Fowler City Council
January 4, 2022

FOWLER CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2022
7:00 P.M.

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
128 SOUTH 5TH STREET
FOWLER, CA 93625
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance or accommodations to access the City Council Chambers or participate in this meeting, please contact the Clerk at (559) 834-3113 x102. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

City Council meetings are open to the public at the physical address listed above. There are numerous ways to participate in the City Council meetings: you may attend in person, you may appear by telephone as described below, or you may submit written comments via email to [email protected]. Please include your name and reference the agenda item you are commenting on, if any. Written comments received that do not specify an agenda item will be marked for the general public comment portion of the agenda. Emails received by 8:00 am on the date of the meeting will be provided to the City Council at the meeting and made part of the record of proceedings but will not be read aloud.

Consistent with Government Code 54953 as amended by AB 361, and City Council Resolution No. 2527, this meeting may be accessed by members of the public or City Council members via Zoom.

The telephone number and Zoom link listed below will provide access to the meeting via teleconference or video conference.
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83854491201?pwd=Y3dxQXhJY0U4L3ROM2Y3RHFZNzhkQT09 Telephone Number: (253) 215-8782
Meeting ID: 838 5449 1201
Passcode: 886691
Persons accessing the meeting will have an opportunity to provide comments at appropriate times during the meeting. To speak during a public comment period, press *9 on your phone to raise your hand or click “raise hand” in the webinar. At the appropriate time, you will be prompted to unmute yourself, and asked to identify yourself when providing public comment.

Any writing or document that is a public record and provided to a majority of the City Council regarding an open session item on the agenda will be made available for public inspection at City Hall, in the City Clerk's office, during normal business hours. In addition, such writings and documents may be posted on the City's website at www.fowlercity.org.

Resolutions and Ordinances - With respect to the approval of resolutions and ordinances, the reading of the title thereto shall be deemed a motion to waive a reading of the complete resolution or ordinance and unless there is a request by a Councilmember that the resolution or ordinance be read in full, further reading of the resolution or ordinance shall be deemed waived by unanimous consent of the Council.

1. Meeting Called to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Invocation by Pastor Rod Haro of the Worship Centre

4. Pledge of Allegiance

5. Public Comment
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on any matter not described on this agenda. Presentations are limited to 5 minutes per person and no more than 15 minutes per topic.

6. Consent Calendar
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and include a recommended action from Staff and shall be acted on by one motion of the Council. If a Councilmember requests additional information or would like to pull an item for discussion, that item shall be pulled from the Consent Calendar and acted upon separately. A Councilmember may register an action on an individual item without pulling the item from the Consent Calendar. A motion to approve the Consent Calendar is deemed to include a motion to waive the full reading of any ordinance or resolution on the Consent Calendar. For adoption of ordinances, only those which received a unanimous vote of the Councilmembers present at introduction shall be eligible for placement on the Consent Calendar.
6-A. RATIFY Warrants for January 4, 2022
6-B. APPROVE Minutes of the December 7, 2021 Special City Council Meeting 6-C. APPROVE Minutes of the December 7, 2021 City Council Meeting 6-D. Consider APPROVAL of Resolution No. 2532, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Fowler Authorizing Continued Use of Remote Teleconferencing for City Council Meetings and Commission Meetings During Declared State of Emergency in Accordance with Government Code Section 54953 as amended by AB 361. (City Attorney)
6-E. Rejection of Claim filed by Gordon Panzak (City Manager)

6-F. ACCEPTANCE of Donations to the City (Finance)
6-G. ACCEPTANCE of Tract 6259 Public Improvements (Public Works)

7. General Administration
7-A. Finance
i. ACCEPT the FY 2020/21 Development Impact Fee Annual Report 7-B. Planning
i. Consider INTRODUCTION of amendments to Sections 8-1.01, 8-1.02, 8-

1.03, and 8-1.05 of the Fowler Municipal Code and the repeal of Sections 8-1.04.1 through Sections 8-1.04.4 related to the adoption of the California Building Code.
ii. Public Hearing to CONSIDER Planning Case No. 21-0015, a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM), Prezone, Annexation, and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, submitted by Sunshine Raisin Corporation for approximately 29.04 acres on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue between East Adams and East Hogan Avenues.

7-C. City Manager’s Office

8. Staff Communications (City Manager)

9. Councilmember Reports and Comments

10. Closed Session
10-A. Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Deciding whether to initiate litigation
8 potential cases

11. Adjourn
Next Ordinance No. 2022-03
Next Resolution No. 2533
CERTIFICATION: I, Angela Vasquez, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Fowler, California, hereby certify that the foregoing agenda was posted for public review on Wednesday, December 29, 2021.

Angela Vasquez
Deputy City Clerk

MINUTES OF THE FOWLER CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY DECEMBER 4, 2021
Mayor Cardenas called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll call was taken.

Councilmembers Present: Cardenas, Rodriquez, Kazarian, Mejia, Parra City Staff Present: City Manager Quan, City Attorney Cross, Public Works Director Dominguez, Community Development Director Gaffery, Deputy City Clerk Vasquez

3. CLOSED SESSION
No reportable action was taken on any of the four items.

4. ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m.

MINUTES OF THE FOWLER CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday December 4, 2021
Mayor Cardenas called the meeting to order at 7:00 p. m.

Councilmembers Present: Cardenas, Rodriquez, Kazarian, Mejia, Parra City Staff Present: City Manager Quan, City Attorney Cross, Police Chief Alcaraz, Public Works Director Dominguez, Community Development
Director Gaffery, Recreation Coordinator Hernandez, City Planner Marple, Finance Director Moreno, City Engineer Peters, Deputy City Clerk Vasquez

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Fowler resident Melissa Squeo, Raul Gonzalez of Fresno County Department of Public Health, and the Patel family of La Quinta Inn Fowler addressed the Council.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Pro-Tem Rodriquez made a motion to approve the consent calendar, seconded by Councilmember Kazarian. The motion carried by roll call vote: Ayes: Rodriquez, Kazarian, Cardenas, Mejia, Parra.

7. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
7-A. FINANCE
i. ACCEPT the Independent Auditor’s Report for the Fiscal year 2018- 2019
Finance Director Moreno introduced Gus Corona, Partner of Borchardt, Corona, Faeth & Zakarian, Certified Public Accountants. Mr. Corona provided an overview of the auditor’s report for Fiscal Year ending June 2019. He stated in stated in their opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Fowler as of June 30, 2019, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Various Councilmembers had questions about internal controls regarding cash and credit cards. City Manager Quan assured Council controls have been put into place with the new administration.
7-B. PLANNING
i. Public Hearing to CONSIDER Adoption of the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines.

City Planner Marple provided an overview of Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines. She stated that historically, in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies are required to analyze traffic impacts based on level of service (LOS). City Planner Marple reported that in order to shift the traffic analysis to a method that considered greenhouse gas emissions Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was passed in 2013. She stated SB 743 requires lead agencies to examine vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project, with a mandatory transition for all analysis from LOS to VMT by July 1, 2020. City Planner Marple reported SB 743 does not affect the City’s ability to maintain LOS standards as part of its General Plan and will allow the City Engineer and Community Development Department to still require street improvements in conjunction with projects.

City Planner Marple reported the Fresno Council of Governments (COG) prepared their own analysis and prepared VMT guidelines for use by COG’s member agencies. She stated that following extensive public review, COG adopted the “Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines” in June 2020. City Planner Marple reported the largest difference between the State’s guidelines and COG’s guidelines is the threshold. The State’s guidelines require a 15% reduction by each project and the COG’s guidelines require a 13% reduction. City Planner Marple stated staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines as the City of Fowler’s VMT threshold for future CEQA analysis.

There was no public comment.

Mayor Pro-Tem Rodriquez made a motion to CONSIDER Adoption of the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, seconded by Councilmember Parra. The motion carried by roll call vote: Ayes: Rodriquez, Parra, Cardenas, Kazarian, Mejia. ii. Public Hearing to CONSIDER Planning Case No. 21-0015, a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM), Prezone, Annexation, and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, submitted by Sunshine Raisin Corporation for approximately 29.04 acres on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue between East Adams and East Hogan Avenues.

City Planner Marple requested this item be moved to the January 4, 2022 Council meeting.

Mayor Pro-Tem Rodriquez made a motion to continue Public Hearing to CONSIDER Planning Case No. 21-0015, a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM), Prezone, Annexation, and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declartion, submitted by Sunshine Raisin Corporation for approximately 29.04 acres on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue between East Adams and East Hogan Avenues to January 4, 2022 Council meeting, seconded by Councilmember Kazarian. The motion carried by roll call vote: Rodriquez, Kazarian, Cardenas, Mejia, Parra. 7-C. PUBLIC WORKS
i. Discussion Regarding SKGSA Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022 Budget.

As requested by Council, City Engineer Peters presented an overview of the South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SKGSA) budget. He stated that each spring the SKGSA adopts a preliminary budget. City Engineer Peters reported the SKGSA budget is funded by contributions from member agencies based on gross water pumped. He reported Fowler’s contribution is approximately 13% of the SKGSA budget. Various Councilmembers had questions about SKGSA funding, background on how GSAs function, returns on contributions, and potential grants. ii. Receive analysis from ARC Alternatives on their third-party review of the City’s proposals for the Solar/Energy Conservation Project.

Provide Staff direction on next steps for the Project, which may include authorizing the City Manager or designee to negotiate a Project Agreement with the selected vendor.

Councilmember Parra recused himself from the discussion of this item.

City Manager Quan introduced Simon Olivieri of ARC Alternatives who reviewed the City’s proposals for the Solar/Energy Conservation Project.

Mr. Olivieri provided an overview of their findings which included scope issues and vendor responses. He stated after reviewing the potential sites, the best option in the immediate term is for the City to install the solar system at the new Fire Station building, which would offset utility costs at that facility and at City Hall. Mr. Olivieri reported the timing of this project in relation to PG&E interconnection rules presents a risk to the project and securing grandfathering will likely be crucial to the financial success of the Solar/Energy Conservation Project. Mr. Olivieri stated the ideal process is to select a vendor first and have them manage the interconnection process.

He stated a contingency option is to submit interconnection prior to having a vendor partner.

Various Councilmembers had questions about cost per watt, monitoring cost, and whether the City should pursue additional vendor bids.

Councilmember Kazarian inquired if staff could share comments on their recommended direction. City Manager Quan stated staff recommend ARC Alternatives pursue additional vendor bids and work with SitelogIQ on a possible cost reduction. After discussion, Council directed staff to work with ARC Alternatives to pursue additional vendor bids and work with SitelogIQ on reducing their bid.
iii. Review alternatives and provide staff direction regarding potential request to Caltrans to add median treatment to the State Route 99 improvement project.

City Engineer Peters reported Caltrans is performing work on State Route 99 through Fowler which includes installation of a center median concrete barrier. He shared examples of various options with the Council. After much discussion, it was the consensus of Council to move forward with the dyed brick design with the Fowler logo.
7-D. CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
i. COVID-19 Update
City Manager Quan reported that the Fresno County Department of Public Health’s data shows Fowler’s vaccination rate is 70%. She reminded Council the Fire Station Open House is Tuesday, December 14th at 3:00 p.m. City Manager Quan stated the next Council meeting will be January 4, 2022. She reported staff is moving forward with the EDA grant for the community center.

8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS – (CITY MANAGER)
8-A. FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Finance Director Moreno provided a second quarter sales tax update. 8-B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Public Works Director Dominguez updated Council on the Donny Wright dog park and Laker Lane fences. He stated staff is working on two grants as well. 8-C. CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT
Deputy City Clerk Vasquez updated Council on the Chamber’s audio/visual upgrade. 8-D. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City Planner Marple reported the General Plan EIR Scoping Meeting was held last month and the comment period will close December 10, 2021.
8-E. POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police Chief Alcaraz distributed DOJ crime statistics for the months of October and November.

9. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Mayor Cardenas thanked Recreation Coordinator Hernandez, the Recreation Commission, Public Works Department, and Police Department for a successful Christmas on Merced Street event.

