Health and Sanitation, and repealing Chapter 8.20 of Title 8, Public Ways and Property, of the Tulare Municipal Code. [Submitted by: M. Hermann] At the December 6, 2022 regular meeting of the City Council, Council held the first reading of and introduced the ordinance concerning repealing and reenacting Title 3, Fire Regulations, adding Chapter 7.05 to Title 7, Health and Sanitation, amending Section 7.28.030 of Chapter

7.28 of Title 7, Health and Sanitation, and repealing Chapter 8.20 of Title 8, Public Ways and Property, of the Tulare Municipal Code. As required by law, the final reading and adoption of said ordinance must occur at a regularly scheduled meeting, and, accordingly, City staff hereby presents that same ordinance for consideration by the Council. Staff recommends Council adopt Ordinance 2022-17 as presented.

13.7. Authorize the purchase of seven APX 4000 Series handheld radios and accessories from J’s Communications of Fresno, California for $25,885.70. [Submitted by: M. Machado] The Tulare Police Department seeks to replace aging radios. The Tulare Police Department currently has seven APX 6000 radios that will soon need to be replaced. Furthermore, with the addition of new officers, additional radios are necessary. There is an operational need to replace these radios due to the increase of radio failures and additional staff.

In 2018, the City initiated the replacement of the handheld radios through a CIP. This proposed purchase will complete the replacement of all handheld radios and required accessories.

Funding for this purchase is available using existing equipment replacement funds.

Future annual equipment replacement expenses will be adjusted based on this purchase and the expected lifespan of equipment to ensure the availability of future replacement funding. Staff recommends Council authorize the purchase of seven APX 4000 Series handheld radios and accessories from J’s Communications of Fresno, California for $25,885.70.

Tulare City Council Page 4
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022

13.8. Accept the monthly investments report for November 2022. [Submitted by: D.

Ibanez] The investments report for November 2022 is submitted for Council review and acceptance. Staff recommends Council accept the monthly investments report for November 2022.

13.9. Accept as complete the contract with Valley Pump & Dairy Systems, Inc. for work on Storm Sewer Lift Stations Upgrades Project (SD0016, 0017, 0018); and authorize the City Engineer to sign the Notice of Completion, and direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the Tulare County Recorder’s Office. [Submitted by: E. Furtado] On March 17, 2020, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $ 370,345.00 (Base Bid only) to Valley Pump & Dairy Systems, Inc. of Tulare, California; and authorized the City Manager, or designee, to approve contract change orders in amounts up to 10% ($37,034.50) of the contract awards.

West Street and Bardsley Avenue LS (SD0016), High School Farm LS (SD0017), and ‘M’ Street south of College Avenue LS (SD0018). Each LS is unique in design, pump configuration and horsepower. The designed upgrades standardized the pumps and motors and upgraded the electrical to the existing control panels.

The three projects were bid as a single (RFB) with the M Street LS as the Base Bid, the Bardsley at West Street LS as add Alternative #1, and the High School Farm LS as add Alternative #2.

After the March 17th award, staff identified additional Surface Water Operations and Maintenance funds that were available, and recommended that they be programmed for Project SD0016 so that it could be constructed under the aforementioned RFB as add Alternative #1.

On September 1, 2020, the City Council authorized contract change order #1 in the amount of $364,619.00 for add Alternative #1, the Bardsley and West Street LS, to the contract with Valley Pump & Dairy Systems, Inc. and authorized the City Manager, or designee, to approve contract change orders in amounts up to 10% ($36,461.90). This brought the total contract amount with Valley Pump & Dairy Systems, Inc. up to $734,964.00 (Base bid & add Alternative 1).

A summary of contract costs is as follows:

Original Award Contract – base bid $ 370,345.00
Council Approved Change Order #1 – add Alternative #1 $ 364,619.00 Contract Change Order #2 $ 3,250.00
Contract Change Order #3 $ 16,875.00
Contract Change Order #4 $ 16,875.00
Tulare City Council Page 5
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
Contract Change Order #5 $ (5,185.44)
Total Construction Contract Cost: $ 766,778.56
Change Order Summary (4.33% of contract cost):
• Change order 2: Design conflict that required a height adjustment to a single pump column pipe. The adjustment minimized potential motor overload issues and associated electrical breaker tripping issues. Cost of $3,250.00 • Change order 3: Requested change by Public Works to design and fabricate a screened cage to collect debris at the M & College lift station to protect pump impellers from probable damages. Cost of $16,875.00
• Change order 4: Requested change by Public Works to design and fabricate a screened cage to collect debris at the Bardsley & West lift station to protect pump impellers from probable damages. Cost of $16,875.00
• Change order 5: Deductive change order to compensate the City for electrical work accounted for in the contract bid that was ultimately self-performed by the City. Credit of $5,185.44
All work required of Valley Pump under this contract has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The contractor has also provided the required Maintenance Bond in the amount equal to 10% of the final contract amount. Staff recommends Council accept as complete the contract with Valley Pump & Dairy Systems, Inc. for work on Storm Sewer Lift Stations Upgrades Project (SD0016, 0017, 0018); and authorize the City Engineer to sign the Notice of Completion, and direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the Tulare County Recorder’s Office.

13.10. Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Peters Engineering Group of Clovis, CA in an amount not to exceed $324,555 for topographic surveying, geotechnical analysis, design, bidding and construction support services for Project EN0097, a street and utility improvement project to extend International AgriCenter Way from Laspina Street to Turner Drive; Authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($32,456) of the contract award amount; and approve the updated project budget. [Submitted by: M. Miller] The International AgriCenter Way Interchange project will construct a new interchange on State Route 99 at the alignment of International AgriCenter Way, formerly Commercial Avenue. The Interchange Project will reconstruct International Agricenter Way between “K” Street and State Route 99, construct a new overcrossing over State Route 99, and construct a new segment of International AgriCenter Way from State Route 99 to Laspina Street. The City subsequently created Project EN0097 to extend International AgriCenter Way from Laspina Street to Turner Drive to improve roadway connectivity to the new interchange.

Tulare City Council Page 6
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
The extension of International AgriCenter Way will impact properties owned by the International AgriCenter and the Faria family, and will require right-of-way dedications from both parties. In the Summer of 2021, City staff presented three optional designs for the extension of International AgriCenter Way to representatives of the Faria family and to the International AgriCenter Board, ranging from the minimum required improvements for a 2-lane roadway (36’ paved width) to a 4-lane roadway (86’ paved width). Both parties expressed their preference for the 4-lane option, with sewer and water main extensions included so that the new roadway would not need to be cut into with the future development of adjacent properties. On August 17, 2021, staff presented the same three options to City Council, along with the recommendations of the Faria family and International AgriCenter Board. Council concurred with the 4-lane option with water and sewer main extensions.

In November 2022, the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) requested that member agencies submit project nominations for potential State earmark funding.

Qualifying projects would need to address regional transportation needs within the County of Tulare. In response, City staff submitted a funding request for $3 million (the maximum request allowed) to assist with the estimated $4.73 million construction cost of Project EN0097. In the project nomination, it was noted that the extension of International AgriCenter Way between Laspina Street and Turner Drive would greatly increase connectivity to the new International AgriCenter Drive interchange, providing a direct connection to the regionally significant Mooney Boulevard and Turner Drive corridors. Funding the project would also serve leverage the substantial state and local funding already invested in the surrounding area through the interchange project.

Projects nominated for earmark funding that have completed environmental review and design phases, or are actively engaged in doing so, are more likely to be successful in receiving funding allocations. Project EN0097 is currently included in the City’s 2021-2026 transportation and utility CIP program budget, with environmental and design phases programmed for fiscal year 2022/2023. To improve the likelihood of receiving earmark funding, and to ensure that Project EN0097 is able to coordinate construction schedules with the interchange project, it is recommended that these phases be advanced into the current fiscal year and commence as soon as possible.

Funding is available to accommodate the advancement in project schedule.

A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Engineering and Land Surveying Consultants was issued on October 20, 2020. Ten (10) firms submitted all the necessary information to be considered for inclusion in a list of pre-approved consultants to provide these services. The proposals were reviewed and rated in accordance with the consultant selection procedures identified in the RFQ, and the top six (6) firms were recommended for inclusion on the list of prequalified general engineering and land surveying consultants. On December 15, 2020, the City Council approved this list of (6) consultants.

Peters Engineering Group of Clovis, CA is included on the list of pre-qualified on-call Engineering consultants and demonstrated in their proposal that they have the skills, expertise and resources available to meet the City’s needs and timeframe to complete the design of this project. Peters Engineering Group has proposed to perform the Tulare City Council Page 7
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
necessary work for $324,555. The proposed cost is in line with industry standards, and is within 2% of the estimated contract cost used when staff prepared the PS&E cost in the original project budget. The following table shows the revised PS&E costs for the project budget should Council authorize the contract with Peters Engineering Group:

Work Item Original Project Budget Updated Project Budget PS&E Consultant Contract $318,926.00 $324,555.00
10% Contract Contingency $35,436.00 $32,456.00
City Staff Time $17,468.10 $17,468.10
Total PS&E Budget $371,830.10 $374,479.10
A copy of Peters Engineering Group’s proposal and an updated project sheet are attached for reference. Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Peters Engineering Group of Clovis, CA in an amount not to exceed $324,555 for topographic surveying, geotechnical analysis, design, bidding and construction support services for Project EN0097, a street and utility improvement project to extend International AgriCenter Way from Laspina Street to Turner Drive; Authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($32,456) of the contract award amount; and approve the updated project budget.

13.11. Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with MRC GameTime of Sea Girt, NJ, in an amount not to exceed $168,164.01 for the replacement of the playground equipment at Mulcahy Park; authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($16,816.40) of the contract award amount; and approve a one-time use of the City’s Catastrophic Fund in the amount of $100,316.35 to assist in the replacement of the playground. [Submitted by: J. Glick] In the early morning of June 30, 2022, City of Tulare Fire Department reported that a structure fire had occurred at Mulcahy Park.

Upon further inspection, staff reported that approximately 75% of the playground structure for children ages 5-12 was severely damaged and needs replacement. Parks staff then secured the surrounding area of the burnt playground structure, and Risk Management staff initiated an insurance claim. Cost estimates for replacement and repair were then acquired.

The damaged playground structure was manufactured and installed by MRC GameTime in 2013 with an original cost of $241,365.98. As approximately 25% of the structure remains usable, the most efficient replacement method would be to utilize the original manufacturer, MRC GameTime, to furnish and install the new 75% of the structure through a retrofit construction process. Therefore, the sole source procedures may be used since there is reasonably only one reliable source for the needed purchase.

The cost estimate from MRC GameTime to repair the playground is $168,164.01. The total project cost to repair the playground is estimated at $184,980.41, which includes a 10% contingency.

Tulare City Council Page 8
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
City staff submitted a claim to the City’s insurance carrier McLarens Insurance, who has estimated that $184,664.06 will be required to replace the damaged materials.

The City has a $100,000.00 deductible. Therefore, the City will receive an $84,664.06 reimbursement from McLarens Insurance.

Staff recommends that the $100,000 deductible and subsequent construction cost be paid through the City’s Catastrophic Fund, which has a current fund balance of $150,000.00. Thus, the funding for the playground equipment replacement project will be provided as follows:

Reimbursement from McLarens Insurance: $ 84,664.06
City Catastrophic Fund: $100,316.35
Total Estimated Construction Cost: $184,980.41
The contract amount, if approved includes the demolition, furnishing, and installation of new replacement parts of the age 5-12 playground structure at Mulcahy Park. Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with MRC GameTime of Sea Girt, NJ, in an amount not to exceed $168,164.01 for the replacement of the playground equipment at Mulcahy Park; authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($16,816.40) of the contract award amount; and approve a one-time use of the City’s Catastrophic Fund in the amount of $100,316.35 to assist in the replacement of the playground.

13.12. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a Grant G22-03-04- G01 offer from the State of California Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMV) to the Tulare Cycle Park operating expenses not to exceed $426,099.00 for the year 2022 and to sign all applicable paperwork related to application of the grant. [Submitted by: M. Correa] A five-year lease agreement with TEMMERMAN CORP ("Operator") aka DT1 MX Cycle Park was entered into for the operation of the Tulare Cycle Park on January 1, 2019.

A request has been made by the operator and approved by the OHMV for a Grant in the amount not to exceed $426,099.00 for reimbursement of a portion of its operating expenses for the year 2022 which requires the City to administer as a Grant sponsor.

The City will administer the Grant in accordance with the Grant Partnership Agreement (Agreement) authorized by resolution on 10/21/2014 and will charge a 4% administrative service fee as agreed as sponsor. Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a Grant G22-03-04-G01 offer from the State of California Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMV) to the Tulare Cycle Park operating expenses not to exceed $426,099.00 for the year 2022 and to sign all applicable paperwork related to application of the grant.

13.13. Authorize the appropriation of proceeds from the sale of APN 191-350-011 and APN 191-070-015 which total $293,00 to the following to accounts: 1) $100,000 Catastrophic Fund for play structure reimbursement Account Number 690-4690- Tulare City Council Page 9
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
6301, 2) $150,000 Artist Deposit Reserve Account (Pending City Council Approval) and 3) $43,000 for Economic Development reserve for consultants and advertising as necessary. [Submitted by: D. Ibanez] During the December 6th City Council Meeting, City Council approved the sale of APN 191-350-011 and APN 191-070-015 to Caltrans for $293,000. During the same meeting, the City Council received a presentation from Spade Entertainment regarding a term sheet for an operating agreement for the Zumwalt Park Amphitheatre.

In the early morning of June 30, 2022, City of Tulare Fire Department reported that a fire structure had occurred at Mulcahy Park. City staff submitted a claim to the City’s insurance carrier McLarens Insurance. McLarens Insurance narrowed the damages to $184,664.06 to the playground which includes the City paying a $100,000.00 deductible. The cost estimate from MRC Game Time to repair the playground is $168,164.01. The total project cost to repair the playground is $184,980.41 which includes a 10% contingency. Once all fees are paid to the Contractor the City will receive an $84,664.06 reimbursement from McLarens Insurance.

Staff is requesting City Council authorize the appropriation of funds form the proceeds of the sale of APN 191-350-011 and APN 191-070-015 for the above listed projects.

Staff recommends Council authorize the appropriation of proceeds from the sale of APN 191-350-011 and APN 191-070-015 which total $293,00 to the following to accounts: 1) $100,000 Catastrophic Fund for play structure reimbursement Account Number 690-4690-6301, 2) $150,000 Artist Deposit Reserve Account (Pending City Council Approval) and 3) $43,000 for Economic Development reserve for consultants and advertising as necessary.

13.14. Adopt a resolution approving a Second Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) previously approved and certified by the Council of the City of Tulare for The Farrar Estates Subdivision Project as part of Resolution 2020- 04 on February 4, 2020. [Submitted by: M. Anaya] Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study was prepared for The Farrar Estates Subdivision Project resulting in the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) by the Tulare City Council on February 4, 2020. Since adoption of the MND, the specific details related to the use of temporary intersection control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street have been refined to reflect the need for temporary traffic control, as the timing and availability of permanent infrastructure is not available within the proposed project’s opening day timeline, therefore the use of temporary intersection improvement infrastructure has been proposed, as an interim measure, until the permanent traffic control is installed at the intersection. Furthermore, in preparing plans to install a temporary roundabout at this intersection, Caltrans began exploring and recommending the study of having a permanent single-lane roundabout for traffic control at this intersection as an option, as opposed to the originally planned traffic signal. Unfortunately, the design plan review process and infrastructure required between the temporary roundabout and a permanent roundabout have enough differences that there would be substantial additional costs and delays that could not be incorporated or put towards the permanent roundabout. Understanding this and since further study and design for this option will result in additional delays, a new interim measure was considered. The new Tulare City Council Page 10
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
solution for interim, temporary traffic control at the intersection is to restrict vehicular access to and from the new Farrar Estates subdivision from access to Morrison Street, and instead only allow access solely via the intersection of Hazeltine Street and Tulare Avenue.

These conversations and requests from Caltrans resulted in the need to have the project traffic engineer analyze the use of this new interim measure, as well as the use of a single-lane roundabout for permanent intersection control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street. The results of the analysis, included as Appendix A to the Second Addendum document, demonstrate that the intersection of Hazeltine and Tulare Avenue, as well as Tulare Avenue & Morrison Street would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) for both the interim scenario, as well as long-term with use of a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue & Morrison Street. The interim measure restricting access to Morrison Street from the new subdivision would be allowed through Phase I of the proposed subdivision. The traffic analysis also shows both a traffic signal and a single-lane roundabout as equally effective and acceptable solutions to control traffic and provide an acceptable LOS at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street.

Both the City Engineer and Caltrans support and concur with these findings that the use of either an interim, temporary roundabout for traffic control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street, or restricting access onto Morrison Street are both acceptable interim measures through Phase I of the development of the Farrar Estates subdivision, until the permanent new traffic signal or new permanent roundabout is installed at the subject intersection, and would not result in additional significant impacts as demonstrated in the traffic analysis attached in Appendix A to the Second Addendum document.

In addition, the revised traffic analysis also shows both a traffic signal as originally described in Mitigation Measure TRA-1 of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a single-lane roundabout to be equally effective as permanent traffic control measures maintaining an acceptable LOS at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street. Both the City Engineer and Caltrans concur with these findings.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum was prepared to address the environmental effects associated only with the use of Hazeltine instead of Morrison to access the Farrar Estates subdivision through Phase I development, and the potential to utilize a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street beyond Phase I of the subdivision’s development.

Based upon the information provided in Section 3.0 of the Second Addendum document, the use of Hazeltine instead of Morrison to access the Farrar Estates subdivision through Phase I development, and the potential to utilize a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street beyond Phase I of the subdivision’s development, will not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the MND, and there are no previously infeasible alternatives that are now feasible. None of the other Tulare City Council Page 11
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
factors set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines are present.

Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution approving a Second Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) previously approved and certified by the Council of the City of Tulare for The Farrar Estates Subdivision Project as part of Resolution 2020-04 on February 4, 2020.

13.15. Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Cascade Fire Equipment Company to purchase 33 Self-Contained-Breathing-Apparatus (SCBA) and accessories in the amount of $352,592.44. [Submitted by: M. Ott] The Tulare Fire Department (TFD) has been awarded a FEMA Assistance to Firefighter Grant to replace all of the Self-Contained-Breathing-Apparatus (SCBA) and accessories within the department. The AFG is awarded in the amount of $186,340.00. The cost sharing for the City of Tulare $166,252.44. TFD will be utilizing the Draeger Sourcewell Contract #032620-DRG sole source to get the best price possible.

Additionally, TFD conducted extensive research and testing on three different SCBA manufactures to determine which would best fit the needs of the department for effective emergency response, the most cost effective, and proper use of funding.

These new SCBAs will support emergency response operations for the next 15 years.

TFD has decided to stay with Draeger SCBAs which are currently in use. This strategic purchase helps minimize the training requirements by using a different manufacture’s equipment, eliminates the need to change out adapters on our SCBA fill station, and allows TFD to use current equipment already in place that interfaces with the Draeger SCBA equipment, thus allowing continuation of operations. Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Cascade Fire Equipment Company to purchase 33 Self-Contained-BreathingApparatus (SCBA) and accessories in the amount of $352,592.44.

14. 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.

14.1. Adopt a resolution adopting the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-23 – (Wild Oaks), General Plan Amendment No. 2022.02 and Zone Amendment No. 749; adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-02 to change the existing General Plan land use designation from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately 10.44-acres; and pass to print an ordinance approving Zone Amendment No. 749, changing the existing zoning designation from RM-4 (Multi-family Residential) to the R-1-4 (Small-lot Residential) on approximately 10.44-acres. [Submitted by: S. Sopp] [Time Estimate: 7:35-7:50 p.m.] A 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration.

A notice of Public Hearing for Zone Amendment 749, General Plan Amendment No.

Tulare City Council Page 12
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
2022-02, Wild Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map and the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published on October 27, 2022.

Two comment letters were received during the public review period for the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Comments were received from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Comments from DTSC focused on the Hazardous Materials section of the IS/MND. Staff believes that the comments provided do not necessitate re-circulation of the IS/MND.

Comments provided by the 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.

On November 28, 2022 the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (one seat is currently vacant) to approve Tentative Subdivision Map No. 2022-23 (Wild Oaks) and to recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2022-02 and Zone Amendment No. 749. Staff recommends Council: 1) Adopt a resolution adopting the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-23 – (Wild Oaks), General Plan Amendment No. 2022.02 and Zone Amendment No. 749; 2) Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-02 to change the existing General Plan land use designation from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately 10.44-acres; and 3) Pass to print an ordinance approving Zone Amendment No. 749, changing the existing zoning designation from RM-4 (Multi-family Residential) to the R-1-4 (Small-lot Residential) on approximately

10.44-acres.

14.2. Pass to print an ordinance providing for adoption of the 2022 California Building Codes and to authorize the Building Official to accept single family residential permit applications with a site plan drawn to city standards prior to January 1, 2023 and issue said permit in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code with one extension. [Submitted by: R. Magallan] [Time Estimate: 7:50-8:05 p.m.] Every three years the California Building Standard Codes are revised. The 2022 California Building Standard Codes were published on July 1, 2022 and will go into effect on January 1, 2023. This ordinance will reflect the changes in the California Building Standard Codes in the corresponding Chapter 4.04 (California Building Codes) of the Tulare Municipal Code.

The following codes go into effect on January 1, 2023:
• California Building Standards Administrative Rules
• California Building Code
• California Residential Building Code
• California Electrical Code
Tulare City Council Page 13
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
• California Mechanical Code
• California Plumbing Code
• California Energy Code
• California Green Building Code
• California Referenced Standards Code
• California Historical Building Code
• California Existing Building Code
Staff recommends Council pass to print an ordinance providing for adoption of the 2022 California Building Standards Code effective January 1, 2023.

15. 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.

15.1. Appoint members to the Police Department Citizen Complaint Review Board and Aviation Committee to fill seats with terms ending December 31, 2022. [Submitted by: M. Peton] [Time Estimate: 8:05-8:35 p.m.] The City of Tulare has eight boards, commissions, and committees with members appointed by the City Council. Periodically, appointments and reappointments are necessary due to vacancies and expiring terms. Listed below are the positions to be considered for appointment.

Notice was posted on the kiosk outside of City Hall and on the City’s website. Staff also sent emails to all current members with terms expiring advising of their need to submit an application if they would like to be considered for reappointment. Staff received a number of applications of those either interested in being reappointed or appointed as a new member.

Aviation Committee
The Tulare Aviation Committee consists of five members and is charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Council and staff in all areas related to city airport use, improvements and development of Mefford Field. As approved by the Council on August 16, 2022, the membership shall be made up of one Planning Commissioner (appointed by the Planning Commission), one airport lease holder, and three additional members. All members with the exception of the member appointed from the Planning Commission are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the majority of the Council. Members serve four-year terms.

The two members with terms expiring on December 31, 2022, are Casey Jenkins, who has advised staff he is no longer interested in serving on the Committee, and Michael Groah, who has not responded to staff nor applied to be considered for reappointment. The remaining three members are not airport lease holders nor Planning Commissioners, so they would be considered the three “additional members.” This means that the two vacant seats would need to be filled with an airport lease holder and Planning Commissioner.

Tulare City Council Page 14
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
Staff received two applications from those interested in serving on the Committee.

One applicant is Robert Forbes who is not a current airport leaseholder; therefore, he would not be eligible for appointment. The other is Michael Schoneau of Valley Aircraft who is a current airport lease holder.

The next Planning Commission meeting is January 9, 2023, where staff will present the opportunity for a Planning Commissioner to serve on the Aviation Committee.

Once selected by the Planning Commission, an item will be presented to Council to confirm appointment.

Police Department Citizen Complaint Review Board
The Police Department Citizen Complaint Review Board is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the Police Department’s investigation of citizen complaints in specific areas and providing an independent review to the Chief of Police. Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.12, the Board shall consist of seven members. Each member of the City Council shall select and appoint one member to the Board, subject of the approval by the remainder of the Council, and two appointed at-large to serve two-year terms. An eighth, non-voting member is selected by the Police Officers Union to sit on the Board.

All seven members have the same term which expires on December 31, 2022.

Members serve two-year terms. Staff has received ten applications for consideration to fill the vacancies as follows:

Carlos “Charlie” Ramos* (appointed by Seat 3)
Danny Giotto* (at-large appointment)
Duane Goree* (at-large appointment)
Jennifer Burchman* (appointed by Seat 1)
Julie Leighty* (appointed by Seat 2)
Karen Presant* (appointed by Seat 4)
Jonathan Juarez
Madalyn Souza
Marjorie Calvillo
Joshua Weatherby
*Current member seeking reappointment
The only current member that did not apply to be considered for reappointment is Gene Chavez who was appointed by Council Seat 5.

The attendance record for the members of the Board for 2022 is provided below.

Tulare City Council Page 15
Agenda Memo – December 20, 2022
Staff recommends Council appoint members to the Police Department Citizen Complaint Review Board and Aviation Committee to fill seats with terms ending December 31, 2022.

16. STAFF UPDATES [Time Estimate: 8:35-8:45 p.m.]

17. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

17.1. Naming the Tulare Dog Park for K-9 Bane killed in the line of duty on December 9, 2018. [Councilmember Harrell] [Time Estimate: 8:45-9:00 p.m.]

18. 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, December 6, 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, Melissa Hermann, Fred Ynclan, Janice Avila, Mario Anaya, Traci Myers, Diego Ibanez, Michael Miller, Trisha Whitfield, Jason Glick

1. CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING
A special meeting of the City Council was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Mayor Mederos.

2. STUDY SESSION

2.1. Update and seek City Council input on the status of the Downtown Master Plan Update process. [Submitted by: T. Myers] Executive Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Traci Myers introduced the item.

Rick Barrett, Chris Beynon, and Phoenix Alfaro of MIG provided a presentation.

Following the presentation, Council provided input.

3. ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING
Mayor Mederos adjourned the special meeting at 6:59 p.m.

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tulare was held on Tuesday, December 6, 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, Melissa Hermann, Fred Ynclan, Cameron Long, Janice Avila, Mario Anaya, Traci Myers, Diego Ibanez, Michael Miller, Trisha Whitfield, Jason Glick, Rodnie Roberts

4. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR MEETING
A regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:11 p.m. by Mayor Mederos.

5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
Councilmember Harrell led the pledge of allegiance and an invocation was given by Councilmember Isherwood.

Item #: 13.2
Consent
City Council Minutes Tuesday, December 6, 2022
City of Tulare Page 2

PRESENTATION FROM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
Richie Sayavong from the California Department of Insurance provided a brief presentation regarding California’s Low Cost Auto Insurance Program.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following individuals provided public comment: Leadership Tulare Class was introduced.

7. COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Marc Mondell advised there were no communications.

8. COUNCIL REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST
Council reported out on recent events and discussed items of interest.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Councilmember Harrell, seconded by Vice Mayor Sayre, and unanimously carried to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented with the exception of item 9.5.

9.1. Authorization to read ordinances by title only.

9.2. Approve minutes of the November 15, 2022, special and regular meetings. [Submitted by: M. Hermann]

9.3. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2022-16 amending the Zoning Map of the City being a part of the Section 10.04.04 of said Code Zone Amendment No. 748. [Submitted by: M. Hermann]

9.4. Approve the final map for Fernjo Estates (Orchard 79) subdivision for recordation, and accept all easements and dedications offered to the City on the final map. [Submitted by: M. Miller]

9.5. Approve the final map for Phase 3 of the KCOK Ranch subdivision for recordation, and accept all easements and dedications offered to the City on the final map. [Submitted by: M. Miller] Councilmember Sigala pulled this item for clarification. City Engineer Michael Miller provided response thereto. It was moved by Mayor Mederos, seconded by Councilmember Harrell, and unanimously carried to approve the item as presented.

9.6. Accept a grant of easement for slope grading purposes associated with the Oakcrest Subdivision and authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign a Certificate of Acceptance for the same. [Submitted by: M. Miller]

9.7. Authorize the City Manager to execute a preliminary oversize construction reimbursement agreement with Presido JJR Kensington II 100, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company for construction costs associated with Phases 3 and 4 of the Kensington Estates subdivision that are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Municipal Code, City Council Minutes Tuesday, December 6, 2022
City of Tulare Page 3
subject only to minor conforming and clarifying changes acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager. [Submitted by: M. Miller]

9.8. Approve the sale of APN 191-350-011 and APN 191-070-015 to Caltrans to construct the new interchange at International Agri-Center Way (formerly known as Commercial Avenue) on State Route 99 for the amount of $293,000. [Submitted by: J. McDonnell, M. Correa]

9.9. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program application, the PLHA standard agreement and any subsequent agreement and any amendments or modifications thereto, as well as any other documents which are related to the Program or PLHA grant award to the City of Tulare. [Submitted by: A.

Costales]

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.1. Pass to print an ordinance repealing and replacing Title 3 (Fire Regulations), adding Chapter 7.05 (Code Enforcement Officer) of Title 7, amending Section 7.28.030 of Chapter 7.28 (Nuisances Generally) of Title 7, and repealing Chapter 8.20 (Weed Abatement) of the Tulare Municipal Code. [Submitted by: R. Leonardo] Fire Marshal Ryan Leonardo provided a report for Council consideration. Mayor Mederos opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. With no comments received, the public hearing was closed at 7:48 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Harrell, seconded by Councilmember Isherwood, and unanimously carried to pass to print the ordinance as presented.

11. GENERAL BUSINESS

11.1. Receive a presentation by Caltrans District 6 staff regarding their efforts to prepare a Complete Streets Study for the Inyo Avenue (State Route 137) corridor between West Street and I Street. [Submitted by: M. Miller] City Engineer Michael Miller introduced the item and a presentation was provided by Ellery Ellis from Caltrans. Public comment was received from Connie Dias and Lori who voiced concern for the safety of students crossing Inyo Street. Council provided input. No action was taken as this was an informational item only.

11.2. Review and consider a term sheet precedent to entering into an operating agreement with Spade Entertainment to serve as operator of the Zumwalt Park Amphitheatre. [Submitted by: J. Glick] Community Services Director Jason Glick introduced the item. A presentation was provided by Todd and Claudia Speelman of Spade Entertainment. Public comment was received from Adrian Herrera who supported the item. Following discussion, it was moved by Vice Mayor Sayre, seconded by Councilmember Sigala, and unanimously carried to approve the item as presented.

12. CONVENE JOINTLY AS TULARE CITY COUNCIL AND TULARE CITY COUNCIL

ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TULARE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

12.1. Adopt a resolution of the Successor Agency to the former Tulare Redevelopment Agency approving and adopting the recognized obligation City Council Minutes Tuesday, December 6, 2022
City of Tulare Page 4
payment schedule for the July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 period and the Fiscal year 2023-24 Administrative Budget. [Submitted by: D. Ibanez] Chief Financial Officer Diego Ibanez provided a report for Council consideration.

It was moved by Mayor Mederos, seconded by Vice Mayor Sayre, and unanimously carried to adopt the resolution as amended, removing a duplicate WHEREAS statement.

13. ADJOURN AS TULARE CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY

TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND REMAIN SEATED AS THE TULARE

CITY COUNCIL

14. STAFF UPDATES
Staff provided updates on current department activities.

15. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - None Submitted

16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Mederos adjourned the regular meeting at 9:41 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: December 20, 2022
Item #: 13.3
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: City Manager
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☐Other ☒None

AGENDA ITEM:

Approve the cancellation of the regular meeting of January 3, 2023.

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

Staff requests Council consider and approve the cancellation of the regular meeting scheduled January 3, 2023 due to the holiday. City administrative offices are closed Friday, December 23, Monday, December 26, Friday, December 30, and Monday, January 2. In addition, several staff will be on vacation during this time. This does not allow sufficient time for staff to prepare for the meeting on January 3.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the cancellation of the regular meeting of January 3, 2023.

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: Melissa Hermann Title: Chief Deputy City Clerk Date: December 1, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ Item #: 13.4
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: City Manager
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☒Resolution ☐Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Adopt a resolution accepting the official canvass and certified Statement of Votes of the November 8, 2022 General Election.

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

On June 7, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 2022-24 to place a measure on the ballot of the November 8, 2022 General Election regarding a cannabis business tax ordinance (Measure Y). The Tulare County Registrar of Voters conducted the official canvass and certified the election results on November 30, 2022 (attached). The total number of votes cast in the City of Tulare for Measure Y was 12,373 with 8,074 (65.25%) voting yes and 4,299 (34.75%) voting no. As a result, with Measure Y receiving approval by a majority of voters (more than 50%), the Measure carries and is adopted by the People of the City of Tulare.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution accepting the official canvass and certified Statement of Votes of the November 8, 2022 General Election.

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: Melissa Hermann Title: Chief Deputy City Clerk Date: December 12, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ RESOLUTION 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE

ACCEPTING THE OFFICIAL CANVASS AND CERTIFIED STATEMENT OF VOTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL ELECTION AND DECLARING THE RESULTS AND OTHER SUCH MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of Tulare, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, as required by law; and WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by law; voting precincts were properly established; election officers were appointed and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in the time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in charter cities and the provisions of the City of Tulare’s Charter; and
WHEREAS, the Tulare County Registrar of Voters Office has canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results attached as “Exhibit A.” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tulare, as follows, to wit:

Section 1. The whole number of votes cast in the City of Tulare, including ballots cast at the precincts and vote-by-mail ballots cast, was 12,987.

Section 2. The measure voted upon at the election was as follows:

Measure Y – City of Tulare
Cannabis Business Tax
To fund general municipal expenses such as police, fire, address homelessness, roads, and recreation, shall the City tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 10% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 10% for all other cannabis businesses will be levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council? Yes votes: 8,074 (65.25%) No votes: 4,299 (34.75%)
Section 3. As a result of the election, approval by a majority of voters (more than 50%) required to approve Measure Y was obtained; therefore, Measure Y carries and is adopted.

Section 4. The number of votes given at each precinct for and against Measure Y are listed in Exhibit A, attached.