Mayor Pro-Tem Rodriquez, Councilmember Kazarian, Councilmember Mejia, and Councilmember Parra echoed Mayor Cardenas’ comments.
9-A. Board/Committee Assignment for 2022 Veterans Day event Mayor Pro-Tem Rodriquez volunteered to be the 2022 liaison for the Veterans Day event committee.

10. ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, Councilmember Kazarian made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Councilmember Parra. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

FOWLER CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NO: 6-D

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
January 4, 2022
FROM: Scott Cross, City Attorney

SUBJECT
Consider Approval of Resolution No. 2532, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Fowler Authorizing Continued Use of Remote Teleconferencing for City Council Meetings and Commission Meetings During Declared State of Emergency in Accordance with Government Code Section 54953 as amended by AB 361

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution No. 2532 if the City Council makes the findings required by Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) to continue to allow City Council members to attend City Council meetings via remote teleconferencing without following typical Brown Act requirements for teleconference participation by City Council members at City Council meetings. The Resolution also authorizes the City’s other commissions to continue meeting remotely for as long as the City Council authorizes.

BACKGROUND
The City Council approved Resolution No. 2522 on October 19, 2021, authorizing remote teleconferencing for City Council and City commission meetings in accordance with Government Code Section 54953 as amended by AB 361 during the COVID-19 declared emergency. To continue with the “relaxed” remote teleconferencing for City Council and other commission meetings Government Code Section 54953 requires the City Council to make findings every 30 days that (1) it has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency, and either (a) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or (b) state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Fowler City Council meetings are currently conducted in a manner that allows the public and Council members to attend in person or via teleconference in compliance with all applicable legal requirements.

Approving this resolution would not change the way members of the public are allowed to participate in meetings (both in-person and teleconference attendance is allowed) and would also allow City Council members to continue to attend meetings via teleconference, if desired, without complying with the typical Brown Act requirements for teleconferencing attendance at City Council meetings.

The proclaimed COVID-19 emergency is still in effect and there may be occasions when the proclaimed emergency directly impacts the ability of members of the public or Council members to meet safely in person. Also, some state and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing. As a result, the necessary findings can be made, if desired, to continue with remote teleconferencing for City Council and other commission meetings. These findings must be made every 30 days to continue with the relaxed Brown Act teleconference requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is anticipated whether this Resolution is approved or not.

Attachments:
- Resolution No. 2532
RESOLUTION NO. 2532

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER

AUTHORIZING CONTINUED USE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCING FOR CITY

COUNCIL MEETINGS AND COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING DECLARED

STATE OF EMERGENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54953 AS AMENDED BY AB 361
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of California declared a state of emergency in the State as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2461, approved by the Fowler City Council on March 17, 2020, the City Council declared a local emergency as a result of the threatened spread of COVID-19 in the City, surrounding areas, and the state; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, with the issuance of Executive Order N-29-20, the Governor suspended certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other remote means; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, the Governor issued Executive Order N-08-21, which placed an end date of September 30, 2021, for agencies to meet remotely; and WHEREAS, AB 361 was enacted on September 16, 2021, enacting certain changes to the Brown Act for teleconferencing and remote participation at public meetings as set forth in Government Code Section 54953; and
WHEREAS, the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, has not been rescinded and remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that teleconferencing from remote locations by the public and City Council members has not limited participation of members of the public, Council members, or other attendees at City Council or other City commission meetings; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2522 authorizing remote teleconferencing for City Council and City commission meetings in accordance with Government Code Section 54953 as amended by AB 361; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953, as amended by AB 361, requires the City Council to make certain findings every 30 days after approving Resolution No. 2522 in order to continue with remote teleconferencing.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the COVID-19 state of emergency and finds that the following circumstances exist:

A. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members of the public, City Council members, and members of other City commissions to meet safely in person; and
B. State or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing.

2. This Resolution shall be effective immediately and a similar resolution shall be a standing item on City Council meeting agendas each month to reconsider the circumstances of the COVID19 state of emergency and determine whether the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members of the public, City Council members, and members of other City commissions to meet safely in person, or whether state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing, until the necessary findings required for continuing remote teleconferencing are no longer approved by the City Council.

The foregoing resolution of the City Council of the City of Fowler was duly and regularly introduced and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on January 4, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
__________________________
David Cardenas, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Angela Vazquez, Deputy City Clerk

FOWLER CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NO: 6-E

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
January 4, 2022
FROM: Wilma Quan, City Manager

SUBJECT
Rejection of Claim filed by Gordon Panzak

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council reject a claim received from Gordon Panzak on December 13, 2021. The claim has been forwarded to AIMS for further review.

BACKGROUND
The claim states that on June 14, 2021 to June 22, 2021, contractors acting at the direction of the City allegedly entered the property located at 405 E. Adams Ave., Fowler, and during the course of public works of improvements allegedly damaged a panel of claimant’s chain link fence. As a result of this alleged damage, the claimant asserts he has suffered more than $2 million in damages for, among other things, elder abuse, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and trespass to land, among other claims. Claimant is also seeking $1 million in punitive damages.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 912.4, the City Council must act upon a claim within 45 days after receipt. If there is no official action by Council, the claim is deemed to be rejected on the last day.

Denial by minute order action provides a clearly defined rejection date and allows AIMS to begin their investigation and take appropriate action to resolve the claim in a timely manner.

The total claim is for $2,040,250.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with rejecting the claim.

ATTACHMENTS
• Subject Claim

FOWLER CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NO: 6-F

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
January 4, 2022
FROM: Margarita Moreno, Finance Director

SUBJECT
Acceptance of Donations to the City.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the City Council accept donations from Sunny Lube & Tire and the Fowler Lions Club.

BACKGROUND
Per Resolution 1881, donations to the City of $500 or more shall be approved by the City Manager, and then presented to the City Council for acceptance.

A donation was received on October 12, 2021 from Sunny Lube & Tire in the amount of $500 for the Employees Appreciation Dinner. A donation was received on December 4, 2021 from the Fowler Lions Club in the amount of $525 for the Senior Christmas Luncheon. Both donations were accepted by the City Manager.

FISCAL IMPACT
Donation revenue enhances the City’s ability to provide programs and services to residents.

Attachments:

None

FOWLER CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NO: 6-G

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
January 4, 2022
FROM: David Peters, City Engineer

SUBJECT
Acceptance of Tract 6259 Public Improvements

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council accept the Tract 6259 public improvements constructed by K Hovnanian Homes, authorize the City Engineer to file the notice of completion, and release bonds associated with the project.

BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2019, the City Council approved Final Map 6259 for development of a 74-lot subdivision in the northeast corner of Sunnyside Avenue / South Avenue interesection. The tract is the second phase of the subdivision approved under Tentative Tract Map 5834 in 2007and is being developed by K Hovnanian Homes.

The final map approval was conditioned upon development of certain public improvements such as streets and underground utilities including water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical, and communication facilities. These public improvements have been constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Public Works Director and are recommended for acceptance by the City Council.

The Council’s acceptance of the improvements will begin the 1-year warranty period.

FISCAL IMPACT
After the 1-year warranty period, the City will be responsible for these improvements. The ongoing maintenance will be funded by the appropriate funding source such as the City’s Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD), the Water Fund, and the General Fund.

Attachments
None

FOWLER CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NO: 7-Ai

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
January 4, 2022
FROM: Margarita Moreno, Finance Director

SUBJECT
Accept the FY 2020/21 Development Impact Fee Annual Report

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend City Council review, receive, and file the FY 2020/21 Development Impact Fee Annual Report.

BACKGROUND
The Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66006 et. seq.) requires local agencies to submit an annual report detailing the status of development impact fees. The annual report must be made available to the public within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, and must be presented to the City Council at least 15 days after it is made available to the public.

With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and the resulting decline in local government revenues, local governments have increasingly relied on impact fees in order to mitigate the impacts created by new development. Development impact fees are collected to finance the design, construction and acquisition of facilities and equipment necessary to accommodate future development.

In response to the growing use of impact fees, the state Legislature passed AB 1600 in 1987, the California Mitigation Fee Act, setting forth standards and procedures for how impact fees are imposed, collected and expended. The Mitigation Fee Act requires local governments to segregate and place development impact fees collected in special funds. Those funds are held to finance the construction of the specific facilities for which the fee was imposed. The Mitigation Fee Act also requires local governments to prepare annual reports detailing the status of development impact fees until the funds collected are expended.

The Development Impact Fees Annual Report enclosed herein as Attachment ‘A’ provides information on the amount of development impact fees collected and expended, and the interest earned on unexpended funds from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021.

The City of Fowler has nine types of development impact fees they are:

General Services 710
Funds facilities, equipment, and services for general City government operations to accommodate new development.

Law Enforcement 720
Funds law enforcement facilities, equipment, and services to accommodate new development.

Fire 730
Funds fire department facilities, equipment, and services to accommodate new development.

Street Maintenance 740
Funds infrastructure necessary to provide safe and efficient vehicular access to accommodate new development.

Parks 750
Funds open space land acquisition, park construction, renovation, and related facilities to accommodate new development.

Water 760
Funds domestic water production, treatment, and distribution facilities to accommodate new development.

Sewer 770
Fund wastewater infrastructure to accommodate new development.

Storm Drain 780
Funds stormwater collection, retention and disposal facilities to accommodate new development.

Merced 799
Funds improvements to Merced Street to accommodate new development.

The Development Impact Fees Annual Report attached provides information on the amount of developer impact fees collected and expended, and the interest earned on unexpended funds for fiscal year ending June 30, 2021 in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. A public hearing notice was published in the Business Journal.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

Attachment:
• Development Impact Fee Report Fiscal Year 2020-2021

FOWLER CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NO: 7-Bi

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
January 4, 2022
FROM: Thomas W. Gaffery IV, Community Development Director

SUBJECT
Consider INTRODUCTION of amendments to Sections 8-1.01, 8-1.02, 8-1.03, and 8-1.05 of the Fowler Municipal Code and the repeal of Sections 8-1.04.1 through Sections 8-1.04.4 related to the adoption of the California Building Code.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend Council consider introduction of amendments to Sections 8-1.01, 8-1.02, 8-1.03, and 8-1.05 of the Fowler Municipal Code and the repeal of Sections 8-1.04.1 though Sections 8-

1.04.4 related to the adoption of the California Building Code.

BACKGROUND
The California Building Code is updated on a triennial basis. The Fowler Municipal Code currently references the 1994 version of the Uniform Building Code. These amendments will specify the current edition of the California Building Code is the version of the California Building Code adopted by the City. This change will make the Fowler Municipal Code consistent with the current California Building Code and not require future updates to the Fowler Municipal Code when the California Building Code changes. These amendments will also specify that administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 1 of the Fowler Municipal Code and all other enforcement mechanisms authorized by the Fowler Municipal Code and state law are available for enforcing violations of the Building Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This change to Fowler Municipal Code is not a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as defined by Public Resource Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

Adoption of the proposed ordinance will not cause a direct or indirect change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this change to the Fowler Municipal Code.

Attachment
- Redline of Proposed Fowler Municipal Code
- Ordinance No. 2022-01
Chapter 1 - BUILDING CODE
8-1.01 - Adoption of the Uniform California Building Code.

The City adopts the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings or structures in the City of Fowler; providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefor; providing for penalties for violation thereof, three (3) copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk, one of the three (3) copies of the Building Code may be kept on file in the office of the Building Official.

The City adopts by specific reference thereto and incorporation herein by said reference, in their entirety, the California Building Code, current edition, including appendix chapters, amendments, supplements, and errata as promulgated by the California Building Standards Commission; the California Fire Code, current edition, including those sections and appendices as more specified in Chapter 14.35; and the National Fire Codes, current edition, as adopted by the National Fire Protection Association. One paper copy of each shall be maintained on file and available for public inspection during normal business hours at Fowler City Hall.
(Ord. 13-6 §§ 4, 6; Ord. 81-6 § 2, 7-2-81; Ord. 88-5, 7-21-88; Ord. 93-5 § 1, 9-2-93; Ord. 94-8 § 1, 2-2-95) 8-1.02 - Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter and in said Building Code are defined as follows:
(a) "Building Official" means the officer or other designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code, or the building official's duly authorized representative. (b) "City" means the City of Fowler.
(c) "City Attorney" means the City Attorney of the City of Fowler. (d) "Construction" means and includes the construction, erection, enlargement, alteration, conversion, demolition, or movement of any building or structure within the City of Fowler. (Ord. 13-6 § 1; Ord. 88-5, 7-21-88; Ord. 94-8 § 1, 2-2-95) 8-1.03 - Administration.

The provisions of this chapter and the Building Code shall be administered by the office of the Building Official, personnel provided therefor from time to time by the City Manager, or other designee appointed by the City Manager of the City.
(Ord. 13-6 § 3; Ord. 88-5, 7-21-88; Ord. 94-8 § 1, 2-2-95) 8-1.04 - Additions. REPEALED
In addition to the Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 published by the International Conference of Building Officials, the following Appendix Chapter shall be enforceable:
(1) Volume 1, Appendix Chapters 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 29, 30, 33 and 34; (2) Volume 2, Appendix Chapter 16, Division III.
(Ord. 13-6; Ord. 94-8 § 1, 2-2-95)
8-1.04.1 - Amendments—Section 104. REPEALED
Subsection (e) of Section 104 of said Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 104. Application to existing buildings and structures. (e) Moved buildings and temporary buildings.

Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new buildings or structures.

Temporary structures such as reviewing stands and other miscellaneous structures, sheds, canopies or fences used for the protection of the public around and in conjunction with construction work may be erected by special permit from the building official for a limited period of time. Such buildings or structures need not comply with the type of construction or fire-resistive time periods required by this code.

Temporary buildings or structures shall be completely removed upon the expiration of the time limit stated in the permit.

There is established a Moved Building Review Committee. This Committee shall consist of the City Administrator, Superintendent of Public works, City Planner, and the Building Official. In all cases, except for single-family dwellings, the Chief of the Fire Department shall be a member of this committee.

Committee members may delegate their responsibilities to their deputies or subordinates. (Ord. 93-5 § 2, 9-2-93)
8-1.04.2 - Amendments—Section 504. REPEALED
Section 504 of said Building Code is deleted.
(Ord. 93-5 § 2, 9-2-93)
8-1.04.3 - Amendments—Appendix Chapter 12 Section 1243(a)(9). REPEALED Appendix Chapter 12 Sec. 1243 (a)(9) of said Building Code is deleted. (Ord. 93-5 § 2, 9-2-93)
8-1.04.4 - Amendments—Section 3802. REPEALED
Subsection (a) of Section 3802 of said Building Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 3802. Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems. (a) Where required. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, standard automatic sprinklers systems shall be installed and maintained according to the latest adopted edition of the appropriate National Fire Protection Association Standards and their Appendices as adopted in the National Fire Code in All Group A, B, E, I, M. H4, and H5 occupancies exceeding 5,000 square feet in gross floor area; Group H divisions 1 and 2, occupancies exceeding 1,500 square feet in gross floor area, when such areas have any eaves or overhang exceeding a distance of three (3) feet from the wall or support, the gross roof area shall be used to determine the need for automatic fire sprinklers, which shall include, but not be limited to, covered walkways, patios, porches, or any architectural feature attached to or within ten (10′) feet of the structure. In existing buildings where an automatic fire sprinkler system does exist, and a change in the character of occupancy or use is made, or the floor area is changed, and the gross floor area exceeds the areas set forth herein, an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed through the structure. This section shall not apply to Group R, Division 1, or Group R, Division 3, structures. (Ord. 93-5 § 2, 9-2-93)
8-1.05 - Violations—Penalties. Enforcement.

Violations of this Chapter may be enforced by one or more of the following non-exclusive remedies:
(a) Abatement. Abatement and cost recovery pursuant to Chapters 22 and 23 of Title 5 of the Municipal Code.
(b) Administrative Citation. Administrative citation pursuant to Title 1, Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code. (c) Criminal Complaint or Citation. Misdemeanor enforcement pursuant to Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code.
(d) Injunction. Injunctive relief.
(e) Receivership. Receiverships pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7. (f) Unlawful Business Practice. Unlawful business practices pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200.
(g) State Housing Law. State housing law as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 17910 et seq. (h) Other. Any other available remedy set forth in the Municipal Code or state law.

Any person who shall violate or fail to comply with any provision of said Building Code, shall be punishable as set forth in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of the Fowler Municipal Code. (Ord. 13-6 § 2; Ord. 94-8 § 1, 2-2-95)

ORDINANCE NO. 2022- 01

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER AMENDING CHAPTER 1, OF TITLE 8 OF THE FOWLER MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATED TO THE

ADOPTION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 01 of Chapter 1, of Title 8 of the Fowler Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

Adoption of the California Building Code.

The City adopts by specific reference thereto and incorporation herein by said reference, in their entirety, the California Building Code, current edition, including appendix chapters, amendments, supplements, and errata as promulgated by the California Building Standards Commission; the California Fire Code, current edition, including those sections and appendices as more specified in Chapter 14.35; and the National Fire Codes, current edition, as adopted by the National Fire Protection Association. One paper copy of each shall be maintained on file and available for public inspection during normal business hours at Fowler City Hall.

SECTION 2. Section 02 of Chapter 1, of Title 8 of the Fowler Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter and in said Building Code are defined as follows:
(a) "Building Official" means the officer or other designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code, or the building official's duly authorized representative.
(b) "City" means the City of Fowler.
(c) "City Attorney" means the City Attorney of the City of Fowler.

SECTION 3. Section 03 of Chapter 1, of Title 8 of the Fowler Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

Administration.

The provisions of this chapter shall be administered by the office of the Building Official, the City Manager, or other designee appointed by the City Manager.

SECTION 4. Section 8-1.04, Section 8-1.04.1, Section 8-1.04.2, Section 8-1.04.3 and Section 8-1.04.4, of Chapter 1, of Title 8 of the Fowler Municipal Code, are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5. Section 05 of Chapter 1, of Title 8 of the Fowler Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

Violations – Enforcement
Violations of this Chapter may be enforced by one or more of the following non-exclusive remedies:
(a) Abatement. Abatement and cost recovery pursuant to Chapters 22 and 23 of Title 5 of the Municipal Code.
(b) Administrative Citation. Administrative citation pursuant to Title 1, Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code.
(c) Criminal Complaint or Citation. Misdemeanor enforcement pursuant to Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code.
(d) Injunction. Injunctive relief.
(e) Receivership. Receiverships pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7. (f) Unlawful Business Practice. Unlawful business practices pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200.
(g) State Housing Law. State housing law as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 17910 et seq.
(h) Other. Any other available remedy set forth in the Municipal Code or state law.

SECTION 6. The City Council has determined that this change to Fowler Municipal Code is not a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as defined by Public Resource Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. Adoption of the proposed ordinance will not cause a direct or indirect change in the environment.

SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk is further directed to cause this ordinance or a summary of this ordinance to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated within the City of Fowler, within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. If a summary of the ordinance is published, then the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance to be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the ordinance is adopted and again after the meeting at which the ordinance is adopted. The summary shall be approved by the City Attorney.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on January 4, 2022, and was adopted at a regular meeting of said Council held on ____________________, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
David Cardenas, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Vasquez, Deputy City Clerk

FOWLER CITY COUNCIL
ITEM NO: 7-Bii

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
January 4, 2022
FROM: Dawn E. Marple, City Planner

SUBJECT
Public hearing to consider Planning Case No. 21-0015, a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM), Prezone, Annexation, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, submitted by Sunshine Raisin Corporation for approximately 29.04 acres on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue between East Adams and East Hogan Avenues.

RECOMMENDATION
Both Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of Planning Case No. 21-0015 and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for said actions.

BACKGROUND
In June 2021, National Raisin Corporation submitted a tentative map application proposing to subdivide the land on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue between East Adams and East Hogan Avenues (APN 340-130-14).

The subdivision map proposes 74 single-family lots on 29.04 acres (“Project”). The site is within the City’s Sphere of Influence but is not currently within the City limits. An annexation is associated with the Project and will be acted on separately by the City Council. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Low Density Residential. The site is currently zoned AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural – Minimum 20 acres) by Fresno County. Proposed zoning is R-1-10 (One Family Residential – 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Proposed lot sizes range between 10,160 and 17,371 square feet. This range of sizes is consistent with the General Plan, which prescribes a density of 0.0-3.6 dwelling units per gross acre (du/ga) for Low Density Residential. The subdivision map proposes a density of approximately 2.57 du/ga and thus meets the density provisions of the General Plan.

Development of the subdivision is expected to occur over a 2.5-year period with project construction beginning in 2022 and completed by mid-2024. At 3.2 persons per household, the 74-unit project will accommodate approximately 237 people.

Circulation within the site would be provided by a system of four primary interior local streets generally forming a grid pattern, with cul-de-sacs proposed at locations where through-streets are not possible or practical. The interior circulation system will connect to the City’s existing collector street system on North Armstrong Avenue, located on the west side of the subdivision. Street connections to the south are proposed to connect to the residential subdivision currently under construction.

Figure 1 contains an aerial photo showing the project site in relation to other facilities. Figure 2 shows the Fowler General Plan land use designations. Figure 3 illustrates the zoning of the site and vicinity.

Figure 4 contains the proposed subdivision map.

Land Uses and Zoning in the Project Vicinity
Land Use Zoning
North Single-Family Residential R-1-10 (City)
West Rural Residences, Agriculture AE-20 / AL-20 (County) South Single-Family Residential R-1-10 (City)
East Single-Family Residential R-1-10 (City)
Proposed Homes Within the Subdivision. The developer has not provided floor plans or elevations.

If approved, the developer/builder would be required to comply with the provisions of Fowler Municipal Code (FMC) Section 9-5.1605 related to single-family design criteria. The developer/builder would be required to submit elevations for consideration by the Development Review Committee prior to issuance of a building permit for any lot within the subdivision.

ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project at its November 7, 2021 regular meeting.

Growth Management Policy
In 2004, your Council adopted a growth management policy to implement the desired growth rate contained in the General Plan without creating adverse effects on City services and the Fowler Unified School District. The policy is to be reviewed with each subdivision application. Policy No. 1 of the Growth Management Policy states, “The desirable annual population and housing growth rate should not exceed the average of the planned growth rate through 2025 of 3% over any five-year period (50- 60 units), and should not exceed 6% in any single year (80-90 units).” The chart below indicates that growth for the past 10 years has stayed within the bounds identified by the Growth Management Policy. Nevertheless, Senate Bill (SB) 330, adopted in 2019, prohibits the City of Fowler, among other cities, from limiting housing permit issuance until 2025.

Fowler Unified School District
Students from the project would attend Marshall Elementary (K-2), Fremont Elementary (3-5), Sutter Middle School (6-8), and Fowler High School (9-12). The student generation factor within Fowler Unified has ranged between 0.5 and 0.6 students per household, indicating that the proposed project would generate 37 to 45 students.

In accordance with State Law, any new development will be subject to school development fees as a condition of building permit to offset potential impacts to schools. These funds, in combination with bond financing authorized by District voters and State assistance will provide facilities and reduce overcrowding in the long-term.

Tentative Subdivision Map
The subdivision map proposes 74 single-family lots in a proposed R-1-10 zone district ranging from 10,160 to 17,371 square feet. As previously discussed, this range of sizes results in a number of lots that is consistent with the General Plan designation.

The California Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code Sec. 66410, et seq.) allows local agencies to regulate the design and improvement of subdivisions. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance provides more detailed requirements for design and improvement as well as processing applications. Staff has met with the developer and the project engineer to discuss relevant issues and the resulting configuration generally meets the City’s requirements.

The approval of Marshall Estates, currently in construction to the south, required the construction of a drainage basin. This subdivision map proposes to relocate this drainage basin to the northeast, where it would abut the ponding basin of Crestwood Estates.

General Plan Policy 4.3.16.b requires that single-family projects include 5% open space within the project site. The tentative map provides a 1.44-acre park/open space area in conformance with the General Plan Policy. This park space is designed to provide a large, single open space for the proposed neighborhood. The Quimby Act and Subdivision Ordinance requires an additional 1.33 acres that can be provided on-site or typically through the payment of off-site fees.