Resolution 2022-XX

Page 2 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on December 20, 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
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 3 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF TULARE )
I, Marc Mondell, City Clerk of the City of Tulare, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2022-XX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Tulare, California, at a meeting held on December 20, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Dated: December _____, 2022

By Melissa Hermann, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Statement of Vote
General Election
November 8, 2022

EXHIBIT A

Section 1
Votes Cast by Precinct
Voting Precinct
Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
Polling Places
Vote by Mail
1021001 1104 527 47.74 67 460
1022001 1122 588 52.41 81 507
1023001 704 386 54.83 69 317
1023006 574 370 64.46 47 323
1024001 579 227 39.21 42 185
1024010 235 97 41.28 11 86
1025001 1035 504 48.7 96 408
1025008 23 16 69.57 3 13
1030001 2840 950 33.45 137 813
1030002 678 224 33.04 38 186
1030006 629 180 28.62 37 143
1064001 2569 836 32.54 104 732
1064002 3922 1123 28.63 191 932
1064013 87 21 24.14 3 18
1065001 3689 1404 38.06 198 1206
1065007 668 180 26.95 19 161
1065011 1599 617 38.59 118 499
1065013 1107 463 41.82 73 390
1068001 43 18 41.86 4 14
1068002 213 46 21.6 7 39
1068003 20 9 45 2 7
1080001 3874 1228 31.7 220 1008
1088001 0 0 0
1088002 0 0 0
1990096 313 190 60.7 12 178
1990172 351 105 29.91 10 95
1990280 284 103 36.27 7 96
1990413 389 95 24.42 21 74
1990435 592 374 63.18 67 307
1998001 692 428 61.85 30 398
1998002 23 18 78.26 18
1998003 0 0 0
1998004 156 66 42.31 6 60
1998005 129 83 64.34 9 74
1998006 444 281 63.29 24 257
1998007 717 428 59.69 30 398
1998008 257 170 66.15 19 151
1998009 121 62 51.24 7 55
1998010 38 19 50 2 17
1998011 1 1 100 1
1998012 263 171 65.02 17 154
November 8, 2022 General Election
Votes Cast By Precinct
Tulare County
1-001
Voting Precinct
Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
Polling Places
Vote by Mail
1998013 187 104 55.61 3 101
1998014 144 45 31.25 3 42
1998015 2 1 50 1
1998016 99 69 69.7 1 68
1998017 393 234 59.54 21 213
1998018 99 47 47.47 6 41
1998019 4 0 0
1998020 61 27 44.26 27
1998021 225 84 37.33 6 78
1998022 157 59 37.58 13 46
1998023 6 2 33.33 2
1998024 201 86 42.79 8 78
1998025 89 43 48.31 3 40
1998026 155 60 38.71 5 55
1998027 333 173 51.95 20 153
1998028 74 26 35.14 2 24
1998029 4 4 100 4
1998030 27 17 62.96 1 16
1998031 123 54 43.9 3 51
1998032 165 74 44.85 4 70
1998033 102 61 59.8 2 59
1998034 15 11 73.33 11
1998035 7 5 71.43 5
1998036 7 2 28.57 2
1998037 0 0 0
1998038 93 29 31.18 3 26
1998039 84 52 61.9 4 48
1998040 39 20 51.28 20
1998041 864 350 40.51 24 326
1998042 174 88 50.57 4 84
1998043 128 50 39.06 5 45
1998044 12 8 66.67 2 6
1998045 1122 447 39.84 28 419
1998046 2 2 100 2
1998047 0 0 0
1998048 16 14 87.5 14
1998049 17 15 88.24 15
1998050 424 125 29.48 5 120
1998051 14 10 71.43 10
1998052 271 120 44.28 5 115
1998053 3 0 0
1998054 0 0 0
1998055 0 0 0
1998056 0 0 0
1998057 11 0 0
1998058 2 2 100 2
2051005 2421 761 31.43 137 624
2051006 2128 596 28.01 59 537
1-002
Voting Precinct
Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
Polling Places
Vote by Mail
2051010 528 150 28.41 12 138
2052001 3420 1054 30.82 143 911
2052002 176 53 30.11 3 50
2052003 344 80 23.26 3 77
2052004 200 64 32 2 62
2052024 733 446 60.85 78 368
2053002 1997 762 38.16 129 633
2053008 1691 597 35.3 90 507
2053014 1094 374 34.19 57 317
2053033 275 133 48.36 15 118
2054001 4193 2111 50.35 322 1789
2054017 2972 1580 53.16 273 1307
2054023 599 321 53.59 39 282
2055001 5613 2682 47.78 372 2310
2055005 532 249 46.8 35 214
2055009 1398 679 48.57 130 549
2058001 29 12 41.38 3 9
2058002 22 11 50 11
2058003 0 0 0
2058004 122 26 21.31 3 23
2058005 14 3 21.43 3
2058006 0 0 0
2058007 132 50 37.88 3 47
2058008 101 78 77.23 6 72
2058009 98 51 52.04 6 45
2058010 1 0 0
2058011 136 49 36.03 9 40
2058012 1 0 0
2058013 0 0 0
2058014 0 0 0
2990121 647 200 30.91 52 148
2990123 213 131 61.5 10 121
2990153 82 24 29.27 3 21
2990156 641 206 32.14 23 183
2990237 1920 567 29.53 138 429
2998001 29 19 65.52 19
2998002 0 0 0
2998003 494 295 59.72 20 275
2998004 587 295 50.26 24 271
2998005 1486 715 48.12 34 681
2998006 126 73 57.94 3 70
2998007 11 10 90.91 2 8
2998008 7 5 71.43 5
2998009 449 258 57.46 19 239
2998010 414 227 54.83 16 211
2998011 15 12 80 1 11
2998012 128 59 46.09 5 54
2998013 23 15 65.22 15
1-003
Voting Precinct
Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
Polling Places
Vote by Mail
2998014 41 29 70.73 2 27
2998015 504 201 39.88 18 183
2998016 15 1 6.67 1
2998017 0 0 0
2998018 163 41 25.15 6 35
2998019 503 147 29.22 7 140
2998020 131 56 42.75 1 55
2998021 149 44 29.53 1 43
2998022 0 0 0
2998023 187 54 28.88 2 52
2998024 0 0 0
2998025 0 0 0
3061001 3519 1965 55.84 261 1704
3061005 2523 1582 62.7 197 1385
3061010 2613 1337 51.17 230 1107
3061015 3195 1588 49.7 258 1330
3062002 4895 2326 47.52 324 2002
3062013 3641 1672 45.92 222 1450
3062016 2316 1059 45.73 169 890
3062020 1713 940 54.87 155 785
3062025 530 343 64.72 29 314
3062031 3331 1787 53.65 224 1563
3063009 2877 1687 58.64 250 1437
3063014 1945 1144 58.82 125 1019
3063020 4686 2343 50 360 1983
3063026 5676 3034 53.45 369 2665
3063035 1660 809 48.73 99 710
3064006 922 558 60.52 92 466
3065004 2349 990 42.15 134 856
3065006 2527 1221 48.32 189 1032
3065016 611 179 29.3 36 143
3068001 221 91 41.18 16 75
3068002 36 10 27.78 10
3068003 25 4 16 4
3068004 0 0 0
3068005 14 8 57.14 1 7
3068006 1 0 0
3068007 0 0 0
3068008 8 2 25 2
3068009 0 0 0
3068010 0 0 0
3068011 174 100 57.47 18 82
3068012 242 102 42.15 13 89
3068013 49 15 30.61 1 14
3068014 51 26 50.98 4 22
3068015 91 46 50.55 11 35
3068016 212 103 48.58 8 95
3998001 7 6 85.71 4 2
1-004
Voting Precinct
Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
Polling Places
Vote by Mail
3998002 549 328 59.74 30 298
3998003 18 10 55.56 10
3998004 13 7 53.85 7
3998005 17 11 64.71 2 9
3998006 0 0 0
3998007 72 33 45.83 4 29
3998008 43 29 67.44 2 27
3998009 23 17 73.91 2 15
3998010 35 27 77.14 27
3998011 11 8 72.73 8
3998012 3 2 66.67 2
3998013 42 21 50 3 18
3998014 67 41 61.19 41
3998015 14 10 71.43 10
3998016 124 62 50 5 57
3998017 5 1 20 1
3998018 315 185 58.73 6 179
3998019 69 36 52.17 6 30
4011001 1633 370 22.66 65 305
4012001 1621 498 30.72 66 432
4013001 1155 427 36.97 59 368
4013003 829 308 37.15 48 260
4014001 1742 608 34.9 100 508
4014005 244 134 54.92 10 124
4015001 496 64 12.9 11 53
4015002 550 538 97.82 59 479
4015005 669 307 45.89 26 281
4015013 619 209 33.76 22 187
4018001 1 1 100 1
4018002 210 87 41.43 5 82
4018003 19 15 78.95 1 14
4018004 121 27 22.31 6 21
4061001 185 111 60 17 94
4061002 1043 451 43.24 67 384
4061003 2761 1328 48.1 170 1158
4064001 802 361 45.01 59 302
4064002 1485 581 39.12 89 492
4064003 534 247 46.25 30 217
4064005 491 227 46.23 35 192
4068001 168 57 33.93 4 53
4068002 0 0 0
4070001 1727 628 36.36 126 502
4070004 662 258 38.97 47 211
4070006 439 149 33.94 26 123
4078001 5 2 40 2
4078002 2 2 100 2
4990023 1741 644 36.99 58 586
4990032 683 225 32.94 30 195
1-005
Voting Precinct
Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
Polling Places
Vote by Mail
4990046 1172 362 30.89 38 324
4990068 137 37 27.01 7 30
4990119 703 481 68.42 92 389
4990147 344 141 40.99 15 126
4990164 1609 397 24.67 80 317
4990203 424 222 52.36 23 199
4990252 704 453 64.35 26 427
4990271 1427 437 30.62 71 366
4990388 1529 1127 73.71 167 960
4998001 613 250 40.78 15 235
4998002 451 206 45.68 8 198
4998003 51 35 68.63 35
4998004 253 121 47.83 5 116
4998005 999 385 38.54 18 367
4998006 674 370 54.9 22 348
4998007 120 84 70 5 79
4998008 245 60 24.49 18 42
4998009 160 62 38.75 8 54
4998010 17 13 76.47 13
4998011 124 63 50.81 2 61
4998012 229 146 63.76 10 136
4998013 18 12 66.67 1 11
4998014 4 2 50 2
4998015 11 5 45.45 5
4998016 215 84 39.07 4 80
4998017 193 74 38.34 6 68
4998018 633 192 30.33 10 182
4998019 182 123 67.58 5 118
4998020 245 158 64.49 9 149
4998021 638 375 58.78 53 322
4998022 0 0 0
4998023 25 4 16 1 3
4998024 39 15 38.46 3 12
4998025 63 29 46.03 29
4998026 586 299 51.02 13 286
4998027 0 0 0
4998028 27 19 70.37 2 17
4998029 1290 749 58.06 64 685
4998030 19 11 57.89 1 10
4998031 273 298 109.16 45 253
4998032 158 84 53.16 11 73
4998033 22 13 59.09 13
4998034 30 17 56.67 17
4998035 0 0 0
4998036 13 9 69.23 9
4998037 1 2 200 2
4998038 0 0 0
4998039 154 60 38.96 5 55
1-006
Voting Precinct
Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
Polling Places
Vote by Mail
4998040 0 0 0
4998041 1 0 0
4998042 125 93 74.4 12 81
5041003 2590 1014 39.15 180 834
5041006 746 330 44.24 49 281
5041024 787 311 39.52 43 268
5041027 596 212 35.57 29 183
5042010 541 177 32.72 19 158
5042012 2024 934 46.15 130 804
5042018 460 158 34.35 21 137
5042023 759 259 34.12 47 212
5042031 671 256 38.15 48 208
5043001 1750 652 37.26 102 550
5043009 2743 821 29.93 119 702
5044001 1279 643 50.27 81 562
5044002 384 168 43.75 17 151
5044003 346 171 49.42 23 148
5044004 784 329 41.96 55 274
5044008 1057 377 35.67 58 319
5044015 629 278 44.2 32 246
5044017 1941 786 40.49 141 645
5045001 2171 758 34.91 117 641
5045003 417 137 32.85 23 114
5045006 523 156 29.83 22 134
5045018 250 56 22.4 9 47
5048001 5 4 80 4
5048002 39 24 61.54 2 22
5048003 157 42 26.75 4 38
5048004 76 23 30.26 2 21
5048005 449 142 31.63 7 135
5048006 241 116 48.13 13 103
5048007 510 229 44.9 15 214
5048008 0 0 0
5990012 567 200 35.27 52 148
5990091 802 293 36.53 35 258
5990197 569 131 23.02 18 113
5990323 2812 1879 66.82 380 1499
5990347 503 167 33.2 75 92
5998001 20 16 80 1 15
5998002 960 619 64.48 33 586
5998003 18 3 16.67 3
5998004 188 102 54.26 5 97
5998005 193 93 48.19 5 88
5998006 23 11 47.83 1 10
5998007 196 62 31.63 4 58
5998008 1005 494 49.15 31 463
5998009 2520 908 36.03 59 849
5998010 6 2 33.33 1 1
1-007
Voting Precinct
Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
Polling Places
Vote by Mail
5998011 22 13 59.09 1 12
5998012 17 8 47.06 8
5998013 7 6 85.71 1 5
5998014 1 0 0
5998015 20 8 40 1 7
5998016 53 38 71.7 38
5998017 59 21 35.59 1 20
5998018 294 142 48.3 8 134
5998019 0 0 0
5998020 294 148 50.34 7 141
5998021 21 11 52.38 11
5998022 27 14 51.85 1 13
5998023 15 12 80 12
5998024 21 15 71.43 1 14
5998025 57 39 68.42 39
5998026 10 5 50 5
5998027 643 280 43.55 22 258
5998028 159 98 61.64 13 85
5998029 24 13 54.17 13
5998030 24 10 41.67 3 7
5998031 0 0 0
5998032 33 18 54.55 3 15
5998033 0 0 0
5998034 0 0 0
5998035 0 0 0
5998036 35 29 82.86 29
5998037 143 101 70.63 4 97
5998038 0 0 0
5998039 0 0 0
5998040 0 0 0
5998041 0 0 0
Total 208927 92404 44.23 12473 79931
1-008
Section 2
Statement of Votes
Cast
Measure Y (Vote for 1)
District
Times CastRegistered Voters
Countywide
Electionwide
Polling Places 1,928 30,970
Vote by Mail 11,059 30,970
Electionwide - Total 12,987 30,970
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
Countywide - Total 12,987 30,970
United States
Representative
Congressional District 20
Polling Places 793 9,707
Vote by Mail 4,145 9,707
Congressional District 20 -
Total 4,938 9,707
Congressional District 22
Polling Places 1,135 21,263
Vote by Mail 6,914 21,263
Congressional District 22 -
Total 8,049 21,263
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
United States Representative
- Total 12,987 30,970
State Senator
Senate District 12
Polling Places 881 10,637
District
YesNoTotal Votes
Countywide
Electionwide
Polling Places 1,071 57.52% 791 42.48% 1,862
Vote by Mail 7,003 66.63% 3,508 33.37% 10,511
Electionwide - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
Countywide - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
United States
Representative
Congressional District 20
Polling Places 426 55.61% 340 44.39% 766
Vote by Mail 2,599 65.88% 1,346 34.12% 3,945
Congressional District 20 -
Total
3,025 64.21% 1,686 35.79% 4,711
Congressional District 22
Polling Places 645 58.85% 451 41.15% 1,096
Vote by Mail 4,404 67.07% 2,162 32.93% 6,566
Congressional District 22 -
Total
5,049 65.90% 2,613 34.10% 7,662
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
United States Representative
- Total
8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
State Senator
Senate District 12
Polling Places 469 55.05% 383 44.95% 852
Page: 868 of 876 12/1/2022 11:23:57 AM
2-00868
District
Times CastRegistered Voters
Vote by Mail 4,631 10,637
Senate District 12 - Total 5,512 10,637
Senate District 16
Polling Places 1,047 20,333
Vote by Mail 6,428 20,333
Senate District 16 - Total 7,475 20,333
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
State Senator - Total 12,987 30,970
Member of the State
Assembly
Assembly District 32
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Assembly District 32 - Total 0 0
Assembly District 33
Polling Places 1,928 30,970
Vote by Mail 11,059 30,970
Assembly District 33 - Total 12,987 30,970
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
Member of the State
Assembly - Total 12,987 30,970
Board of Equalization
(State)
Board of Equalization 1
Polling Places 1,928 30,970
District
YesNoTotal Votes
Vote by Mail 2,891 65.72% 1,508 34.28% 4,399
Senate District 12 - Total 3,360 63.99% 1,891 36.01% 5,251 Senate District 16
Polling Places 602 59.60% 408 40.40% 1,010
Vote by Mail 4,112 67.28% 2,000 32.72% 6,112
Senate District 16 - Total 4,714 66.19% 2,408 33.81% 7,122 Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
State Senator - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
Member of the State
Assembly
Assembly District 32
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Assembly District 32 - Total 0 0 0
Assembly District 33
Polling Places 1,071 57.52% 791 42.48% 1,862
Vote by Mail 7,003 66.63% 3,508 33.37% 10,511
Assembly District 33 - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373 Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
Member of the State
Assembly - Total
8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
Board of Equalization
(State)
Board of Equalization 1
Polling Places 1,071 57.52% 791 42.48% 1,862
Page: 869 of 876 12/1/2022 11:23:57 AM
2-00869
District
Times CastRegistered Voters
Vote by Mail 11,059 30,970
Board of Equalization 1 -
Total 12,987 30,970
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
Board of Equalization (State)
- Total 12,987 30,970
County Supervisor
County Supervisor District
2 Polling Places 1,928 30,970
Vote by Mail 11,059 30,970
County Supervisor District 2 -
Total 12,987 30,970
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
County Supervisor - Total 12,987 30,970
City
City of Tulare
Polling Places 1,928 30,970
Vote by Mail 11,059 30,970
City of Tulare - Total 12,987 30,970
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
City - Total 12,987 30,970
District
YesNoTotal Votes
Vote by Mail 7,003 66.63% 3,508 33.37% 10,511
Board of Equalization 1 -
Total
8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
Board of Equalization (State)
- Total
8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
County Supervisor
County Supervisor District
2 Polling Places 1,071 57.52% 791 42.48% 1,862
Vote by Mail 7,003 66.63% 3,508 33.37% 10,511
County Supervisor District 2 -
Total
8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
County Supervisor - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373 City
City of Tulare
Polling Places 1,071 57.52% 791 42.48% 1,862
Vote by Mail 7,003 66.63% 3,508 33.37% 10,511
City of Tulare - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373 Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
City - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373
Page: 870 of 876 12/1/2022 11:23:57 AM
2-00870
District
Times CastRegistered Voters
City sub-district
City of Tulare Area 1
Polling Places 211 5,106
Vote by Mail 1,308 5,106
City of Tulare Area 1 - Total 1,519 5,106
City of Tulare Area 2
Polling Places 239 5,228
Vote by Mail 1,618 5,228
City of Tulare Area 2 - Total 1,857 5,228
City of Tulare Area 3
Polling Places 290 5,095
Vote by Mail 1,580 5,095
City of Tulare Area 3 - Total 1,870 5,095
City of Tulare Area 4
Polling Places 651 7,998
Vote by Mail 3,475 7,998
City of Tulare Area 4 - Total 4,126 7,998
City of Tulare Area 5
Polling Places 537 7,543
Vote by Mail 3,078 7,543
City of Tulare Area 5 - Total 3,615 7,543
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
City sub-district - Total 12,987 30,970
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Polling Places 1,928 30,970
Vote by Mail 11,059 30,970
Unincorporated - Total 12,987 30,970
Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0
District
YesNoTotal Votes
City sub-district
City of Tulare Area 1
Polling Places 124 60.78% 80 39.22% 204
Vote by Mail 823 66.21% 420 33.79% 1,243
City of Tulare Area 1 - Total 947 65.45% 500 34.55% 1,447 City of Tulare Area 2
Polling Places 142 60.94% 91 39.06% 233
Vote by Mail 1,016 66.41% 514 33.59% 1,530
City of Tulare Area 2 - Total 1,158 65.68% 605 34.32% 1,763 City of Tulare Area 3
Polling Places 150 54.95% 123 45.05% 273
Vote by Mail 1,022 67.15% 500 32.85% 1,522
City of Tulare Area 3 - Total 1,172 65.29% 623 34.71% 1,795 City of Tulare Area 4
Polling Places 344 54.69% 285 45.31% 629
Vote by Mail 2,177 65.87% 1,128 34.13% 3,305
City of Tulare Area 4 - Total 2,521 64.08% 1,413 35.92% 3,934 City of Tulare Area 5
Polling Places 311 59.46% 212 40.54% 523
Vote by Mail 1,965 67.50% 946 32.50% 2,911
City of Tulare Area 5 - Total 2,276 66.28% 1,158 33.72% 3,434 Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
City sub-district - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373 Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Polling Places 1,071 57.52% 791 42.48% 1,862
Vote by Mail 7,003 66.63% 3,508 33.37% 10,511
Unincorporated - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373 Cumulative
Polling Places 0 0 0
Page: 871 of 876 12/1/2022 11:23:57 AM
2-00871
District
Times CastRegistered Voters
Vote by Mail 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0
Unincorporated - Total 12,987 30,970
District
YesNoTotal Votes
Vote by Mail 0 0 0
Cumulative - Total 0 0 0
Unincorporated - Total 8,074 65.25% 4,299 34.75% 12,373 Page: 872 of 876 12/1/2022 11:23:57 AM
2-00872
Item #: 13.5
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: City Manager
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Confirm Councilmember Sigala’s appointment of Erica Cubas to the Planning Commission with a term ending December 31, 2025.

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

The City of Tulare has eight boards, commissions, and committees with members appointed by the City Council. From time to time, vacancies occur due to expiring terms and resignations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Confirm Councilmember Sigala’s appointment of Erica Cubas to the Planning Commission with a term ending December 31, 2025.

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: Melissa Hermann Title: Chief Deputy City Clerk Date: December 12, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________

Item #: 13.6
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: City Manager
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☒Ordinance ☐Resolution ☐Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2022-17 repealing and reenacting Title 3, Fire Regulations, adding Chapter 7.05 to Title 7, Health and Sanitation, amending Section 7.28.030 of Chapter 7.28 of Title 7, Health and Sanitation, and repealing Chapter 8.20 of Title 8, Public Ways and Property, of the Tulare Municipal Code.

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

At the December 6, 2022 regular meeting of the City Council, Council held the first reading of and introduced the ordinance concerning repealing and reenacting Title 3, Fire Regulations, adding Chapter 7.05 to Title 7, Health and Sanitation, amending Section 7.28.030 of Chapter

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Ordinance 2022-17 as presented.

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: Melissa Hermann Title: Chief Deputy City Clerk Date: December 12, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ ORDINANCE 2022-17

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE
REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 3, FIRE REGULATIONS, ADDING CHAPTER

7.05 TO TITLE 7, HEALTH AND SANITATION, AMENDING SECTION 7.28.030 OF CHAPTER 7.28 OF TITLE 7, HEALTH AND SANITATION, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 8.20 OF TITLE 8, PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY OF THE TULARE

MUNICIPAL CODE

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE, AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT:

SECTION 1. CODE AMENDMENT. Title 3 of the Tulare Municipal Code is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:

TITLE 3: FIRE REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 3.04

FIRE DEPARTMENT
Sections:

3.04.010 Code enforcement.

3.04.020 Rules and regulations.

3.04.030 Right of entry.

3.04.040 Apparatus and equipment usage.

3.04.050 Unlawful tampering with apparatus or equipment.

3.04.060 Interference with emergency operations.

3.04.070 Fire operations.

3.04.075 Fire lanes.

3.04.080 Fire hydrant clearance.

3.04.090 Investigations.

3.04.100 Powers of arrest.

3.04.110 Misdemeanors.

3.04.010 Code enforcement.

Under the direction of the Fire Chief, the Fire Department is authorized to enforce all ordinances of the city pertaining to the following:
(A) The prevention of fires;
(B) The suppression of dangerous or hazardous fires;
(C)The storage, use and handling of hazardous materials; (D)The installation and maintenance of alarm systems and fire extinguishing equipment;
ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 2 ends

(E) The maintenance and regulation of fire escapes;
(F) The maintenance of fire protection and the elimination of fire hazards; (G)The maintenance of exists; and
(H)The investigation of the cause, origin and circumstances of fire and unauthorized releases of hazardous materials.

3.40.020 Rules and regulations.

The Chief, with the approval of the City Manager, is authorized to make and enforce such rules and regulations for the prevention and control of fires and fire hazards, as may be necessary from time to time, to carry out the intent of this code.

3.04.040 Apparatus and equipment usage.

Only authorized personnel shall operate or otherwise ride on any fire apparatus while en route to an emergency incident.

3.04.050 Unlawful tampering with apparatus or equipment.

No person shall tamper with, handle, remove or otherwise injure any hose, ladder, fire apparatus or other equipment belonging to the city.

3.04.060 Interference with emergency operations.

Except as directed by authorized personnel, it shall be unlawful for any person to interfere with any Fire Department personnel performing their duty.

3.04.070 Fire operations.

The Chief, or any other officer of the Fire Department in charge of the scene of a fire or other emergency involving the protection of life or property, shall have the authority to direct such operations as may be necessary to extinguish or control any fire, perform any rescue operation, investigate the existence of suspected or reported fires, gas leaks or other hazardous situations and take any other action necessary in the reasonable performance of their duty.

3.04.075 Fire lanes.

No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when in conflict with other traffic, in a fire lane. Fire lanes may be designated on public or private property. Any person in violation of this section is subject to an administrative fine. Vehicles may also be subject to removal at the owner’s expense.

ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 3 ends

3.04.080 Fire hydrant clearance.

No person shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle within ten feet of a fire hydrant, except as provided in the Cal. Vehicle Code § 22514.

3.04.090 Investigations.

All fires of suspicious cause shall be referred to Fire Department investigator(s) who shall complete the investigation to determine cause, to secure and process evidence and to apprehend and prosecute those involved in criminal activity.

3.04.100 Power of arrest.

Each member of the Fire Department is hereby granted police power to arrest any person violating any of the terms or provisions of this chapter. If the arrest is to be made at any time or place other than the site and time of the emergency incident where the crime was committed, the Police Department or Fire Department investigator shall make the arrest.

3.04.110 Misdemeanors.

Failure to depart the lands and structures embraced within the emergency scene when requested to do so by Fire Departmental personnel, entering within clearly established boundaries denoting a restricted area, or violation of any of the other terms of this chapter are misdemeanors.

CHAPTER 3.08

FIRE PREVENTION CODE
Sections:

3.08.010 Adoption of fire codes, regulations and standards.

3.08.020 Establishments and duties of Bureau of Fire Prevention.

3.08.030 Definitions.

3.08.040 Dangerous and illegal fireworks.

3.08.070 Amendments to the California Fire Code (CFC).

3.08.080 Safe and sane fireworks.

3.08.090 Appeals.

3.08.100 Penalties.

3.08.110 Repeal of conflicting ordinances.

3.08.010 Adoption of fire codes, regulations and standards.

The city hereby adopts and incorporates into this code, as if fully set forth at length herein except as modified or amended by § 3.08.070, the following fire codes, standards and regulations to be controlling within city limits:
(A) The 2022 California Fire Code (CFC), which is drafted in the image of the 2021 ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 4 ends

International Fire Code (IFC), and which is found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, part 9, including Appendices B through N.

3.08.020 Establishment and duties of Bureau of Fire Prevention.

The California Fire Code shall be enforced by the Bureau of Fire Prevention in the Fire Department of the city, which is hereby established and which shall be operated under the supervision of the Fire Marshal.

3.08.030 Definitions.

For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.

DANGEROUS AND ILLEGAL FIREWORKS. All fireworks not defined and classified as "Safe and Sane" under the provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 19 et seq.

JURISDICTION. Where the word is used in the California Fire Code, it shall mean the “City of Tulare”.

3.08.040 Dangerous and illegal fireworks.
(A) In order to enforce this chapter, only visual verification is required by an enforcement officer of where the offense occurred. Any person observed possessing dangerous or illegal fireworks, or accepting responsibility, may be issued a citation. In all other instances, any adult person legally entitled to reside at the location where it is reasonably believed dangerous or illegal fireworks originated may be cited. (B) In addition to any other remedy, penalty, or punishment stated herein or authorized by state law, each person who possesses or causes to be ignited dangerous or illegal fireworks, or violates any other provision of state law, as it relates to the sale, possession, or use of dangerous and illegal fireworks shall be subject to the imposition of an administrative fine. The schedule of administrative fines for such violations shall be imposed as per § 3.08.040(D).
(C)Persons in possession of dangerous and illegal fireworks in excess of 5,000 pounds shall be punishable under California Health and Safety Code § 12700(b)(4).

Persons in possession of "destructive devices" as defined in California Penal Code § 16460, shall be punishable under California Penal Code § 18710. (D)Each person who violates any section of this code shall be subject to the administrative fine as provided below:

Number of Offenses Amount of Fine
First violation $2,000
Second violation $3,000
Third and all subsequent violations $4,000
ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 5 ends

Possession for sale $10,000
(E) For purposes of calculating the fine amount as specified in this section, the number of offenses shall include every documented instance within a 36-month period. (F) Fines collected pursuant to this section shall be utilized for the safe disposal of confiscated fireworks, public outreach to prevent the possession or use of illegal fireworks and for the continued enforcement of this section. (G)Any duly appointed City of Tulare employee, as specified in this code, having the authority to issue an administrative citation, may lawfully enforce the provisions of this section.
(H)Any person wishing to appeal a citation as issued per this section, shall follow the procedures as established in §§ 1.61.010 and 3.25.010 of this code. An advanced deposit of 50% of the fine levied shall be required. This shall not preclude an appellant the right to apply for a hardship.

3.08.070 Amendments to the California Fire Code (CFC).

The following sections of the 2022 California Fire Code (CFC) are amended and modified, for purposes of this ordinance, as follows:

Section 105.6.30 of the California Fire Code is amended to read:
105.6.32.34 Open Burning. An operational permit is required for any open burning, which has been approved by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Prohibited Open Burning. Notwithstanding other provision, open burning is prohibited as follows:

3. The fire code official is authorized to order the immediate extinguishment of any unauthorized open burning and may issue administrative citations and seek to recover costs in accordance with Sections 1.61 and 3.25 of this Code.

C103.3 Maximum spacing. The maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall be 500 feet for residential development and 300 feet in commercial development.

CC105.1 The average spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 feet for any school building.

D103.5(l) Where a single gate is provided, the gate width shall be not less than 20 feet.

Where a fire apparatus road consists of a divided roadway, the gate width shall be not less than 16 feet.

The following list of CFC sections are not adopted by the City of Tulare and are hereby deleted:

ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 6 ends

109.1 through 109.3 111.1 through 111.4
307
308.1 through 308.1.1
308.1.6.1 through 308.1.6.2
308.2
308.3.1
319
Chapter 36
Appendix #A

3.08.080 Safe and sane fireworks.
(A) Condition of sale. It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, association or organization to sell or offer for sale any fireworks within the city, except as expressly permitted under the terms of and for the time period set forth in this section. (B) Time of sale. Subject to the provisions of the State Fireworks Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division II, Part 2 and §§ 12500—12637), and the provisions of this code and California Health and Safety Code § 12599.5, "safe and sane" fireworks as defined in California Health and Safety Code § 12529, may be sold within the city beginning at 12:00 p.m. on June 28 through 12:00 p.m. July 6 (hereinafter “days of sale”). The daily hours of sale on days of sale shall be 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

Pyrotechnic displays may deviate from these restrictions subject to applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, and provided they are approved by the Fire Chief or his or her designated representative. (C)Permit required. No person, firm, association, corporation or organization shall sell fireworks within the city without first having obtained a permit thereof (“fireworks permit”). Prior to issuance of a permit the requesting party shall fulfill all municipal licensing requirements and fire safety conditions outlined by the Fire Department. All permit applications shall be received in the Fire Marshal’s office by no later than 5:00 p.m. May 1, of each year. Each sales booth must obtain its own permit. (D)Information required for application. Each applicant for such permit shall file a written application within the Bureau of Prevention including:
(1) Tulare Fire Department Fireworks Application Form;
(2) Property Use Agreement Form with required signatures; (3) Certificate of Liability Insurance; and
ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 7 ends

(4) State Fire Marshal Fireworks Retail License.
(5) Copy of the organizations non-profit status, such as 501 C3 filing. (E) Qualified organization. Permits shall only be granted to nonprofit organizations, corporations or local community service organizations organized primarily for veteran, patriotic, welfare, civic betterment or charitable purposes (hereinafter “qualified organization”), which can demonstrate that a majority of their financial resources and manpower are donated to projects of benefit to the total community within the city limits of Tulare.
(F) Number of available fireworks permits.
(1) The total number of fireworks permits available to the public shall be determined by one booth for every 4,500 persons residing within the city as determined by the Planning Department population statistics.
(2) (a) Once approved for a fireworks permit, a qualified organization shall maintain the right to that permit from year to year unless terminated by any of the following:

1. A failure to engage in the business of retailing safe and sane fireworks in the city during the prior calendar year;

2. A safety violation that in the determination of the Fire Department created or had the potential to create a danger to the public;

3. A failure to maintain the requirements of this section; or

4. Any other violations of federal, state, or local law. (b) Such termination is immediate. An appeal may be made to the City Council by giving notice to the City Manager within five days of receipt of the notice of revocation.
(3) If a permit becomes available, either due to termination, voluntary relinquishment, or an increase in population, a notice shall be posted publicly for a twoweek application process. All completed applications will be reviewed and one eligible organization will be selected randomly by the City Clerk's office to fill the vacancy.

Applications can be picked up at either the Fire Department or the City Clerk's office. All completed applications must be turned in to the City Clerk's office by the date and time specified in the public notice.
(G) Application insurance requirements. Each applicant for a permit shall provide, prior to the issuance of any permit, a policy of public liability insurance with coverage of at least $1,000,000.
(H) Fees.

ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 8 ends

(1) Prior to issuance of a fireworks permit, a permit fee, as determined by the current fee schedule for fireworks booth investigation, must be tendered to the city upon receipt of permit.
(2) A $50 safety clean-up fee is required for each organization approved to sell.

This fee is forfeited to the city in the event that the sales booth site is not left in a clean and orderly condition. Organizations forfeiting this fee must resubmit this fee prior to being permitted to sell the following year.
(I) Identification of fireworks booth locations.
(1) Each application shall contain a description of the site desired. Written permission of the property owner must be included in the application. (2) No booth shall be within 100 feet of any flammable liquid storage. (3) No booth shall be placed closer than 30 feet to any building or structure. (4) No booth shall be placed within 400 feet of another booth. (J) Fireworks booth construction.
(1) All retail sales of fireworks shall be permitted only from within a temporary fireworks booth. The sale from any other building or structure is hereby prohibited. (2) Fireworks booths need not comply with provisions of the Uniform California Building Code; provided the booth is erected under the supervision of the local Building Inspector who shall require the booth be constructed in a manner, which will, reasonably, insure the safety of attendant and patrons. (3) Each booth shall have a minimum of two exit doors.
(4) All lighting appliances used in the booth must be safe and in good condition, all bulbs or fluorescent tubes must be shielded against accidental breakage or contact.