Lots bordering adjacent subdivisions are proposed at widths equal to their rear yard neighbors.

Grounds for Approval of a Tentative Map
The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66474) requires a City to make the following findings prior to approval of a tentative map:

1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.

Development must provide between 0.0 and 3.6 du/ga in order to maintain consistency; the subdivision map proposes a density of approximately 2.57 du/ga and thus meets the density provisions of the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the 2004 Fowler General Plan because the prezoning and annexation request is for land located contiguous to existing development where public facilities and services are available, the requested annexation is consistent with the General Plan policies related to logical and efficient growth and prevention of premature conversion of agricultural land.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The City is empowered to regulate the design and improvement of subdivisions by the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The project meets the City’s design requirements. Conditions of approval will ensure consistency with General Plan standards and policies.

The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is generally flat and level and is capable of supporting single-family development.

3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

Infrastructure needed to serve the development is located within adjacent public rights-of-way, or its installation will be required as conditions of approval. The flat, level nature of the site in conjunction with the proximity of infrastructure and project conditions ensure that the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development density of the project.

4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure a fish or wildlife habitat.

An initial study was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the subdivision on the environment. The initial study determined that, with incorporation of recommended mitigation, the subdivision would have a less than significant impact on the environment.

5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

There is no evidence in the record that the project is likely to cause serious public health problems.

6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

The project will not conflict with easements.

With conditions, including those related to open space, all of the above findings can be made.

Prezone
The Project proposes prezoning to the R-1-10 (One Family Residential – 10,000 square foot minimum lot) zone district, which would allow lots with a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and would facilitate development at a density consistent with the range prescribed in the General Plan’s Low Density Residential designation.

Annexation to the City of Fowler
If the Project is approved, an application for annexation can be submitted to LAFCo. The Project is located within the existing Sphere of Influence.

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The City prepared an initial study and on this basis determined that the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects on the environment with incorporation of recommended mitigation. The City has prepared a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA requirements. Comments received on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and responses are attached for the City Council’s review.

Attachments
Figures 1-4: Aerial Photo, General Plan, Zoning, Subdivision Map Ordinance No. 2021-08
Resolutions 2529, 2530, and 2531
Figure 1: Aerial Photo
Figure 2: General Plan
Figure 3: Zoning
Figure 4: Subdivision Map
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER AMENDING

THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY TO REFLECT A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 340-130-14
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Fowler is hereby amended to indicate Assessor’s Parcel No. 340-130-14 as R-1-10 (One Family Residential – 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) as indicated in Exhibit “A” hereto.

SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is further directed to cause this ordinance or a summary of this ordinance to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated within the City of Fowler, within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. If a summary of the ordinance is published, then the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance to be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the ordinance is adopted and again after the meeting at which the ordinance is adopted. The summary shall be approved by the City Attorney.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on ____________________, 2022, and was adopted at a regular meeting of said Council held on ____________________, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
David Cardenas, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Vasquez, Deputy City Clerk
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2529

RESOLUTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF FOWLER
COUNTY OF FRESNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ______________________________________

RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE ANNEXATION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 21-0015 ______________________________________ WHEREAS, the City of Fowler desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-KnoxHertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Government Code Section 56000 for the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map No. 21-0015 (“Marshall Estates II”); and WHEREAS, the specific changes of organization consist of annexation to the City of Fowler and the Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District and detachment from the Kings River Conservation District, Consolidated Irrigation District and the Fresno County Fire Protection District; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be changed is inhabited, and on this day contains five (5) registered voters, according to information received from the County Elections Officer; and WHEREAS, an illustration of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit “A” hereto, and a map and written description accurately depicting said territory shall be forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Commission upon application; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the City of Fowler sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the City of Fowler does not desire to subject the proposal to additional terms or conditions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed reorganization is intended to facilitate development of Marshall Estates II occupying Assessor’s Parcel No. 340-130-14, which comprises approximately 29.04 acres and would constitute a logical expansion of the city limits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, via Resolution No. 2529 has adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOW THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, THE COUNCIL HEREBY ADOPTS this Resolution of Application and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Fresno County is hereby requested to initiate proceedings for the Marshall Elementary School Reorganization in the manner prescribed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
2 ____________________________________
Mayor of the City Council
Attest:
__________________________________________
Deputy City Clerk
I, Angela Vasquez, Deputy City Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Fowler, on the motion of Councilmember ____________________ and second by Councilmember ____________________ on the 4th day of January, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: ________________________________________ NAYS: Councilmembers: ________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: ________________________________________ ABSENT: Councilmembers: ________________________________________ 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2530

RESOLUTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF FOWLER
COUNTY OF FRESNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ______________________________________

RESOLUTION APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21-0015 ______________________________________ WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 21-0015 (also known as “Tentative Tract Map No. 6381”) has been submitted for 29.04 acres (APN 340-130-14) located north of the northwest corner of East Adams and North Armstrong Avenues (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the applicant intends to subdivide the Property and construct 74 single family homes (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the subject application was reviewed for compliance with the Fowler Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, City staff and Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 6381 as shown on Exhibit “A” and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposal and conducted a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on January 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study and on this basis determined that the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects on the environment with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 6381, as well as the staff report, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all evidence presented at the public hearing, including oral and written public testimony on the Project, and those records and documents related to the Project determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, which are incorporated herein by this reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fowler, based upon the entire record of proceedings, hereby finds and determines as follows:

1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. 2 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure a fish or wildlife habitat.

6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

8. These findings could not be made without the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “B”.

9. Tentative Tract Map No. 6381 as shown on Exhibit “A” is approved, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit “B”.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 2022, at a regular meeting of the Fowler City Council by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________________
David Cardenas, Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a Resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Fowler at a meeting thereof held on the 4th day of January, 2022.

ATTEST:
____________________________
Angela Vasquez, Deputy City Clerk
3 Attachment A – Tentative Tract Map No. 21-0015

PROPOSED
BASIN

EXISTING

PONDING BASIN
TRACT NO. 6381

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

CITY OF FOWLER, COUNTY OF FRESNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SURVEYED AND PLATTED IN AUGUST 2021

LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL INFORMATION
LEGEND

MARSHALL ESTATES II
N

CIVIL ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS
P. 559-320-0344 I F. 559-320-0345 I WWW.GATEWAYENG.COM
405 PARK CREEK DRIVE, CLOVIS, CA 93611-4435 SOUTH ARMSTRONG AVENUE ARA AVE.

KRIKOR AVE. KRIKOR AVE.

AHRONIAN AVE. AHRONIAN AVE. NORTH LAKE LANE ERNEST AVE. ISABELLA AVE. NORTH LAKER LANE PROPOSED PARK 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2531

RESOLUTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF FOWLER
COUNTY OF FRESNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ______________________________________

RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21-0015 ______________________________________ WHEREAS, applications for Tentative Tract Map and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 21-0015 (“Project”) have been submitted for APN: 340-130-14 located north of the northeast corner of East Adams and North Armstrong Avenues; and
WHEREAS, the subject application was deemed complete by the Fowler Planning Department and has been reviewed for compliance with the Fowler Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Prezone in accordance with Article 4 of the Fowler Zoning Ordinance and the Fowler Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared, circulated, and made available for public comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines for implementation of CEQA, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 sections 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was duly published informing the public that the Project and Mitigated Negative Declaration would be considered for approval at the City Council meeting on December 7, 2021 at 7:00p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposed Project together with the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a Regular Meeting on January 4, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, mitigated negative declaration, and all evidence in the administrative record and presented at the City Council duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2021, which the City Council determined to be necessary to make an informed decision, including oral and written public testimony on the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fowler, based upon the entire record of proceedings, finds and determines as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the mitigation monitoring program set forth in Attachment A, including the mitigation measures identified therein and as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is adopted.
2 3. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project are adequate, reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis, and have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

4. On the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation measures included.

5. The record of these proceedings shall be contained in the Department of Planning and Community Development located at 128 S. 5th Street, Fowler, CA 93625, and the custodian of the record shall be the City Planner or other person designated by the Community Development Director.

6. The Community Development Director, or his/her designee, is authorized to file a notice of determination for the Project in accordance with CEQA and to pay any fees required for such filing.

7. The basis for the findings is detailed in the January 4, 2022 staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the entire Administrative Record, as well as evidence and comments presented in connection with the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January 2022, at a regular meeting of the Fowler City Council by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________________
David Cardenas, Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a Resolution duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Fowler at a meeting thereof held on the 4th day of January, 2022.

ATTEST:
____________________________
Angela Vasquez, Deputy City Clerk
3 Attachment A – Initial Study
City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Admin Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2021
Prepared for:

City of Fowler
128 S. 5th Street
Fowler, CA 93625
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
130 N. Garden Street
Visalia, CA 93291
Report Prepared for:

City of Fowler
128 S. 5th Street
Fowler, CA 93625
Contact:

Dawn E. Marple
(559) 834-3113 Ext 122
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Briza Sholars, Senior Planner, QA/QC
Jarred Olsen, Associate Planner, Project Manager, Technical Writing Dena Giacomini, Senior Biologist/Senior Planner
Lizbeth Avitia, Wyatt Czeshinski, Ryan McKelvey, Morgan Wright, Assistant Planners, Technical Writing Ben Toews, GIS
Jackie Lancaster, Administrative Support, Technical Writing Contact:

Jarred Olsen, Associate Planner
(559) 636-1166
COPYRIGHT 2021 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 i
Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................1-9 Regulatory Information..............................................................................................................................1-9 Document Format ......................................................................................................................................1-9 Project Description.................................................................................................................................2-2 Project Background and Objectives.........................................................................................................2-2 Project Title...............................................................................................................................2-2 Lead Agency Name and Address..........................................................................................2-2 Contact Person and Phone Number ....................................................................................2-2 Project Location.......................................................................................................................2-2 Latitude and Longitude...........................................................................................................2-2 General Plan Designation Zoning.........................................................................................2-2 Description of Project.............................................................................................................2-2 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ......................................................................2-3 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required .............................................2-3 Consultation with California Native American Tribes......................................................2-4 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................3-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..........................................................................................3-1 Aesthetics......................................................................................................................................................3-2 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions................................................................3-2 Impact Assessment..................................................................................................................3-2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.........................................................................................................3-4 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions................................................................3-4 Impact Assessment..................................................................................................................3-5 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................................3-8 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions................................................................3-8 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-10 Biological Resources................................................................................................................................ 3-13 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-13 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-19 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................... 3-22 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-22 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-23 Energy ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-24 City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 ii
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-24 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-24 Geology and Soils..................................................................................................................................... 3-26 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-26 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-28 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................... 3-30 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-30 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-32 Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................... 3-34 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-34 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-35 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 3-37 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-37 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-38 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................... 3-41 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-41 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-41 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................................... 3-43 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-43 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-44 Noise .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-45 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-45 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-47 Population and Housing ......................................................................................................................... 3-50 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-50 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-50 Public Services.......................................................................................................................................... 3-52 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-52 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-53 Recreation.................................................................................................................................................. 3-55 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-55 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-55 Transportation .......................................................................................................................................... 3-57 Environmental Settings and Baseline Conditions............................................................ 3-57 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-57 City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 iii Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................ 3-59 Environmental Settings and Baseline Conditions............................................................ 3-59 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-60 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................................. 3-61 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-61 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-62 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-64 Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions............................................................. 3-64 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-64 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................ 3-66 Impact Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-66 Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ................................................................... 3-68 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................................4-1 Appendix A.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 CalEEMod Output Files.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix B.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Biological Resources Information .......................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix C.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Cultural Resources Information.............................................................................................................................. 1 Appendix D ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Soils Report ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 iv
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map...............................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-2. Topographic Quadrangle Map ..................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-3. Area of Potential Effect Map ...................................................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-4. Site Plan.........................................................................................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-5. General Plan Land Use Designation Map...............................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-6. Zone District Map.................................................................................................................................... 2-10 Figure 3-1. Farmland Designation Map .......................................................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-2 FEMA Flood Map..................................................................................................................................... 3-40 List of Tables
Table 2-1. Fowler General Plan Designation and County Zone District...............................................................2-2 Table 3-1. Aesthetics Impacts........................................................................................................................................3-2 Table 3-2. Agriculture and Forest Impacts..................................................................................................................3-4 Table 3-3. Air Quality Impacts......................................................................................................................................3-8 Table 3-4. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation........................................3-9 Table 3-5. Unmitigated Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants............. 3-11 Table 3-6. Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions................................................................................. 3-12 Table 3-7. Biological Resources Impacts .................................................................................................................. 3-13 Table 3-8. List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity.................. 3-14 Table 3-9. List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity...................... 3-17 Table 3-10. Cultural Resources Impacts.................................................................................................................... 3-22 Table 3-11. Energy Impacts........................................................................................................................................ 3-24 Table 3-12. Geology and Soils Impacts..................................................................................................................... 3-26 Table 3-13. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts.................................................................................................... 3-30 Table 3-14. Short-Term Construction-Generated GHG Emissions.................................................................... 3-32 Table 3-15. Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions.......................................................................................... 3-33 Table 3-16. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts......................................................................................... 3-34 Table 3-17. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts ................................................................................................ 3-37 Table 3-18. Land Use and Planning Impacts ........................................................................................................... 3-41 Table 3-19. Noise Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 3-45 Table 3-20. Noise Level Standards............................................................................................................................. 3-47 Table 3-21. Typical Construction Noise Levels*..................................................................................................... 3-48 City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 v
Table 3-22. Population and Housing Impacts.......................................................................................................... 3-50 Table 3-23. Public Services Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 3-52 Table 3-24. Recreation Impacts.................................................................................................................................. 3-55 Table 3-25. Transportation Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 3-57 Table 3-26. Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts........................................................................................................ 3-59 Table 3-27. Utilities and Service Systems Impacts .................................................................................................. 3-61 Table 3-28. Wildfire Impacts....................................................................................................................................... 3-64 Table 3-29. Mandatory Findings of Significance Impacts...................................................................................... 3-66 Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program........................................................................................4-2 City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB ................................................................................................................................................................Assembly Bill AFY ................................................................................................................................................................acre-feet/year ALUCP..................................................................................................................Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan AQP ............................................................................................................................................................Air Quality Plan BAU ........................................................................................................................................................Business As Usual bcf ...........................................................................................................................................................billion cubic feet BPS ......................................................................................................................................Best Performance Standards Cal Fire .................................................................................. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA...................................................................... California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod .................................................................................California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CAP .................................................................................................................................................... Climate Action Plan CCAP....................................................................................................................................Climate Change Action Plan CDFW .............................................................................................................California Department Fish and Wildlife City ...............................................................................................................................................................City of Fowler CNEL ..................................................................................................................... Community Noise Equivalent Level County ..........................................................................................................................................................Fresno County CPUC..................................................................................................................California Public Utilities Commission CRHR ..........................................................................................................California Register of Historical Resources CSLC.........................................................................................................................California State Lands Commission CWA ..........................................................................................................................................................Clean Water Act dBA .....................................................................................................................................................A-weighted decibels DDW .....................................................................................................................................Division of Drinking Water DOC ................................................................................................................California Department of Conservations DOGGR ...........................................................................................Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources DPM............................................................................................................................................ Diesel Particulate Matter DPU...................................................................................................................................Department of Public Utilities DTSC....................................................................................... (California) Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR..............................................................................................................................Department of Water Resources EIR .................................................................................................................................. Environmental Impact Report EPA ........................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency FEMA............................................................................................................ Federal Emergency Management Agency FMMP......................................................................................................Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 vii GC .......................................................................................................................................................Government Code GHG......................................................................................................................................................... Greenhouse Gas GIS ...............................................................................................................................Geographic Information System gpd ..............................................................................................................................................................gallons per day HUC.................................................................................................................................................Hydrologic Unit Code IS ...................................................................................................................................................................Initial Study IS/MND..................................................................................................Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LAFCo.................................................................................................................Local Agency Formation Commission Ldn ............................................................................................................................. Day/Night Average Sound Level mgd ................................................................................................................................................ million gallons per day MMRP ..................................................................................................Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND................................................................................................................................Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ.............................................................................................................................................Mineral Resource Zones MTCO2e ........................................................................................................Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAAQS...........................................................................................................National Ambient Air Quality Standards ND ...................................................................................................................................................Negative Declaration NEPA.......................................................................................................................National Environmental Policy Act NFIP .........................................................................................................................National Flood Insurance Program NGVD.......................................................................................................................National Geodetic Vertical Datum NHPA........................................................................................................................National Historic Preservation Act NMFS ........................................................................................................................National Marine Fisheries Services NOx .......................................................................................................................................................... Nitrogen Oxides NPDES............................................................................................National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS...............................................................................................................Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP......................................................................................................................National Register of Historic Places NWI...................................................................................................................................... National Wetland Inventory O3 ............................................................................................................................................................................Ozone Pb ................................................................................................................................................................................Lead PC .......................................................................................................................................... Production-Consumption PCB .......................................................................................................................................... Polychlorinated biphenyls PG&E........................................................................................................................ Pacific Gas and Electric Company PM10 ........................................................................................................................particulate matter 10 microns in size PM2.5 ......................................................................................................................particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb ............................................................................................................................................................ parts per billion ppm ........................................................................................................................................................... parts per million City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 viii PRC ............................................................................................................................................... Public Resources Code RCRA............................................................................................................Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Reclamation ..........................................................................................................United States Bureau of Reclamation ROC.................................................................................................................................... Reactive Organic Compound ROV..........................................................................................................................................Remote Operated Vehicle RWQCB .............................................................................................................Regional Water Quality Control Board SB ......................................................................................................................................................................Senate Bill SCH ..................................................................................................................................................... State Clearinghouse SGMA.......................................................................................................Sustainasble Groundwater Management Act SIP .........................................................................................................................................State Implementation Plan SJVAB.................................................................................................................................. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD........................................................................................ San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 .............................................................................................................................................................. Sulfur Dioxide SOI ..................................................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence SOx ..................................................................................................................................................................Sulfur Oxide SR ....................................................................................................................................................................State Route SSJVIC..............................................................................................Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SWPPP.............................................................................................................. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB.................................................................................................................State Water Resources Control Board TAC .............................................................................................................................................Toxic Air Contaminants TCP ................................................................................................................................................ 1,2,3-trichloropropane TDS ....................................................................................................................................................total dissolved solids TPY ...............................................................................................................................................................Tons Per Year USDA .............................................................................................................United States Department of Agriculture USFWS .............................................................................................................. United States Fish and Wildlife Service VOC......................................................................................................................................Volatile Organic Compound μg/m3................................................................................................................................... micrograms per cubic meter Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-6 Introduction
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of the City of Fowler (City) to address the environmental effects of the proposed Marshall Estates II Project (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City is the CEQA lead agency for this proposed Project.

The site and the proposed Project are described in detail in the Project Description.

Regulatory Information
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.)-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines--Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:

1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

Document Format
This IS/MND contains four chapters and four appendices. Introduction provides an overview of the proposed Project and the CEQA process. Project Description provides a detailed description of proposed City of Fowler
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 1-10 Project components and objectives.

Figure 2-6. Zone District Map
Chapter 1 Introduction
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 1-1 Impact Analysis, presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 3 concludes with the Lead Agency’s determination based upon this initial evaluation. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides the proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation.

The following technical documents are provided at the end of this document:

Appendix A CalEEMod Output Files
Appendix B Biological Resources Information
Appendix C Cultural Resources Information
Appendix D Soils Report
Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
2-2 Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 Project Description
Project Background and Objectives
Project Title
National Raisin Corporation: Marshall Estates II
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fowler
128 S. 5th Street
Fowler, CA 93625
Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Dawn E. Marple, City Planner
559-834-3113, ext. 122; Fax 559-834-0185
[email protected]
Project Location
The Project is currently located outside the City of Fowler in central Fresno County, approximately 270 miles south of Sacramento and 150 miles north of Bakersfield (see Figure 2-1). It is on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue between East Adams and East Hogan Avenues on Assessor’s Parcel Number 340-130-14, approximately one mile east of State Route 99 (SR 99).

Latitude and Longitude
The centroid of the Project area is 36°38'19"N, 119°40'15"W.

General Plan Designation Zoning
Table 2-1. Fowler General Plan Designation and County Zone District Fowler General Plan Designation Zone District
Low Density Residential AE-20 (County), R-1-10 (City; Proposed) Description of Project

2.1.7.1 Project Description
National Raisin Company is proposing to subdivide approximately 29 acres of agricultural and residential land north of the northeast corner of Adams Avenue and Armstrong Avenue in Fowler, California into a 74-lot single-family residential development. The lots range between 10,160 and 17,371 square feet in size. A park will be also be constructed.

Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-3

2.1.7.2 Development of Subdivision
Development of the subdivision is expected to occur over a 2.5-year period with project construction beginning in 2022 and completed by mid-2024. At 3.2 persons per household, the 74-unit project will accommodate approximately 237 people.

Circulation within the site would be provided by a system of local roadways with two access points, one to Armstrong Avenue and one to Marshall Estates I (see Figure 2-4). It is proposed that the local streets be public.

A total of two (2) homes are located on the 29 acre site that would be demolished.

2.1.7.3 Utilities and Electrical Services
The City of Fowler provides water service within its corporate limits, including to the Project site. The water distribution system within the Project site would be provided and maintained by the City. Sanitary sewer service, including wastewater treatment, will be provided to the Project site by the Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler (SKF) County Sanitation District. Existing water and sewer mains are located along Armstrong Avenue and will provide connections for this Project. The stormwater collection will be connected to a proposed stormwater basin being constructed at the northeast corner of the Project site.

Electrical and gas service to the Project site would be provided by PG&E. AT&T would provide telephone service and cable television service would be provided by Comcast. The Applicant will be required to extend these services to the site.

Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Project site is located northeast of downtown Fowler in an area once dominated by agriculture but now planned for urban uses. Land uses in the vicinity consist predominantly of low- and medium-density residential, public facilities, and farmland planned for eventual urban expansion.

As illustrated in Figure 2-3, the Project site is surrounded by an existing low-density, single-family residential subdivision to the east and several single-family residential homes to the southwest. Marshall Elementary School sits across Armstrong Avenue to the west and Fowler High School is across Adams Avenue to the south. The northern border of the Project consists of currently undeveloped agricultural land that has been designated for low-density residential use, beyond which is additional existing single-family development. In addition to Marshall Elementary School and Fowler High School, there are several other schools within 0.5 miles of the Project site.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
• State Water Resources Control Board
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
• California Public Utilities Commission
• Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District
• Fresno Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCo)
Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-4 Consultation with California Native American Tribes
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013-14)) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

The City has received written correspondence from the Tachi-Yokut Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of proposed projects. On June 21,2021, the City sent the Yokut Tribe a formal Notification of a Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, including a Project description of the TSM No. 21-0015 applications. In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation in writing. No request for consultation was made for the Project.

Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
2-5 Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 Figure 2-1. Regional Location Map
Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-6 Figure 2-2. Topographic Quadrangle Map
Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-7 Figure 2-3. Area of Potential Effect Map
Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
2-8 Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 Figure 2-4. Site Plan
Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
2-9 Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 Figure 2-5. General Plan Land Use Designation Map
Chapter 2 Project Description
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 2-10 Figure 2-6. Zone District Map
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-1 Impact Analysis
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance The analyses of environmental impacts here in Chapter 3 Impact Analysis are separated into the following categories:

Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

Less than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (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).

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Aesthetics Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-2 Aesthetics
Table 3-1. Aesthetics Impacts
Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a 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 publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located along the floor of the San Joaquin Valley in northeast Fowler, which lies along State Route 99. The predominant landscape feature of the San Joaquin Valley is a wide variety of agricultural land.

Regional views from the valley floor are generally limited due to the flatness of the region, however, on clear days the Sierra Nevada Mountains are visible to the east. The City is characterized as a freestanding city with small town atmosphere surrounded by agricultural land. As one of the cities along the Fresno County Blossom Trail, Fowler offers scenic views of blossoming orchards from February to March.