No heating devices of any kind are permitted in or near fireworks booths. (5) All electrical wiring, including the power source, shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector. Electrical wiring shall be at least 12 feet above the ground when subject to foot traffic, and 16 feet above the ground when subject to vehicle traffic.
(K) Operational requirements.
(1) No person other than a member of the licensee organization will be permitted to sell or otherwise participate.
(2) All permits are non-transferable.
(3) All persons engaged in the selling of fireworks shall be over the age of 18 ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 9 ends

years. At least one person 21 years of age or older must be in attendance and in charge during the hours of booth operation.
(4) The hours of operations shall be limited as identified in division (B) of this section.
(5) Fireworks may be sold at the booth only.
(6) No sale or delivery thereof shall be made to any person under 16 years of age in accordance with California Health and Safety Code § 12689(b). (7) All permits and licenses shall be posted inside the booth. (8) Broken or damaged fireworks are not to be sold. The items will be collected and a receipt issued so credit may be received from the vendor. (L) Safety and security.
(1) Each stand shall be provided with two fire extinguishers, rated 2A10BC or better. Such equipment is to be serviceable and accessible during all business hours. (2) No smoking is allowed within 50 feet of any booth.
(3) "No Smoking" signs shall be placed on all exterior sides of each booth and one such sign shall be posted within the booth.
(4) All weeds and combustible material shall be cleared from the location of the stand or within 30 feet thereof.
(5) No person shall light or cause to be lit any fireworks or other combustible article within 200 feet thereof.
(M) Permit revocation.
(1) If, in the judgment of the Fire Chief or his or her agent or the Building Inspector or his or her agent, the construction of the booth or the conduct of the operation therein do not conform to the provisions of this section or if in any way the operation of the stand poses a threat to public safety, such officers or either of them, may have the permit revoked and/or the booth immediately closed.
(2) No person shall sell, store, hold or possess any fireworks classified as dangerous, including fire crackers, rockets or the like, from or within any booth. If such is discovered, the permit will be revoked and the booth immediately closed. (3) Failure to remove all traces of the booth and/or any debris resulting from the operation thereof within 48 hours of the close of business on July 6, shall result in the loss of the cleanup security deposit.

ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 10 ends

(4) On the second Tuesday of May of each year, at 6:00 p.m., there shall be a meeting of all fireworks permittees and the Fire Marshal, at 800 South Blackstone in the city. Any organization failing to have a representative at this meeting will suffer loss of their permit.

3.08.090 Appeals.

Whenever the Fire Marshal disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of the code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Fire Marshal to the Board of Appeals within 30 days from the date of the decision appealed.

3.08.100 Penalties.
(A) Except as specified below, any person who violates any of the provisions of this code or standards hereby adopted or fails to comply therewith, or who violates or fails to comply with any order made thereunder, or who builds in violation of any detailed statement of specifications or plans submitted and approved thereunder, or any certificate or permit issued thereunder, and from which no appeal has been taken, or who fails to comply with such an order as affirmed or modified by the city or by a court of competent jurisdiction, within the time fixed herein, shall severally for each and every such violation and noncompliance, respectively, be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding six months or by both the fine and imprisonment. The imposition of one penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violations or defects within a reasonable time; and when not otherwise specified, each ten days that prohibited conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense.
(B) (1) In addition to any other remedies, penalties, or punishments stated herein, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, any person who violates any of the provisions of this code or standards shall also be responsible for all costs associated with the safe disposal of all confiscated fireworks as well as all expenses, costs, fees and fines associated with the investigation of the charges.
(2) The city shall provide cost reimbursement to the State Fire Marshal if required pursuant to regulations to be adopted by the State Fire Marshal addressing the State Fire Marshal's cost for the transportation and disposal of dangerous and illegal fireworks seized by the city, which costs will be part of any administrative fine imposed. However, such cost reimbursement shall not be required unless and until the State Fire Marshal provides services for the disposal of dangerous and illegal fireworks. (3) If the administrative fee, costs, or the cost of removal are charged against either 1) the owner of a parcel of land pursuant to this section or 2) the person cited pursuant to § 3.08.040 who is also the property owner where the citation was given, and said fees, costs, or costs of removal are not paid within 30 days of the date of the order, ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 11 ends

or the final disposition of an appeal therefrom, such costs may be assessed against the parcel of land pursuant to California Government Code § 38773.5 and may be transmitted to the tax collector for collection. Said assessment shall have the same priority as other city taxes.
(C) The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions.

3.08.110 Repeal of conflicting ordinances.

All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this chapter are hereby repealed.

CHAPTER 3.12

OUTDOOR BURNING
Sections:

3.12.010 Outdoor burning regulations.

3.12.020 Air Pollution Control District.

3.12.010 Outdoor burning regulations.

Outdoor fireplaces and other approved devices are allowed if they comply with the following conditions:
(A) Fuel is to be clean, dry wood and/or charcoal without coatings or preservatives.

No debris, trash, garbage, demolition materials or yard waste shall be burned. (B) The fire is contained in a fire bowl, fire pit, chiminea or outdoor fireplace that has a fire area not larger than three feet in diameter.
(C) A homemade fire bowl or pit is permitted if the fire area is not larger than three feet in diameter and one foot in height, and constructed of noncombustible material that contains the fire and its embers.
(D) An outdoor fireplace shall not be operated within ten (10) feet of a structure or combustible material. Exception: Outdoor fireplaces used at one and two-family dwellings.
(E) Conditions such as dry weeds or other hazards that are nearby, or may cause a fire to spread from the outdoor fireplace, shall be eliminated prior to ignition. (F) All fires shall be constantly attended by a responsible, non-impaired adult.

3.12.020 Air Pollution Control District.

Nothing in this code shall authorize or permit any act or condition which is prohibited by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Regulations or the rules or ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 12 ends

regulations of any air pollution control district established pursuant thereto.

CHAPTER 3.16

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Sections:

3.16.010 Purpose.

3.16.020 Definitions.

3.16.030 Management of hazardous materials on properties.

3.16.040 Management of hazardous materials on streets.

3.16.050 Control of mitigation measures.

3.16.060 Notification of release of hazardous materials.

3.16.070 Costs subject to recovery.

3.16.080 Recovery of costs.

3.16.090 Appeals.

3.16.100 Billing.

3.16.010 Purpose.

In the event of a hazardous material release into or upon any land, water or air within the city, responsibility for scene management shall be the most appropriate agency or responsible party, as set forth in this chapter. The costs incurred by the city in cleaning up (mitigating) the effects of such a release shall be reimbursed by the person, firm or corporation found to be the responsible party for causing the release. Costs subject to reimbursement shall include those of the city for emergency response.

3.16.020 Definitions.

For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms shall apply.

CITY. The City of Tulare.

EMERGENCY. A sudden, unexpected occurrence which poses an unreasonable and imminent risk to life, health or safety of person, property or to the ecological balance of the environment and requires immediate action by emergency response personnel.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PERSONNEL. Any person employed with either the Fire or Police Department of the City of Tulare or any other emergency-related governmental agency having jurisdiction within the City of Tulare.

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. A substance or combination of substances, of any kind whatsoever, which, because of quantity, concentration, physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may result in the following conditions:
(A) May cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality, an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; and/or (B) May pose an unreasonable and imminent risk to the life, health or safety of ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 13 ends

persons, property or to the ecological balance of the environment when improperly released, treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Any material defined in Cal. Health and Safety Code § 25501 of Chapter 6.95, Division 20.

NONEMERGENCY. An occurrence that is not a life-threatening situation and, therefore, does not require the deployment of emergency response personnel.

PERSON. An individual, or any business entity, including but not limited to a trust, firm, corporation, joint stock company, partnership, association or the employer of the person.

RELEASE or HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE. The accidental or intentional spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, burning, emitting, employing or dumping of hazardous materials into or upon any land, water or air which is unauthorized by federal, state or local governing agencies or statutes.

SCENE MANAGEMENT. The coordination and direction of personnel and equipment involved in the containment and cleanup activities of an incident.

3.16.030 Management of hazardous materials on properties.

In the event of an emergency release of a hazardous material on public or private property, excluding street rights-of-way, within the limits of the City of Tulare, the Fire Department shall be responsible for scene management. In the event of a nonemergency release of hazardous material, the Fire Department may designate another more appropriate agency to manage the incident.

3.16.040 Management of hazardous materials on streets.

In the event of an emergency or nonemergency release of a hazardous material on street rights-of-way contained within the limits of the city, the Fire Department shall have responsibility for scene management on all locally owned rights-of-way. Scene management of all state owned and maintained rights-of-way, including Freeway 99, shall be the responsibility of the California Highway Patrol.

3.16.050 Control of mitigation measures.

An emergency situation created by a hazardous material release which poses an imminent risk to the life, health or safety of persons, property or to the ecological balance of the environment shall be mitigated in the manner prescribed and pursuant to the direction of the Fire Department.

3.16.060 Notification of release of hazardous materials.

In the event of any hazardous material release of any kind, or threat thereof, the Fire Department shall be notified immediately of the location, nature of release and any ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 14 ends

proposed course of action to mitigate the effects of the release or to prevent the release from occurring. Notification is necessary for the purpose of maintaining records of incidents and exposures occurring within the city.

3.16.070 Costs subject to recovery.

The costs for services incurred by the city resulting from a hazardous material release shall include, but not be limited to, the following: actual labor costs of city personnel, including all fringe benefits costs; temporary or permanent disability and/or medical expenses; administrative overhead; costs of equipment operation, repair or replacement; costs of material obtained directly by the city; cost of any contract labor; and any other reasonably related cost expended to mitigate the release.

3.16.080 Recovery of costs.

The expense of an emergency response may be charged against the person liable for expenses under this chapter. The charge constitutes a debt of that person and is collectible by the city or other public obligation under a contract, expressed or implied.

3.16.090 Appeals.

In exceptional situations where it is difficult or impossible to comply with the strict letter of this chapter, any person, firm or corporation shall have the option to apply for an exemption from any provision of this chapter to the City Manager or designee. The City Manager/designee shall exercise those powers in such a way that the public welfare is secured. If an appeal has been initiated, the billing process will continue until the appeal is resolved. Appeal applications must be submitted within 90 days after the billing date.

3.16.100 Billing.

The city’s Finance Department shall issue an invoice for the costs incurred in mitigating or causing the mitigation of the effects of a release. Payment shall be due and payable within 15 days after the billing date. Failure to pay after 60 days from the billing date shall result in an additional ten percent late charge. Unpaid bills may be referred to a collection agency after 90-days’ delinquency or be assessed against the parcel of land involved in the incident pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 38773.5 and shall thereafter be transmitted to the Tax Collector for collection.

CHAPTER 3.20

DISASTER MANAGEMENT
Sections:

3.20.010 Purpose.

3.20.020 Definitions.

3.20.030 Duties of the Director.

3.20.040 Unlawful acts.

3.20.050 Misdemeanor.

ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 15 ends

3.20.010 Purpose.

This chapter is constructed to serve the following purpose:
(A) To empower the City Manager or his or her designee to prepare a plan of operation for the management of disasters and other catastrophic events. This plan is to be developed in accordance with state and federal guidelines using National Incident Management;
(B) To provide for the protection of persons and property within the City of Tulare in the event of such disasters;
(C) To provide for the coordination of the emergency operational functions of the city with all other affected agencies; and
(D) To sanction expenditures made in connection with such disasters, including mutual aid activities, as conclusively required for the direct protection and benefit of the inhabitants and property in the city.

3.20.020 Definitions.

Except where the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the construction of this chapter.

DISASTER. Actual or threatened enemy attack, sabotage, extraordinary fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, earthquake or other public calamity. It shall not include, nor does any provision of this chapter apply to, any condition relating to a labor controversy.

EMERGENCY OPERATING CENTER (EOC). The physical location designated and used to conduct centralized management of the disaster situation.

EMERGENCY SERVICES. The preparation for management of disaster relief functions, other than functions for which military forces are primarily responsible, and to prevent, minimize and repair injury and damage resulting from disasters. It shall not include, nor does any provision apply to, any condition relating to a labor controversy.

LOCAL DISASTER COUNCIL. The city officials identified in the Emergency Operations Plan who are responsible for its preparation and execution.

NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS). The management process utilized by the management personnel operating in the EOC.

TULARE OPERATIONAL AREA (TOA). The unincorporated areas and the incorporated cities within the boundaries of Tulare County.

3.20.030 Duties of the Director.

In the event an emergency situation overwhelms or threatens to overwhelm local ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 16 ends

resources, or the proclamation of a state of disaster by the Governor, or in the event of a war-caused state of extreme emergency, the official performing the duties of the Director of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), as authorized in the city’s Emergency Operation Plan, is hereby empowered to perform the following acts:
(A) Activate the Tulare EOC and provide necessary staffing; (B) Make a declaration of a local state of emergency, the declaration to be ratified by the City Council at its next regular meeting;
(C) Cause the dissemination of appropriate warning signals and issue suitable advisory information to the Emergency Council and the public; (D) Advise the Tulare Operational Area EOC of the situation and activation of the city’s local EOC; and
(E) Request mutual aid through the California Office of Emergency Services if local deficiencies of personnel and/or equipment are indicated by the service chiefs.

3.20.040 Unlawful acts.

It shall be unlawful for any person to perform any of the following acts during a disaster:
(A) Willfully obstruct, hinder or delay any member of the Emergency Service Organization in the enforcement of any lawful rule or regulation issued pursuant to this chapter or in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by virtue of this chapter;
(B) To do any act forbidden by any lawful rules or regulations issued pursuant to this chapter, if the act is of such a nature as to give, or be likely to give, assistance to the enemy, or to imperil the lives or property of inhabitants of the city, or to prevent or delay the defense or protection thereof; and/or
(C) To wear, carry or display, without authority, any means of identification specified by the civil defense and disaster agency of the federal government or the State of California.

3.20.050 Misdemeanor.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment.

CHAPTER 3.22

HAZARD/WEED ABATEMENT
Sections:

ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 17 ends

3.22.010 Purpose.

3.22.020 Abatement procedure.

3.22.010 Purpose.

It is unlawful, and declared a nuisance, when any person owning, leasing, or charged with the management of any undeveloped property, over one acre in size, is maintained in such a way that it constitutes a fire hazard as per the following condition:
(A) To maintain a property, including sidewalks and parkways adjacent thereto, containing dry or dead weeds, grasses, trees, shrubs, tumbleweeds or any other dry vegetation in a manner of growth to constitute a fire hazard.

3.22.020 Abatement procedure.

In an effort to maintain consistency and efficiency, the abatement process shall be followed as per the following sections of this code: 7.28.150, 7.28.170, 7.28.180,

7.28.190, 7.28.200, 7.28.240 and 7.28.260, or any other procedure allowed by law.

CHAPTER 3.25

ADMINISTRATIVE FINES
Sections:

3.25.010 Administrative fine schedule.

The City Council of the City of Tulare in an effort to more efficiently administer all fines, as referenced within each chapter of the Tulare Municipal Code and associated with its administrative citation process hereby sets forth an Administrative Fine Schedule to be established and adopted by resolution.

SECTION 2. CODE AMENDMENT. Chapter 7.05 (Code Enforcement Officer) of Title 7 (Health and Sanitation) of the Tulare Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:

CHAPTER 7.05

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Sections:

7.05.010 Code enforcement officer.

7.05.020 Duties.

7.05.030 Enforcement.

7.05.040 Compliance.

ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 18 ends

7.05.010 Code enforcement officer.

Any duly appointed employee of the Office of Safety, Compliance and Facilities as a Code Enforcement Officer shall be authorized to perform the enforcement duties identified in this code. The Code Enforcement Officer will work closely with members of other departments and the Code Enforcement Officer shall be under the supervision of the Safety, Compliance and Facilities Officer or his or her designee.

7.05.020 Duties.

The duties of the Code Enforcement Officer shall include, but are not limited to, issues involving property maintenance by abating hazardous conditions which threaten the life, health and safety of the public, and any other provisions allowed by law.

7.05.030 Enforcement.

The Code Enforcement Officer shall enforce the provisions of all applicable state and city codes including, but not limited to, the City Municipal Code, the California Health and Safety Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as the codes may, from time to time, be amended.

7.05.040 Compliance.

The Code Enforcement Officer shall work with property owners/residents to obtain voluntary compliance; however, the Code Enforcement Officer shall also have authority to issue citations and pursue other legal remedies as necessary.

SECTION 3. CODE AMENDMENT. Sections 7.28.030(F) and 7.28.030(P)(5)(b) are hereby amended to read as follows:
…
(F) To maintain property, including any sidewalks and parkways adjacent thereto, containing weeds, dry grasses, dead trees, dead shrubs or any other material which bear seeds of a wingy or downy nature or which by reason of their size, manner of growth, or location constitute a fire hazard or a threat to public health, or containing weeds, vegetation, grasses, trees or shrubs, including but not limited to sagebrush, chaparral and Russian Thistle (tumbleweed) which, when dry, will in reasonable probability constitute a fire hazard or be blown onto adjoining property by prevailing winds; except, as otherwise exempted by Chapter 3.22 of this Code; …
(P) (5) (b) Trees, shrubs, lawns and other landscaping shall be maintained, including regular irrigation, pruning of trees, trimming of shrubs and cutting of lawns. Parcels in the R-A zones shall comply with the weed abatement standards in Chapter 3.22 of this Code; and, in any case, dead, decayed, diseased, overgrown or hazardous trees, weeds and vegetation, cultivated or uncultivated, which is likely to harbor rats or vermin, ORDINANCE 2022-17

Page 19 ends

or constitute an unsightly appearance, or is detrimental to neighboring properties or property values, shall be abated.
…
SECTION 4. CODE AMENDMENT. Chapter 8.20 (Weed Abatement) of Title 8 (Public Ways and Property) of the Tulare Municipal Code is hereby repealed.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION 5. All ordinances and parts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its passage, adoption, and approval.

PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED on 20th day of December, 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
Item #: 13.7
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Police
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☐Other ☒None

AGENDA ITEM:

Authorize the purchase of seven APX 4000 Series handheld radios and accessories from J’s Communications of Fresno, California for $25,885.70.

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

The Tulare Police Department seeks to replace aging radios. The Tulare Police Department currently has seven APX 6000 radios that will soon need to be replaced. Furthermore, with the addition of new officers, additional radios are necessary. There is an operational need to replace these radios due to the increase of radio failures and additional staff.

In 2018, the City initiated the replacement of the handheld radios through a CIP. This proposed purchase will complete the replacement of all handheld radios and required accessories.

Funding for this purchase is available using existing equipment replacement funds. Future annual equipment replacement expenses will be adjusted based on this purchase and the expected lifespan of equipment to ensure the availability of future replacement funding.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the purchase of seven APX 4000 Series handheld radios and accessories from J’s Communications of Fresno, California for $25,885.70.

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☐Yes ☒N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:
623-4623-7604
Submitted by: Matt Machado Title: Captain
Date: November 30, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ Item #: 13.8
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Finance
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Accept the monthly investments report for November 2022.

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

The investments report for November 2022 is submitted for Council review and acceptance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the monthly investments report for November 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: December 12, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________

Item #: 13.9
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Engineering Services / Project Management For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Accept as complete the contract with Valley Pump & Dairy Systems, Inc. for work on Storm Sewer Lift Stations Upgrades Project (SD0016, 0017, 0018); and authorize the City Engineer to sign the 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 March 17, 2020, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $ 370,345.00 (Base Bid only) to Valley Pump & Dairy Systems, Inc. of Tulare, California; and authorized the City Manager, or designee, to approve contract change orders in amounts up to 10% ($37,034.50) of the contract awards.

Projects SD0016, 0017, and 0018 were Capital Improvement Projects that upgrade storm sewer lift stations (LS) that discharge directly into a Tulare Irrigation District (TID) facility at three locations within the City. The sites included in the projects were: West Street and Bardsley Avenue LS (SD0016), High School Farm LS (SD0017), and ‘M’ Street south of College Avenue LS (SD0018). Each LS is unique in design, pump configuration and horsepower. The designed upgrades standardized the pumps and motors and upgraded the electrical to the existing control panels.

Due to an initial shortfall in funding, the projects were ranked by priority and only the Base Bid was recommended at the time of award. Bidders were notified in the Request for Bids (RFB) that bids would be compared on the basis of the Base Bid. The three projects were bid as a single (RFB) with the M Street LS as the Base Bid, the Bardsley at West Street LS as add Alternative #1, and the High School Farm LS as add Alternative #2.

A summary of contract costs is as follows:

Original Award Contract – base bid $ 370,345.00
Council Approved Change Order #1 – add Alternative #1 $ 364,619.00 Contract Change Order #2 $ 3,250.00
Contract Change Order #3 $ 16,875.00
Contract Change Order #4 $ 16,875.00
Contract Change Order #5 $ (5,185.44)
Total Construction Contract Cost: $ 766,778.56
Change Order Summary (4.33% of contract cost):
• Change order 2: Design conflict that required a height adjustment to a single pump column pipe. The adjustment minimized potential motor overload issues and associated electrical breaker tripping issues. Cost of $3,250.00
• Change order 3: Requested change by Public Works to design and fabricate a screened cage to collect debris at the M & College lift station to protect pump impellers from probable damages. Cost of $16,875.00
• Change order 4: Requested change by Public Works to design and fabricate a screened cage to collect debris at the Bardsley & West lift station to protect pump impellers from probable damages. Cost of $16,875.00
• Change order 5: Deductive change order to compensate the City for electrical work accounted for in the contract bid that was ultimately self-performed by the City. Credit of $5,185.44
All work required of Valley Pump under this contract has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The contractor has also provided the required Maintenance Bond in the amount equal to 10% of the final contract amount.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

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

Surface Water Fund Balance – Fund 067
Submitted by: David Dodson Title: Project Manager
Date: December 9, 2022 City Manager Approval: ___________ RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF TULARE
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

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

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The City of Tulare, a Municipal Corporation, whose address is 411 East Kern Avenue, Tulare, California, 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 December, 2020, a work of improvement on real property hereinafter described was completed pursuant to a contract to which Title 15 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code applies.

4. The name of the Contractor who performed said work of improvements pursuant to such contract with the City of Tulare is Valley Pump & Dairy Systems, whose address is 2280 South K Street, Tulare, CA 93291. The surety on said contract is Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.

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

Storm Sewer Lift Station Upgrades, Project No. SD0016, 0017, 0018.

Dated: , 2017 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
Item #: 13.10
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Engineering Services / Engineering For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Peters Engineering Group of Clovis, CA in an amount not to exceed $324,555 for topographic surveying, geotechnical analysis, design, bidding and construction support services for Project EN0097, a street and utility improvement project to extend International AgriCenter Way from Laspina Street to Turner Drive; Authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($32,456) of the contract award amount; and approve the updated project budget.

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

The International AgriCenter Way Interchange project will construct a new interchange on State Route 99 at the alignment of International AgriCenter Way, formerly Commercial Avenue. The Interchange Project will reconstruct International Agricenter Way between “K” Street and State Route 99, construct a new overcrossing over State Route 99, and construct a new segment of International AgriCenter Way from State Route 99 to Laspina Street. The City subsequently created Project EN0097 to extend International AgriCenter Way from Laspina Street to Turner Drive to improve roadway connectivity to the new interchange.

The extension of International AgriCenter Way will impact properties owned by the International AgriCenter and the Faria family, and will require right-of-way dedications from both parties. In the Summer of 2021, City staff presented three optional designs for the extension of International AgriCenter Way to representatives of the Faria family and to the International AgriCenter Board, ranging from the minimum required improvements for a 2-lane roadway (36’ paved width) to a 4-lane roadway (86’ paved width). Both parties expressed their preference for the 4-lane option, with sewer and water main extensions included so that the new roadway would not need to be cut into with the future development of adjacent properties.

On August 17, 2021, staff presented the same three options to City Council, along with the recommendations of the Faria family and International AgriCenter Board. Council concurred with the 4-lane option with water and sewer main extensions.

In November 2022, the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) requested that member agencies submit project nominations for potential State earmark funding. Qualifying projects would need to address regional transportation needs within the County of Tulare. In response, City staff submitted a funding request for $3 million (the maximum request allowed) to assist with the estimated $4.73 million construction cost of Project EN0097. In the project nomination, it was noted that the extension of International AgriCenter Way between Laspina Street and Turner Drive would greatly increase connectivity to the new International AgriCenter Drive interchange, providing a direct connection to the regionally significant Mooney Boulevard and Turner Drive corridors. Funding the project would also serve leverage the substantial state and local funding already invested in the surrounding area through the interchange project.

The proposed cost is in line with industry standards, and is within 2% of the estimated contract cost used when staff prepared the PS&E cost in the original project budget. The following table shows the revised PS&E costs for the project budget should Council authorize the contract with Peters Engineering Group:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

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

EN0097-040-0202
021 – Measure R
230 – DIF Local Streets and Traffic Signals
260 – DIF Water Supply/Distribution/Holding
290 – Sewage Collection & Wastewater Treatment Facilities 999 – International AgriCenter Way Benefit District
Submitted by: Michael Miller Title: City Engineer
Date: December 12, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ G/L #: 643-4643-6351
Maintenance and utility costs are estimated at $2,500 / year. 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26
Costs Description
001 -Conceptual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ - $ -
002 - Preliminary Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ - $ -
003 - Environmental $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $ -
004 - Final Design $374,479 $0 $0 $0 $0 $374,479 $ -
005 - Construct/Impliment $0 $0 $0 $4,722,893 $0 $4,722,893 $ - 006 - Close Out $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ -
Total Costs: $376,979 $0 $0 $4,722,893 $0 $5,099,872 $ - Funding Sources
021 - Measure R-Local $0 $0 $0 $96,060 $0 $96,060 $ -
230 - DIF Local Streets and Traffic Signals $0 $0 $0 $2,110,003 $0 $2,110,003 $ - 077 - CDBG $0 $0 $0 $390,000 $0 $390,000 -
999 - Commercial Ave. Benefit District $376,979 $0 $0 $1,945,625 $0 $2,322,603 $ - 260 - DIF - Water Supply/Distribution/Holding $0 $0 $0 $181,205 $0 $181,205 $ - 290 - DIF - Sewage Col & Wastewater Treatment Fac $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ - Total Funding: $376,979 $0 $0 $4,722,893 $0 $5,099,872 $ - FUTURE M & O:
(Additional Cost & Department Responsibility)
CRITERIA (1-8): Criteria 4: Project represents an investment that will return real cash savings over an identifiable investment horizon and that return exceeds the City's cost of capital (cost of capital equals weighted average interest on City debt issues and capital leases).

Fiscal Year
Total Unfunded
PROJECT STATUS: Conceptual Design
PROJECTED START DATE: 7/1/2022
PROJECTED END DATE: 12/30/2024
PROJECT MANAGER: Michael Miller
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PURPOSE: Pavement Management System / Traffic Safety / Utility project on International AgriCenter Way from Laspina Street to Turner Drive, including: construction of International AgriCenter Way to an 86' paved width; intersection and new traffic signal at Laspina Street; water, sewer and surface water facility improvements.

KEY POINTS: Critical Utility Infrastructure Improvements; Traffic safety; Relief from potential liability concerns; Compliance to the American Disabilities Act
2021-2026 - TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
PROJECT #EN0097 (EN2021-10)
International Agri-Center Way Extension
(Capital)
(Capital)
District(s): 3
Amendment #1 - 12/20/22
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com Mr. Michael Miller November 2, 2022
City of Tulare
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, California 93274
Subject: EN0097 International Agri-Center Way Extension, Tulare, California Dear Mr. Miller:

Please find enclosed our proposed scope of services and fee for the subject project. Our understanding of the City’s requirements for this scope of work is based on our preliminary work on this project and City staff direction.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this proposal. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP

David Peters, PE, TE
Principal Engineer
Attachment: Exhibit “A” - Scope of Services
Exhibit “B” – Project Exhibit
Exhibit “C” – Fee Proposal
Exhibit “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Civil Engineering Services for
EN0097 International Agri-Center Way Extension
Tulare, California

INTRODUCTION
Peters Engineering Group (Consultant) will provide the City of Tulare (Client) with engineering services for the subject project as described herein. Consultant’s services will result in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimate for the proposed improvements to the International Agri-Center Way Extension from Laspina Street to Turner Drive in Exhibit “B” and consisting of the following infrastructure:
 Installation of 8” SDR-26 sanitary sewer main with alignment along the centerline of the street. Proposed manholes will be constructed at intersections and/or every 400 feet maximum. Connections will be made to the existing sewer main at Laspina Street, Sunrise South, Bright Street, and Turner Drive.  Installation of new 12” water main on the south side of centerline from Laspina Street to the west end of the existing portion of International Agri-Center Way, where it will connect to an existing 10” main. Placement of new valves and fire hydrants shall be in coordination with City Staff.
 Construct new street consisting of Hot Mix Asphalt and Class II Base Rock, with design based on geotechnical reports and coordination with City Staff. The existing International Agri-Center Way will have a 2” grind and overlay. No curb and gutter is proposed within the new alignment area.
 Construct new ADA-compliant ramps at intersection corners. There are approximately 9 locations that will need new ADA-compliant ramps.  Prepare a traffic signal design for the intersection of Laspina Street and International Agri-Center Way. The plans will show conduit, boxes and safety light installation for the base bid, with the traffic signal design shown as an additive alternate.  Coordination with Caltrans will be performed regarding the construction of intersection improvements at the Laspina Street and International Agri-Center Way intersection. The timing of construction of the new International Agri-Center Way interchange with SR 99 will affect what improvements the project will be required to build and the timing of the construction of the improvements.

WORK TASKS
The Consultant will provide the following work tasks:

Task 100 - Preliminary Engineering
101 Project Coordination and Kickoff Meeting
Consultant will attend a kickoff meeting with Client to discuss expectations and objectives for the project. A field review will follow to review the project site. 102 Field Surveys and Mapping
Consultant will perform a topographic and boundary survey of the existing features and right-of-way. The topographic survey will extend throughout the limits of the project and will be used to develop digital mapping for design of the proposed improvements. The boundary survey will verify existing right of way and be utilized in the design of new improvements as outlined below:
 Use RTK GPS to establish horizontal control points – assumed horizontal system.  Run and adjust a level loop through survey control points – from City of Tulare benchmark(s).
 Gather topographic data using total station systems to ensure good vertical data at intersection returns.
 Cross-Sections for proposed streets at 100+ foot intervals (FL, CL, FL) with RTK GPS (+/- 0.1’).
 Locate flowline at centerline of driveways with RTK GPS (+/- 0.1’).  Locate obvious uplifts of curb (not details, just location shot only).  Locate and identify visible utilities in the street along with water meters behind the curb.
 Measure flow-line elevation and pipe size on SSMH and SDMH.  Locate and tie in sufficient monumentation to calculate right-of-way lines of streets, and lot boundaries where right of way acquisition is expected.  Locate and tie out monuments within the street with potential to be disturbed by this project.
 Verify existing right-of-way data.
 Provide electronic file of the survey in an AutoCAD compatible version.  Prepare and file Corner Records for centerline monuments (estimated to be 10).

It is anticipated that the City’s surveyor for construction will tie out existing monuments and create corner records as necessary.
103 Research Existing Underground and Overhead Utilities The location of existing underground and overhead utilities will be identified through available City and utility company record drawings and through the topographic survey.

Utility companies will be contacted and a request for utility records will be made. Known existing underground utilities will be incorporated in digital topographic mapping and shown in both plan and profile on the construction documents. The City and any other agency affected by the project will be notified whether relocation or other mitigations are required.

Preliminary plans will be distributed to affected agencies for assistance in utility coordination and possible relocation. While correspondence will be prepared by consultant, letters and other communications may need to be sent by City Staff to acquire the information for use by the Consultant.
104 Geotechnical Analysis
Geotechnical Consultant will drill seven (7) exploratory borings to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions along the alignment of the proposed street within the project area. The exploratory borings will be located near one side of the proposed street and will be advanced to depths of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Prior to drilling, the locations of the planned test borings will be marked and Underground Service Alert (USA) will be contacted to locate and mark onsite utility lines in the vicinity of the planned test borings, if necessary.

An encroachment permit will be submitted for review and approval by the Client. This encroachment permit will be a no fee permit. Since the work will be done in an open field or on the shoulder of an existing roadway, it is assumed that only limited traffic control (advance warning signs and some traffic cones) will be required, which can be set up by the Consultant. During drilling operations, penetration tests will be performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsoils. At each boring location the pavement section will be measured and soil samples will be obtained for laboratory testing and reference purposes. The soils encountered will be continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The boreholes will be backfilled with soil and, if necessary, with aggregate base, and capped with asphalt cold patch to match the thickness of the existing asphalt. All fieldwork will be done under the direction of a Civil or Geotechnical Engineer.

Laboratory testing will be dependent on the results of the field-testing and sampling program, as well as consideration of the design and construction involved with this project. Sand equivalency, dry density determinations, moisture contents, sieve analysis tests, direct shear tests, sand equivalent tests, R-value tests, and tests to evaluate the corrosion potential will be performed to evaluate relevant geotechnical properties of the soils within the project area.

The results of the field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis will be presented in a formal report.
105 Preliminary Sewer, Water, Drainage, Traffic Signal and Ramp Designs Consultant will prepare initial utility layout and improvement designs for water, sewer, future drainage facilities, and traffic signal design at Laspina within the project area. The improvements will be based on ultimate facilities described in each utility’s Master Plan or as stated above. The drawings will be prepared in plan and profile for review. Facilities requested to be included in the design which are not shown in the Master Plan documents or identified above will be included as Additional Services.

Consultant will prepare initial geometric plans for the proposed street improvements.

Roadway impacts and constraints will be identified. The plans will identify the location of proposed ADA ramps, existing driveway locations, proposed sidewalk and future curb and gutter design.
106 Design Criteria Confirmation
Consultant will prepare a preliminary design criteria which will confirm City expectations for design of the improvements, including pipe slope, minimum pipe cover, minimum separation of utilities, pipe sizing and type, pavement design, and construction scheduling.

The criteria will be presented and discussed at both the project kick-off meeting and the preliminary design/30% meeting with City Staff. Discussion and decisions will be made regarding various design components including utility relocation, design constraints/issues, and a recommendation which will be based on a determination from the Client and the Consultant. This information will be continuously updated throughout the entirety of the design phase of the project.
107 30% Plans Submittal & Estimate
Consultant will prepare thirty percent (30%) plans including preliminary roadway city utility, signal and lighting designs. Plans will be developed in AutoCAD 2021, or a version acceptable to the City. A digital copy, two (2) hard copies of the 30% plans, and a preliminary cost estimate will be submitted for City review. Copies of the 30% plans will be distributed to affected utility companies for use in design of relocations.

Task 200 - Construction Documents
201 Agency Coordination
Consultant will coordinate final design of the project with Caltrans and other stakeholders affected by the project. Permit requirements will be determined and prepared as necessary and delivered to the City of Tulare for submittal to various agencies. There is anticipated coordination with Caltrans for the International Agri-Center Way interchange construction. 202 Preliminary PS&E (95%)
Thirty percent (30%) PS&E review comments received from the City will be addressed and incorporated into the 95% PS&E. The 95% PS&E will be submitted in pdf format for City review. Peters Engineering Group will meet with City personnel to discuss any final revisions.

As part of the 95% plans, Consultant will prepare preliminary traffic signal and lighting designs that will include proposed locations for signal and lighting poles, controller cabinets, service enclosures, major pullboxes and vaults and interconnect facilities. An SCE request for service will be prepared as part of the preliminary signal and lighting designs and forwarded to the City for submission to SCE. The 95% plans will incorporate the safety lighting, conduit, and box locations for the base bid. The full signal design will be prepared as an additive alternate, and shown as such.
203 Final PS&E (100%)
Ninety five percent (95%) PS&E review comments received from the City will be addressed and incorporated into the one hundred percent (100%) PS&E. The 100% PS&E will be submitted in pdf format for City review. Peters Engineering Group will meet with City personnel to discuss any final revisions
204 Construction Documents
One hundred percent (100%) PS&E review comments received from the City will be addressed and incorporated into the final construction documents.

Specifications will be prepared in Microsoft Word 2013 or newer.

Electronic copies of the plans, original specifications, and estimates will be submitted to the City. Construction documents will be stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer.

Hard copies of files of all construction documents will be available as requested by the City. 205 ROW Acquisition and Staking
Consultant will prepare legal descriptions and exhibits based on current title reports for properties that will dedicate right of way for the street improvements to the City. After review and approval by the Client and the property owners, Consultant will provide one (1) set of stakes delineating the location of the dedication in the field for the Client. 206 Bidding Coordination and Support
Consultant will review and respond to requests for information (RFI’s) during the bidding portion of the project and will be responsible for assisting with soliciting of bids for the project. This will include preparation of advertisement and printing and distribution of plans, specifications, and addendums during the bid process. Specifications will be prepared in an electronic word processing program compatible with City software.

Task 300 - Construction Phase Services
301 Construction Support
Consultant will review submittals during construction. Consultant will review and respond to requests for information (RFI’s) during the construction portion of the project. It is anticipated that, due to the nature of the project, coordination will be extensive due to the number of existing facilities that will be affected. Five site visits during construction are included in this scope. If an addendum or if significant addition review is required due to a change in the scope of work, or if more than five visits will be required, then it will be regarded as additional services. This phase will be billed at time and materials, not to exceed the budget in Exhibit C.

CLIENT’S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Client shall:
a) Provide all criteria and full information concerning Client’s requirements for the project. b) Provide Consultant with plans indicating the locations, types, and sizes of existing improvements. City of Tulare has provided the approved master plans for City water, sewer, and storm drain. City Staff will call for USA of the project prior to topographic survey. Potholing for existing elevations of gas lines for conflicts will be provided by City Staff. Verification of sewer service locations and condition of existing manholes will be provided by City Staff.
c) Provide an arborist, as necessary.
d) Give prompt notice to Consultant whenever Client observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the scope or timing of Consultant’s services. e) At Client’s discretion, authorize and direct Consultant to provide necessary Additional Services.
f) Negotiate and acquire necessary Right-of-Way using the legal descriptions and exhibits provided by the Consultant.
g) Pay for any outside agency permits.
h) Provide environmental clearance.
i) Provide for Construction Surveying Services, including ties to existing survey monuments and corner records.

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The Client may, at its sole discretion, request that Consultant perform Additional Services.

Both parties, prior to proceeding with these services, shall execute a written amendment to this Agreement.

Additional services will be required if Consultant is to perform services not specifically described herein. Additional services will be required if additional project alternatives will be requested, including assistance with acquisition of right of way. Additional Services will be required if Consultant is required to attend additional meetings not identified in this scope of work, including but not limited to project design team, public hearings, planning commission meetings, and city council meetings. Additional Services will be required if Eminent Domain proceedings should be required to acquire parcels. Additional Services will be required if Consultant is required to attend weekly meetings during the construction phase.

RIGHT TO RELY
Consistent with the professional standard of care, Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data and information provided by the Client or others without independent review or evaluation unless specifically required in the Scope of Services.

COMPENSATION
Consultant’s fee for the services described herein shall be a lump sum by task in accordance with Exhibit “C” and billed to the Client monthly on a percent-complete basis.

SCHEDULE
The anticipated start for the project is December 1st, 2022. During the months of December and January 2023, Tasks 102 through 104 will be performed. A design kick-off meeting will be scheduled at the end of January 2023. Submittal of the 30% design plans and estimate will be the first week of March, with the review meeting scheduled for the third week of March. 90% design plans, estimates and specifications will be submitted the second week of May, with a review meeting scheduled for the fourth week of May. The 100% plans will be submitted the third week of July, with the final Construction Documents ready for bid the first week of September 2023.

R2000 R850 R3000 R3000 XX-XX XX-XX XX-XX

SHEET NAME

PROJECT TITLE

PROJECT LOCATION
Exhibit B
Person-Hours
Principal
Engineer
Senior Civil
Engineer
Staff
Engineer Clerical
@ $195 /hr @ $180 /hr @ $130 /hr @ $75 /hr
100
101 Initial Project Coordination and Kickoff Meeting 2 16 12 4 $150 $5,280 102 Topographic Survey 24 40 4 $33,600 $50 $43,470
103 Utility Research & Coordination 8 24 8 $50 $5,210
104 Geotechnical Engineer Report and
Analysis 8 10 2 $12,380 $50 $15,320
105 Preliminary Sewer, Water, Drainage
and Ramp Design 26 40 2 $150 $10,180
106 Design Criteria Confirmation 2 10 16 2 $50 $4,470
107 30% Plans and Estimate & Review
Meeting 2 68 140 8 $250 $31,680
Total Task 100 Hours 6 160 282 30 $33,600 $12,380 Total = $115,610 200
201 Agency Coordination 4 24 16 4 $250 $7,730
202.1 Prepare 95% Cross Sections 12 24 $50
202.2 Prepare 95% Street Plan and
Profiles 20 48 $50
202.3 Prepare 95% Sewer and Water Plan
and Profiles 28 60 $50
202.4 Prepare 95% Construction Details 12 16 $50
202.5 Prepare 95% Traffic Signal Plans 44 60 $5,000
202.6 Prepare 95% Specifications 6 24 18 16 $75
202.7 Prepare 95% Construction Cost
Estimate 2 20 48 10 $50
202
Prepare 95% Plans,
Specifications, and Estimate
(total) & Design Review Meeting
8 160 274 26 $0 $0 $5,325 $73,255
203
Prepare 100% Plans, Specifications,
and Estimate & Design Review
Meeting
8 80 140 8 $200 $34,960
204 Construction Documents 8 88 88 8 $200 $29,640
205 ROW Acquisition and Staking 24 16 2 $12,000 $150 $18,700 206 Bidding Coordination and Support 4 24 32 8 $200 $10,060 Total Task 200 Hours 32 400 566 56 $12,000 0 Total = $174,345 Surveyor Task

CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS/FINAL PS&E

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Exhibit "C"
City of Tulare, International Agri-Center Way Extension Project Engineering Fee Proposal
Other
Direct
Costs
Description Total Geotech
Peters Engineering Group
Person-Hours
Principal
Engineer
Senior Civil
Engineer
Staff
Engineer Clerical
@ $195 /hr @ $180 /hr @ $130 /hr @ $75 /hr
Surveyor Task
Other
Direct
Costs
Description Total Geotech
300
301 Construction Support 12 110 92 4 $200 $34,600
Total Hours 12 110 92 4 0 0 Total = $34,600
Total Hours 50 670 940 90 $45,600 $12,380
Grand
Total = $324,555

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
Peters Engineering Group
EXHIBIT “C”

HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
(Effective 1/1/21 to 12/31/22)

CLASSIFICATION RATE
Principal Civil Engineer $195/hr
Senior Civil Engineer $180/hr
Civil Engineer $155/hr
Land Surveyor $135/hr
Staff Engineer $130/hr
Draftsperson/Technician/Inspector $105/hr
Clerical $75/hr
Litigation Support $350/hr

REIMBURSABLES SCHEDULE
(Effective 1/1/20 to 12/31/20)

DESCRIPTION RATE
Postage Actual Cost + 10%
Reproduction Actual Cost + 10%
Subconsultant Actual Cost + 10%
Peters Engineering Group will furnish monthly billing for work performed in accordance with previously authorized fees and the above fee schedule. Payments shall be due upon presentation and no later than 30 days from the date of original invoice. Finance charges will apply to unpaid balances.

Item #: 13.11
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Community Services - Parks
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with MRC GameTime of Sea Girt, NJ, in an amount not to exceed $168,164.01 for the replacement of the playground equipment at Mulcahy Park; authorize the City Manager or designee to approve contract change orders in an amount not to exceed 10% ($16,816.40) of the contract award amount; and approve a onetime use of the City’s Catastrophic Fund in the amount of $100,316.35 to assist in the replacement of the playground.

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

In the early morning of June 30, 2022, City of Tulare Fire Department reported that a structure fire had occurred at Mulcahy Park. Upon further inspection, staff reported that approximately 75% of the playground structure for children ages 5-12 was severely damaged and needs replacement. Parks staff then secured the surrounding area of the burnt playground structure, and Risk Management staff initiated an insurance claim. Cost estimates for replacement and repair were then acquired.

The cost estimate from MRC GameTime to repair the playground is $168,164.01. The total project cost to repair the playground is estimated at $184,980.41, which includes a 10% contingency.

City staff submitted a claim to the City’s insurance carrier McLarens Insurance, who has estimated that $184,664.06 will be required to replace the damaged materials. The City has a $100,000.00 deductible. Therefore, the City will receive an $84,664.06 reimbursement from McLarens Insurance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

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

Catastrophic Fund
Submitted by: Jason Glick Title: Community Services Director Date: December 12, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ Figure 1 – Mulcahy Park 5-12 Playground Structure
G/L #:
2021/2022 2022/2023 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026
Costs Description
Playground Equipment $ 109,379 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 109,379 $ - Equipment Installation 36,572 - - - - 36,572 -
Freight & Sales Tax 22,213 - - - - 22,213 -
Contingency (10%) 16,816 - - - - 16,816 -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
Total Costs: $ 184,980 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 184,980 $ -
Funding Sources
Catastrophic Fund 100,316.35 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,316 $ - McLarens San Francisco 84,664.06 - - - - 84,664 -
Total Funding: $ 184,980 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 184,980 $ -
FUTURE M & O:
(Additional Cost & Department Responsibility)
$2,000 anually for surfacing and future 20 year replacement CRITERIA (1-8): Criteria 7: Project address regulatory, safety, or environment requirements that could threaten in whole or in part the City's ability to operate a core program or function at some future time if not replaced or repaired.

Fiscal Year
Total Unfunded
PROJECT STATUS: Pending Capital Improvement Project adoption by Council.

PROJECTED START DATE: 7/1/2022
PROJECTED END DATE: 6/30/2023
PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Glick
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PURPOSE: On June 30, 2022, a structure fire had occurred at Mulcahy Park and the 5-12 playground structure was severely damaged. Approximately 75% of the structure will need to be removed and replaced.

KEY POINTS: Project addresses playground safety and fall surfacing compliance to ATSM Standards and CPSC Guidelines.

District 1
2021-2026 CIP - Admin Project - Parks
PROJECT # RFP23-774

MULCAHY PARK PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT PROJECT
(Capital)
(Equipment Replacement)
C:\Users\mhermann\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\MBHTJK00\RFP23-774/Mulcahy Park Item #: 13.12
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Office of Safety, Compliance & Facilities For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☒Resolution ☐Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a Grant G22-03-04-G01 offer from the State of California Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMV) to the Tulare Cycle Park operating expenses not to exceed $426,099.00 for the year 2022 and to sign all applicable paperwork related to application of the grant.

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

A five-year lease agreement with TEMMERMAN CORP ("Operator") aka DT1 MX Cycle Park was entered into for the operation of the Tulare Cycle Park on January 1, 2019.

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: Manuel Correa Title: Safety, Compliance & Facilities Officer Date: December 12, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ RESOLUTION 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR AN OFF-HIGHWAY MOTOR

VEHICLE GRANT
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act of 2003, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for Operation and Maintenance, Restoration, Law Enforcement, and education and Safety for off-highway vehicle recreation; and WHEREAS, the City of Tulare (Applicant) has entered into a lease agreement with TEMMERMAN CORP, aka DT1 MX Cycle Park (Operator) on December 1, 2022 for the operation of the Tulare Cycle Park; and
WHEREAS, the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division with the California Department of Parks and Recreation ("OHMV") has been delegated the responsibility to administer the program; and
WHEREAS, procedures established by the OHMV require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval to receive grant funding from the OHMV; and
WHEREAS, this project appears on, or is in conformance with this jurisdiction adopted General or Master Plan and compatible with land use plans of this jurisdiction immediately surrounding the Project.

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

Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the receiving of grant funding form the Off-Highway Vehicle Grant or Cooperative Agreement Program.

Section 2. The City Council hereby certifies this agency understands its legal obligations to the State upon approve of the Grant.

Section 3. The City Council hereby certifies that this agency understands the California Public Resources Code requirement that Acquisition and Development Projects be maintained to specific conservation standards.

Section 4. The City Council hereby certifies that the Project will be wellmaintained during its useful life.

Section 5. The City Council hereby certifies that this agency will implement the Project with diligence once funds are available and the Applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees with the Project Agreement.

Resolution 2022-XX

Page 2 ends

Section 6. The City Council hereby certifies that this agency will provide the required matching funds.

Section 7. The City Council hereby certifies that the public and adjacent property owners have been notified of this Project (as applicable).

Section 8. The City Council hereby appoints the Applicant as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to Applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for completion of the Project.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 20th day of December, 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
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 3 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

CITY OF TULARE )
I, Marc Mondell, City Clerk of the City of Tulare, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 20XX-XX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Tulare, California, at a meeting held on XXXX XX, 20XX, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Dated: XXXX XX, 20XX

By Melissa Hermann, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Item #: 13.13
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Finance
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☐Other ☒None

AGENDA ITEM:

Authorize the appropriation of proceeds from the sale of APN 191-350-011 and APN 191-070- 015 which total $293,00 to the following to accounts: 1) $100,000 Catastrophic Fund for play structure reimbursement Account Number 690-4690-6301, 2) $150,000 Artist Deposit Reserve Account (Pending City Council Approval) and 3) $43,000 for Economic Development reserve for consultants and advertising as necessary.

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

During the December 6th City Council Meeting, City Council approved the sale of APN 191- 350-011 and APN 191-070-015 to Caltrans for $293,000. During the same meeting, the City Council received a presentation from Spade Entertainment regarding a term sheet for an operating agreement for the Zumwalt Park Amphitheatre.

Staff is requesting City Council authorize the appropriation of funds form the proceeds of the sale of APN 191-350-011 and APN 191-070-015 for the above listed projects.

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: J. Diego Ibanez Title: Chief Financial Officer Date: December 12, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ Item #: 13.14
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Community Development
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☒Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Adopt a resolution approving a Second Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) previously approved and certified by the Council of the City of Tulare for The Farrar Estates Subdivision Project as part of Resolution 2020-04 on February 4, 2020.

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

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study was prepared for The Farrar Estates Subdivision Project resulting in the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) by the Tulare City Council on February 4, 2020. Since adoption of the MND, the specific details related to the use of temporary intersection control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street have been refined to reflect the need for temporary traffic control, as the timing and availability of permanent infrastructure is not available within the proposed project’s opening day timeline, therefore the use of temporary intersection improvement infrastructure has been proposed, as an interim measure, until the permanent traffic control is installed at the intersection. Furthermore, in preparing plans to install a temporary roundabout at this intersection, Caltrans began exploring and recommending the study of having a permanent single-lane roundabout for traffic control at this intersection as an option, as opposed to the originally planned traffic signal. Unfortunately, the design plan review process and infrastructure required between the temporary roundabout and a permanent roundabout have enough differences that there would be substantial additional costs and delays that could not be incorporated or put towards the permanent roundabout. Understanding this and since further study and design for this option will result in additional delays, a new interim measure was considered. The new solution for interim, temporary traffic control at the intersection is to restrict vehicular access to and from the new Farrar Estates subdivision from access to Morrison Street, and instead only allow access solely via the intersection of Hazeltine Street and Tulare Avenue.

In addition, the revised traffic analysis also shows both a traffic signal as originally described in Mitigation Measure TRA-1 of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a singlelane roundabout to be equally effective as permanent traffic control measures maintaining an acceptable LOS at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street. Both the City Engineer and Caltrans concur with these findings.

None of the other factors set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines are present.

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: Mario Anaya Title: Interim Community Development Director Date: December 13, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________ RESOLUTION 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TULARE

APPROVING A SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND CERTIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF RESOLUTION 2020-04 ON FEBRUARY 4, 2020
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare at a regular meeting held on February 4, 2020 considered a request to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the proposed development of The Farrar Estates Subdivision Project (General Plan Amendment 2019-02, Zone Amendment No. 735, and Conditional Use Permit 2019-19); and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare voted unanimously to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for The Farrar Estates Subdivision Project; and WHEREAS, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 in the original MND requires the project proponent to install a new permanent traffic signal with associated roadway striping at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street; and

WHEREAS, since adoption of the MND, the project proponent has worked with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to review and design plans for this new signalized intersection; and
WHEREAS, due to the increased level of review by Caltrans for this location, along with the lead time needed for traffic signal poles and equipment required, the installation of permanent traffic signals would be a significant project delay; and WHEREAS, Caltrans has requested additional study and consideration of a onelane roundabout as a preferred measure for long-term intersection control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street; and WHEREAS, both the City Engineer and Caltrans support either the short-term roundabout at the intersection of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue (SR-137) or restricting vehicular access to and from the new Farrar Estates subdivision from access to Morrison Street, and instead only allow access solely via the intersection of Hazeltine Street and Tulare Avenue, as equally effective and acceptable temporary measures to mitigate the traffic impacts for Phase 1 of houses to be constructed as part of the subdivision near the subject intersection, while also continuing concurrent reviews for the required permanent improvements at this intersection; and WHEREAS, both the City Engineer and Caltrans support either a traffic signal as originally described in Mitigation Measure TRA-1 of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a single-lane roundabout as equally effective measures in terms of providing long-term traffic control and maintaining an acceptable LOS at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street; and Resolution 2022-XX

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, an Addendum to review the potential effects associated only with the use of Hazeltine instead of Morrison to access the Farrar Estates subdivision through Phase I development, and the potential to utilize a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street beyond Phase I of the subdivision’s development, has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the original MND for the proposed project has been considered with the Addendum, pursuant to Section 15164(d) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, based on the environmental analysis in the Addendum document and the independent judgement of the City Council, the use Hazeltine instead of Morrison to access the Farrar Estates subdivision through Phase I development, and the potential to utilize a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street beyond Phase I of the subdivision’s development, will not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the MND, and there are no previously infeasible alternatives that are now feasible; and
WHEREAS, none of the other factors set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines are present.

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

Section 1. That by this Resolution, the conclusions of the analysis in the Second Addendum remain consistent with those made in the previously adopted MND for The Farrar Estates Subdivision Project, and that no new significant impacts will result, and no substantial increase in the severity of impacts is expected from those previously identified in the MND.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 20th day of December, 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
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 3 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF TULARE ) ss.

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Dated: December ___, 2022

By Melissa Hermann, Chief Deputy City Clerk

Second Addendum to
the Mitigated Negative
Declaration

FOR THE FARRAR SUBDIVISION PROJECT
SCH # 2019119082
DECEMBER 2022
2 This page left intentionally blank
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

MND ADDENDUM
Sections Page Number

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Background.................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Basis for Decision to Prepare an Addendum................................................................... 6

1.3 Conclusions of Appropriate CEQA Document................................................................ 7

2.0 Project Description................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Project Location and Setting ................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Project Modifications since MND Adoption.................................................................... 8

3.0 Environmental Analysis........................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix
Appendix A: Addendum Letter for Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared for Farrar Estates by JLB.

Appendix B: Original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Farrar Tentative Subdivision Project.
4 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This environmental document is a Second Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration (IS/MND) for General Plan Amendment No. 2019-02, Zone Amendment No. 735, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-19 adopted on January 21, 2020 by the City of Tulare, now known as The Farrar Subdivision project. Since adoption of the mitigated negative declaration (MND), new interim, temporary intersection control is proposed for the previously Approved Project (The Approved Project) at Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street due to a number of delays in installing the permanent traffic signal at this intersection, and additional requirements by Caltrans to study implementing a permanent roundabout instead of a traffic signal at this intersection, thus requiring further environmental analysis. The proposed changes to the project’s use of a new interim traffic mitigation and an additional option for permanent traffic control at the Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street intersection are addressed in this Addendum.

This Addendum was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. This document has been prepared to serve as a Second Addendum to the previously adopted MND for General Plan Amendment No. 2019-02, Zone Amendment No. 735, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-19 and now known as The Farrar Subdivision project (Original Project). The City of Tulare is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project modifications.

This Addendum addresses the proposed modifications in relation to the previous environmental review prepared for the Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states:

An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. ….The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.

Information and technical analyses from the Original Project’s MND are incorporated by reference and utilized throughout this Addendum. Relevant passages from this document (The Farrar Subdivision Map Project MND) are cited and available for review at:

City of Tulare
Community & Economic Development Department
411 East Kern Ave.

Tulare, CA 93274
5 1.1 BACKGROUND
The adopted MND evaluated potential environmental effects on aesthetics, agriculture resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities/service systems, and mandatory findings of significance.

Since adoption of the MND, the specific details related to the use of temporary intersection control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street have been refined to reflect the need for temporary traffic control, as the timing and availability of permanent infrastructure is not available within the proposed project’s opening day timeline, therefore the use of temporary intersection improvement infrastructure has been proposed, as an interim measure, until the permanent traffic control is installed at the intersection. Furthermore, in preparing plans to install a temporary roundabout at this intersection, Caltrans began exploring and recommending the study of having a permanent single-lane roundabout for traffic control at this intersection as an option, as opposed to the originally planned traffic signal.

Unfortunately, the design plan review process and infrastructure required between the temporary roundabout and a permanent roundabout have enough differences that there would be substantial additional costs and delays that could not be incorporated or put towards the permanent roundabout. Understanding this and since further study and design for this option will result in additional delays, a new interim measure was considered. The new solution for interim, temporary traffic control at the intersection is to restrict vehicular access to and from the new Farrar Estates subdivision from access to Morrison Street, and instead only allow access solely via the intersection of Hazeltine Street and Tulare Avenue.

These conversations and requests from Caltrans resulted in the need to have the project traffic engineer analyze the use of this new interim measure, as well as the use of a single-lane roundabout for permanent intersection control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street. The results of the analysis, included as Appendix A to this Addendum document, demonstrate that the intersection of Hazeltine and Tulare Avenue, as well as Tulare Avenue & Morrison Street would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) for both the interim scenario, as well as long-term with use of a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue & Morrison Street. The interim measure restricting access to Morrison Street from the new subdivision would be allowed through Phase I of the proposed subdivision. The traffic analysis also shows both a traffic signal and a single-lane roundabout as equally effective and acceptable solutions to control traffic and provide an acceptable LOS at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street.

Both the City Engineer and Caltrans support and concur with these findings that the use of either an interim, temporary roundabout for traffic control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue 6 (SR-137) and Morrison Street, or restricting access onto Morrison Street are both acceptable interim measures through Phase I of the development of the Farrar Estates subdivision, until the permanent new traffic signal or new permanent roundabout is installed at the subject intersection, and would not result in additional significant impacts as demonstrated in the traffic analysis attached in Appendix A to this Addendum.

In addition, the traffic analysis in Appendix A to this Addendum also shows both a traffic signal as originally described in Mitigation Measure TRA-1 of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a single-lane roundabout to be equally effective as permanent traffic control measures maintaining an acceptable LOS at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street. Both the City Engineer and Caltrans concur with these findings.

Therefore, this Addendum was prepared to address the construction-level and operational impacts of the modifications related to traffic control with use of the restricted access to Morrison in the interim, and the potential of a one-lane roundabout at Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street as a permanent solution, neither of which were not considered or analyzed in the original MND.

1.2 BASIS FOR DECISION TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM
When a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining whether a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, addendum, or no further documentation be prepared in support of further agency action on the project. Under these Guidelines, a subsequent negative declaration shall be prepared if any of the following criteria are met:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
7 (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, and addendum, or no further documentation.

1.3 CONCLUSIONS OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENT
As demonstrated in the environmental analysis provided in Section 3.0 (Environmental Analysis), the proposed changes do not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. An addendum is appropriate here because, as explained in Section 3.0, none of the conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

Based upon the information provided in Section 3.0 of this document, the changes to the Approved Project due to the interim use of Hazeltine instead of Morrison to access the Farrar Estates subdivision through Phase I development, and the potential to utilize a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison beyond Phase I of the subdivision’s development, will not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the MND, and there are no previously infeasible alternatives that are now feasible. None of the other factors set forth in Section 15162(a)(3), or Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines are present.

This Addendum addresses the environmental effects associated only with refinements to the Approved Project that have occurred since adoption of the MND. The conclusions of the analysis 8 in this Addendum remain consistent with those made in the MND. No new significant impacts will result, and no substantial increase in severity of impacts will result from those previously identified in the MND.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Project is located in the eastern portion of the City of Tulare. The Project site is located between Seminole Avenue and Tulare Avenue, off Morrison Street. The Original Project consists of development of 358 detached single-family residential units on an approximately 76-acre site surrounded by existing low density residential, residential estate, rural residential, and agricultural uses. General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2019-02 was approved in order to change the General Plan land use designation for the project site from Low Density Residential, Residential Estate, and Rural Residential to Low Density Residential. The proposed project also included Zone Amendment (ZA) No. 735 to change the existing zoning for the project site from the existing RA (Rural Residential), R-1-7 (Single-family Residential, 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area), R-1-12.5 (Single-family Residential 12,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area) and R-1-20 (Singlefamily Residential, 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) to the R-1-4 (Small-lot Residential) and R-1-6 (Single-family Residential, 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area) zoning designations.

2.2 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS (CLARIFICATIONS) SINCE MND ADOPTION A traffic impact study was completed in November 2019, which evaluated potential traffic impacts of the development and identified improvement measures, which included installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison Street and SR-137 to ensure adequate Level of Service (LOS).

Specifically, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 requires the project proponent to complete improvements at the intersection of Morrison Street and SR-137 including:
- Add a southbound left-turn lane;
- Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; - Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and - Modify the intersection to accommodate the added lane.

Since project approval, the project proponent has worked with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to review the design plans for this new signalized intersection.

However, due to the increased level of review by Caltrans for this location, along with lead time needed for traffic signal poles, and equipment required, the installation of permanent traffic signals would be a significant project delay. Therefore, an Addendum was prepared and 9 approved by City Council (Resolution 2022-02 approved February 1, 2022) to evaluate the use of a temporary roundabout at the aforementioned intersection as an interim measure, while a permanent traffic signal is under construction. Caltrans supported the short-term roundabout at the intersection of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue (SR 137) as an acceptable temporary measure to mitigate the traffic impacts for Phase I of houses to be constructed as part of the subdivision near the subject intersection.

These conversations and requests from Caltrans resulted in the need to have the project traffic engineer analyze the use of this new interim measure, as well as the use of a single-lane roundabout for permanent intersection control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street. The results of the analysis, included as Appendix A to this Addendum document, demonstrate that the intersection of Hazeltine and Tulare Avenue, as well as Tulare Avenue & Morrison Street would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) for both the interim scenario, as well as long-term with use of a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue & Morrison Street. The interim measure restricting access to Morrison Street from the new subdivision would be allowed through Phase I of the proposed subdivision. The traffic analysis also shows both a traffic signal and a single-lane roundabout as equally effective and acceptable solutions to control traffic and provide an acceptable LOS at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
As explained in Section 1.0, this comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Sections 15162 and 15164 to provide the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the MND was adopted require additional environmental review to the MND previously prepared.
10 As described in Section 2.2 Project Modifications (Clarifications) Since MND Adoption, refinements to the project’s use of temporary interim intersection control during construction, first by way of a temporary roundabout, and now a proposal to restrict access onto Morrison Street during Phase 1 of the subdivision’s development, have occurred since preparation of the MND. In addition, an alternative mitigation measure for permanent intersection control at Tulare Avenue and Morrison is proposed, a single-lane roundabout. Because of this, new analysis for impacts within the project area is provided in this Addendum. The environmental analysis provided in the MND remains current and applicable to the proposed project in areas unaffected by the design refinements in both the interim and long-term operation for all environmental topics, as listed below:

Aesthetics: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street, would not result in additional impacts to aesthetic resources, and findings would be consistent with the findings in the adopted MND. The use of this temporary interim measure during construction and the alternative permanent measure is not considered a substantial change to the originally Approved Project relating to Aesthetics, as use of these measures would not result in a substantive change over what was analyzed in the adopted MND, and there would not be a new significant impact to aesthetics due to these measures being implemented. The Modified Project would still be required to comply with development standards and design guidelines to minimize aesthetic changes on surrounding properties, and would not have an impact on aesthetic resources. There would be no new impacts to aesthetics and no new mitigation measures are required beyond what has been required of the Original Approved Project.

Agriculture Resources: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in additional impacts to agriculture resources, and findings would be consistent with the findings in the adopted MND. The use of this temporary interim measure during construction and the alternative permanent measure is not considered a substantial change to the originally Approved Project relating to Agriculture Resources. There would be no new impacts to agriculture resources and no new mitigation measures are required beyond what has been required for the Original Approved Project.

Air Quality: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in additional impacts to air quality and findings would be consistent with the findings in the adopted MND. The background conditions, construction equipment mix, and work hours identified in the MND would remain the same. There would not be a substantially different change during construction, because the 11 type of construction activities and type of equipment used in construction would not change substantially from what was considered in the adopted MND, and impacts would not be substantially different. The use of Hazeltine to access the subdivision would only be approved through Phase I of development. However, if the one-lane roundabout is installed as the permanent intersection control measure at Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street, some reduction in vehicular emissions at the intersection could occur, due to the elimination of stop and start conditions that would normally occur at an intersection controlled by a traffic signal. There would not be additional uses added to the project from those analyzed in the adopted MND.

Therefore, construction air quality impacts under the Modified Project would be similar and operational impacts would also be similar or reduced, compared to the Original Approved Project. The mitigation identified in the MND for air quality impacts remains applicable to the Modified Project. No new mitigation measures are required beyond what has been required for the Original Approved Project.

Biological Resources: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not increase impacts to biological resources, either directly or indirectly. The Modified Project does not designate any new sites for development that were not contemplated and analyzed for development in the MND, and would not result in any changes to the location or footprint of development. The mitigation measures identified in the Original Approved Project MND for biological resources impacts remain applicable to the Modified Project. No new mitigation measures are required beyond what has been required for the Original Approved Project.

Cultural Resources: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not increase impacts to cultural resources, either directly or indirectly. The Modified Project does not designate any new sites for development that were not contemplated and analyzed for development in the MND, and would not result in any changes to the location or footprint of development. The mitigation measures identified in the Original Approved Project MND for cultural resources impacts remain applicable to the Modified Project. No new mitigation measures are required beyond what has been required for the Original Approved Project.

Geology and Soils: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in substantially different geophysical impacts beyond those identified in the MND, and the conclusions of the MND remain valid. Compliance with applicable code standards and seismic requirements identified in the adopted MND would reduce geotechnical concerns to below the level of significance, and would be applicable to the activities identified in the Modified Project descried in this 12 Addendum. Therefore, the findings in the adopted MND with regard to Geology and soils remain valid.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would result in a similar duration and intensity of construction activities relative to the Original Project. and both the Original Project and Modified Project would be operationally identical. During project operations, if a one-lane roundabout is installed as the permanent intersection control measure at Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street, there would not be a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions, and some reduction in vehicular emissions at the intersection could occur, due to the elimination of stop and start conditions that would normally occur at an intersection controlled by a traffic signal. Therefore, the proposed changes to the Original Project would not result in any significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions or related impacts to global climate or conflict with any applicable climate change plans, policies, or regulations.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The use Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not increase risks related to hazards and hazardous materials relative to the Original Project. The proposed project would still be required to comply with mandated regulations applicable to the Original Project for hazards and hazardous materials. Given the similarity in overall construction activities and similar operational characteristics, the use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in new or greater impacts in this regard.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The Modified Project would be required, as under the Original Approved Project, to comply with all applicable water quality regulations during and following construction and operational activities. The Modified Project does not designate any new sites for development that were not contemplated and analyzed for development in the MND, and would not result in any changes to the location or footprint of development. The Modified Project will also implement the mitigation measures included in the Original Approved Project for hydrology and water quality. No new mitigation measures are required beyond what has been required for the Original Approved Project for hydrology and water quality.

Land Use and Planning: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in notably increased adverse impacts on adjacent land uses, as the overall proximity and intensity of construction activities would not be substantially different than under the Original Approved 13 Project, and vehicular access via Hazeltine would be an interim measure through Phase I of project development only. No new mitigation measures are required beyond what has been required for the Original Approved Project related to land use.

Mineral Resources: There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the project site is not designated under the City’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site. The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not change this conclusion, which was made in the MND for the Original Approved Project. Therefore, no new impacts would result and no new mitigation measures are required for the Modified Project related to mineral resources.

Noise: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in any notable additional impacts to noise beyond those identified in the MND. The proposed construction timing/activities would not notably change, and there would not be any additional significant impacts beyond what was analyzed in the MND. If a roundabout is implemented for permanent traffic control at the subject intersection, noise may be reduced due to decrease start-up noise from automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles compared to a signalized intersection. Therefore, the conclusions of the MND remain valid, and no mitigation measures are required related to noise.

Population and Housing: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in an increased demand for housing or generate population growth. The proposed single family residential subdivision would serve the existing population as well as that planned for in the City’s General Plan. The findings in the MND for the Original Approved Project remain valid.

Public Services: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in any additional impact to public services beyond those identified in the MND because they would not result in substantial operational changes to the project with regard to public services, beyond those evaluated in the MND for the Original Approved Project. The MND did not identify any potentially significant impacts to public services; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required as a result of the Modified Project as described in this Addendum.

Recreation: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in an increased demand for 14 parkland or recreational facilities. The findings in the MND for the Original Approved Project remain valid.

Transportation/Traffic: The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in additional substantial impacts to transportation/traffic beyond those identified in the MND. A traffic impact study was completed in November 2019, which evaluated potential traffic impacts of the development and identified mitigation measures, which included installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison Street and SR-137 to ensure adequate Level of Service (LOS).

Since project approval, the project proponent has worked with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to review the design plans for this new signalized intersection.

However, due to the increased level of review by Caltrans for this location, along with lead time needed for traffic signal poles, and equipment required, the installation of permanent traffic signals would be a significant project delay. Therefore, an Addendum was prepared and approved by City Council (Resolution 2022-02 approved February 1, 2022) to evaluate the use of a temporary roundabout at the aforementioned intersection as an interim measure, while a permanent traffic signal is under construction. Caltrans supported the short-term roundabout at the intersection of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue (SR 137) as an acceptable temporary measure to mitigate the traffic impacts for Phase I of houses to be constructed as part of the subdivision near the subject intersection.