The Project site currently contains two homes, 17 acres of grapes, and vacant land. The site would be visible from the nearby Marshall Elementary School and from the residences to the north and east. The Project lies within an area designated as low density residential. The surrounding area is considered rural and low density, with agricultural land developed with a single-family residence to the west of the Project site. There are no scenic vistas on the Project site or in the vicinity. There are no designated State scenic highways within the City or surrounding area. In Fresno County, a portion of State Route 180 (SR 180) has been officially identified by Caltrans as a “designated State Scenic Highway,” however, that segment is approximately 18 miles northeast of the Project site.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Scenic features in the vicinity may include the vast expanse of agricultural uses.

The Project site is not within the viewshed of any water features or scenic vistas. Furthermore, the Project site does not stand out from its surroundings in any remarkable fashion. Impacts would be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Aesthetics Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-3 b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. In Fresno County, a portion of State Route 180 (SR 180) has been officially identified by Caltrans as a “designated State Scenic Highway.” However, Project activities would occur approximately 18 miles southwest and do not have the potential to affect the highway. There would be no impact. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public view are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The existing visual character of the Project site and its surroundings consist of urban development, schools, and agricultural land. To the west, the Project site is surrounded by agricultural and rural infrastructure such as vineyards, irrigation standpipes, and wells. It could be argued that the development of a subdivision could visually degrade the visual character of the surrounding agricultural land.

However, the Project would create development consistent with the City of Fowler General Plan and would likely increase the quality of the visual character. Furthermore, the residential development will offer attractive landscaping and architectural design to reduce any visual effect to the surrounding properties and conform with the existing character of the neighboring community. Any impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would create new sources of light typical of urban development. Nighttime lighting levels would increase over current levels, as sources of new and nighttime lighting and illumination would include, but are not necessarily limited to, lighting from the new residential use, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., car headlights), and street lighting. Increased nighttime lighting and illumination could result in adverse effects to adjacent land uses through the “spilling over” of light into these areas and “sky glow” conditions. However, all future development under the Project would have to comply with Title 9 of the City of Fowler Zoning Ordinance, which ensures that proposed lighting is so arranged as to deflect the light away from adjoining properties. This would assist in reducing potential impacts associated with daytime glare and nighttime light. As such, any potential light and glare would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-4 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Table 3-2. Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Agriculture and Forest Impacts
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 non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of 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?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in California’s central San Joaquin Valley in Fresno County and more specifically within the City of Fowler. Fresno County is located within California’s agricultural heartland. In 2019, Fresno County ranked was the top agricultural county in the State in the annual market value of farm products.1 A wide range of commodities are grown in the county, with major production of milk, poultry, livestock, and other animal commodities, row crops, nuts and fruit tree crops, and vegetables. Rich soil; irrigation water; Mediterranean climate; and steady access to local, national, and global markets make this possible.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP): The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts to California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The maps are updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance.

The California DOC’s FMMP is a non-regulatory program that produces "Important Farmland" maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps 1 USDA. California County Agricultural Commissioners’ Reports 2020. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2020_Ag_Stats_Review.pdf Accessed 1 July 2021.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-5 identify eight land use categories, five of which are agriculture related: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and grazing land – rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. Each is summarized below:
• PRIME FARMLAND (P): Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. • FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE (S): Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

As demonstrated in Figure 3-1, the FMMP for Fresno County designates the Project site as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less Than Significant Impact. As of 2018, the Project site was designated primarily as “Prime Farmland”, with a small section of “Farmland of Statewide Importance”, as shown on the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps. Although the Project site is designated as “Prime Farmland,” the conversion of the approximately 29 acres of farmland within City limits is not considered a significant impact. This area has been planned and zoned for urban development since the City of Fowler General Plan was adopted in 1976. As illustrated in Figure 3-1, there is no shortage of Prime Farmland in the Central Valley. The 29-acre Project site represents approximately 0.004 percent of Fresno County’s 678,103 acres of Prime Farmland. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Although the Project site has historically been used for agriculture, it is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, nor are the adjacent properties. The Project site was designated for low density residential uses in the City of Fowler General Plan and will be zoned as low-density residential following its annexation to the City. The Project site is surrounded by urban neighborhood and schools in all directions. Implementation of the Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. There will be no impact.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? c-d) No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands within the Project site or vicinity. There will be no impact.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As discussed in Impact Assessments II a-d, implementation of the Project would not impinge on the existing agricultural productivity in the area nor would it result in significant conversion of Farmland to Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-6 non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Although the site has been used for agriculture in the past, it is not currently in production. Surrounding areas are comprised of urban neighborhoods and schools.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Agriculture and Forestry
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-7 Figure 3-1. Farmland Designation Map
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Air Quality
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-8 Air Quality
Table 3-3. Air Quality Impacts
Air Quality Impacts
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
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 nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions

3.4.1.1 Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the CCAA, the CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The EPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The EPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
The State and national attainment status designations pertaining to the SJVAB are summarized in Appendix A. The SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State PM10 standard, ozone, and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the NAAQS 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the EPA re-designated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment status for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Air Quality
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-9 Table 3-4. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration* Attainment
Status Primary Attainment Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe –
No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm
Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3
Nonattainment
–
Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3
Nonattainment
12 μg/m3
Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm
Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm
Attainment/
Unclassified
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm –
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm
Attainment
53 ppb Attainment/
Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM –
Attainment
--
Attainment/
Unclassified
24-hour 0.04 ppm --
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb)
30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Attainment
–
No Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter –
--
Rolling 3-Month
Average – 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment
No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S) 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl) 24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour
Extinction
coefficient: 0.23/kmvisibility of 10 miles
or more due to
particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.

Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard [date]. ***Secondary Standard
Source: CARB 2015; SJVAPCD 2015
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Air Quality
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-10 Impact Assessment
This analysis was prepared using CalEEmod, Version 2020.4.0 for the proposed Project in September 2021.

The CalEEMod Output Files can be found in Appendix A. The sections below detail the methodology of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis.

3.4.2.1 Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated using CalEEmod, Version 2020.4.0. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on anticipated construction schedules and construction equipment requirements provided by the Project applicant. All remaining assumptions were based on the default parameters contained in the model. Localized air quality impacts associated with the Project would be minor and were qualitatively assessed. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.

3.4.2.2 Long-Term Operational Emissions
Long-term operational emissions utilized default assumptions, as well as newer vehicular trip generation rates, default values provided by the SJVAPCD, and the implementation of SJVAPCD rules. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.

3.4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, the SJVAPCD has published the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. This guidance document includes recommended thresholds of significance to be used for the evaluation of short-term construction, long-term operational, odor, toxic air contaminant, and cumulative air quality impacts. Accordingly, the SJVAPCD-recommended thresholds of significance are used to determine whether implementation of the proposed Project would result in a significant air quality impact. Projects that exceed these recommended thresholds would be considered to have a potentially significant impact to human health and welfare. The thresholds of significance are summarized, as follows:

Short-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM10): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the feasible control measures for construction in compliance with Regulation VIII as listed in the SJVAPCD guidelines are not incorporated or implemented, or if project-generated emissions would exceed 15 tons per year (TPY).

Short-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Construction impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or NOX that exceeds 10 TPY.

Long-Term Emissions of Particulate Matter (PM10): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of PM10 that exceed 15 TPY.

Long-Term Emissions of Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOX): Operational impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project generates emissions of ROG or NOX that exceeds 10 TPY.

Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan: Due to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if the project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx) or PM10 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. In addition, if the project would result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, the project may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Air Quality
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-11 Local Mobile-Source CO Concentrations: Local mobile source impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project contributes to CO concentrations at receptor locations in excess of the CAAQS (i.e. 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour).

Toxic Air Contaminants: Exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) would be considered significant if the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., maximum individual risk) would exceed 20 in 1 million or would result in a Hazard Index greater than 1.

Odors: Odor impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered significant if the project has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. As noted in Impact Assessments impact-b and impact-c below, implementation of the Project would not result in short-term or long-term increases in emissions that would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. Projects that do not exceed the recommended thresholds would not be considered to conflict with or obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plans. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. Construction-generated emissions are temporary in duration, site improvements and construction of the homes will take place over 2.5 years. The construction of the Project would result in the temporary generation of emissions associated with site grading and excavation, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, as well as the movement of construction equipment on unpaved surfaces. Estimated construction-generated emissions and operational emissions are summarized in Table 3-5. Operational emissions would occur from vehicular trips, area sources such as fireplaces, and energy sources from the combustion of natural gas. These emissions are summarized in Table 3-6.

Table 3-5. Unmitigated Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) (1)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx
2021 0.1327 1.3670 0.8770 0.2197 0.0597 0.0016
2022 0.2583 2.3675 2.3824 0.2142 0.1390 0.0044
2023 0.4928 1.7013 2.0144 0.1113 0.0845 0.0036
2024 0.2027 0.0086 0.0134 0.0007 0.0005 0.0000
Maximum Annual Proposed Project Emissions: 0.4928 2.3675 2.3824 0.2197 0.139 0.0044 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds: 10 10 100 15 15 27
Exceed SJVAPCD Thresholds? No No No No No No

1. Emissions were quantified using CalEEmod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Air Quality
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-12 Table 3-6. Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Emissions
Source
Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) (1)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOx
Maximum Annual Project Emissions: 0.9165 0.5017 3.0499 0.7551 0.2133 0.0076 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds: 10 10 100 15 15 27
Exceed SJVAPCD Thresholds? No No No No No No

2. Emissions were quantified using CalEEmod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As Project emissions will not exceed established thresholds, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Section 3 of the SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts defines a sensitive receptor as a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of human exposure to pollutants. Sensitive receptors normally refer to people with heightened sensitivity to localized, rather than regional pollutants. The Project does not include any project components identified by the California Air Resources Board that could potentially impact any sensitive receptors. These include heavily traveled roads, distribution centers, fueling stations and dry cleaning operations. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. There would be a less than significant impact. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not result in long-term emissions of odors.

However, construction would involve the use of a variety of gasoline- or diesel-powered equipment that would emit exhaust fumes. Similarly, infrequent use of the diesel-powered emergency back-up generator may occasionally produce an odorous exhaust. Exhaust fumes, particularly diesel exhaust, may be considered objectionable by some people. The Project is located within an area dominated by agricultural production, which includes the use of diesel-powered equipment and various odorous chemicals on a regular basis.

Construction activities would be short-term in nature, as would be the infrequent use of the emergency generator. Conditions created by Project-related activities would not vary substantially from the baseline conditions routinely experienced onsite and in the vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-13 Biological Resources
Table 3-7. Biological Resources Impacts
Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The agricultural community of Fowler which includes the Project site lies within the lower San Joaquin Valley, part of the Great Valley of California. The Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range to the north, and the Transverse Ranges and Mojave Desert to the south.

The approximately 29-acre Project site has historically been used for agricultural production, the site currently consists of recently-disced, barren, ruderal land on the southern portion and grape vines on the northern portion. The Project area is bordered by urban development to the north and east, agricultural land to the west, and more recently-disced, barren, ruderal land immediately south. (see Figure 2-3) Soils in the Project APE consist of Hesperia fine sandy loam, Exeter loam, and Hanford sandy loam, which is typically dry from early Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-14 May until early November, unless irrigated. These types of soils are moderately well drained and ideal for growing agricultural crops.

Adjacent land uses consist of residential homes and public school facilities. The City is located within the Kennedy Pond watershed; Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 180300090206. 2 The San Joaquin River and the Kings River are the two principal river systems within this watershed and the San Joaquin Valley, and the City is located approximately 18 miles south of the San Joaquin River and 9 miles west of the Kings River. There are no tributaries or distributaries located within the site boundaries or adjacent to the site.

As part of a desktop analysis of potential Project-related impacts to biological resources, on September 13, 2021, a thorough search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for published accounts of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Malaga 7.5-minute quadrangle that contains the Project site in its entirety, and for the eight surrounding quadrangles: Fresno North, Clovis, Round Mountain, Fresno South, Sanger, Caruthers, Conejo, and Selma.

These species, and their potential to occur within the Project area are listed in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9 on the following pages. Raw data obtained from CNDDB is available in Appendix B at the end of this document.