However, in preparing plans to install a temporary roundabout at this intersection, Caltrans began exploring and recommending the study of having a permanent single-lane roundabout for traffic control at this intersection as an option, as opposed to the originally planned traffic signal. Unfortunately, the design plan review process and infrastructure required between the temporary roundabout and a permanent roundabout have enough differences that there would be substantial additional costs and delays that could not be incorporated or put towards the permanent roundabout. Understanding this and since further study and design for this option will result in additional delays, a new interim measure was considered. The new solution for 15 interim, temporary traffic control at the intersection is to restrict vehicular access to and from the new Farrar Estates subdivision from access to Morrison Street, and instead only allow access solely via the intersection of Hazeltine Street and Tulare Avenue. These conversations and requests from Caltrans resulted in the need to have the project traffic engineer analyze the use of this new interim measure, as well as the use of a single-lane roundabout for permanent intersection control at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street. JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) has prepared a 2nd Addendum Letter to the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report for Farrar Estates (Project) located on the northwest quadrant of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue in the City of Tulare.

Temporary-Interim Traffic Control Measures
JLB has worked on two options to provide proper traffic operation and LOS while the roundabout or traffic signal is constructed at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. These options are to be temporarily utilized until the permanent roundabout or traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue is built. The option of building a temporary roundabout at the intersection of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue was previously analyzed and approved by City Council (Resolution 2022-02 approved February 1, 2022) to evaluate the use of a temporary roundabout at the aforementioned intersection as an interim measure, while a permanent traffic signal is under construction. Caltrans supported the shortterm roundabout at the intersection of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue (SR 137) as an acceptable temporary measure to mitigate the traffic impacts for Phase I of houses to be constructed as part of the subdivision near the subject intersection.

The second option, studied in this Second Addendum, is temporarily prohibiting Project access to Morrison Street by temporarily closing Pine Valley Avenue and Copperhead Avenue until the roundabout or traffic signal are constructed at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. Under this option, access to the Project would solely be through the intersection Hazeltine Street at Tulare Avenue. A traffic count was collected on November 21, 2022 to analyze this option. As this count was collected during a week in which most K-12 schools are not in session, JLB expanded the count volumes during the AM Peak by 40 percent and the PM peak by 10 percent. This traffic count is included in Appendix A to this Addendum. JLB found that the intersection of Hazeltine Street at Tulare Avenue can safely support up to 170 homes of the Project as the sole Project access in addition to the traffic that it currently facilitates. Trip generation rates for the Project were obtained from the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I presents the trip generation of the Project with trip generation rates for 170 Single-Family Detached Housing dwelling units. At 170 homes, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,605 daily trips, 126 AM peak hour trips and 168 PM peak hour trips. 16 Table I: Trip Generation of Project at 170 Homes
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
Table II presents a summary of the Existing and the Existing plus Project (170 d.u.) peak hour LOS at the study intersection. Figures and LOS worksheets for these scenarios can be found in Appendix A to this Addendum.

Table II: Limited Access Intersection LOS Results
Intersection Control Scenario
Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
(sec/veh) (sec/veh) S
1 Hazeltine Street /
Tulare Avenue
Two-Way Stop Existing 18.8 C 15.8 C
Two-Way Stop Existing plus Project (170 d.u.) 24.7 C 20.6 C Ultimate-Long-term Traffic Control Measures
The Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project scenario was analyzed at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. Two different traffic controls were analyzed under this scenario. These controls include a traffic signal, as originally analyzed and approved in the Original Project MND and in this latest Addendum, a single-lane roundabout. Both of these options were found to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.

Table III presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersection as a traffic signal and single-lane roundabout. As can be seen on Table III, implementation of either a permanent roundabout or traffic signal will result in LOS operations which are better than the City’s target LOS threshold of LOS D. LOS Worksheets for this scenario can be found in Appendix A to this Addendum.

Table III: Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control Scenario
AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 Morrison Street /
Tulare Avenue
Traffic Signal Cumulative Year 2041
plus Project

26.2 C 22.3 C
Roundabout 11.9 B 11.3 B
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Single Family Housing (210) 170 d.u. 9.44 1,605 0.74 25 75 31 95 126 0.99 63 37 106 62 168 Total Project Trips 1,605 31 95 126 106 62 168
17 Conclusions
Conclusions regarding the potential options for a temporary traffic control and ultimate traffic control options are provided below:
• In the Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project scenario, both a traffic signal and a single-lane roundabout are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. • Therefore, under the cumulative year 2041 plus Project scenario, both a traffic signal and a roundabout can be considered as appropriate traffic control measures. • While the design for the offsite improvements to the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue are finalized and constructed, JLB analyzed two temporary traffic control options. o Option 1 is to temporarily prohibit access to Morrison Street from the Project and to limit the Project to 170 occupied dwelling units as the construction at the roundabout or traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue is completed. o Option 2 is to construct a temporary single lane roundabout at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. The temporary roundabout is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.

Utilities and Service Systems: The Modified Project’s utility and service requirements would be operationally similar to the Original Approved Project. Therefore, temporary short-term, operational, and cumulative demands on utilities or other infrastructure would not measurably change under the Modified Project. The use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not notably change any 18 impacts to this topic. Therefore, no new mitigation measures would be required related to utilities and service systems.

Mandatory Findings of Significance: The potential impacts due to the use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street with regard to biological resources, cultural resources, and direct and indirect effects on human beings would be comparable to the Original Project as described throughout Section 3.0.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

3.1 CONCLUSION
Based on the information provided above, the use of Hazeltine to access the Farrar Estates subdivision during Phase 1 of the project, and the implementation of a permanent one-lane roundabout at the intersection of Tulare Avenue (SR-137) and Morrison Street would not result in a measurable increase in environmental impacts over what was previously analyzed in the MND. No new significant impacts have been identified, nor is the severity of potential new impacts greater than the impact conclusions identified in the MND. Therefore, the Modified Project’s contribution to these site-specific topics would also be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures identified for the Original Project would be sufficient in addressing the requirements for the Modified Project, and the option to build a single-lane roundabout as opposed to a traffic signal was shown as equally effective or better to address LOS concerns at the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street. Therefore, the Modified Project through construction of a one-lane roundabout achieves the results and is found to be equally effective as the original mitigation as described in Mitigation Measure TRA-1. There are no new impacts beyond what was addressed in the MND. Lastly, there are no changed circumstances or new information that meets the standard for requiring further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
19 APPENDIX A: 2ND ADDENDUM LETTER FOR REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT PREPARED FOR

FARRAR ESTATES BY JLB
20 This page left intentionally blank
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 P a g e | 1
(559) 570-8991
November 24, 2022
Michael W. Miller, PE
City Engineer
City of Tulare
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93724
Via Email Only: [email protected]
Subject: 2
nd Addendum Letter for the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared for Farrar Estates located on the Northwest Corner of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue in the City of Tulare (JLB Project 037-004)
Dear Mr. Miller,
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) has prepared a 2
nd Addendum Letter to the Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Report for Farrar Estates (Project) located on the northwest quadrant of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue in the City of Tulare. The Revised TIA is dated November 4, 2021 and was previously approved by both the City of Tulare and Caltrans. While the Project has been working with the City of Tulare and Caltrans on the offsite improvements to the intersection of Tulare Avenue at Morrison Street, these have been taking more time than previously anticipated. As a result, construction of the modified intersection controls is not anticipated to be completed until sometime between the summer and fall of 2023. This 2
nd Addendum Letter has been prepared to analyze the traffic operations of two options for consideration until the roundabout or traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue is constructed.

Project Description
Ultimately, the Project proposes to develop up to 358 single-family residential units on approximately

76.5 acres on the northwest quadrant of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue in the City of Tulare. The Project is currently under construction, and it is anticipated that some of the homes will be completed and ready for occupancy in the near future.

Ultimate Traffic Control Devices for Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue The Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project scenario was analyzed at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. Two different traffic controls were analyzed under this scenario. These controls include a traffic signal and a single-lane roundabout. Both of these options were found to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.

Table I presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersection as a traffic signal and single-lane roundabout. As can be seen on Table I, implementation of either a permanent roundabout or traffic signal will result in LOS operations which are better than the City’s target LOS threshold of LOS D. LOS Worksheets for this scenario can be found in Exhibit A. www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 E x h i b i t | 2
(559) 570-8991
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis 2
nd Addendum
November 24, 2022
Table I: Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control Scenario
AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Morrison Street /
Tulare Avenue
Traffic Signal Cumulative Year 2041
plus Project

26.2 C 22.3 C
Roundabout 11.9 B 11.3 B
Options for the Interim Traffic Operations
JLB has worked on two options to provide proper traffic operation and LOS while the roundabout or traffic signal is constructed at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. These options are to be temporarily utilized until the roundabout or traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue is built. The options include 1) temporarily prohibiting Project access to Morrison Street and 2) building a temporary roundabout at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. The analysis of these options and their results are described in the two following subsections of this letter.

Option 1: Temporarily Prohibited Project Access to Morrison Street The first option is to temporarily prohibit Project access to Morrison Street by temporarily closing Pine Valley Avenue and Copperhead Avenue until the roundabout or traffic signal are constructed at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. Under this option, access to the Project would solely be through the intersection Hazeltine Street at Tulare Avenue. A traffic count was collected on November 21, 2022 to analyze this option. As this count was collected during a week in which most K-12 schools are not in session, JLB expanded the count volumes during the AM Peak by 40 percent and the PM peak by 10 percent. This traffic count is included Exhibit B. JLB found that the intersection of Hazeltine Street at Tulare Avenue can safely support up to 170 homes of the Project as the sole Project access in addition to the traffic that it currently facilitates. Trip generation rates for the Project were obtained from the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table II presents the trip generation of the Project with trip generation rates for 170 Single-Family Detached Housing dwelling units. At 170 homes, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 1,605 daily trips, 126 AM peak hour trips and 168 PM peak hour trips.

Table II: Trip Generation of Project at 170 Homes
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Single Family Housing (210) 170 d.u. 9.44 1,605 0.74 25 75 31 95 126 0.99 63 37 106 62 168 Total Project Trips 1,605 31 95 126 106 62 168
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 E x h i b i t | 3
(559) 570-8991
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis 2
nd Addendum
November 24, 2022
Table III presents a summary of the Existing and the Existing plus Project (170 d.u.) peak hour LOS at the study intersection. Figures for these scenarios can be found in Exhibit C. LOS worksheets for these scenarios can be found in Exhibit D.

Table III: Limited Access Intersection LOS Results
ID Intersection Intersection Control Scenario
AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Hazeltine Street /
Tulare Avenue
Two-Way Stop Existing 18.8 C 15.8 C
Two-Way Stop Existing plus Project (170 d.u.) 24.7 C 20.6 C Option 2: Build Temporary Roundabout
A temporary roundabout was analyzed in the Amendment Letter dated January 11, 2022. The temporary roundabout traffic control was able to support the Project buildout of 358 homes. In the prior Addendum Letter, the roundabout was deemed an acceptable traffic control measure while Woodside Homes continues to work on its design for the roadway improvements to the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue.

Conclusion
Conclusions regarding the potential options for a temporary traffic control and ultimate traffic control options are provided below:
• In the Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project scenario, both a traffic signal and a single-lane roundabout are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. • Therefore, under the cumulative year 2041 plus Project scenario, both a traffic signal and a roundabout can be considered as appropriate traffic control measures. • While the design for the offsite improvements to the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue are finalized and constructed, JLB analyzed two temporary traffic control options. o Option 1 is to temporarily prohibit access to Morrison Street from the Project and to limit the Project to 170 occupied dwelling units as the construction at the roundabout or traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue is completed. o Option 2 is to construct a temporary single lane roundabout at the intersection of Morrison Street at Tulare Avenue. The temporary roundabout is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 E x h i b i t | 4
(559) 570-8991
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis 2
nd Addendum
November 24, 2022
Please feel welcome to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns. I can be reached by phone at 559.570.8991 and by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE
President
X:\01 Projects\037 Tulare\037 Closed Out\037-004 Farrar Estates TIA\Report\Addendum Letter\L11242022 Farrar Estates 2nd Addendum.docx www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 E x h i b i t | A
(559) 570-8991
Exhibit A: Cumulative Year 2041 plus Project LOS Results HCM 6th Signalized Intersection SummaryCumulative Year 2041 plus Project (Buildout) AM Peak 1: Morrison Street & Tulare Avenue 10/27/2020
Mitigated - Signalized Synchro 10 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 39 685 85 52 633 9 99 45 139 17 13 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 39 685 85 52 633 9 99 45 139 17 13 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1796 1885 1885 1796 1796 1885 1885 1885 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 42 745 92 57 688 10 108 49 151 18 14 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 171177111000
Cap, veh/h 71 826 735 85 871 13 138 64 198 38 24 143
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1796 1598 1795 1766 26 1795 407 1253 1810 240 1407 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 42 745 92 57 0 698 108 0 200 18 0 96 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1796 1598 1795 0 1792 1795 0 1660 1810 0 1647 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 27.1 1.4 2.2 0.0 22.9 4.2 0.0 8.2 0.7 0.0 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 27.1 1.4 2.2 0.0 22.9 4.2 0.0 8.2 0.7 0.0 3.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.85
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 71 826 735 85 0 884 138 0 262 38 0 168 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.90 0.13 0.67 0.00 0.79 0.78 0.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 129 997 887 127 0 992 178 0 727 128 0 658 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.4 17.6 3.8 33.2 0.0 14.9 32.1 0.0 28.5 34.3 0.0 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.5 9.9 0.1 8.6 0.0 3.9 15.4 0.0 4.6 8.8 0.0 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 10.7 0.6 1.1 0.0 7.8 2.3 0.0 3.3 0.4 0.0 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 27.5 3.9 41.8 0.0 18.8 47.5 0.0 33.1 43.1 0.0 33.4 LnGrp LOS D C A D A B D A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 879 755 308 114
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.7 20.6 38.2 34.9
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 17.2 9.4 38.5 9.7 13.2 7.0 40.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5 * 31 5.0 * 39 * 7 28.3 * 5.1 39.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 10.2 4.2 29.1 6.2 5.9 3.6 24.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection SummaryCumulative Year 2041 plus Project (Buildout) PM Peak 1: Morrison Street & Tulare Avenue 10/27/2020
Mitigated - Signalized Synchro 10 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 668 141 35 588 21 58 40 36 17 54 56 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 668 141 35 588 21 58 40 36 17 54 56 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1856 1900 1900 1841 1841 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 73 718 152 38 632 23 62 43 39 18 58 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 030044000000
Cap, veh/h 109 814 707 72 738 27 100 80 72 156 90 93
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 1856 1610 1810 1765 64 1810 918 832 1810 856 885 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73 718 152 38 0 655 62 0 82 18 0 118 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1856 1610 1810 0 1829 1810 0 1750 1810 0 1741 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 20.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 18.3 1.9 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.0 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 20.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 18.3 1.9 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.0 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.51
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 109 814 707 72 0 765 100 0 152 156 0 184 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.88 0.22 0.53 0.00 0.86 0.62 0.00 0.54 0.12 0.00 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 160 962 834 160 0 948 192 0 960 160 0 902 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 14.5 3.3 26.6 0.0 14.9 26.1 0.0 24.7 23.9 0.0 24.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.9 8.6 0.2 5.9 0.0 6.6 6.2 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.0 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 7.6 0.8 0.5 0.0 6.6 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.0 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.9 23.1 3.5 32.5 0.0 21.5 32.4 0.0 27.7 24.2 0.0 28.0 LnGrp LOS C C A C A C C A C C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 943 693 144 136
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.7 22.1 29.7 27.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 10.2 6.4 30.8 7.3 12.0 7.6 29.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.2 * 5.3 * 4.2 6.0 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 * 31 * 5 29.3 6.0 * 29 * 5 29.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 4.5 3.2 22.0 3.9 5.7 4.2 20.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Tulare at Morrison 2041 AM Peak (Site Folder: General)] Tulare at Morrison
Site Category: -
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
Cap. QUEUE
Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Morrison
Lane 1d 308 1.0 715 0.430 100 11.0 LOS B 2.8 71.1 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 308 1.0 0.430 11.0 LOS B 2.8 71.1
East: WB Tulare
Lane 1d 754 6.5 1127 0.669 100 12.7 LOS B 6.4 169.6 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 754 6.5 0.669 12.7 LOS B 6.4 169.6
North: SB Morrison
Lane 1d 114 0.0 639 0.179 100 7.8 LOS A 1.0 23.9 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 114 0.0 0.179 7.8 LOS A 1.0 23.9
West: EB Tulare
Lane 1d 879 6.1 1284 0.685 100 12.1 LOS B 4.8 125.1 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 879 6.1 0.685 12.1 LOS B 4.8 125.1
Intersection 2055 5.1 0.685 11.9 LOS B 6.4 169.6
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach
Approach Lane Flows (veh/h)
South: NB Morrison
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From S
To Exit: W N E
Lane 1 108 49 151 308 1.0 715 0.430 100 NA NA
Approach 108 49 151 308 1.0 0.430
East: WB Tulare
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From E
To Exit: S W N
Lane 1 57 688 10 754 6.5 1127 0.669 100 NA NA
Approach 57 688 10 754 6.5 0.669
North: SB Morrison
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From N
To Exit: E S W
Lane 1 18 14 82 114 0.0 639 0.179 100 NA NA
Approach 18 14 82 114 0.0 0.179
West: EB Tulare
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From W
To Exit: N E S
Lane 1 42 745 92 879 6.1 1284 0.685 100 NA NA
Approach 42 745 92 879 6.1 0.685
Total %HV Deg.Satn (v/c)
Intersection 2055 5.1 0.685
Lane flow rates given in this report are based on the arrival flow rates subject to upstream capacity constraint where applicable.

Merge Analysis
Exit
Lane
Number
Short
Lane
Length
Percent
Opng in
Lane
Opposing
Flow Rate
Critical
Gap
Follow-up
Headway
Lane
Flow
Rate
Capacity Deg.

Satn
Min.

Delay
Merge
Delay
ft % veh/h pcu/h sec sec veh/h veh/h v/c sec sec
South Exit: NB Morrison
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

East Exit: WB Tulare
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

North Exit: SB Morrison
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

West Exit: EB Tulare
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Tulare at Morrison 2041 PM Peak (Site Folder: General)] Tulare at Morrison
Site Category: -
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
Cap. QUEUE
Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Morrison
Lane 1d 144 0.0 723 0.199 100 7.2 LOS A 1.0 26.0 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 144 0.0 0.199 7.2 LOS A 1.0 26.0
East: WB Tulare
Lane 1d 692 3.7 1188 0.583 100 10.1 LOS B 3.3 84.7 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 692 3.7 0.583 10.1 LOS B 3.3 84.7
North: SB Morrison
Lane 1d 137 0.0 765 0.179 100 6.6 LOS A 0.9 21.3 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 137 0.0 0.179 6.6 LOS A 0.9 21.3
West: EB Tulare
Lane 1d 943 2.3 1295 0.728 100 13.5 LOS B 5.8 146.5 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 943 2.3 0.728 13.5 LOS B 5.8 146.5
Intersection 1916 2.4 0.728 11.3 LOS B 5.8 146.5
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From S
To Exit: W N E
Lane 1 62 43 39 144 0.0 723 0.199 100 NA NA
Approach 62 43 39 144 0.0 0.199
East: WB Tulare
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From E
To Exit: S W N
Lane 1 38 632 23 692 3.7 1188 0.583 100 NA NA
Approach 38 632 23 692 3.7 0.583
North: SB Morrison
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From N
To Exit: E S W
Lane 1 18 58 60 137 0.0 765 0.179 100 NA NA
Approach 18 58 60 137 0.0 0.179
West: EB Tulare
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From W
To Exit: N E S
Lane 1 73 718 152 943 2.3 1295 0.728 100 NA NA
Approach 73 718 152 943 2.3 0.728
Total %HV Deg.Satn (v/c)
Intersection 1916 2.4 0.728
Lane flow rates given in this report are based on the arrival flow rates subject to upstream capacity constraint where applicable.

Merge Analysis
Exit
Lane
Number
Short
Lane
Length
Percent
Opng in
Lane
Opposing
Flow Rate
Critical
Gap
Follow-up
Headway
Lane
Flow
Rate
Capacity Deg.

Satn
Min.

Delay
Merge
Delay
ft % veh/h pcu/h sec sec veh/h veh/h v/c sec sec
South Exit: NB Morrison
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

East Exit: WB Tulare
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

North Exit: SB Morrison
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

West Exit: EB Tulare
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: JLB TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. | Licence: PLUS / 1PC | Processed: Thursday, February 18, 2021 2:12:10 PM Project: Z:\01 Projects\037 Tulare\037-007 Tulare and Morrison ICE Study\Roundabout Analysis\Tulare Morrison Roundabout - 2.18.21.sip9 www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 E x h i b i t | B
(559) 570-8991
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis 2
nd Addendum
November 24, 2022
Exhibit B: Traffic Count
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 2 0 5 94 0 10 0 0 78 4 12 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 0 0 2 69 0 8 0 0 96 2 10 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 90 0 9 0 0 115 2 12 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 2 103 0 16 0 0 118 2 3 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 1 0 4 76 0 10 0 0 111 3 13 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 1 0 3 74 0 8 0 0 75 1 10 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 1 0 2 69 0 2 0 0 114 3 8 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 8 89 0 5 0 0 97 1 3 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 43 7 0 28 664 0 68 0 0 804 18 71 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 6 143 0 6 0 0 128 2 6 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 134 0 5 0 0 121 1 5 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 7 159 0 8 0 0 172 3 6 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 129 0 4 0 0 133 3 2 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 3 179 0 5 0 0 119 5 5 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 163 0 4 0 0 136 0 4 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 125 0 3 0 0 81 0 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 141 0 2 0 0 110 2 5 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 32 3 0 37 1173 0 37 0 0 1000 16 33 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 18 2 0 10 338 0 43 0 0 440 9 38 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 16 1 0 24 630 0 21 0 0 560 11 17 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.891 10.0% PM 16 0 4 0 0.556
PM 0.889 3.1% AM 18 0 15 0 0.75
PHF 0.898 0.829
AM PM
0 0 9 11
24 10 440 560
630 338 0 0
0 0 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.935 0.816 PHF
##### 0 0 0 0 AM
##### 0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Tulare Ave @ Hazeltine St
Tulare
Monday, November 21, 2022 Clear

36.2112
-119.3081

Page 1 of 3 ends

Tulare Ave
Northbound Westbound
Tulare Ave
Hazeltine St
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 E x h i b i t | C
(559) 570-8991
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis 2
nd Addendum
November 24, 2022
Exhibit C: Figures
037-004 - 11/23/22 - AB
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Existing - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls
Figure 1
25(18)21(4)
Tulare Ave Hazeltine St
Tulare Ave
Hazeltine St & 1.
13(12)
616(616)
473(693)
14(26)
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
= STOP SIGN
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
#
LEGEND
1 PROJECT LOCATION OAKMORE ST

CROSS AVE

SEMINOLE AVE

CROSS AVE MOONEY BLVD MORRISON ST

TULARE AVE

PROSPERITY AVE
037-004 - 11/23/22 - AB
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Project Only Trips
Figure 2
84(55)11(7)
Tulare Ave Hazeltine St
Tulare Ave
Hazeltine St & 1.
4(13)
27(93)
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
#
LEGEND
1 PROJECT LOCATION OAKMORE ST

CROSS AVE

SEMINOLE AVE

CROSS AVE MOONEY BLVD MORRISON ST

TULARE AVE

PROSPERITY AVE
037-004 - 11/23/22 - AB
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Existing plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 3
109(73)32(11)
Tulare Ave Hazeltine St
Tulare Ave
Hazeltine St & 1.
17(25)
623(623)
479(701)
41(119)
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
1 PROJECT LOCATION OAKMORE ST

CROSS AVE

SEMINOLE AVE

CROSS AVE MOONEY BLVD MORRISON ST

TULARE AVE

PROSPERITY AVE
= STOP SIGN
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
#
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 E x h i b i t | D
(559) 570-8991
Farrar Estates - City of Tulare
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis 2
nd Addendum
November 24, 2022
Exhibit D: Existing and Existing plus Project LOS Results HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM Peak
1: Tulare Avenue & Hazeltine Street 11/22/2022
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 473 616 13 21 25
Future Vol, veh/h 14 473 616 13 21 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00010
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 155 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mvmt Flow 16 531 692 15 24 28
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 707 0 - 0 999 700
Stage 1 - - - - 700 -
Stage 2 - - - - 299 -
Critical Hdwy 4.25 - - - 6.75 6.35
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.55 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.95 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.295 - - - 3.595 3.395
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 846 - - - 243 421
Stage 1 - - - - 473 -
Stage 2 - - - - 707 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 846 - - - 238 421
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 238 -
Stage 1 - - - - 464 -
Stage 2 - - - - 707 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 18.8

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 846 - - - 312
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - - 0.166
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - - - 18.8
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.6
HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM Peak
1: Tulare Avenue & Hazeltine Street 11/22/2022
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 693 616 12 4 18
Future Vol, veh/h 26 693 616 12 4 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 155 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 29 779 692 13 4 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 705 0 - 0 1147 699
Stage 1 - - - - 699 -
Stage 2 - - - - 448 -
Critical Hdwy 4.145 - - - 6.645 6.245
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.445 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.845 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2285 - - - 3.5285 3.3285
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 885 - - - 205 437
Stage 1 - - - - 490 -
Stage 2 - - - - 609 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 885 - - - 198 437
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 198 -
Stage 1 - - - - 474 -
Stage 2 - - - - 609 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 15.8

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 885 - - - 358
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 - - - 0.069
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - - - 15.8
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.2
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project AM Peak
1: Tulare Avenue & Hazeltine Street 11/23/2022
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 479 623 17 32 109
Future Vol, veh/h 41 479 623 17 32 109
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00010
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 155 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mvmt Flow 46 538 700 19 36 122
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 719 0 - 0 1072 710
Stage 1 - - - - 710 -
Stage 2 - - - - 362 -
Critical Hdwy 4.25 - - - 6.75 6.35
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.55 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.95 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.295 - - - 3.595 3.395
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 837 - - - 219 416
Stage 1 - - - - 468 -
Stage 2 - - - - 656 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 837 - - - 207 416
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 207 -
Stage 1 - - - - 442 -
Stage 2 - - - - 656 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 24.7

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 837 - - - 338
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 - - - 0.469
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - - - 24.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 2.4
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project PM Peak
1: Tulare Avenue & Hazeltine Street 11/23/2022
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 119 701 623 25 11 73
Future Vol, veh/h 119 701 623 25 11 73
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 155 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 134 788 700 28 12 82
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 728 0 - 0 1376 714
Stage 1 - - - - 714 -
Stage 2 - - - - 662 -
Critical Hdwy 4.145 - - - 6.645 6.245
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.445 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.845 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2285 - - - 3.5285 3.3285
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 868 - - - 147 428
Stage 1 - - - - 482 -
Stage 2 - - - - 473 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 868 - - - 124 428
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 124 -
Stage 1 - - - - 408 -
Stage 2 - - - - 473 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.4 0 20.6

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 868 - - - 324
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.154 - - - 0.291
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - - - 20.6
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - - 1.2
21 APPENDIX B: ORIGINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FARRAR

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION PROJECT
22 This page left intentionally blank
INITIAL STUDY –

MITIGATED

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

FOR THE FARRAR SUBDIVISION

PROJECT
November 2019December 2019
1 Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2
Introduction 27
Section 1: CEQA Environmental Review Process ................................................................................29

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines........................................................................ 29

1.2 Initial Study ................................................................................................................................. 30

1.3 Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................................30

1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration .....................................................30

1.5 Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration........................................................... 31

1.6 Intended Uses of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents ............................. 32

1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD) .................................................................................................. 32 Section 2: Project Description..............................................................................................................34

2.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 34

2.2 Project Description...................................................................................................................... 34 Section 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts................................................................................42

3.1 Project Purpose........................................................................................................................... 42

3.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts......................................................................................... 49

3.3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...............................................................................50

3.4 Environmental Analysis............................................................................................................... 51

3.5 Responses to Comments on Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration…………………116 Section 4: Supporting Information and Sources ...............................................................................124 Section 5: List of Preparers ................................................................................................................125 Appendices
A. CalEEMod Input and Output Sheets
B. Traffic Impact Analysis
C. Comments Received on Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration D. Biological Habitat Assessment
E. Cultural Resources Record Search Memorandum
2 City of Tulare
Planning and Building Department
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
Executive Summary
Project Title: Farrar Subdivision Project
Project Location
The project site is located within Tulare County in the eastern area of the City of Tulare (City). The project area is composed of four neighboring parcels (APN 172-130-020, 172- 090-029, 172-110-001, and 172-070-005). The four parcels total approximately 76.5 acres.

The four parcels are designated by the City as Rural Residential, Residential Estate, and Low Density Residential under the General Plan and RA (Rural Residential), R-1-20, R-1-12.5, and R-1-7 under the current zoning code. The current parcels are currently being used for agricultural row crops.

Project Overview
The proposed project is a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 360 lots constructed in four phases. The development of the subdivision would result in on-site infrastructure improvements, including new local residential streets, new and relocated utilities, and a ponding basin to treat storm water flows.

Summary of IS/MND Findings
The analysis in Section 3 of this Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with project implementation. It was found that implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts on the environment, as detailed in Section 3. 3 Page intentionally left blank
4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
for Implementation
Implementation Timing Responsible Party
for Monitoring
Verification
AQ-1: The proposed project is subject to Rule
9510, as required by the SJVAPCD. The project
applicant shall pay the Indirect Source Review
Rule fee for any required reductions that have
not been accomplished through project
mitigation commitments, prior to issuance of
building permits. The fee calculations will be
conducted by the SJVAPCD.

Project Proponent Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits for
Phase I or the
equivalent first phase of
project development
City of Tulare;

SJVAPCD
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.

Project Applicant &
Construction
Contractor
Prior to issuance of
grading permits or any
ground-disturbing and
construction activities
City of Tulare
5 BIO-1b: If project activities must occur during the
nesting season
(February 1-August 31), a qualified biologist shall
conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor
and migratory bird nests within 14 days prior to
the start of these activities. The survey shall
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 shall extend to 0.5 mile outside of work
area boundaries. Nesting surveys for the
Swainson’s hawks shall be conducted in
accordance with the protocol outlined in the
“Recommended Timing and Methodology for
Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s
Central Valley” (Swainson’s Hawk Technical
Advisory Committee, 2000). If potential
Swainson’s hawk nests or nesting substrates are
located within 0.5 miles of the Project site, then
those nests or substrates must be monitored for
activity on a routine and repeating basis
throughout the breeding season, or until
Swainson’s hawks or other raptor species are
verified to be using them. The protocol
recommends that 10 vists be made to each nest
or nesting site: one during January 1-March 20 to
identify potential nest sites, three during March
20-April 5, three during April 5-April 20, and three
during June 10-July 30. To meet the minimum
level of protection for the species, surveys shall
be completed for at least the two survey periods
immediately prior to Project-related ground
Project Applicant &
Construction
Contractor
Within 14 days prior to
the start of any grounddisturbing and
construction activities
proposed during the
nesting season
(February 1-August 31)
City of Tulare
6 disturbance activities. If Swainson’s hawks are
not found to nest within the survey area, then no
further action is warranted.

BIO-1c: Should any active Swainson’s hawk 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 (left the nest).

Construction
Contractor &
Qualified Biologist
Prior to the start of any
ground-disturbing and
construction activities
proposed during the
nesting season
(February 1-August 31)
City of Tulare;
CDFW and/or
USFWS
BIO-2a: (Take Avoidance Survey). 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.

Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor;
Qualified Biologist
Within 14 days prior to
the issuance of grading
permits and prior to the
start of grounddisturbing and
construction activities
City of Tulare
7 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 disturbancefree 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.

Project Applicant,
Construction
Contractor, &
Qualified Biologist
Prior to, and during,
ground-disturbing and
construction activities
City of Tulare;
CDFW
8 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.

Construction
Contractor &
Qualified Biologist
Prior to, and during,
grading and other
ground-disturbing and
construction activities
City of Tulare;
CDFW
9 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. The following
text describes the different steps involved with
implementing this mitigation measure:

Determine Den Status. When a suitable den or
burrow is discovered, a qualified biologist shall
determine whether the hole is occupied by a San
Joaquin kit fox. Den entrances at least 4 inches in
diameter (but not greater than 20 inches) qualify
as suitable for San Joaquin kit fox use. Some dens
can be immediately identified as recently used by
kit fox; qualifying signs include kit fox tracks,
scats, and a fresh soil apron extending up to 6
feet from the den entrance. Dens with proper
dimensions, but no obvious sign will require
further investigation. A remote motion-sensing
camera with tracking medium shall be deployed
for at least 5 days in an attempt to document a
San Joaquin kit fox using the den. If, after 5 days,
no San Joaquin kit foxes are detected and the
Project Applicant,
Construction
Contractor, &
Qualified Biologist
Within 30 days of any
ground-disturbing
activities;
Preconstruction surveys
shall be repeated
following any lapses in
construction of 30 days
or more.

City of Tulare;
CDFW; USFW
10 hole has remained unchanged (no new tracks or
excavations are observed), and there is no
historic record of an active kit fox den at that
location, the den will be deemed a “potential
den” and unoccupied. The den will be considered
occupied if a kit fox is photographed using the
den or if a recent sign is found. The biologist shall
contact CDFW and the USFWS upon the
confirmation of any occupied den.

Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated
following any lapses in construction of 30 days or
more.
11 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 disturbancefree 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. The following radii are
standard San Joaquin kit fox buffer distances:
• Known occupied den—100 feet
• Occupied natal/pupping den—500 feet
• Occupied atypical den—50 feet
In the exclusion zones, only essential vehicle and
foot traffic shall be permitted. No activity that
would destroy the den may occur, and no activity
that may harm a San Joaquin kit fox will proceed
until the individual is out of harm’s way, without
harassment. No activity that may cause strong
ground vibrations may occur in the exclusion
zone until the den is no longer occupied.

Essential vehicle traffic shall include any
emergency vehicles. If San Joaquin kit foxes are
Construction
Contractor &
Qualified Biologist
Prior to, and during,
grading and other
ground-disturbing and
construction activities
City of Tulare;
CDFW; USFWS
12 not observed above ground, essential foot traffic
also may be allowed. The USFWS and CDFW shall
be notified of any reductions in the standard radii
or allowance for additional activity in the
restrictive exclusion zones based on individual
circumstances to provide USFWS and CDFW an
opportunity to offer technical guidance. If a
known or occupied den cannot be avoided,
consultation with the USFWS and CDFW shall be
required.
13 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 Standardized
Recommendations, including, but not limited to:

• Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime
speed limit of 15-mph throughout the site in all
project areas, except on county roads and State
and Federal highways; this is particularly
important at night when kit foxes are most
active. Night-time construction should be
minimized to the extent possible. However if it
does occur, then the speed limit shall be reduced
to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated
project areas shall be prohibited.
• To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes
or other animals during the construction phase of
a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or
trenches more than 2-feet deep shall be covered
at the close of each working day by plywood or
similar materials. If the trenches cannot be
closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of
earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed.

Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall
be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at
any time a trapped or injured kit fox is
Construction
Contractor &
Qualified Biologist
During all grounddisturbing and
construction activities
City of Tulare;
CDFW; USFWS
14 discovered, the USFWS and CDFW shall be
contacted.
• Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures
such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and
become trapped or injured. All construction
pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a
diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at
a construction site for one or more overnight
periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit
foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried,
capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.

If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section
of pipe shall not be moved until USFWS has been
consulted. If necessary, and under the direct
supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be
moved only once to remove it from the path of
construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
• All food-related trash items such as wrappers,
cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of
in securely closed containers and removed at
least once a week from a construction or project
site.
• No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
• No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be
permitted on the project site, to prevent
harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction
of dens.
15 • Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project
areas shall be restricted. This is necessary to
prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit
foxes and the depletion of prey populations on
which they depend. All uses of such compounds
shall observe label and other restrictions
mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, California Department of Food and
Agriculture, and other State and Federal
legislation, as well as additional project-related
restrictions deemed necessary by USFWS. If
rodent control must be conducted, zinc
phosphide shall be used because of a proven
lower risk to kit fox.
• An employee education program shall be
conducted for the project. The program shall
consist of a brief presentation by persons
knowledgeable in kit fox biology and protection
to explain endangered species concerns to
contractors, their employees, and agency
personnel involved in the project. This training
will include a description of the kit fox and its
habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit
fox in the project vicinity; an explanation of the
status of the species and its protection under the
Endangered Species Act; and a list of the
measures being taken to reduce impacts to the
species during project construction and
implementation. The training will include a
handout with all of the training information
included in it. The applicant will use this handout
to train any construction personnel that were not
16 in attendance at the first meeting, prior to those
personnel starting work on the site.
• A representative shall be appointed by the
Applicant who will be the contact source for any
employee or contractor who might inadvertently
kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured
or entrapped kit fox. The representative shall be
identified during the employee education
program and their name and telephone number
shall be provided to USFWS.
• Upon completion of the project, all areas
subject to temporary ground disturbances,
including storage and staging areas, temporary
roads, pipeline corridors, etc. shall be re-
contoured if necessary, and revegetated to
promote restoration of the area to pre-project
conditions. An area subject to "temporary"
disturbance means any area that is disturbed
during the project, but after project completion
will not be subject to further disturbance and has
the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate
methods and plant species used to revegetate
such areas shall be determined on a site-specific
basis in consultation with USFWS, CDFW, or
revegetation experts.
• Any contractor, employee, or agency personnel
who are responsible for inadvertently killing or
injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately
report the incident to their representative. This
representative shall contact the Sacramento Field
17 Office of the USFWS and the Fresno Field Office
of CDFW will be notified in writing within three
working days in case of the accidental death or
injury of a San Joaquin kit fox during projectrelated activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the
finding of a dead or injured animal, and any other
pertinent information. The CDFW contact for
immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916)
445-0045. They will contact the local warden or
Mr. Paul Hoffman, the wildlife biologist, at (530)
934-9309.
• New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the
CNDDB. A copy of the reporting form and a
topographic map clearly marked with the
location of where the kit fox was observed shall
also be provided to USFWS.

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 Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS
1983) shall 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
potential significant impacts.

Construction
Contractor &
Qualified
Archaeologist
During grounddisturbing activitiesCity of Tulare
18 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. In the event of
an unanticipated discovery of human remains,
the County Coroner must be notified
immediately. 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
removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native
American burials.

Construction
Contractor
During grounddisturbing activitiesCity of Tulare;
County Coroner;
NAHC
19 HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading
and/or construction permit, and or the
commencement of any clearing, grading, or
excavation, the project proponent or
construction contractor shall submit a Notice of
Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project site to
the California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Phase
I, the applicant or construction contractor shall
submit a copy of the NOI to the City. The City
shall review noticing documentation prior to
approval of the grading permit. City monitoring
staff will inspect the site during construction for
compliance.

Project Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
Prior to the issuance of
a grading permit or to
commencement of any
ground clearing,
grading, or excavation
City of Tulare
20 HYD-2: The Applicant shall require the building
contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45
days prior to the start of work for approval. The
contractor is responsible for understanding the
State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP
during construction. A SWPPP for site
construction shall be developed prior to the
initiation of grading and implemented for all
construction activity on the Project site in excess
of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance
is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s
plan of development that in total disturbs one or
more acres. The SWPPP shall identify potential
pollutant sources that may affect the quality of
discharges to storm water and shall include
specific BMPs to control the discharge of material
from the site. The following BMP methods shall
include, but would not be limited to:
• Dust control measures will be implemented to
ensure success of all onsite activities to control
fugitive dust;
• A routine monitoring plan will be implemented
to ensure success of all onsite erosion and
sedimentation control measures;
• Provisional detention basins, straw bales,
erosion control blankets, mulching, silt fencing,
sand bagging, and soil stabilizers will be used;
• Soil stockpiles and graded slopes will be
covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24
hours prior to and during extreme weather
conditions; and,
Applicant;
Construction
Contractor
45 Days Prior to Starting
Work and or Grading;
Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
City of Tulare
21 • BMPs will be strictly followed to prevent spills
and discharges of pollutants onsite, such as
material storage, trash disposal, construction
entrances, etc.

HYD-3: A Development Maintenance Manual for
the Project shall include comprehensive
procedures for maintenance and operations of
any stormwater facilities to ensure long-term
operation and maintenance of post-construction
stormwater controls. The maintenance manual
shall require that stormwater BMP devices be
inspected, cleaned and maintained in accordance
with the manufacturer’s maintenance conditions.

The manual shall require that devices be cleaned
prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., midOctober) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., mid-May). The manual shall
also require that all devices be checked after
major storm events. The Development
Maintenance Manual shall include the following:
• Runoff shall be directed away from trash and
loading dock areas;
• Bins shall be lined or otherwise constructed to
reduce leaking of liquid wastes;
• Trash and loading dock areas shall be screened
or walled to minimize offsite transport of trash;
and,
• Impervious berms, trench catch basin, drop
inlets, or overflow containment structures nearby
docks and trash areas shall be installed to
minimize the potential for leaks, spills or wash
down water to enter the drainage system.

Project Proponent &
Project Engineer;
Construction
Contractor
Prior to issuance of
building
permitscertificates of
occupancy for each
phase, and if not master
planned, prior to
issuance of building
permits for each phase
City of Tulare
22 TRA-1: Prior to issuance of building
permitscertificates of occupancy for Phase I of
the proposed project, the project proponent
must complete the following required
improvements at the Morrison Street/Tulare
Avenue Intersection:
 Add a southbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the southbound left-through-right
lane to a through-right lane;
 Signalize the intersection with protective leftturn phasing in all directions; and  Modify the intersection to accommodate the
added lane.

Project Applicant/
Project Proponent
Prior to issuance of
certificates of
occupancybuilding
permits for Phase I of
the Project
City of Tulare;
Caltrans
TRA-2: Prior to issuance of building
permitscertificates of occupancy for Phase II of
the proposed project, the project proponent
must complete the following required
improvements at the Morrison Street/Prosperity
Avenue Intersection:
 Modify the northbound left-right lane to a
left-turn lane; and
 Add a northbound right-turn lane.

Project Applicant/
Project Proponent
Prior to issuance of
building
permitscertificates of
occupancy for Phase II
of the Project
City of Tulare
23 TRA-3: Prior to issuance of building
permitscertificates of occupancy for Phase IV of
the proposed project, the project proponent
must complete the following required
improvements at the Mooney
Boulevard/Seminole Avenue Intersection:
 Modify the westbound left-right lane to a
left-turn lane;
 Add a westbound right-turn lane; and
 Signalize the intersection with protective leftturn phasing in all directions.

Project Applicant/
Project Proponent
Prior to issuance of
building
permitscertificates of
occupancy for Phase IV
of the Project
City of Tulare;
Caltrans
24 TRA-4: Prior to issuance of building
permitscertificates of occupancy for Phase IV of
the proposed project, the project proponent shall
pay their equitable fair share, agreed upon by the
responsible agencies (City of Tulare and Caltrans),
towards the cost of the following improvements
at the intersections of Mooney
Boulevard/Prosperity Avenue and Mooney
Boulevard/Tulare Avenue:

O Mooney Boulevard/Prosperity Avenue
 Modify the southbound through-right lane to
a through lane;
 Add a southbound right-turn lane; and
 Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the
added lane.

O Mooney Boulevard/Tulare Avenue
 Add a second eastbound left-turn lane; and
 Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the
added lane.

Fair share contributions shall only be made for
those facilities, or portion thereof, currently not
funded by the responsible agencies’ roadway
impact fee program(s) or grant funding, as
appropriate. Payment of the Project’s equitable
fair share, in addition to the local and regional
impact fee programs, would satisfy the Project’s
traffic mitigation measures for its contribution to
Near Term plus Project Buildout Traffic
Conditions. The traffic impact analysis conducted
for the proposed project does not provide
construction costs for the recommended
mitigation measures; therefore, the project
proponent must continue to work with the City of
Project Applicant/
Project Proponent
Prior to issuance of
building
permitscertificates of
occupancy for Phase IV
of the Project
City of Tulare;
Caltrans
25 Tulare, and/or Caltrans, to develop the estimated
construction costs.
26 Page intentionally left blank
27 City of Tulare
Planning and Building Department
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
Introduction
Project Title: Farrar Subdivision Project
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the City of Tulare to address the environmental effects of the construction of a single family residential subdivision consisting of 360 lots on approximately 76.5 acres within the City of Tulare, California. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The City of Tulare is the CEQA lead agency for this project.

The project site is located within Tulare County in the eastern area of the City of Tulare, north of Tulare Avenue, west of Morrison Street and rural residential properties, south of agricultural land, and east of a single-family residential subdivision.

This Initial Study document for the Farrar Subdivision Project, is organized as follows:

Section 1: Environmental Review Process
The Environmental Review Process covers the procedures, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project including the CEQA guidelines, Initial Study, Environmental Checklist, Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Notice of Determination.

Section 2: Project Description
The Project Description identifies the project location, provides a background to the project, and describes the project.

Section 3: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts contains the CEQA Environmental Checklist, Environmental Factors Potentially Affected, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Draft Notice of Intent to Adopt Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal form, Draft Notice of Determination, and a Schedule of Compliance with CEQA for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Section 4: References
References provides a list of reference material used during the preparation of the Initial Study.
28 Section 5: List of Report Preparers
The List of Report Preparers provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study.

Appendices
The Appendices consist of Appendix A and Appendix B. Appendix A includes the modeling output sheets from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) run for estimating construction and operational emissions summarized in the air quality and greenhouse gas sections of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Appendix B is the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Project.
29 City of Tulare
Planning and Building Department
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
SECTON 1
CEQA Environmental Review Process
Project Title: Farrar Subdivision Project

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment. All phases of the project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. The purposes of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, include:

(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;

(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration;

(3) Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:

(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,

(B) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,

(D) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.

(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a mitigated negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (6)Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
30 (7)Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

1.2 Initial Study
The Initial Study provided herein covers the potential environmental effects of the construction of a five building medical complex on approximately 10.4 acres within the City of Tulare, California.

The City of Tulare will act as the Lead Agency for processing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

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

1.4 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration The Lead Agency shall provide a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15072) to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies and the County Clerk within which the project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period.

The public review period (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105) shall not be less than 20 days.

When the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period shall not be less than 30 days, unless a shorter period, not less than 20 days, is approved by the State Clearinghouse.

Prior to approving the project, the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and shall adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

The written and oral comments received during the public review period will be considered by the City of Tulare prior to adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Regardless of the type of CEQA document that must be prepared, the overall purpose of the CEQA process is to:
1) Assure that the environment and public health and safety are protected in the face of discretionary projects initiated by public agencies or private concerns;

31 2) Provide for full disclosure of the project’s environmental effects to the public, the agency decision-makers who will approve or deny the project, and the responsible trustee agencies charged with managing resources (e.g. wildlife, air quality) that may be affected by the project; and

3) Provide a forum for public participation in the decision-making process pertaining to potential environmental effects.

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

The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Less than significant impacts have been identified, with implementation of mitigation measures.

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

1.5 Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration The Lead Agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070) for a project subject to CEQA when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

The proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include the following:
(a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project.
(b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map. (c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

(d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding. (e) Mitigation measures, if any.

32 1.6 Intended Uses of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document is an informational document that is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable the public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency must balance any potential environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals.

The City of Tulare, as Lead Agency, will make a determination, based on the environmental review for the Initial Study and comments from the general public, if there are less than significant impacts from the proposed project and the requirements of CEQA can be met by adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

1.7 Notice of Determination (NOD)
The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination within five working days after deciding to approve the project. The Notice of Determination (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15075) shall include the following:

(1) An identification of the project including the project title as identified on the proposed negative declaration, its location, and the State Clearinghouse identification number for the proposed negative declaration if the notice of determination is filed with the State Clearinghouse.

(2) A brief description of the project.

(3) The agency's name and the date on which the agency approved the project.

(4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
(5) A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration was adopted pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

(6) A statement indicating whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project, and whether a mitigation monitoring plan/program was adopted.

(7) The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration may be examined.

(8) The Notice of Determination filed with the County Clerk shall be available for public inspection and shall be posted by the County Clerk within 24 hours of receipt 33 for a period of at least 30 days. Thereafter, the clerk shall return the Notice to the Lead Agency with a notation of the period posted.
34 City of Tulare
Planning and Building Department
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
SECTON 2
Project Description
Project Title: Farrar Subdivision Project

2.1 Project Location
The project site is located within Tulare County in the eastern area of the City of Tulare (City), north of Tulare Avenue, west of Morrison Street and rural residential properties, south of agricultural lands, and east of a single-family residential subdivision. The project area is composed of four neighboring parcels (APN 172-130-020, 172-090-029, 172-110- 001, and 172-070-005) totaling approximately 76.5 acres. Figure 2-1 shows the regional location of the proposed project, while Figure 2-2 shows the projected site plan.

2.2 Project Description
The proposed project is a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 360 lots, to be constructed in four phases. The development of the subdivision would result in on-site infrastructure improvements, including new local residential streets, new and relocated utilities, and a ponding basin to treat storm water flows. The project would also require build out and frontage improvements on Morrison Street, Tulare Avenue, and Seminole Avenue.

Other Permits and Approvals
Other permits and approvals required for the Farrar Subdivision Project are listed below. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive and additional permits and approvals may also be required.
• City of Tulare Tentative Subdivision Map
• City of Tulare General Plan Amendment
• City of Tulare Zone Amendment
• City of Tulare Conditional Use Permit
• City of Tulare Landscape and Maintenance District
• City of Tulare Building and Encroachment Permits
35 • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD and will be required to comply with Rule VIII, 3135, 4101, and 9510.
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, SWPPP. The proposed project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). The CVRWQCB will require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent impacts related to stormwater as a result of project construction. 36 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
37 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Page intentionally left blank
38 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Figure 2-2 Project Site Plan

39 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Page intentionally left blank
40 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Aerial Photo of Project Site
41 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Page intentionally left blank
42 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
City of Tulare
Planning and Building Department
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
SECTON 3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Project Title: Farrar Subdivision Project
This document is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed single-family residential subdivision consisting of 360 lots on approximately 76.5 acres within the City of Tulare, California. The City of Tulare will act as the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

3.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of this environmental document is to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15002(a) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the basic purposes of CEQA as follows.
(1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
(3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.).

According to Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate if it is determined that: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
43 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1. Project Title: Farrar Subdivision Project

2. Lead Agency: City of Tulare
411 E. Kern Avenue
Tulare, Ca 93274
(559) 684-4217 FAX 685-2339

3. Applicant: Woodside 06N LP
9 River Park Pl. E.

Suite 430
Fresno, CA 93720

4. Contact Person: Mario Anaya, Principal Planner
City of Tulare
411 E. Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
(559)684-4223

5. Project Location:

The project site is located within Tulare County in the eastern area of the City of Tulare (City), north of Tulare Avenue, west of Morrison Street and rural residential properties, south of agricultural lands, and east of a single-family residential subdivision. The project area is composed of four neighboring parcels (APN 172-130-020, 172-090-029, 172-110- 001, and 172-070-005) totaling approximately 76.5 acres.

6. General Plan Designation:

Tulare General Plan designates the four parcels on the site as Rural Residential, Residential Estate, and Low Density Residential.

7. Zoning Designation:

Tulare Zoning Map designates the four parcels on the site as RA (rural residential), R-1-20, R-1-12.5, and R-1-7.

8. Surrounding Land Use Designations and Existing Land Use:

North LDR agricultural land (row crops)
South LDR Tulare Avenue & low density single-family residential East County rural residential, residential estate, & orchard West LDR low density single-family residential
44 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019

9. Project Description: The proposed project is a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 360 lots, to be constructed in four (4) phases. The proposed project would result in on-site infrastructure improvements, including local residential streets, widening of Morrison Street, as well as new and relocated utilities.

10. Parking and access: Access to and from the proposed subdivision would be available via Morrison Street and via the extension of Seminole Avenue. At full buildout, one access point would be located on Seminole Avenue, two would be located on Morrison Street, and the remaining two access points are proposed along the west side of the proposed project site boundary, connecting through the existing subdivision to the west. The proposed residential development will provide both covered (garage) and uncovered driveway and street parking, which complies with the City of Tulare Code of Ordinances § 10.192.040 requiring tow covered parking spaces per dwelling unit. During construction, workers will utilize onsite temporary construction staging and parking areas for parking of vehicles and equipment.

11. Landscaping and Design: All landscaping and design components will comply with the City of Tulare Code of Ordinances §8.24 for Subdivisions, §10.24 for Single-family Residential, and §10.33 for Small Lot Residential. The landscape and design plans will be required at time the project submits for a building permit on the project and will also be subject to water efficient landscape ordinance (WELO).

12. Utilities and Electrical Services: The proposed project would be installed into the City’s water supply, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure systems and would be served by the City for solid waste disposal. In addition, electrical service would be provided by the local energy utility company, Southern California Edison.

13. Project Components: The discretionary approvals required from the City of Tulare for the proposed project include:
• General Plan Amendment
• Zone Amendment
• Conditional Use Permit
• Tentative Subdivision Map

45 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Acronyms
AFY Acre-feet Per Year
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARB Air Resources Board
BMP Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CC Community Commercial
CCR California Code of Regulation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CO Carbon Monoxide
CWA California Water Act
DHS Department of Health Services
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicles
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FMBTA Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
IS/MND Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
ISR Indirect Source Review
IT Information Technology
LDR Low Density Residential
LOS Level of Service
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MGD Million Gallons a Day
MKJPA Mid-Kaweah Joint Powers Authority
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MT Metric Tons
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
46 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NDIR Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry
NOD Notice of Determination
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Park Service
OB/GYN Obstetrics/Gynecology
OSHPD Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development PM Particulate Matter
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCH State Clearinghouse
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SPAL Small Project Analysis Level
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TID Tulare Irrigation District
UBSC Uniform Building and Safety Code (UBSC)
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WELO Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Facility
WWTT Wastewater Treatment Train
47 Farrar Subdivision Project
October 2019
Figure 3-1: Project Site Vicinity Map
48 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Figure 3-2: Site Plan

49 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019

3.2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as 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, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR if required.

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

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequate 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 Analysis 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 and mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

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

51 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019

3.4 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
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
   
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 publically 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?
   
DISCUSSION:
a) No Impact: A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. In the project vicinity the Sierra Nevada Mountainsin the background as well as the flat rural agricultural landscape with Valley Oak trees rising from the valley floor are the two primary scenic vistas. Due to the distance between the project site and the Sierra Nevada Mountains, in conjunction with the poor air quality of the valley, the Sierra Nevada Mountains can rarely be seen from this location. In addition, although there is one mature Valley Oak tree located in the northwest portion of the project property, along Seminole Avenue, the Project would not remove the tree and will incorporate it into a landscape lot of the subdivsion. The project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista due to the proposed development at the project site. For these reasons, this project would have no impact on scenic vistas.
b) No Impact: The site does not contain any rock outcropping or historic buildings, nor would it remove any trees. After review of the state route “scenic highways” in Tulare 52 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
County, it was determined that there are no highways designated by State or local agencies as “Scenic highways” near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to any scenic resources.

c) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project site is surrounded by agricultural lands and residential subdivisions, therefore the City does not anticipate that the development of the proposed project will create a visually degraded character or quality to the project site or to the properties near and around the project site. Additionally, all of the development will be required to comply with the site plan review and design limitations required by the General Plan and the City’s adopted design guidelines and zoning regulations which require setbacks, landscaping and designs to limit impact to neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the area. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not create a new source of light or glare so substantial that it would affect day or nighttime views in the area. Any proposed overhead or perimeter lighting would be designed using best practices to avoid spillover light to adjacent or nearby residential properties. The design and orientation of the proposed project lighting for this project would prevent substantial increases in light or glare in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regard to existing day or nighttime views in the area of the project site.
53 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
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 Forest Protocols adopted by
the California air Resources Board. - -
Would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
   
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
   
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g)?
   
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
   
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
   
54 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
DISCUSSION:
a) Less than Significant Impact: Agriculture is a vital component of the City of Tulare’s economy and is a significant source of the City’s cultural identity. As such, preserving the productivity of agricultural lands is integral to maintaining the City’s culture and economic viability. The proposed project site is not under Williamson Act Contract, but is designated as Prime Farmland by the 2016 California Department of Conservation Map of State Important Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The project site is currently and has been operated recently as an alfalfa field and is bounded by agricultural land to the north and northeast.

Even though the project would be converting actively farmed Prime Farmland to residential uses, the proposed project site is within the City limits and is already designated for single-family residential development in the City’s adopted General Plan.

Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
b) No Impact: The project site is located within Tulare city limits and is zoned for residential land uses. The project site is not under Williamson Act contract and therefore would create no impacts.
c) No Impact: The project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland and there is no forest land or timberland zone change proposed for the site, therefore no impacts would occur.
d) No Impact: No conversion of forestland, as defined under Public Resource Code or General Code, will occur as a result of the project and would create no impacts. e) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed above, the proposed project would convert agricultural land to residential uses. However, while the project site is currently being farmed, the site is designated for single family residential development in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Title 10 of the Tulare Municipal Code). Adjacent farmland will not be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.

55 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management 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
Incorporated
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?
   

CURRENT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Federal Clean Air Act - The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and set deadlines for their attainment. The Clean Air Act identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to meet interim milestones. The U.S. EPA is the federal agency charged with administering the Act and other air quality-related legislation. EPA’s principal function include setting NAAQS; establishing minimum national emission limits for major sources of pollution; and promulgating regulations.

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, which control stationary-source and most categories of area-source emissions and develop regional air quality plans. The project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

The state and federal standards for the criteria pollutants are presented in (see Table 1).

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 56 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
to protect the nation’s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soils, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of general welfare. The U.S. EPA revoked the national 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005, and the annual PM10 standard on September 21, 2006, when a new PM2.5 24-hour standard was established.

Air quality is described in terms of emissions rate and concentration of emissions. An emissions rate is the amount of pollutant released into the atmosphere by a given source over a specified time period. Emissions rates are generally expressed in units such as pounds per hour (1lbs/hr) or tons per year. Concentrations of emissions, on the other hand, represent the amount of pollutant in a given space at any time. Concentration is usually expressed in units such as micrograms per cubic meter, kilograms per metric ton, or parts per million. There are 4 primary sources of air pollution within the SJVAB: motor vehicles, stationary sources, agricultural activities, and construction activities.

Criteria air pollutants are classified in each air basin, county, or, in some cases, within a specific urbanized area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with state and federal standards. If a pollutant concentration is lower than the standard, the pollutant is classified as “attainment” in that area. If an area exceeds the standard, the pollutant is classified as “non-attainment.” If there are not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated “unclassified.”
Air quality in the vicinity of the proposed project is regulated by several jurisdictions including the State and Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

Each jurisdiction develops rules, regulations, policies, and/or goals to attain the directives imposed upon them through Federal and State legislation.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990 requires emission controls on factories, businesses, and automobiles by:
• Lowering the limits on hydrochloric acid and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, requiring the increased use of alternative-fuel cars, on-board canisters to capture vapors during refueling, and extending emission-control warranties. • Reducing airborne toxins by requiring factories to install “maximum achievable control technology” and installing urban pollution control programs. • Reducing Acid rain production by cutting sulfur dioxide emissions for coal-burning power plants.
57 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Table 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Ozone (03)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Photometry
-
Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
8 Hour Photometry
8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)

0.075
ppm (147
µg/m3
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 µg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 -
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM 2.5)
24 Hour - Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
35 µg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Annual Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm
(40
mg/m3)
None
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
8 Hour 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10
mg/m3)
8 Hour
(Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3)
-
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
8 1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb
(188
µg/m3)
-
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence

0.030 ppm 53 ppb
58 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Arithmetic
Mean
(57 µg/m3) (100
µg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur
Dioxide
1 Hour 0.25 ppm Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb - Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
(655 µg/m3) (196
µg/m3)
3 Hour - - 0.5 ppm
(1300
µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3

0.14 ppm
(for
certain
areas)9
-
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
- 0.030
ppm (for
certain
areas)9
-
Lead10,11 30 Day
Average

1.5 µg/m3 Atomic Absorption - - High Volume
Sampler and
Calendar Atomic Absorption
Quarter
- 1.5 µg/m3
(for
certain
areas)11
Same as
Primary
Standard
Rolling
3-month
Average
- 0.15
µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles12
8 Hour See footnote
12 Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape
No
National
Standard
59 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Flourescence
Vinyl
Chloride10 24 Hour

0.01 ppm
(26 µg/m3
Gas
Chromatography
Notes:

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA.

8. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.

9. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per 60 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

10. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

11. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

12. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
61 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
In July of 1997, the EPA adopted a PM2.5 standard in recognition of increased concern over particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Ending several years of litigation, EPA’s PM2.5 regulations were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 27, 2001. According to information provided by the EPA, designations for the new PM2.5 standards began in the year 2002 with attainment plans submitted by 2005 for regions that violate the standard. In October 2006, EPA revised the PM2.5 standard to 35 µg/m3. The most recent revision to the PM2.5 standard was in 2012 when the EPA revised the annual PM2.5 standard to 12 µg/m3.

The San Joaquin Valley was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 standard effective April 15, 2015.

The following rules and regulations have been adopted by the Air District to reduce PM2.5 emissions throughout the San Joaquin Valley and verification by the City of compliance with these rules and regulations will be required, as applicable, to construct and operation of the project.
• Rule 4002 – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. There are no existing structures located on the proposed site.
• Rule 4102 – Nuisance
This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. In the event that the project or construction of the project creates a public nuisance, it could be in violation and be subject to district enforcement action.
• Rule 4601 – Architectural coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. Emission are reduced by limits on VOC content and providing requirements on coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling
• Rule 4641- Cutback, slow cure, and emulsified asphalt, paving and maintenance operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from asphalt paving and maintenance operations. If asphalt paving will be used, then the paving operations will be subject to Rule 4641.
• 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. • Compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (ISR) reduces the emissions impact of the project through incorporation of onsite measures as well as payment of an offsite fee that funds emissions reduction projects in the SJVAB. A number of 62 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
“optional”/Above and Beyond” mitigation measures included in this project can be created as Rule 9510 – onsite mitigation measures.
• Regulation VIII – fugitive PM10 Prohibitions Rules 8011 – 8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track-out etc. Among the Regulation VIII Rules applicable to the project are the following:
• Rule 8011 – Fugitive Dust Administrative Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM10)

• Rule 8021 – Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of fine Particulate Matter (PM10) from Construction, Excavation, and Extraction Activities

• Rule 8030 – Fugitive dust Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) from Handling and Storage of Fine Bulk Materials.

• Rule 8060 – Fugitive dust Requirements for Control of fine Particulate Matter (PM10) from Paved and Unpaved Roads.

DISCUSSION:
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is responsible for bringing air quality in the City of Tulare into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The air district has Particulate Matter (PM) plans, Ozone Plans, and Carbon Monoxide Plans that serve as the clean air plans for the basin. Together, these plans quantify the required emission reductions to meet federal and state air quality standards and provide strategies to meet these standards.

Construction Phase. Project construction would generate pollution emissions from the following construction activities: site preparation, grading, building construction, grading, trenching, and application of architectural coatings. The construction related emissions from these activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2. The full CalEEMod Modeling output sheets can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 2 below, project construction related emissions do not exceed the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD. 63 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Table 2: Estimated Project Construction Emissions in Tons Per Year CO ROG SOx NOx PM10 PM2.5
Maximum
Annual
Emissions
Generated
from Project
Construction

3.5813 6.3553 0.0079 4.1952 0.3987 0.2171
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.

Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (Appendix A)
Operation 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 Modeling output sheets can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3 below, annual emissions of NOx exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.

Table 3: Estimated Project Operational Emissions in Tons Per Year CO ROG SOx NOx PM10 PM2.5
Maximum
Annual
Emissions
Generated
from Project
Operations

12.6525 4.1813 0.0063 10.0452 4.1956 1.1942
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.

Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (Appendix A)
However, the proposed project would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510, since it contains more than 250 residential units at buildout. Rule 9510 requires a reduction in the growth of operational NOx emissions by 33.3% when compared to the unmitigated project. These reductions are accomplished by the incorporation of mitigation measures into projects and/or by the payment of an Indirect Source Review (ISR) fee for any 64 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
required reductions that have not been accomplished through project mitigation commitments. The current fees are $9,350 per ton of NOx. The actual calculations will be accomplished by the SJVAPCD and Project applicant under Rule 9510. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the project would be mitigating impacts resulting from operational NOx emissions, and therefore, impacts relative to this topic would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The proposed project is subject to Rule 9510, as required by the SJVAPCD. The project applicant shall pay the Indirect Source Review Rule fee for any required reductions that have not been accomplished through project mitigation commitments, prior to issuance of building permits. The fee calculations will be conducted by the SJVAPCD.
b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: 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. Construction emissions are relatively insignificant and can be mitigated with implementation of air district control measures. During project operation, annual emissions of NOx slightly exceed SJVAPCD thresholds, however with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Therefore, impacts regarding cumulative emissions would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: During construction, pollution concentrations will temporarily increase, however construction activities will remain below the thresholds of significance established by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. During operations, annual NOx emissions resulting from the project would slightly exceed significance thresholds established by SJVAPCD, however with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would create temporary typical construction odors during the construction phase. Since any odors from project construction would be temporary and common to any construction activity, and the project would not create objectionable odors during facility operations, impacts are less than significant. 65 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish & Game or U.S. fish
and Wildlife Service?
   
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
   
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through director
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
   
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
   
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
   
The Project site is situated within a combination of agricultural lands and suburban development. It is bordered to the north and northeast by agricultural land uses, and to the south, west, and east by suburban residential land uses. Argonaut Ecological, Inc. conducted a biological review of the project site. The biological study focused on mapping existing habitat types based on four separate field visits, aerial photographs, and other published reports and available data. The study included assessment of the types of habitats present and sensitive species that may be associated with those habitats. The study found that the Study Area has been used and managed for decades as agricultural land. 66 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
A field review was conducted on July 1, 2019 to identify wetlands and assess habitat conditions and land use in order to evaluate site suitability for species of concern. During the site investigation field review the entire Study Area was walked. There are two habitat types present: intensive row crops and ruderal (disturbed weedy habitat) habitat along the edges.

It appears the Study Area is planted annually (with normally cropping patterns). Along the edge of the site, there are non-native weedy species along the roadway shoulders. At the northern edge of the Study Area is a 50-foot wide band of ruderal habitat. This area supports little to no habitat value. There is one large, mature tree (oak) located in the northwestern corner portion of the Study Area. This tree is actively being used for nesting by a pair of redtailed hawk. There is no other bird nesting habitat within the Study Area. There are no improvements on the site (other than a pump and other farm related irrigation equipment).

The perimeter of the farm field is bare ground and used for vehicle/equipment access.

A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC database) were reviewed to determine which special status species could be present within the Study Area. There is no critical habitat for any listed species within or near the Study Area. The table below provides a summary of the species identified in the CNDDB and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would have the highest likelihood of being present based on habitat requirements. There is one potential nesting habitat (a single tree) within the Study Area.

Table 4: Special Status Animal Species
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT
burrowing owl Athene cunicularia CSC
An andrenid bee Andrena macswaini -
San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE, CT
Blunt nosed leopard lizard Gambelia silus CE
Status Codes
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
CT California Threatened
CSC California Species of Special Concern
Source: CNDDB Quickview Tool
67 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Table 5: Special Status Plant Species
Common Name Scientific Name Status
San Joaquin adobe sunburst Pseudobahia peirsonii FT, CE, 1B California jewelflower Caulanthus californicus FE, CE
Status Codes
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere

Source: CNDDB Quickview Tool
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) - defines an endangered species as “any species or subspecies 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.

Although the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and its parent administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, have traditionally interpreted the FMBTA as prohibiting incidental as well as intentional “take” of birds, a January 2018 legal opinion issued by the Department of the Interior now states that incidental take of migratory birds while engaging in otherwise lawful activities is permissible under the FMBTA. However, California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any non-game bird covered by the FMBTA (Section 3513), as well as any other native non-game bird (Section 3800), even if incidental to lawful activities.

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, 68 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
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 CDFW.

DISCUSSION:
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Based on the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity (row crop agricultural uses to the north and northeast, and suburban residential uses to the south, east, and west), there is low potential for candidate, sensitive, or special-status species to occur on the project site. No candidate, sensitive, or special-status species were observed on the project site during the reconnaissance-level survey, but some special-status species could occur on the project site because they are occasionally found to travel through or forage in row crop agricultural fields. These species include the Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and San Joaquin kit fox, and are discussed in further detail below:

Swainson's hawk: Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii) is listed as threatened under CESA.

Swainson’s hawks inhabit grasslands, sage-steppe plains, and agricultural regions of western North America during breeding season, and winter in grassland and agricultural regions from central Mexico to southern South America. In California, the nesting distribution includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the Great Basin sage-steppe communities and associated agricultural valleys in extreme northeastern California, isolated valleys in the Sierra Nevada in Mono and Inyo Counties, and limited areas of the Mojave Desert region (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). In California, Swainson’s hawk habitat generally consists of large, flat, open, undeveloped landscapes that include suitable grassland or agricultural foraging habitat and sparsely distributed trees for nesting (England et al. 2010). Foraging habitat includes open fields and pastures. Preferred foraging habitats for Swainson’s hawk include alfalfa fields, fallow fields, low-growing row or field crops, rice fields during the non-flooded period, and cereal grain crops (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Prey species include ground squirrels, California voles, pocket gophers, deer mice, reptiles, and insects (California Department of Fish and Game 2005; England et al. 2010). Swainson’s hawks usually nest in large native trees such as valley oak (Quercus lobata), Fremont cottonwood, and willows, although nonnative trees such as eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) occasionally are used. Nests occur in riparian woodlands, roadside trees, trees along field borders, isolated trees and small groves, trees in windbreaks, and edges of remnant oak woodlands. In some locales, urban nest sites have been recorded. The breeding season is typically February through August (CDFW 2005).