Other sources of information utilized in the preparation of this analysis included the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, CalFlora’s online database of California native plants, the Jepson Herbarium online database (Jepson eFlora), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), the NatureServe Explorer online database, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Plants Database, CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database, ebird.org, and the California Herps online database.

Table 3-8. List of Special Status Animals with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
American badger
(Taxidea taxus)
CSC Grasslands, savannas, and mountain
meadows near timberline are
preferred. Most abundant in drier
open spaces of shrub and grassland.

Burrows in soil.

Unlikely - This species prefers
uncultivated grasslands with friable
soils for burrowing. Friable soils and
ground squirrel population may be
present within the APE, but the years
of cultivation and frequent
disturbance would generally make the
site unsuitable for this species. The
most recent observation of this
species was recorded in 1987 north
of the Project site.
burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSC Resides in open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands with low growing
vegetation. Nests underground in
existing burrows created by
mammals, most often ground
squirrels.

Possible - The disturbed habitats of
the APE would Generally be
unsuitable for this species; however,
if the fallowed portion of the APE is
not maintained, this species may use
the fallowed land to form burrows.

California glossy
snake (Arizona
elegans occidentalis)
CSC Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes,
grasslands, and chaparral. Prefers
open areas with loose soil for easy
burrowing.

Unlikely - The disturbed habitats of
the APE are unsuitable for this
species. Furthermore, the Project area
is outside of the known range of this
species. The nearest known
occurrence of this species was
recorded approximately 9 miles
northwest of the Project area in 1946.
2 EPA Waters GeoViewer. https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ada349b90c26496ea52aab66a092593b Accessed 13 September 2021
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-15 Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
California tiger
salamander central
California DPS
(Ambystoma
californiense)

FT, CT,
CWL
Requires vernal pools or seasonal
ponds for breeding and small
mammal burrows for aestivation.

Generally found in grassland and
oak savannah plant communities in
central California from sea level to
1500 feet in elevation.

Absent - The disturbed habitats of
the APE and surrounding lands are
generally unsuitable for this species.

Vernal pool habitat suitable for
breeding is absent from the APE.
coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
CSC Found in grasslands, coniferous
forests, woodlands, and chaparral,
primarily in open areas with patches
of loose, sandy soil and low-lying
vegetation in valleys, foothills, and
semi-arid mountains. Frequently
found near ant hills and along dirt
roads in lowlands along sandy
washes with scattered shrubs.

Absent - The disturbed habitats of
the APE are unsuitable for this
species. The nearest known
occurrence of this species was
recorded approximately 9 miles
northwest of the Project area over
100 years ago.

Crotch bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
CCE Occurs throughout coastal
California, as well as east to the
Sierra-Cascade crest, and south in to
Mexico. Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and
Eriogonum.

Unlikely – The disturbed habitats of
the APE are unsuitable for this
species. The last recorded date site
last seen was April 29, 1899, and the
exact location is unknown .
double-crested
cormorant
(Phalacrocorax
auratus)
CWL Colonial nester on coastal cliffs,
offshore islands, and along lake
margins in the interior of the state.

Nests along coast on sequestered
islets, usually on ground with
sloping surface, or in tall trees along
lake margins.

Absent – The disturbed habitats of
the APE are unsuitable for this
species. This species needs to be
near a water source which is also
absent from the APE. The last
recorded date site was in May 2012 in
the vicinity of Fresno.

Fresno kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
nitratoides exilis)
FE, CE An inhabitant of alkali sink open
grassland environments in western
Fresno County. Prefers bare,
alkaline, clay-based soils subject to
seasonal inundation with more
friable soil mounds around shrubs
and grasses.

Unlikely The highly disturbed
habitats of the APE and surrounding
lands are unsuitable for this species.

The nearest known occurrence of
this species was recorded in the
Fresno area over 100 years ago. This
historical observation has since been
updated to “extirpated” in the
CNDDB.
least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
FE, CE This migratory species breeds in
southern California. Breeding
habitat consists of dense, low,
shrubby, riparian vegetation in the
vicinity of water or dry river
bottoms. By the early 1980s, this
species was extirpated from most of
its historic range in California,
including the Central Valley. This
species now occurs exclusively along
the coast of southern California
(USFWS, 1998).

Absent - The APE is outside of the
known current range of this species.

Riparian habitat is absent from the
Project site and surrounding areas.
northern California
legless lizard (Anniella
pulchra)
CSC Found primarily underground,
burrowing in loose, sandy soil.

Forages in loose soil and leaf litter
during the day. Occasionally
Unlikely - The disturbed habitats of
the APE are unsuitable for this
species. The nearest known
occurrence of this species was
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-16 Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
observed on the surface at dusk and
night.
recorded approximately 9 miles
northwest of the Project APE over
100 years ago.
pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus)
CSC Found in grasslands, chaparral, and
woodlands, where it feeds on
ground- and vegetation-dwelling
arthropods, and occasionally takes
insects in flight. Prefers to roost in
rock crevices, but may also use tree
cavities, caves, bridges, and other
man-made structures.

Possible - Roosting habitat is
possible in the existing trees and
buildings around the APE; however,
foraging habitat is marginal, at best.

The nearest known occurrence of
this species was recorded in 1909 in
the vicinity of Fresno.

San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
FE, CT Underground dens with multiple
entrances in alkali sink, valley
grassland, and woodland in valleys
and adjacent foothills.

Unlikely - The highly disturbed
habitats of the APE and
fragmentation of the surrounding
lands are generally unsuitable for this
species. The Project is located
approximately 60 miles east of the
nearest known core population in
Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area.

Although some populations of San
Joaquin Kit Fox in other parts of
California have adapted to an
urbanized environment, modern kit
fox occurrences are locally scarce. At
most, this species could pass through
the APE during dispersal
movements.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
CT Nests in large trees in open areas
adjacent to grasslands, grain or
alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures
suitable for supporting rodent
populations.

Possible - Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands, or
alfalfa or grain fields supporting
rodent populations. There are trees
large enough for nesting surrounding
the APE within a 0.5-mile radius that
could serve as suitable habitat for this
species
tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
CT, CSC Nests colonially near fresh water in
dense cattails or tules, or in thickets
of riparian shrubs. Forages in
grassland and cropland. Large
colonies are often found on dairy
farm forage fields.

Absent - Suitable nesting and
foraging habitat is absent from the
APE and surrounding lands.
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT Lives in mature elderberry shrubs of
the Central Valley and foothills.

Adults are active March to June.

Unlikely – Due to the high
disturbance of the area and
maintained landscape, suitable
elderberry habitat is unlikely to be
found within the APE.
vernal pool fairy
shrimp (Branchinecta
lynchi)
FT Occupies vernal pools, clear to teacolored water, in grass or mudbottomed swales, and basalt depression pools.

Absent - Suitable vernal pool habitat
for this species is absent from the
APE and surrounding lands. The
existing soil matrix does not support
pooling.
western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
CSC Found in open, arid to semi-arid
habitats, including dry desert
washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak
woodland, open ponderosa pine
Possible - Roosting habitat is
possible in the existing trees and
buildings around the APE; however,
foraging habitat is marginal, at best.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-17 Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
forest, grassland, and agricultural
areas, where it feeds on insects in
flight. Roosts most commonly in
crevices in cliff faces but may also
use high buildings and tunnels.

The nearest known occurrence of
this species was recorded
approximately 6 miles west of the
APE in 1958.
western pond turtle
(Emys marmorata)
CSC An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
slow-moving rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches with riparian
vegetation. Requires adequate
basking sites and sandy banks or
grassy open fields to deposit eggs.

Absent - There are no water features
onsite or in the vicinity of the APE.

The nearest observation of this
species was recorded in 2016
approximately 16 miles north of the
APE.
western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
CSC Prefers open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats
including mixed woodlands,
grasslands, coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands,
river floodplains, alluvial fans,
playas, alkali flats, foothills, and
mountains. Vernal pools or
temporary wetlands, lasting a
minimum of three weeks, which do
not contain bullfrogs, fish, or
crayfish are necessary for breeding.

Unlikely - The highly disturbed
habitats of the APE and surrounding
lands are generally unsuitable for this
species. Wetland habitat suitable for
breeding is absent from the APE and
potential aestivation habitat is
marginal due to frequent grounddisturbance.
western yellow-billed
cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis)
FT, CE Suitable nesting habitat in California
includes dense riparian willowcottonwood and mesquite habitats along a perennial river. Once a
common breeding species in
riparian habitats of lowland
California, this species currently
breeds consistently in only two
locations in the State: along the
Sacramento and South Fork Kern
Rivers.

Absent - Suitable nesting habitat for
this species is absent from the APE
and surrounding lands. All of the
local observations were recorded
over 100 years ago, and the
populations are presumed extirpated.

It is believed this species no longer
occurs within Fresno County.

Table 3-9. List of Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur Onsite and/or in the Vicinity Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
alkali-sink goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
CNPS 1B Found in vernal pool and wet saline
flat habitats. Occurences
documented in the San Joaquin and
Sacremento Valleys at elevatiosn
below 656 feet. Blooms February -
April.

Unlikely - The nearest observation of
this species was recorded in the
vicinity 4-miles north of Laton, in
1934. The population occurrence in
the CNDDB has been updated to
extirpated, as all habitat in the vicinity
has been eliminated by urbanization
and agriculture.
bristly sedge
(Carex comosa)
CNPS
2B
Found in marshes, swamps, coastal
prairie, valley and foothill grassland.

Occurs in wet places. Elevation
1410 to 2035 feet. Blooms MaySeptember.

Unlikely - The nearest observation of
this species was recorded in the
vicinity southeast of Sanger, in the late
1980’s. The population occurrence in
the CNDDB has been updated to
extirpated, as all habitat in the vicinity
has been eliminated by urbanization
and agriculture.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-18 Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
California jewelflower
(Caulanthus
californicus)

FE, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
Western Transverse Ranges in sandy
soils. Occurs on flats and slopes,
generally in non-alkaline grassland at
elevations between 230 feet and
6100 feet. Blooms February–April.

Unlikely - The nearest observation of
this species was recorded in the
vicinity of Fresno in the 1980s. The
population occurrence in the CNDDB
has been updated to extirpated, as all
habitat in the vicinity has been
eliminated by urbanization and
agriculture.

California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CNPS 2B Although this facultative species is
equally likely to occur in wetlands
and non-wetlands, it is often found
in wet springs, meadows,
streambanks, and floodplains at
elevations below 1600 feet. Blooms
September – May.

Unlikely – Suitable habitat is absent
from the APE. The last recorded
observation was in Fresno County in
the late 1890s and its exact location is
unknow.
forked hare-leaf
(Lagophylla
dichotoma)
CNPS 1B Found in cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill grassland
communities at elevations between
600 feet and 1100 feet.

Absent - Suitable habitat is absent
from the APE. The Project APE is
outside of the elevation range for this
species
Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)

FE, CR,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in vernal
pools within valley grassland,
wetland, and riparian communities
at elevations below 3500 feet.

Blooms May – September.

Absent - Suitable habitat is absent
from the APE. Last date seen was
recorded in the late 1980s 4-miles
north of Sanger which is
approximately 12-miles from the APE.

Madera leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon
serrulatus)
CNPS 1B Found in openings in foothill
woodland, often yellow-pine forest,
and chaparral at elevations between
1000 feet and 4300 feet. Blooms
April – May.

Absent - Suitable habitat is absent
from the APE. Last date seen was
recorded in the 1920s, near Fresno.

San Joaquin adobe
sunburst
(Pseudobahia
peirsonii)

FT, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
the Sierra Nevada Foothills in bare
dark clay soils in valley and foothill
grassland and cismontane woodland
communities at elevations between
325 feet and 2950 feet. Blooms
March–May.

Absent - Suitable habitat is absent
from the APE. due to established
agricultural lands.

San Joaquin Valley
Orcutt grass (Orcuttia
inaequalis)

FT, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in the eastern San Joaquin
Valley and the Sierra Nevada
foothills in vernal pools within
valley grassland, freshwater wetland,
and wetland-riparian communities at
elevations below 2600 feet. Blooms
April – September.