The Study Area supports one large tree that is currently being used for nesting by a pair of red-tailed hawk. It is unlikely the nest would be used by Swainson’s hawk, but the site may occasionally be used by Swainson’s hawk for occasional foraging, but not likely given the presence of the red-tailed hawk. The project site and adjacent agricultural fields could be used as foraging or nesting habitat for this species. The following mitigation measures will 69 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
be implemented to prevent significant impacts from occurring to the Swainson’s hawk and other nesting raptors.

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 shall conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 14 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey shall 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 shall extend to 0.5 mile outside of work area boundaries. Nesting surveys for the Swainson’s hawks shall be conducted in accordance with the protocol outlined in the “Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley” (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000). If potential Swainson’s hawk nests or nesting substrates are located within 0.5 miles of the Project site, then those nests or substrates must be monitored for activity on a routine and repeating basis throughout the breeding season, or until Swainson’s hawks or other raptor species are verified to be using them. The protocol recommends that 10 vists be made to each nest or nesting site: one during January 1-March 20 to identify potential nest sites, three during March 20-April 5, three during April 5-April 20, and three during June 10-July 30. To meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to Project-related ground disturbance activities. If Swainson’s hawks are not found to nest within the survey area, then no further action is warranted.

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 (left the nest).

Burrowing Owl: Burrowing owl is a species of concern in California. It is a small owl that lives in grassland habitats of the Central Valley region that also supports California ground squirrels. The owl seeks shelter in the ground squirrel burrows (or other structures such as culverts or pipes) from roughly February to July. Although the numbers of owls have declined in some parts of California over the past 20 years, their numbers have increased greatly in some agricultural areas. In the San Joaquin Valley the species mostly occurs on the valley floor. No evidence of ground squirrel occupation or evidence of owl occupation within the Study Area was found during the site review. Given the site is annually disturbed likely prevents occupation. The only potentially suitable habitat is the ruderal habitat at the 70 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
north edge of the Study Area; however, this area was walked, and no evidence of occupation or ground burrowing mammals was present. The recurring agricultural production likely precludes owl occupation on the remainder of the site since the species nests on the ground and there are no available underground burrows present. However, it is conceivable that burrowing owls could nest or roost in California ground squirrel burrows in open areas of the site during periods of less active cultivation of crops on the project site.

The following mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent significant impacts from occurring to the burrowing owl.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: (Take Avoidance Survey). 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: (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. 71 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
San Joaquin kit fox : The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is federally listed as endangered under ESA and is state-listed as threatened. Federal critical habitat for this species has not been designated. The historical range of San Joaquin kit fox included most of the San Joaquin Valley as well as low elevation basins and ranges along the eastern side of the central Coast Ranges. By 1930, this range had been reduced by more than half, with the largest populations occurring in the southern and western portions of the San Joaquin Valley. Today, the San Joaquin kit fox occurs in the remaining native valley and foothill grasslands and chenopod scrub communities of the valley floor and surrounding foothills, from southern Kern County north to Los Banos, Merced County. Smaller, less dense populations may be found farther north and in the narrow corridor between I-5 and the Interior Coast Ranges from Los Banos to Contra Costa County. The San Joaquin kit fox’s range also includes portions of Monterey, Santa Clara, and San Benito Counties (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The kit fox inhabits a variety of habitats, including grasslands; scrublands; vernal pool areas; alkali meadows and playas; and agricultural irrigated pastures, orchards, and vineyards. They prefer habitats with loose-textured soils and are found primarily in arid grasslands and open scrublands that are suitable for digging, but they occur on virtually every soil type (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Dens generally are located in open areas with grass or grass and scattered brush, and seldom occur in areas with thick brush. Preferred sites are relatively flat, well-drained terrain.

The only potential habitat that could be used for denning habitat is the ruderal habitat at the north end of the Study Area. This entire area was walked and there are no dens present nor is there any suitable prey base to support the species within the Study Area. No evidence of kit fox was observed (tracks or scat). The highly disturbed nature of the project site and adjacent lands make it unlikely habitat for the species, however it is possible to that the project site and adjacent agricultural fields could be used as foraging or burrowing habitat for the species. The following measures adapted from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011 Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance will be implemented:

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. The following text describes the different steps involved with implementing this mitigation measure:

Determine Den Status. When a suitable den or burrow is discovered, a qualified biologist shall determine whether the hole is occupied by a San Joaquin kit fox. Den entrances at least 4 inches in diameter (but not greater than 20 inches) qualify as 72 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
suitable for San Joaquin kit fox use. Some dens can be immediately identified as recently used by kit fox; qualifying signs include kit fox tracks, scats, and a fresh soil apron extending up to 6 feet from the den entrance. Dens with proper dimensions, but no obvious sign will require further investigation. A remote motion-sensing camera with tracking medium shall be deployed for at least 5 days in an attempt to document a San Joaquin kit fox using the den. If, after 5 days, no San Joaquin kit foxes are detected and the hole has remained unchanged (no new tracks or excavations are observed), and there is no historic record of an active kit fox den at that location, the den will be deemed a “potential den” and unoccupied. The den will be considered occupied if a kit fox is photographed using the den or if a recent sign is found. The biologist shall contact CDFW and the USFWS upon the confirmation of any occupied den.

Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated following any lapses in construction of 30 days or more.

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. The following radii are standard San Joaquin kit fox buffer distances:
• Known occupied den—100 feet
• Occupied natal/pupping den—500 feet
• Occupied atypical den—50 feet
In the exclusion zones, only essential vehicle and foot traffic shall be permitted. No activity that would destroy the den may occur, and no activity that may harm a San Joaquin kit fox will proceed until the individual is out of harm’s way, without harassment. No activity that may cause strong ground vibrations may occur in the exclusion zone until the den is no longer occupied. Essential vehicle traffic shall include any emergency vehicles. If San Joaquin kit foxes are not observed above ground, essential foot traffic also may be allowed.

The USFWS and CDFW shall be notified of any reductions in the standard radii or allowance for additional activity in the restrictive exclusion zones based on individual circumstances to provide USFWS and CDFW an opportunity to offer technical guidance. If a known or occupied den cannot be avoided, consultation with the USFWS and CDFW shall be required.

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 73 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Recommendations. The applicant shall implement all minimization measures presented in the Construction and On-going Operational Requirements section of the Standardized Recommendations, including, but not limited to:
• Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit of 15-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit shall be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas shall be prohibited.
• To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS and CDFW shall be contacted.
• Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. • All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.
• No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
• No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the project site, to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens. • Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas shall be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by USFWS. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox. 74 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
• An employee education program shall be conducted for the project. The program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and agency personnel involved in the project. This training will include a description of the kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project vicinity; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of the measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. The training will include a handout with all of the training information included in it. The applicant will use this handout to train any construction personnel that were not in attendance at the first meeting, prior to those personnel starting work on the site.
• A representative shall be appointed by the Applicant who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative shall be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to USFWS.
• Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. shall be recontoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but after project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas shall be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with USFWS, CDFW, or revegetation experts.
• Any contractor, employee, or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the Sacramento Field Office of the USFWS and the Fresno Field Office of CDFW will be notified in writing within three working days in case of the accidental death or injury of a San Joaquin kit fox during project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal, and any other pertinent information. The CDFW contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916) 445-0045. They will contact the local warden or Mr. Paul Hoffman, the wildlife biologist, at (530) 934-9309. • New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the CNDDB. A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to USFWS.
75 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, BIO-1c, BIO-2a, BIO-2b, BIO-2c, BIO-3a, BIO-3b, 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) No Impact: As identified in the City’s General Plan EIR, the project site in not located within or adjacent to an identified sensitive riparian habitat or other natural community.

Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to riparian habitat. c) No Impact: As identified in the City’s General Plan EIR, there are no known wetlands located in or around the Project site as reviewed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory map, and in addition, there are no state protected wetlands at or in the vicinity of the Project site. A query of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory Map shows no waters, wetlands, ponds, or rivers within the Study Area. The nearest mapped waters are located northeast of the Study Area (the Tulare Colony Ditch feature). This ditch feature does not flow onto or through the Study Area. Based on the 1919 topographic map it appears the Tulare Colony Ditch crossed through the Study Area. However, the portion of the ditch appears to have been rerouted or eliminated and no evidence of the old ditch is present within the Study Area. The field review confirmed that there are no waters and/or wetlands present within the Study Area. Therefore, the project will have no impact on federal or state protected wetlands.
d) No Impact: As identified in the City’s General Plan EIR, there are no identified migratory corridors on or near the site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts.
e) No Impact: The City of Tulare has an oak tree preservation policy according to Tulare Municipal Code 8.52.100 (Preservation of Heritage Trees). There is one oak tree in the northwest portion of the project site. This oak tree would be preserved in place and made part of a landscape lot for the subdivision. Therefore, there would be no impacts. f) No Impact: There are no local or regional habitat conservation plans for the area and no impacts would occur.
76 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
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?
   
Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: Table 4.5-1 in the City’s General Plan EIR lists previously recorded historical resources within the City, however none of those resources are located in the vicinity of the proposed project site. A record search and review of historic maps was conducted by Peak & Associates, Inc. for the proposed development. Based on a review of the records and historic maps, there are no known historical resources located within the project area and the soils in the project area have been previously disturbed and were most recently disturbed in the cultivation of agricultural row crops. There would be no excavation in undisturbed soils or in areas with known historical resources. However, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts due to discovery of cultural resources during excavation would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. 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 removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

VI. ENERGY
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
   
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
   
a) Less Than Significant Impact: While construction of the proposed project will result in additional energy consumption, this energy use is not unnecessary or inefficient. During project construction there would be an increase in energy consumption related to worker trips and operation of construction equipment. 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. 78 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Once construction is complete, the project is expected to achieve net zero energy consumption. The proposed project is subject to the California New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-2020. This plan establishes a goal for all residential buildings built after January 1, 2020 to be zero net energy. The California Energy Commission is responsible for the development and enforcement of specific strategies to achieve this goal. These strategies are implemented through Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Code, which requires developers to include certain measures (including solar panels on all new residential buildings) to achieve required building efficiency standards.

Since 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. Therefore, project impacts related to energy consumption would be considered less than significant.
b) No Impact: 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. There would be no impact. 79 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
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 on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
   
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or 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?
   
Discussion:
a-i and ii) Less Than Significant Impact: According to the state Regulatory Earthquake maps, no active faults underlay the project site, nor are any active faults located in the surrounding project vicinity. Although the project is located in an area of low seismic activity, the project could be affected by groundshaking from nearby faults. The 80 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
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. Furthermore, the proposed project would not expose people to seismic ground shaking beyond the conditions that currently exist throughout the project area.

The project would be constructed to the standards of the most recent seismic Uniform Building and Safety Code (UBSC). Compliance with these design standards will ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

a-iii) Less Than Significant Impact: Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near-saturated soils lose 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. 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 suitable 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. The impact would be less than significant. a-iv) No Impact: The project site is generally flat and previously disturbed. There are no hill slopes in the area and no potential for landslides. No geologic landforms exist on or near the site that would result in a landslide event. There would be no impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact: Because the project site is relatively flat, the potential for erosion is low. However, construction-related activities and increased impermeable surfaces can increase the probability for erosion to occur. Construction-related impacts to erosion will be temporary and subject to best management practices (BMPs) required by stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP), which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion from construction. After construction, stormwater will be directed to an on-site stormwater basin to prevent erosion from occurring on- or off-site. Because impacts related to erosion would be temporary and limited to construction and required best management practices would prevent significant impacts related to erosion, the impact will remain less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact: Substantial grade change would not occur in the topography to the point where the project would expose people or structures to potential adverse effects on-, or off-site, such as landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The impact would be less than significant. d) No Impact: Expansive soils contain large amounts of clay, which absorb water and cause the soil to increase in volume. Conversely, the soils associated with the proposed project site are granular, well-draining, and therefore have a limited ability to absorb water or exhibit expansive behavior. Nevertheless, the project would be designed to 81 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
comply with applicable building codes and structural improvement requirements to withstand the effects of expansive soils. Therefore there would be no impact. e) No Impact: The proposed project will have access to existing City wastewater infrastructure and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There is no impact.
f) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no known paleontological resources located within the project area and no excavation proposed in undisturbed soils, particularly to a depth with a potential to unearth paleontological resources. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
   
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
   
Climate Change - (also referred to as Global Climate change) is sometimes used to refer to all forms of climatic inconsistency, but because the earth’s climate is never static, the term is more properly used to imply a significant change from one climatic condition to another. In some cases, climate change has been used synonymously with the term “global warming.” Scientists however, tend to use the term in the wider sense to address uneven patterns of predicted global warming and cooling and include natural changes in climate.

Global Warming - refers to an increase in the near surface temperature of the earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is commonly used to refer to the warming predicted to occur because of increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists generally agree that the earth’s surface has warmed by about 1o F in the past 140 years, but warming is not predicted evenly around the globe. Due to predicted changes in the ocean currents, some places that are currently moderated by warm ocean currents are predicted to fall into deep freeze as the pattern changes.

Greenhouse Effect - is the warming of the earth’s atmosphere attributed to a buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) or other gases; some scientists think that this build-up allows the sun’s 82 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
rays to heat the earth, while making the infrared radiation atmosphere opaque to infrared radiation, thereby preventing a counterbalancing loss of heat.

Greenhouse Gases - are those that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere. GHG include water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), halogenated fluorocarbons, ozone, per fluorinated carbons PFCs), and hydroflurocarbons.

Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact: Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.

Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change.

Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.

The proposed project’s short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix A of this ISMND for complete CalEEMod inputs and results. CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MTCO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.

Short-Term Construction GHG Emissions: Estimated increases in GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 6. As presented in the table, the total short-term construction emissions of GHG associated with the Project are estimated to be approximately 3,429 metric tons (MT) of CO2e. This represents a low of approximately 256 and a high of 708 MT of CO2e emitted during each of the construction years (2020 through 2026). These construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are comparatively much lower than emissions associated with operational phases of a project. Cumulatively, these construction emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change, as they would not continue to occur into the future.
83 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Table 6: Estimated Project Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated Metric Tons Per Year)
Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2020 0.0 254.1477 254.1477 0.08 0.0 256.1483
2021 0.0 704.5698 704.5698 0.1376 0.0 708.0102
2022 0.0 466.1569 466.1569 0.0887 0.0 468.3754
2023 0.0 499.3367 499.3367 0.0788 0.0 501.3065
2024 0.0 457.7288 457.7288 0.0904 0.0 459.9895
2025 0.0 474.6122 474.6122 0.1019 0.0 477.1601
2026 0.0 555.4335 555.4335 0.088 0.0 557.6325
Total 0.0 3,411.9856 3,411.9856 0.6654 0.0 3,428.6225
Source: SJVAPCD, CalEEMod (Appendix A)
Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions: 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.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (GHG) from sources that in general emit 25,000 MT or more of CO2e per year. Project GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod (emissions output results found in Appendix A) based on development of 360 dwelling units located on 76.5 acres at full buildout. The proposed project is estimated to produce 7,340.44 MT of CO2e per year, which is well below the 25,000 MT threshold for GHG emissions.

Therefore, because the GHG emissions related to construction and operation of the proposed project are below accepted thresholds of significance, the potential impacts are considered less than significant.
b) No Impact: The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local rules pertaining to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the project would implement Best Performance Standards developed by the SJVAPCD. Projects implementing Best Performance Standards are determined to have a less than significant impact on global climate change. The project would not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation developed to reduce GHG emissions. There would be no impact.
84 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
   
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
   
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
   
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise 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 a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
   
Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact: Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. The use of such materials would be considered minimal and would not require these materials to be stored in bulk form. The project is a residential subdivision and 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 structures and landscaping. The project must adhere to applicable zoning and fire regulations regarding the use and storage of any 85 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
hazardous substances. Further, there is no evidence that the site has been used for underground storage of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project will have less than significant impacts to hazardous materials.
b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a residential subdivision. 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 of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal. The proposed project is a residential subdivision. There Therefore, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant impacts. c) No Impact: The project is not located within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school, and there is no reasonably foreseeable condition or incident involving the emission, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, substances, or waste that would affect areas within ¼ miles of existing or proposed school sites. The closest schools are Live Oak Middle School and Alpine Vista School, both located approximately 0.6 miles from the project site. The project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances and is a residential subdivision, therefore, there is no impact. d) No Impact: The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Furthermore, the City’s Subdivision Regulations (Tulare Municipal Code § 8.24.330(B)(5)) require a soil report to be prepared describing soil characteristics, soil suitability, and other soil limitations. This soils report investigation will also test for environmentally persistent pesticides, such as organochlorinated pesticides, in coordination with DTSC, and in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision), prior to construction activities. There would be no impact.
e) No Impact: The proposed project site is not located within the boundary of an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Mefford Field Airport is located over three miles south of the project site and Visalia Municipal Airport is located over seven miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, there is no impact.
f) No Impact: The proposed project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency 86 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
response or evacuation in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency evacuation.

g) No Impact: The land surrounding the project site is developed with urban, suburban, and agricultural uses and are not considered to be wildlands. Additionally, the 2017 Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan finds that fire hazards within the City of Tulare, including the proposed project site, have low frequency, limited extent, limited magnitude, and low significance. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there is no impact.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
   
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 release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
   
87 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
   
Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality due to potentially polluted runoff generated during construction activities. Construction would include excavation, grading, and other earthwork that may occur across most of the 76.5-acre project site. During storm events, exposed construction areas across the project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, such as chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. In addition, possible soil erosion will require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. A SWPPP identifies all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and identifies best management practices (BMPs) related to stormwater runoff. There may be chemicals or surfactants used during project maintenance or operations, so discharge could impact water quality standards. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement of any clearing, grading, or excavation, the Applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the Project site to the California SWRCB Storm Water Permit Unit.
• Prior to issuance of grading permits for Phase 1 the Applicant shall submit a copy of the NOI to the City.
• The City shall review noticing documentation prior to approval of the grading permit. City monitoring staff will inspect the site during construction for compliance.

Mitigation Measure HYD-2: The Applicant shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City 45 days prior to the start of work for approval. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and instituting the SWPPP during construction.

A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activity on the Project site in excess of one (1) acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall identify potential pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges to storm water and shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. The following BMP methods shall include, but would not be limited to:
88 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
• Dust control measures will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite activities to control fugitive dust;
• A routine monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure success of all onsite erosion and sedimentation control measures;
• Provisional detention basins, straw bales, erosion control blankets, mulching, silt fencing, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers will be used; • Soil stockpiles and graded slopes will be covered after two weeks of inactivity and 24 hours prior to and during extreme weather conditions; and, • BMPs will be strictly followed to prevent spills and discharges of pollutants onsite, such as material storage, trash disposal, construction entrances, etc. b) Less Than Significant Impact: 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, this impact would be greatly reduced by the stormwater basin included in the project. 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 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) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated:
(i) The proposed project includes the construction and operation of 360 singlefamily residential units on approximately 76.5 acres. The construction of these units may be considered an alteration in drainage patterns, however this would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implemented during project construction. SWPPPs include mandated erosion control measures, which are developed to prevent significant impacts related to erosion caused by runoff during construction. The impact is less than significant. (ii) Since the project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces within the project site, an increase in surface runoff may occur. However, this impact would be greatly reduced by the temporary storm basin included in the project. The project will ultimately tie into the City’s stormwater system, which is designed to direct runoff water to groundwater recharge areas. The project has been reviewed by the city’s engineers who have determined that the implementation of the proposed project will not result in substantial flooding on-or-off site. As 89 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
such, the potential for flooding on or off-site as a result of the project is considered a less than significant impact.
(iii) The proposed project would include the construction and operation of 360 single-family residential units on approximately 76.5 acres of land currently being used for agricultural production. Existing agricultural operations consist of plowing of the soil and using fertilizers and pesticides. These activities contribute to polluted runoff, however most of the agricultural runoff is naturally cleaned through soil percolation. Replacing agricultural uses with urban residential uses would change the quality and volume of runoff with the addition of oil, grease, and other urban pollutants. 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 is not a source which would otherwise create substantial degradation of water quality.

Upon compliance with the City’s SWMP, Engineering Standards, General Plan, and City Ordinance requirements, as well as mitigation measures, impacts related to water quality would be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measure HYD-3: A Development Maintenance Manual for the Project shall include comprehensive procedures for maintenance and operations of any stormwater facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of postconstruction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP devices be inspected, cleaned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance conditions. The manual shall require that devices be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., mid-October) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., mid-May). The manual shall also require that all devices be checked after major storm events. The Development Maintenance Manual shall include the following:
• Runoff shall be directed away from trash and loading dock areas; • Bins shall be lined or otherwise constructed to reduce leaking of liquid wastes;
• Trash and loading dock areas shall be screened or walled to minimize offsite transport of trash; and,
90 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
• Impervious berms, trench catch basin, drop inlets, or overflow containment structures nearby docks and trash areas shall be installed to minimize the potential for leaks, spills or wash down water to enter the drainage system. (iv) The Project site is generally flat and no significant grading or leveling will be required. The proposed project site is not in proximity to a stream or river and will not alter the course of a stream or river. According to National Flood Hazard mapping by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone. The site is located in Flood Zone X, an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. There would be no impact in regard to impeding or redirecting flood flows.
d) No Impact: The proposed project is located inland and not near an ocean or large body of water, and therefore, would not be affected by a tsunami. The proposed project is located in a relatively flat area and would not be impacted by inundation related to mudflow. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact due to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
e) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. The proposed project will be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Stormwater Program and will be required to comply with a SWPPP which will identify all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the project site and identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to stormwater runoff for the project to use.

The proposed project is located within the Kaweah Groundwater Subbasin and is included within the Mid-Kaweah Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in its Bulletin 118 – Interim Update, classified the Kaweah Subbasin as a High-Priority Groundwater Subbasin. Under the requirements for the Sustainable Ground Water Management Act (SGMA), a highpriority basin shall develop and implement a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to meet the sustainability goal established by the SGMA. All basins designated as highpriority by DWR are required to be managed under a GSP or coordinated GSP by January 31, 2020. On September 21, 2017 the Mid-Kaweah GSA submitted a Notice of Intent to initate development of a GSP to DWR. Preparation of a GSP for the Mid-Kaweah GSA is ongoing. It is the intent of the Mid-Kaweah GSA to submit a completed GSP to DWR for review shortly prior to January 31, 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
91 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
   
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?
   
Discussion:
a) No Impact: The project proposes the development of 360 single-family residential units on approximately 76.5 acres within the City of Tulare on land used for agricultural production, but designated for low density residential development in the City’s latest General Plan. The project site is surrounded on most sites by existing suburban residential development and the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. There is no impact.
b) No Impact: 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.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the
state?
   
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?
   
92 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Discussion:
a,b) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources of value to the region and the project site is not designated under the City’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss or impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.

XIII. NOISE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
   
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne 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?
   
The City of Tulare’s Noise Element was adopted in 2013 to protect the citizens of the City of Tulare from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise pollution and to protect the economic base of the City by preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise-producing industries, railroads, airports and other sources. Noise pollution is defined as unwanted or excessive sound. Sound is a variation in air pressure that the human ear can detect. This pressure is measured within the human hearing range as decibels on the A scale (dBA). As the pressure of sound waves increases, the sound appears louder and the dBA level increases logarithmically. A noise level of 120 dB represents a million fold increases in sound pressure above the 0 dB level.

Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact: Construction of the proposed project would occur in phases through the year 2026 and will involve temporary noise sources. The average noise levels 93 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
generated by construction equipment that will be used in the proposed project are shown below in Table 7.

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. The project will comply with these regulations and construction will only occur Monday through Saturday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Table 7: Noise Levels of Noise-Generating Construction Equipment.

Type of Equipment dBA (A-weighted decibel) at 50 feet
Air Compressors 81
Excavators 81
Concrete/Industrial Saws 76
Cranes 83
Forklifts 75
Generators 81
Pavers 89
Rollers 74
Dozers 85
Tractors 84
Loaders 85
Backhoes 80
Graders 85
Scrapers 89
Welders 74
Source: Federal Highway Administration Construction Noise Handbook.

Long term noise levels resulting from the project would include low-density, single-family homes, which are not normally associated with high operational noise levels. There would be additional vehicle trips that would generate noise on local roadways as well. However, these noise levels would be intermittent and short term, and would be considered less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact: 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 8, below, shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.
94 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Table 8: 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
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2017
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. The closest residential buildings to the project site are located southeast of the project site at a distance of approximately 60 feet. Table 8 data also indicates vibratory compactors would not generate vibration levels exceeding safe levels at these distances; therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact. c) No Impact: The project site is not located in an airport land use plan. Mefford Field is the nearest public airport and is located over three miles away from the proposed project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
95 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by 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?
   
Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes to construct 360 single-family residential units, as well as internal access roads, landscaped grounds, and off-site improvements subject to the City standards. 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 1,206 persons.

Although implementation of the proposed project would result in a population increase, this increase is not unplanned. The project sites is located within the city limits in an area designated for residential development and the total population increase of the proposed project would represent close to the annual rate of growth in the City, however the project would be developed in phases over six years and thus would be consistent with the City’s planned population growth projections.

Therefore, there impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact: The proposed project would be developed on land zoned for residential use within the City limits. There are no existing residences that would be removed and no individuals would be displaced because of the project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
96 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other public facilities?    
Discussion:
a. Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Tulare Fire Department already provides fire protection services to the project site and will provide services for 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 360 single-family residential units 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 latest General Plan. The development of 360 singlefamily residential units 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, which is consistent with City Resolution Number 03-4988. Therefore, the total development fee would be $88,560.

The development impact fee of $246 per dwelling unit is 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 97 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.

b. Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Tulare Police Department already provides police protection services to the project site and will provide services for 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 360 single-family residential units 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 360 single-family residential units 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 $38 per dwelling unit, which is consistent with City Resolution Number 03-4988.

Therefore, the total development fee would be $13,680. The development impact fee of $246 per dwelling unit is 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. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is within the Tulare City School District and Tulare Joint Union High School District. Students from the development would be able to attend neighboring schools, including Live Oak Middle School, Mission Oak High School, and Alpine Vista School. Since the proposed project includes the addition of 360 single-family residential units, the number of students in the school district will increase. The proposed project site is located within the existing City limits and was anticipated for development of single-family residential units in the City's General Plan. Therefore, growth associated with the Project has been planned and expected. In addition to the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, future development is required by state law to pay development impact fees to the school districts at the time of building permit issuance. These impact fees are used by the school districts to maintain existing and develop new facilities, as needed.

While development of 360 single-family residential units alone will not require the alteration of existing or construction of new school facilities, the development will contribute to the cumulative need for increased school facilities. It is known that the 98 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
school district has purchased land for a future school north of the proposed project site, across from Seminole Avenue. However, the timing of when new school 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 the future new school facilities are further planned and developed, they would be subject to their own separate CEQA review in order to identify and mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
d. Less Than Significant Impact: The addition of 360 new residential units would result in more use at existing parks. Parks within a half-mile to one-mile radius that would service the proposed development include Live Oak Park and Tulare Youth Softball Park. The City’s 2035 General Plan Policy states that new residential development may be required to provide additional parkland or in-lieu fees. The proposed residential subdivision will include a small (0.9 acre) park within the subdivision, as well as wide, landscaped paths connecting through the subdivision, and a bike and pedestrian path developed along Morrison Street, along the length of the subdivision. These park and open space improvements would be credited towards the total development impact fees for parks facilities, and the remaining would be paid via in-lieu fees of $3,129 per dwelling unit, which is consistent with City Resolution Number 03-4988. Since the proposed project would contribute its fair share to parks facilities through a combination of park and open space development, as well as in-lieu fees, the impact is less than significant.
e. Less Than Significant Impact: Water and wastewater services for the proposed development would be serviced by existing infrastructure beneath neighboring streets.

The proposed project would increase the demand for water and wastewater service.

However, according to Tulare’s 2035 General Plan Land Use Element, new development must be responsible for expanding existing water and sewage systems. Therefore, the project applicant shall pay the required development impact fees to accommodate the expansion of existing systems. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 99 Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
   
Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased use of existing parks and other recreational facilities, however the project would develop a small park within the proposed subdivision and include pedestrian and bike paths to provide recreational facilities as well as connectivity for the new residents of the proposed subdivision. In addition to the recreational facilities being developed as part of the subdivision, the developer will also be required to pay fees in-lieu of parkland dedication, which will be used to support the maintenance of existing parks and other recreational facilities. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed residential subdivision will include a small (0.9 acre) park within the subdivision, as well as wide, landscaped paths connecting through the subdivision, and a bike and pedestrian path developed along Morrison Street, along the length of the subdivision. 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 ISMND document. Impacts would be less than significant. 100
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
   
b) Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
   
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
   
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
   
Discussion:
a,b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: The project would not conflict with any transportation policies plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The proposed project would include frontage improvements, including sidewalks, which would be an improvement to pedestrian accessibility over existing conditions. The project would also install bicycle lanes along the Morrison Street frontage. Any congestion during construction would be temporary.

Vehicular access to the project site would be available primarily on Morrison Street, and also via Tulare Avenue and Seminole Avenue. The following discussion is summarized from the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (JLB Engineering Inc., November 2019), with the full Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix B to this Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration document.

The proposed project would develop 76.5 acres with 360 single-family residential units, constructed in four phases. Development of the phases will begin along the north side of Tulare Avenue and continue north until reaching Seminole Avenue. Phase I will develop 99 units estimated to be completed by September 2022, Phase II will develop 117 units estimated to be completed by January 2024, Phase III will develop 82 units estimated to be completed by May 2025, and Phase IV will develop the remaining 62 units estimated to be completed by December 2026.

101
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Existing Conditions
At present, the intersections of Mooney Boulevard and Cross Avenue and Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue exceed their acceptable level of service (LOS)1 threshold, per the City’s General Plan standards, during one or both AM and PM peak periods.

To improve the LOS at the intersection of Mooney Boulevard and Cross Avenue, the City is already working on programming the following necessary improvements as part of a City Capital Improvement Project:
 Modify the eastbound left-right lane to a left-turn lane;  Add an eastbound right-turn lane; and
 Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

In addition, the project proponent would have to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1 to address existing LOS deficiencies at the intersection of Morrison Street and Tulare Avenue.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prior to issuance of building permitscertificates of occupancy for Phase I of the proposed project, the project proponent must complete the following required improvements at the Morrison Street/Tulare Avenue Intersection:
 Add a southbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the southbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane;  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions; and  Modify the intersection to accommodate the added lane.

Projected Phase I Conditions
Phase I would develop 99 units along the north side of Tulare Avenue and is estimated to be completed by September 2022. Based on the latest Project Site Plan, access to and from the Project site under Phase I will be from two (2) points located along Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street. Access to Tulare Avenue will be from Sand Hills Avenue to Hazeltine Street located along the southwestern end of the Project site. Access to Tulare Avenue is currently a full access. The other access point is proposed to be located approximately 675 feet north of Tulare Avenue via Pine Valley Avenue. Access to Morrison Street from Pine Valley Avenue is proposed to be a full access. JLB analyzed the location of the proposed access point to be constructed under Phase I relative to the existing local roads and driveways in the Project’s vicinity. A review of the Project’s access point to be constructed under Phase I indicates that it is located at a point that minimizes traffic operational impacts to the existing roadway network.

1 Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to relate the quality of motor vehicle traffic service. LOS is used to analyze roadways and intersections by categorizing traffic flow and assigning quality levels of traffic based on performance measure like vehicle speed, density, congestion, etc. and assigning a letter grade of acceptability as follows: A=free flow; B=reasonably free flow; C=stable flow, at or near free flow; D=approaching unstable flow; E=unstable flow operating at capacity; F=forced or breakdown flow 102
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
The Project under Phase 1 is estimated to generate a maximum of 935 daily trips, 73 AM peak hour trips, and 98 PM peak hour trips. The Existing plus Project (Phase I) Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the raised median worm currently placed along the center of Mooney Boulevard at Seminole Avenue will be removed allowing for left-turn movements from Seminole Avenue onto Mooney Boulevard. Under this scenario, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 as well as the City’s Capital Improvement Project at Mooney and Cross, all study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.

Projected Phase II Conditions
Phase II would develop 117 units immediately north of Phase I. Phase II is estimated to be completed by January 2024. Based on the latest Project Site Plan, access to and from the Project site under Phase II will be from four (4) points located along Mooney Boulevard, Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street. Access to Mooney Boulevard will be from Muirfield Avenue located near the center of the Project site. Muirfield Avenue connects to an existing residential subdivision to the west that has access to Seminole Avenue which then connects to Mooney Boulevard. Access to Tulare Avenue will be from Sand Hills Avenue which connects to an existing residential subdivision to the west that has access to Tulare Avenue. Sand Hills Avenue is located along the southern end of the Project site. Access to Tulare Avenue is currently a full access. Two access points to Morrison Street are proposed to be located approximately 675 feet and 1,225 feet north of Tulare Avenue via Pine Valley Avenue (675 feet) and Copperhead Avenue (1,225 feet).

Access to Morrison Street from Pine Valley Avenue and Copperhead Avenue is proposed to be a full access. JLB analyzed the location of the proposed access points to be constructed under Phase I and II relative to the existing local roads and driveways in the Project’s vicinity. A review of the Project’s access points to be constructed under Phase I and II indicates that they are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to the existing roadway network.

The proposed project under Phase I and Phase II is estimated to generate a maximum of 2,039 daily trips, 160 AM peak hour trips, and 214 PM peak hour trips. Upon build out of Phase II, with its associated trip generation combined with projected ambient growth, the intersection of Morrison Street and Prosperity Avenue is projected to exceed its acceptable LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. To mitigate the LOS deficiency at this intersection, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would be necessary.

Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Prior to issuance of building permitscertificates of occupancy for Phase II of the proposed project, the project proponent must complete the following required improvements at the Morrison Street/Prosperity Avenue Intersection:
 Modify the northbound left-right lane to a left-turn lane; and 103
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
 Add a northbound right-turn lane.

Projected Phase III Conditions
Phase III would develop 82 units immediately north of Phase II. Phase III is estimated to be completed by May 2025. Based on the latest Project Site Plan, access to and from the Project site under Phase III will be from the same four (4) points located along Mooney Boulevard, Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street to be in existence after completion of Phase II. JLB analyzed the location of the proposed access points to be constructed under Phase I, II and III relative to the existing local roads and driveways in the Project’s vicinity. A review of the Project’s access points to be constructed under Phase I, II and III indicates that they are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to the existing roadway network.

The proposed project under Phase I, II, and III is estimated to generate a maximum of 2,813 daily trips, 221 AM peak hour trips, and 295 PM peak hour trips. Under this scenario, and with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and TRA-2 during prior phase, as well as the City’s Capital Improvement Project at Mooney and Cross, all study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods.

Projected Phase IV (Project Buildout) Conditions
Phase IV would develop the remaining 62 units immediately north of Phase III and south of Seminole Avenue. Phase IV is estimated to be completed by December 2026. Based on the latest Project Site Plan, access to and from the Project site under Phase IV (Project Buildout) will be from five (5) points located along Seminole Avenue, Mooney Boulevard, Tulare Avenue and Morrison Street. By Phase IV, the Project will construct Seminole Avenue on its frontage. Access to Seminole Avenue is proposed to be located approximately 550 feet west of Morrison Street via Campbell Street and is proposed as a full access. Access to Mooney Boulevard will be from Seminole Avenue and Muirfield Avenue located near the center of the Project site. Muirfield Avenue connects to an existing residential subdivision to the west that has access to Seminole Avenue which then connects to Mooney Boulevard. Access to Tulare Avenue will be from Sand Hills Avenue which connects to an existing residential subdivision to the west that has access to Tulare Avenue. Sand Hills Avenue is located along the southern end of the Project site. Access to Tulare Avenue is currently a full access. The other access points are proposed to be located approximately 675 feet and 1,225 feet north of Tulare Avenue via Pine Valley Avenue (675 feet) and Copperhead Avenue (1,225 feet). Access at to Morrison Street from Pine Valley Avenue and Copperhead Avenue is proposed to be a full access.

JLB analyzed the location of the proposed access points to be constructed under Buildout relative to the existing local roads and driveways in the Project’s vicinity. A review of the Project’s access points to be constructed under Buildout indicates that 104
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
they are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to the existing roadway network.

The proposed project at Full Buildout is estimated to generate a maximum of 3,398 daily trips, 266 AM peak hour trips, and 356 PM peak hour trips. Upon build out of Phase IV, with its associated trip generation combined with projected ambient growth, the intersection of Mooney Boulevard and Seminole Avenue is projected to exceed its acceptable LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. To mitigate the LOS deficiency at this intersection, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-3 would be necessary.

Mitigation Measure TRA-3: Prior to issuance of building permitscertificates of occupancy for Phase IV of the proposed project, the project proponent must complete the following required improvements at the Mooney Boulevard/Seminole Avenue Intersection:
 Modify the westbound left-right lane to a left-turn lane;  Add a westbound right-turn lane; and
 Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

Near Term plus Project Buildout Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Near Term plus Project Buildout Traffic Conditions. The Near Term plus Project Buildout traffic volumes were obtained by adding the Near Term related trips to the Existing plus Project Buildout Traffic Conditions scenario. The Near Term scenario is assumed to take place approximately two (2) years after the completion of all phases of the proposed project. Therefore, analysis of the Near Term scenario is assumed to take place by year 2028. By 2028, trip generation from Project Buildout combined with projected ambient growth, the intersections of Mooney Boulevard and Prosperity Avenue as well as Mooney Boulevard and Tulare Avenue, are projected to exceed their acceptable LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. To improve the LOS at these intersections, the project proponent would contribute their equitable fair share twards improvments at these intersections, as detailed in Mitigation Measure TRA-4.

Mitigation Measure TRA-4: Prior to issuance of building permitscertificates of occupancy for Phase IV of the proposed project, the project proponent shall pay their equitable fair share, agreed upon by the responsible agencies (City of Tulare and Caltrans), towards the cost of the following improvements at the intersections of Mooney Boulevard/Prosperity Avenue and Mooney Boulevard/Tulare Avenue:
o Mooney Boulevard/Prosperity Avenue
 Modify the southbound through-right lane to a through lane;  Add a southbound right-turn lane; and
 Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lane. 105
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
o Mooney Boulevard/Tulare Avenue
 Add a second eastbound left-turn lane; and
 Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lane.

Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Buildout Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project Buildout Traffic Conditions. The Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project (Buildout) traffic volumes were obtained from the TCAG traffic model runs (Base Year 2019 and Cumulative Year 2035) and existing traffic counts. For those locations where the TCAG model showed little to no growth, JLB expanded the existing traffic volumes by a minimum average annual growth rate. Based on a review of the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes obtained from Caltrans, the 20-year average annual growth rate of State Route 63 (Mooney Boulevard) and State Route 137 (Tulare Avenue) was determined to be 1.26 percent and 1.18 percent, respectively.

Thus, JLB utilized an average annual growth rate of 1.26 percent to expand the existing traffic volumes by 16 years for intersections along State Route 63 and an average annual growth rate of 1.18 percent to expand the existing traffic volumes by 16 years for intersections along Tulare Avenue. For intersections not along either of the State Routes, the 1.18 percent average annual growth rate was utilized. Under this scenario, the higher of the increment method and the expansion of the existing traffic counts by an average annual growth rate of 1.26 or 1.18 percent was utilized to determine the Cumulative Year 2035 traffic volumes. Finally, JLB added the Project Only Trips under Buildout to the expanded existing traffic volumes to arrive at the Cumulative Year 2035 plus Project (Buildout) traffic volumes.

Under this scenario, and with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-4 during prior phases, as well as the City’s Capital Improvement Project at Mooney and Cross, all study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods in the Cumulative Year, 2035.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-4 to improve the LOS at the project’s affected intersections, the project shall result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
106
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
c) No Impact: 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) Less Than Significant Impact: This project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency access to the site would be via Morrison Street, Tulare Avenue, and Seminole Avenue. A network of local roads within the proposed project property provides full access onto and off of the project site. Any impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
   
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
   
107
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Discussion:
a)
(i) No Impact: The proposed project is located on a site that has been previously disturbed and most recently used for row crop agriculture. The Project site is within the limits of the City of Tulare and is not 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). Therefore, there is no impact.
(ii) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project site has been previously disturbed to use for agriculture, has no record of listing it in any register of historical resources, and is located entirely within the City of Tulare limits. No tribal cultural resources were identified through the Sacred Lands File search conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission, nor as part of the City’s government-to-government notification and consultation efforts with interested Native American groups, conducted pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52.

Given that no tribal cultural resources have been identified within or immediately adjacent to the project site, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and no mitigation is required. Nonetheless, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts due to discovery of unanticipated cultural resources during excavation would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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 Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) shall 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 potential significant impacts. 108
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental 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?
   
According to the Tulare Municipal Service Review (2013), the City would be able to provide the necessary infrastructure services and utility systems required for new development within the General Plan projections for growth within the City limits. Utilities and service systems include wastewater treatment, storm water drainage facilities, water supply, landfill capacity, and solid waste disposal. Wastewater will be collected and treated at the City’s wastewater treatment facility, which is located at the intersection Paige Avenue and West Street. 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 for the proposed development will be provided by the City of Tulare. The City’s primary water source is groundwater. Tulare is currently in an agreement with Tulare Irrigation District (TID). The City pumps 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. 109
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant Impact: The City’s wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) has two wastewater treatment trains, domestic and industrial WWTT. Both operate in accordance to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order NO. R5-2002-0186. The City’s Municipal Service Review (2013) indicates that Tulare’s WWTF is at sufficient capacity to accommodate new development, including the proposed residential subdivision, which would tie into existing City sewage lines in the project vicinity. Based on calculations from the City of Tulare Sewer System Master Plan Table 3.7, a total of 99,450 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater is estimated to be generated by the proposed project. This equates to approximately 0.10 million gallons per day (mgd). The Tulare Water Pollution Control Facility (TWPCF) has an estimated capacity of 6.0 mgd. The proposed project would contribute approximately 1.6% of the total remaining capacity of the TWPCF.

Furthermore, the proposed project site was analyzed for service to be provided in the City’s Sewer System Master Planned and development here has been accounted for in this document.

The proposed project would increase the amount of paved and impervious surface coverage, contributing to additional stormwater runoff. However, the proposed project will construct a stormwater drainage basin in the northwest corner of the property and direct stormwater flows there to allow filtration and percolation into the groundwater basin. Water, electric, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure would also be installed as part of the project and tie into the existing systems surrounding the property. The extension of utility infrastructure onto the project site is not anticipated to cause a significant environmental effect because extension would occur within the right-of-way prior to street construction to minimize environmental impacts. The construction of these facilities has been planned as part of the various utility system master plans in the City, as well as in the City’s General Plana and General Plan EIR.

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact: The City’s urban water supply is comprised entirely of groundwater pumped from the underground aquifer by wells located throughout the City. Water service to the agricultural site has been provided by pumping groundwater and future water demand has been planned for through the City’s General Plan and Urban Water Management Plan for growth within the city limits. Water will be brought in using water trucks during construction. After construction, operation of the residential subdivision would generate demand for water that would not exceed the City’s water supply sources, and the project would tie into the existing water lines adjacent to the property.

The projected water demand for the proposed project is based on the City’s standard water demand factors, which were applied in the City’s Water System Master Plan to 110
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
calculate projected water demands summarized in Table 3.7 of the Water System Master Plan (2009). The projected water demand for the proposed project is shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Projected Water Demand for the Farrar Residential Subdivsion Project Land Use Type Units Quantity Water Demand
Factor(A)
Average Day
Demand, GPD
Annual
Water
Demand,
AFY(B)
Low Density
Residential
Acres 76.5 2,400 gpd/AC(c) 183,600 205.6
Note: (A) Water Demand Factors are Provided from Table 3.8 of the City of Tulare Water System Master Plan, July 2009.
(B) AFY=Acre-feet Per Year
(C) GPD/AC = Gallons Per Day Per Acre
Source: City of Tulare Water System Master Plan, 2009.

As shown in the table, the total projected annual water demand for the proposed Project is 205.6 AFY. The proposed use is consistent with the Low Density Residential land use and therefore, the Low Density Residential demand coefficient (2,400 gpd/acre) has been utilized to calculate the projected annual and daily water demand for the Project.

As described in the City’s 2015 UWMP, the City will continue to periodically drill new supply wells in the future. The City continues to examine supply enhancement options, including surface water supply, urban recycled water use, etc., and additional supplies from Tulare Irrigation District (TID).

A comparison of the City’s projected water supply and demand is shown in Table 10 for Normal, Single-Dry, and Multiple-Dry Years. The water supply and demand projections are based on the City’s projected drought supply conditions as described in the City’s 2015 UWMP. The supply-demand comparison in Table 10 indicates that the City will have sufficient water to meet its customers’ needs through 2040. Current and ongoing management of these supplies is achieved through both voluntary and state-mandated consumption conservation efforts, and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The City has adopted outdoor water use conservation strategies as outlined in the UWMP and Chapter 7.32 of the Tulare Municipal Code.

Tulare General Plan Policy LU-P11.5 requires developers to assure that there is sufficient available water supply to meet projected demand for all new development. The proposed Project is planned to be consistent with the 2015 UWMP, which demonstrates adequate water supply to serve development in the City. Additionally, Tulare General Plan Policy LU-P11.3 requires all new development to be responsible for expansion of existing facilities, such as water systems, made necessary to serve the new development. 111
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Table 10: Projected Water Supply (2020-2040)
Water Supply
Source
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
RAV1 TR/SY2 RAV1 TR/SY2 RAV1 TR/SY2 RAV1 TR/SY2 RAV1 TR/SY2 Groundwater 6,241.4 6,241.4 7,130.8 7,130.8 8,146.8 8,146.8 9,307.6 9,307.6 10,284.9 10,284.9 Surface
Water
-- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0
Recycled
Water
4,864.4
0 5,837.3
0 7,004.8
0 8,405.7
0 10,086.9
0 Total 11,105.8 6,241.4 12,968.1 7,130.8 15,151.6 8,146.8 17,713.3 9,307.6 20,371.8 10,284.9 Notes: Unit of measurement is million gallons
1 RAV=Reasonably Available Volume
2 TR/SY = Total Right or Safe Yield
Source: City of Tulare Urban Water Management Plan, Table 6-9, 2015. 112
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
The Project would extend the existing public water line located in the vicinity into the property in accordance with City standards.

As described above, the proposed project would be expected to generate an annual water demand of 205.6 AFY. The City of Tulare 2015 UWMP describes that the City would have available water supply for normal year, single-year, and multi-dry year scenarios.

The proposed project would generate an annual water demand that would be well within the limits of water demand, as described in the UWMP.

However, as noted previously, the 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 City has also invested significantly in their detention basins to increase their recharge capacity.

The project would change uses on the site from agricultural row crops to a single-family 360 lot residential subdivision, 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 basin that will be constructed on 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) Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Tulare’s existing sewer pipes and lines on in the project vicinity would be extended to the project site. The wastewater generated from the proposed development would not exceed the City’s wastewater treatment facility of

6.0 MGD, and would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing facilities to treat wastewater. The impact would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a residential project. Based on CalRecycle waste generation estimates, the proposed project is estimated to generate up to 12.23 pounds of solid waste per household feet per day. The proposed project would include the development of up to 360 single family residential lots on a 76.5 acre site.

Based on the generation estimate rate of 12.23 pounds of solid waste per household per day, the project would generate a maximum of 4,402.8 pounds per day or 2.2 tons per day. The project would be required to comply with state and local requirements including those pertaining to solid waste, construction waste diversion, and recycling. For example, a minimum of 50% diversion of construction waste materials are required to be diverted from landfills. The City of Tulare disposes of its solid waste at the Visalia and 113
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Teapot Dome landfills within the County. These landfills have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. Any impacts would be less than significant.
e) No Impact: During construction, all solid waste generated by the project would be disposed of at the Visalia landfill or the Teapot Dome landfill. These facilities conform to all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. The proposed project would comply with the adopted policies related to solid waste, including recycling. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on solid waste regulations.

XX. WILDFIRE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
   
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
   
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines, or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
   
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
   
a,b, c, d) No Impact: The proposed project site is not within or near a state responsibility area or area classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. The proposed project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed project site would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and expose occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire. The proposed project would not require the 114
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk.

The proposed project site is generally flat and is not near any streams or waterways and would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to wildfire.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of
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) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: There are several special status species with a potential to occur on the project site, including Swainson’s hawk, Burrowing Owl, and San Joaquin kit fox. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO1a, BIO-1b, BIO-1c, BIO-2a, BIO-2b, BIO-2c, BIO-3a, BIO-3b, 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. There are no known historical resources located within the project area and the soils in the project area have been previously 115
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
disturbed and were most recently disturbed in the cultivation of agricultural row crops.

There would be no excavation in undisturbed soils or in areas with known historical resources. However, the presence of remains or unanticipated cultural resources under the ground surface is possible. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts due to discovery of cultural resources during excavation would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the project and consistency with environmental policies, as well as implementation of mitigation measures TRA-1 through TRA-4 to mitigate impacts to the local transportation system, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Less Than Significant Impact: The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have a substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. All potential impacts of the project have been found to be less than significant.
116
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019

3.5 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
As Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 15000 et seq.), the City of Tulare (City) prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the above referenced project.

The document was circulated for a 30-day public comment period, which started November 22, 2019 and ended on December 23, 2019. During the public comment period three comment letters and/or emails were received.

CEQA guidelines do not require formal written responses to comments received on an IS/MND document, however, the lead agency must consider the proposed mitigated negative declaration and supporting initial study, together with any comments received and revisions to the document, before approving the project (PRC Section 21091(f); CEQA Guidelines Section 15074). Nonetheless, in the spirit of transparency and clarity, this section includes a summary of the comments received during the public review of the Draft IS/MND, followed by responses to each comment. Copies of the comments and comment letters, as received, are included in Appendix C of this document.

Comment Letter 1:

California Department of Transportation, District 6
David, Deel, Associate Transportation Planner
1352 W. Olive Avenue (P.O. Box 12616)
Fresno, CA 93778-2616
Summary of Comment #1-1 – Shouldn’t the “Existing Plus Project” scenario in Table IX on page 36 generate longer vehicle queuing compared to the “Existing” scenario? Response to Comment #1-1 – First and foremost, it appears that this comment references the Draft TIA Report dated September 25, 2019. It is recommended that the queuing data for the TIA Report dated November 4, 2019 be reviewed. Based on a review of the queue results for the TIA Report dated November 4, 2019, the queue results under the Existing scenario exceed the queue results under the Existing plus Project scenarios less than eight percent of the time. When these did vary, the difference in queue results was often within one vehicle length (approximately 25 feet or less). It is worth noting that queue results were completed based on SimTraffic output information. According to Trafficware, “[t]he volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of the desired lane group is the key parameter used…to calculate queue length. SimTraffic is a microscopic simulation program that actually ‘observes’ the queues based on traffic flow within the model. The model simulates individual vehicles as they traverse through the network. A vehicle is considered to be in queue whenever it is traveling less than 10 feet per second and is either at the stop bar or behind other queued vehicles. At the completion of the simulation, SimTraffic reports the average queue (average of observed maximum queue at each 2 minute-interval) and the 95th percentile queue. The 95th Percentile Queue is not necessarily an observed queue, but rather a calculated queue based on the standard deviation. Standard deviation is calculated by using the sum of squares for each 2 minute interval. The 95th Queue is equal to the Average Queue plus 1.65 standard deviations.”
117
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Therefore, one can expect that queue results vary by no more than a vehicle-length, especially between consecutive scenarios where there are slight to no changes in traffic volumes.

Summary of Comment #1-2 – Please provide an electronic copy of the Synchro files for Caltrans review.

Response to Comment #1-2 – Synchro files have been provided via email for Caltrans review, as requested.

Summary of Comment #1-3 – Caltrans recommends that the intersection of SR 137 and Hazeltine Street be included in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS).

Response to Comment #1-3 – On June 17, 2019, a Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis for this Project was provided to the City of Tulare, County of Tulare, and Caltrans for their review and comment. Any comments to the Draft Scope of Work were to be provided by July 8, 2019. On June 28, 2019, Caltrans responded to the Draft Scope of Work. Caltrans requested that the intersections of State Route 63 and Cross Avenue and State Route 63 and State Route 137 be included in the analysis.

However, Caltrans did not ask for or mention in any way the intersection of SR 137 at Hazeltine Street nor did Caltrans express concern of unstable traffic flows at the intersection, and for this reason this intersection was not include in the TIA.

When considering the Project Site Plan, access to State Route 137 via existing Hazeltine Street will be used in part after construction of Phases I and II of the Project. Based on the trip distribution assumptions, it is projected that a maximum of 28 AM peak hour trips and 36 PM peak hour trips will utilize Hazeltine Street to access State Route 137. Additionally, the existing intersection of Hazeltine Street and State Route 137 is projected to experience a maximum of 74 total AM peak hour trips and 96 total PM peak hour trips. Traffic from the Project site at the intersection of Hazeltine Street and State Route 137 will be limited to eastbound left-turns, eastbound throughs, westbound throughs, and southbound right-turns – movements that tend to add little to no delay to an intersection.

Generally, Caltrans requires that facilities be analyzed if a Project’s trip assignment to a state facility includes 100 or more peak hour trips. However, it is understood that on occasion Caltrans requests the analysis of intersections for which a Project contributes between 50 and 100 trips (when facilities are approaching unstable traffic flows) or as little as one (1) to 49 peak hour trips (when facilities are operating at unacceptable LOS conditions etc). Since a) Caltrans did not express concern of unstable traffic flows at the intersection of SR 137 at Hazeltine Street and b) the intersection of Hazeltine Street and SR 137 is projected to experience a maximum of 74 total AM peak hour trips and 96 total PM peak hour trips, JLB considered the applicable threshold for this intersection to be the 100 or more peak hour trips.

To recapitulate, the determination to not include the intersection of Hazeltine Street and State Route 137 in the analysis was based on: a) Caltrans did not request this intersection be included in the analysis; b) Caltrans did not express concern of unstable traffic flows at this intersection; and c) the intersection does not satisfy Caltrans’ required 100 Project peak hour trip threshold at this intersection.
118
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Summary of Comment #1-4 – This comment re-states the mitigation measures included in the Transportation section of this IS-MND document.

Response to Comment #1-4 – Thank you, yes those are the identified mitigation measures that are to be made conditions of approval of the proposed project. Note that the timing of the improvements was revised to be prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, since operational trip generation would not be added to the transportation system until the new housing units are occupied.

Summary of Comment #1-5 – The equitable fair share contribution for the Project referenced in Mitigation Measure TRA-4 should be calculated pursuant to the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.

Response to Comment #1-5 – On December 3, 2019 the City of Tulare adopted the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated October 22, 2019. The City of Tulare DIF will go into effect on all new building permits that are pulled starting on January 17, 2020. Since this Project will not be ready to pull building permits until after the effective date of the City of Tulare DIF program, all of its building permits will be subject to the DIF. Per the City's DIF, all of the Project study facilities are covered in part by the City's DIF. As a result, the application of fair share impact would not be applicable to the Project. For this reason, the Project's fair share percentage impact to study intersections projected to fall below their LOS threshold is not necessary considering that the Project will be required to pay into the recently adopted City of Tulare DIF.

Summary of Comment #1-6 – The traffic impact analysis discussion should be expanded to include the Project’s equitable fair share responsibility of traffic impacts at the following State Highway System intersections:
a. SR 63 at Prosperity Avenue;
b. SR 63 at Cross Street;
c. SR 137 (Tulare Avenue) at SR 63 (Mooney Blvd);
d. SR 137 at Morrison Street;
e. SR 137 at Hazeltine.

Response to Comment #1-6 – Please see the preceding response to comment, Comment #5.

Summary of Comment #1-7 – Upon project approval, the applicant will need to enter into a Traffic Mitigation Agreement for the collection and tracking of funds for the Project’s equitable fair share contribution towards mitigation projects impacting state facilities/state highways. The traffic mitigation agreement needs to be executed prior to issuance of building permits with payment of equitable fair share fees paid prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.

Response to Comment #1-7 – The City of Tulare will be collecting the equitable fair share fees in conjunction with the City’s development impact fee (DIF) program, and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.

Summary of Comment #1-8 – An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) report is required for any proposed intersection improvement on the State Highway System, in accordance 119
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
with Traffic Operations Policy Directive No. 13-02, dated: August 30, 2013 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/policy/13-02.pdf).

Response to Comment #1-8 – Upon project approval, and prior to issuance of building permits for any of the required intersection improvements on the State Highway System (SHS) resulting from the Project, the applicant will be required to work with Caltrans and prepare an ICE report, in accordance with Traffic Operations Policy Directive No. 13-02, dated August 30, 2013.

Summary of Comment #1-9 – Any intersection improvement projects on the SHS that would employ full control (i.e. controlling all approaching traffic via use of signal, stop, or yield control) must consider all three intersection control strategies (stop, roundabout, and signal) and the supporting design configurations per the ICE guidelines. The project opening day mitigation at an intersection must be evaluated per the ICE procedure and obtain conceptual approval by the Caltrans Traffic Operations Office. The ICE requirements can be found on the Caltrans website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/liaisons/ice.html.

Response to Comment #1-9 – Upon project approval, and prior to issuance of building permits for any of the required intersection improvements on the SHS resulting from the Project, the applicant will be required to work with Caltrans and prepare an ICE report, per the ICE procedure, and obtain conceptual approval by the Caltrans Traffic Operations Office.

Summary of Comment #1-10 – State Route (SR) 137 in the vicinity of the proposed project, currently exists as a 2-lane conventional highway and is ultimately planned to be a 4-lane facility within a total of 146 feet of right-of-way (73 feet from the centerline). Caltrans right-of-way maps show this segment of SR 137 existing with a varying width from 80 to 100 feet, however it appears there is 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerline on the north side of SR 137.

Response to Comment #1-10 – According to Phase 1 of “The Greens” Subdivision recorded in book 4120, it shows that 73 feet were dedicated to the City of Tulare. This project will be mimicking that same dedication on this Project’s Final Subdivision Map, which is located to the east of “The Greens” subdivision.

Summary of Comment #1-11 – Additional right-of-way is needed to accommodate the ultimate configuration of SR 137. Dedications required to accommodate the ultimate roadway configuration need to shown on a revised site plan reviewed by Caltrans and dedicated and conveyed to the State in a form approved by the State before an encroachment permit is issues for any work in the State right-of-way.

Response to Comment #1-11 – The previous site plan had an error and the updated site plan is now included in this IS-MND document, and now shows the corrected center line to 73 feet. A final subdivision map will be prepared and include an irrevocable offer of dedication for the required right-of-way to the State for the ultimate configuration of SR 137.

This map will be provided and eventually recorded, prior to an encroachment permit application for work in the State right-of-way.
120
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Summary of Comment #1-12 – Caltrans recommends that the Project construct frontage improvements along SR 137 to include sidewalk, curb, gutter, and widening of SR 137 for two westbound lanes.

Response to Comment #1-12 – The project will be required to install frontage improvements including sidewalk, curb, and gutter along SR-137 as conditions of approval.

In addition, the proposed project’s final map will include, as a condition of approval, an irrevocable offer of dedication for the required right-of-way to the State for the ultimate configuration of SR 137.

Summary of Comment #1-13 – A minimum of a 6-foot sidewalk (10-foot preferred), measured from the back of the curb is required.

Response to Comment #1-13 – The proposed project site plan shows a 10-foot sidewalk proposed along the frontage of SR 137.

Summary of Comment #1-14 – The back of the sidewalk should be constructed at the ultimate right-of-way configuration for SR 137; 73 feet from the centerline.

Response to Comment #1-14 – Yes, the backside of the sidewalk should be constructed at the ultimate right-of-way configuration for SR 137: 73 feet from the centerline. The original site plan included a drafting error and has now been corrected on the current site plan to show 73 feet from the centerline.

Summary of Comment #1-15 – Dust control measures shall be implemented on the site in a manner to prevent dust from entering the State right-of-way.

Response to Comment #1-15 – Dust control measures will be implemented during construction on the Project site, preventing substantial dust from entering the State right-ofway.

Summary of Comment #1-16 – No water from the proposed project shall flow into the State right-of-way without approval from the District Hydraulic Engineer.

Response to Comment #1-16 – Grading plans for the proposed project site will be developed for water to flow away from the State right-of-way, unless unfeasible, in which case approval from the District Hydraulic Engineer shall be sought prior to issuance of grading permits.

Summary of Comment #1-17 – This comment summarizes the procedures and requirements necessary for obtaining a Caltrans Encroachment Permit for any proposed activities within, or encroachment upon, the State right-of-way.

Response to Comment #1-17 – The legal property owner or his/her authorized agent will have to demonstrate that they have applied for and obtained an encroachment permit from Caltrans prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for work within or encroaching on the State right-of-way.
121
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Summary of Comment #1-18 – Prior to an encroachment permit application submittal, the project proponent is required to schedule a “Pre-Submittal” meeting with the District 6 Encroachment Permit Office.

Response to Comment #1-18 – Project proponent will be required to schedule a “PreSubmittal” meeting with the Caltrans District 6 Encroachment Permit Office prior to submittal of an encroachment permit application.

Summary of Comment #1-19 – Alternative transportation policies should be applied to the development to alleviate traffic congestion caused by the project and related development in this area of the City. An assessment of multi-modal facilities should be conducted which includes the following:
a. Pedestrian walkways linking the Project site to an internal project walkway, transit facilities, as well as other walkways in the surrounding area; b. Transit services should be provided if not available within ¼ mile of the Project site; and
c. The Project should offer internal amenities to encourage bicycle use.

Response to Comment #1-19 – Alternative transportation policies and multi-modal facilities, in compliance with the City’s Circulation Element, have been included as part of the proposed project per the following:
a. The proposed project will be including landscape lots with meandering sidewalks allowing internal connectivity, as well as external connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists, facilitating connections to the bicycle trail being included on Morrison Street and connections to other sidewalks, walkways, and transit facilities in the surrounding area;
b. Transit services (TCAT and TIME bus stops) are located approximately a ¼ mile west and southwest of the Project site; and
c. The proposed project will be including landscape lots with meandering sidewalks allowing internal connectivity, as well as external connectivity to pedestrians and bicyclists, facilitating connections to surrounding bicycle facilities, including the bicycle trail that will be developed on Morrison Street.

Comment Letter 2 (Emailed Comment):

Leatha White
210 N. Morrison Street
Tulare, CA 93274
Summary of Comment #2-1 – Strongly disagrees with planned subdivision project, there are issues and concerns, the same ones from the previous city meeting a few years back that need to be addressed; will be at the meeting to talk about them.

Response to Comment #2-1 – Thank you for your emailed comment on the Farrar project.

Your comment will be recorded as received and included with comments on the project to be presented before the Planning Commission. If you have any specific comments or concerns you would like the City to be aware of, please feel free to provide those so that we can perhaps address them or take them in consideration prior to the meeting. Otherwise, if you prefer to just speak at the meeting, or if your comments are not about the environmental 122
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
document or the project approval process, you are welcome to speak at the meeting and have the opportunity for the developer to address any comments unrelated to the environmental document or the project approval process.

Comment Letter 3:

California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Gavin McCreary, Project Manager, Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit 8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95826-3200
Summary of Comment #3-1 – The MND should acknowledge the potential for project site activities to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances, and in instances where releases may occur, delineate the nature and extent of the contamination. The MND should also identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and identify the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

Response to Comment #3-1 – The text has been revised to provide additional clarifying information as follows: 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 of Toxic Substances Control for an appropriate plan of action, which can include studies or testing to determine the nature and extent of contamination, as well as handling and proper disposal.

Therefore, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Summary of Comment #3-2 – If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on the Project site, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk.

Response to Comment #3-2 – The Project site does not contain any buildings or structures to be demolished. Therefore, there is no potential for the release of lead-based paint or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk that could be released during demolition of buildings or structures.

Summary of Comment #3-3 – If imported soil to backfill any excavated areas is required as part of the Project’s development, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination.

Response to Comment #3-3 – The Project site would not require extensive or deep excavation requiring the importation of soil to backfill excavated areas.

Summary of Comment #3-4 – If the Project site has been used for agricultural, weed abatement, or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND, with current and former agricultural lands evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).
123
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
Response to Comment #3-4 – The following additional clarifying text has been added regarding the City’s existing requirement for a soil report on the soil characteristics of a site for a proposed subdivision: Furthermore, the City’s Subdivision Regulations (Tulare Municipal Code § 8.24.330(B)(5)) require a soil report to be prepared describing soil characteristics, soil suitability, and other soil limitations. This soils report investigation will also test for environmentally persistent pesticides, such as organochlorinated pesticides, in coordination with DTSC, and in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision), prior to construction activities. 124
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
SECTION 4:

Supporting Information and Sources
1) Tulare General Plan, Land Use Element (2014)
2) City of Tulare Zoning Ordinance
3) Final Program EIR Land Use and Circulation Element Update (SCH 89062606) 4) SJVAPCD Regulations and Guidelines
5) Tulare General Plan, Housing Element (April 2016)
6) Tulare General Plan Seismic-Safety Element
7) Tulare County Seismic Element, Volume I and II
8) FEMA National Flood Hazard Layers & Mapping Tool
9) Tulare General Plan, Circulation Element
10) Tulare General Plan, Noise Element
11) City of Tulare Sewer Systems Master Plan (July 1991) 12) City of Tulare Sewer Systems Master Plan (2009)
13) Engineering Standards, City of Tulare
14) City of Tulare’s Municipal Code
15) Tulare Heritage Tree Ordinance
16) Tulare County Environmental Resources Management Element 17) Source Reduction and Recycling Element
18) City of Tulare Urban Water Management Plan (2015)
19) City of Tulare Water System Master Plan) (2008)
20) City of Tulare Emergency Response Plan
21) Tulare Municipal Airport-Mefford Field Master Plan, (February 2005) 22) Tulare County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
23) California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook 24) 2019 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines 25) The Five County Seismic Safety Element
26) California Building Code
27) California Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) 28) Government Code Section 65962.5
29) California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA)
30) California Department of Conservation
31) Tulare County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) 32) California Natural Diversity Database Search Tool
33) Natural Resource Conservation Service SoilWeb Tool
125
Farrar Subdivision Project
November December 2019
City of Tulare
Planning and Building Department
411 East Kern Avenue
Tulare, CA 93274
SECTON 5
List of Preparers
Project Title: Farrar Subdivision Project
City of Tulare
Mario A. Anaya, Principal Planner
Appendix A
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Input and Output Sheets for the Farrar Subdivision Project
Appendix B
Traffic Impact Analysis for the
Farrar Subdivision Project
Appendix C
Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Farrar Subdivision Project
Appendix D
Biological Habitat Assessment for the Farrar Subdivision Project Appendix E
Cultural Resources Record Search for the Farrar Subdivision Project
Item #: 13.15
Consent

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Fire
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Cascade Fire Equipment Company to purchase 33 Self-Contained-Breathing-Apparatus (SCBA) and accessories in the amount of $352,592.44.

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

The Tulare Fire Department (TFD) has been awarded a FEMA Assistance to Firefighter Grant to replace all of the Self-Contained-Breathing-Apparatus (SCBA) and accessories within the department. The AFG is awarded in the amount of $186,340.00. The cost sharing for the City of Tulare $166,252.44. TFD will be utilizing the Draeger Sourcewell Contract #032620-DRG sole source to get the best price possible.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to sign a contract with Cascade Fire Equipment Company to purchase 33 Self-Contained-Breathing-Apparatus (SCBA) and accessories in the amount of $352,592.44.

CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW/COMMENTS: ☐Yes ☒N/A
IS ADDITIONAL (NON-BUDGETED) FUNDING REQUIRED: ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A FUNDING SOURCE/ACCOUNT NUMBER:
623-4623-7702 $166,252.44
FEMA AFG $186,340.00
Submitted by: Michael Ott Title: Fire Chief
Date: December 13, 2022 City Manager Approval: ____________

Item #: 14.1
Public Hearing

CITY OF TULARE

AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Submitting Department: Community Development
For Council Meeting of: December 20, 2022
Documents Attached: ☒Ordinance ☒Resolution ☒Other ☐None

AGENDA ITEM:

Adopt a resolution adopting the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-23 – (Wild Oaks), General Plan Amendment No. 2022.02 and Zone Amendment No. 749; adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022- 02 to change the existing General Plan land use designation from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately 10.44-acres; and pass to print an ordinance approving Zone Amendment No. 749, changing the existing zoning designation from RM-4 (Multi-family Residential) to the R-1-4 (Small-lot Residential) on approximately 10.44-acres.

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

A 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration. A notice of Public Hearing for Zone Amendment 749, General Plan Amendment No. 2022-02, Wild Oaks Tentative Subdivision Map and the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published on October 27, 2022.

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.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt a resolution adopting the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-23 – (Wild Oaks), General Plan Amendment No. 2022.02 and Zone Amendment No. 749.

2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-02 to change the existing General Plan land use designation from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately 10.44-acres.

3. Pass to print an ordinance approving Zone Amendment No. 749, changing the existing zoning designation from RM-4 (Multi-family Residential) to the R-1-4 (Small-lot Residential) on approximately 10.44-acres.

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: December 20, 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 2022-23 – (WILD OAKS), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-02 AND ZONE AMENDMENT NO. 749
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tulare held a regular meeting on December 20, 2022 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-23 – (Wild Oaks), General Plan Amendment No. 2022-02 and Zone Amendment No. 749, 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. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 2022-23 – (Wild Oaks), General Plan Amendment No. 2022-02 and Zone Amendment No. 749 is hereby adopted by the Council of the City of Tulare.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 20th day of December, 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
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 2 ends

Tulare City CouncilDecember 20, 2022

Tulare City Council
December 20, 2022