Absent - Suitable habitat is absent
from the APE. due to the established
agricultural lands and nearby
residences.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
CNPS 1B Found in the San Joaquin Valley and
other parts of California in
freshwater-marsh, primarily ponds
and ditches, at elevations below
1000 feet. Blooms May–October.

Absent - Suitable habitat is absent
from the APE due to established
agricultural lands with nearby
residences. The soils in the APE
consist of Hesperia fine sandy loam,
Exeter loam and Hanford sandy loam
which do not support the creation of
vernal pools.
spiny-sepaled buttoncelery (Eryngium
spinosepalum)
CNPS 1B Found in the Sierra Nevada
Foothills and the San Joaquin
Valley. Occurs in vernal pools,
Absent - Suitable habitat is absent
from the APE due toagricultural lands
and nearby residences. The soils in the
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-19 Species Status Habitat Occurrence on Project Site
swales, and roadside ditches. Often
associated with clay soils in vernal
pools within grassland communities.

Occurs at elevations between 50 feet
and 4160 feet. Blooms April–July.

APE consist of Hesperia fine sandy
loam, Exeter loam and Hanford sandy
loam which do not support the
creation of vernal pools.
succulent owl’s-clover
(Castilleja campestris
var. succulenta)

FT, CE,
CNPS 1B
Found in vernal pools, often in
acidic soils at elevations below 2500
feet. Blooms April – July.

Absent - Vernal pool habitat is absent
from the Project APE. Project area is
established agricultural lands with
nearby residences.

EXPLANATION OF OCCURRENCE DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS CODES

Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past.

Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis.

Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time.

Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient.

Absent: Species not observed on the site, and precluded from occurring there due to absence of suitable habitat.

STATUS CODES
FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered
FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened
FPE Federally Endangered (Proposed) CCT California Threatened (Candidate) FPT Federally Threatened (Proposed) CFP California Fully Protected FC Federal Candidate CSC California Species of Special Concern CWL California Watch List
CCE California Endangered (Candidate)
CR California Rare

CNPS LISTING
1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California. 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

California and elsewhere.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Ruderal habitats are characterized by a high level of human disturbance and absence of vegetation or dominated by non-native plant species. Ruderal areas within the Project vicinity have minimal value to wildlife due to the frequent human disturbance, presence of domestic dogs and cats, and the absence of vegetative cover. However, some disturbance-tolerant species may make incidental use of these ruderal lands. As discussed in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9 above, four possible special status species could occur onsite or within the surrounding area. In order to ensure protection of any special status species with potential to occur onsite, the following mitigation measures will be implemented:

BIO-1 (WEAP Training): Prior to initiating construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with Project construction shall attend mandatory Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in identifying special status resources that may occur in the Project area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and suitable habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information, along with photographs or illustrations of sensitive species with potential to occur onsite, shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-20 employees, and all other personnel involved with construction of the Project. All employees shall sign a form documenting that they have attended WEAP training and understand the information presented to them.

BIO-2 (General Pre-construction Survey): A pre-construction survey for special status species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities.

If sensitive biological resources are present onsite, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone and label sensitive resources or areas of avoidance with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means. If avoidance is not feasible, CDFW and/or USFWS shall be consulted to determine the best course of action.

BIO-3 (Operational Hours): Construction activities shall be limited to daylight hours to reduce potential impacts to special status bats that could be foraging onsite.

Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2 and BIO-3 will ensure protection of any special status species and reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Nesting birds, protected by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will be granted additional protective measures, as discussed under Impact Assessment d, below.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are nonexistent on the site or within the immediate vicinity.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. The Project site does not contain any wetlands or other jurisdictional waters, and will have no impact on any such waters. The APE soils consist of Hesperia fine sandy loam, Exeter loam and Hanford Sandy loam which are well-drained soils. These soils are lacking a clay component that would allow for the creation of vernal pools. There would be no impact.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife movement corridors are routes that animals regularly and predictably follow during seasonal migration, dispersal from native ranges, daily travel within home ranges, and inter-population movements. Movement corridors in California are typically associated with valleys, ridgelines, rivers and creeks supporting riparian vegetation. The APE does not contain features that would be likely to function as a wildlife movement corridor. There is the potential for nesting birds and bats to use existing trees and residential building with the APE and surrounding area. However, the APE is bordered by urban development and located in a region often disturbed by intensive agricultural cultivation practices and human disturbance which would typically discourage dispersal and migration.

Although trees, shrubs, and herbaceous cover are absent from a majority of the APE, some disturbance-tolerant avian species may find suitable nesting habitat within the APE, especially in the trees around the two residents located in the very northwest corner of the APE and on the southwest corner of the fallowed portion. Birds nesting onsite could be killed or injured by Project activities, and construction could disturb birds nesting adjacent to work areas, resulting in nest abandonment. In order to protect nesting birds, the Project will implement mitigation measures BIO-4, BIO-5, and BIO-6, listed below.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-21 Nesting bird season is generally accepted as February 1 through August 31; however, Swainson’s Hawk nesting season is generally accepted as March 1 through September 15. For simplicity, these timeframes have been combined.

BIO-4 (Avoidance): The Project’s construction activities shall occur, if feasible, between September 16 and January 31 (outside of nesting bird season) in an effort to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

BIO-5 (Pre-construction Nesting Bird Survey): If activities must occur within nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a presence/absence nesting bird survey within 10 days prior to the start of construction. The survey will include the proposed work area, including a 50-foot buffer zone and include a 0.5 mile visual inspection of the surrounding lands for Swainson’s Hawk nests. If no active nests are observed, no further mitigation is required. Active nests are generally defined by the presence of eggs or young; however, raptor nests are considered “active” upon the nest-building stage.

BIO-6 (Establish Buffers): On discovery of any active nests near work areas, the biologist shall determine appropriate construction setback distances based on applicable CDFW and/or USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the species in question. Construction buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means, and shall be maintained until the biologist has determined that the nestlings have fledged.

Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-4 through BIO-6 will ensure protection of nesting birds and reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City does not currently have an adopted ordinance related to tree preservation. The Project would not conflict with any potential local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances and considering these as valuable resources that are worthy of conservation efforts. There would be no impacts to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. No habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan is in effect for the area of the Project. There would be no impact.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Cultural Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-22 Cultural Resources
Table 3-10. Cultural Resources Impacts
Cultural Resources Impacts
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 in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
Cultural resources can refer to prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, architectural properties like buildings, bridges, and other various infrastructure, and locations significant to Native Americans. Fresno County is an archaeologically and culturally significant area and has one of the densest Native American populations in North America. Archaeological sites associated with the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe exists throughout the County, particularly adjacent to existing and former natural waterways and food sources. Many Yokut sites have been located, and the potential for remaining undiscovered sites within the County is high.

The Project site is located on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue, between East Adams and East Hogan Avenues in the City of Fowler in Fresno County. The Project intends to subdivide approximately 29 acres, located on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue, for the creation of 74 single family residential lots.

3.6.1.1 Records Search
On July 6, 2021, Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group received results from a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Bakersfield. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the CHRIS’s regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law (Appendix C).

The records search encompassed the 29-acres of the Project site plus all land within a half-mile radius of the Project site. SSJVIC staff examined site records files, maps, and other materials to identify previously recorded resources and prior surveys with the delineated area (Appendix C).

3.6.1.2 Native American Outreach
On July 13, 2016, the City received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 officially requesting notification of Projects within the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s geographic area of Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Cultural Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-23 traditional and cultural affiliation. On June 21, 2021, the City sent the Yokut Tribe a formal Notification of a Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, including a project description.

In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation in writing. No request for consultation was made for the Project and less than significant impacts to tribal resources are expected.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A cultural resources records search of the Project location was requested to determine whether cultural resources are present within the Project area (see Appendix C). A CHRIS search results letter was received and according to the search, there are no recorded resources within the Project area, and it is not known if any exist there. There are two recorded resources within the one-half mile radius, P-10-002864 and P-10-004423. These resources are an historic era trash scatter and an historic era park, respectively. There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

It is unlikely that the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts or adverse effects to cultural or historical resources, such as archaeological remains, artifacts or historic properties. However, in the event that cultural resources are encountered during Project construction, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1, outlined below, would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If, during construction, cultural resources are discovered, all work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery. A professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained by the City to determine the significance of the discovery. Upon a finding of significance, the City shall implement the required mitigation (if any) as determined by the archaeologist. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence or record that the Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event of such a discovery, mitigation shall be implemented. With incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-2, outlined below, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project site would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures CUL-2: In the event human remains are encountered during construction activities, all work within the vicinity of the remains shall halt in accordance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the Fresno County coroner’s office would be contacted.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Energy Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-24 Energy
Table 3-11. Energy Impacts
Energy Impacts
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?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
PG&E has sufficient energy supplies to serve the growth that has occurred in Fresno County. Much of the energy consumed in the region is for residential, commercial, and transportation purposes. Much of the Project site is currently being used for agriculture, while the southern portion is vacant.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of Project construction. For heavy-duty construction equipment, horsepower and load factor were assumed using default data from the CalEEMod model. Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the Project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul trucks trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the Project was based on (1) the projected number of trips the Project would generate (CalEEMod default values), (2) default average trip distance by land use in CalEEMod, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the CARB 2017 Emissions Factors model (EMFAC2017) mobile source emission model.

Construction is estimated to consume a total of 99,178.75 gallons of diesel fuel and 19,533.25 gallons of gasoline fuel.3 California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five (5) minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel because of unproductive idling of construction equipment. In addition, the energy consumption for construction activities would not be ongoing as they would be limited to the duration of Project construction.

The development’s anticipated annual energy consumption is approximately 590,073 kilowatt-hours and 17,792 therms of natural gas.4 Energy consumption of residential uses is currently governed by the 2019 California Building Code, Part 6 for the structure itself, and Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for appliances.

Energy consumption is anticipated to decrease over time as more energy efficient standards take effect and 3 Emissions for the Project were quantified using CalEEMod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.
4 Emissions for the Project were quantified using CalEEMod Output Files Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Energy Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-25 energy-consuming equipment reaches its end-of-life and necessitates replacement. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption. These regulations at the State level intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include, among others, AB 1493 – Light-Duty Vehicle Standards; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Standards; and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 – California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Geology and Soils
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-26 Geology and Soils
Table 3-12. Geology and Soils Impacts
Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
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
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions

3.8.1.1 Geology and Soils
The Project is located in the City of Fowler in central Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. The Sacramento Valley makes up the northern third and the San Joaquin Valley makes up the southern two-thirds of the geomorphic province. Both valleys are watered by large rivers flowing west from the Sierra Nevada Range, with smaller tributaries flowing east from the Coast Ranges. Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered by Quaternary (present day to 1.6 million years ago) alluvium. The sedimentary formations are steeply upturned along the western margin due to the uplifted Sierra Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Geology and Soils
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-27 Nevada Range.
5 From the time the Valley first began to form, sediments derived from erosion of igneous and metamorphic rocks and consolidated marine sediments in the surrounding mountains have been transported into the Valley by streams.

3.8.1.2 Faults and Seismicity
The Project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults within the City. The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 65 miles southwest of the Project site. The San Andreas fault is the dominant active tectonic feature of the Coast Ranges and represents the boundary of the North American and Pacific plates. The Nunez Fault is approximately 51 miles southwest and the Poso Fault is approximately 51 miles south.

3.8.1.3 Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction, which is the loss of soil strength due to seismic forces, is dependent on soil types and density, the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Fresno County, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. Soil types along the Valley floor are not generally conducive to liquefaction because they are generally too course. Furthermore, the average depth to groundwater within the City is approximately 85 to 95 feet which also minimizes liquefaction potential.

Using the USDA NRCS soil survey of Fresno County (Appendix D), an analysis of the soils onsite was performed. Soils in the area consist of Hanford sandy loam (14.5%,) Hesperia fine sandy loam (80%), and Exeter loam (5.5%).6

3.8.1.4 Soil Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large land area settles due to over-saturation or extensive withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. These areas are typically composed of open-textured soils, high in silt or clay content, that become saturated. Although some areas in Fresno County have experienced subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the City’s elevation has remained relatively unchanged.

Soils of the Project site consist of Hanford sandy loam, Hesperia sandy loam, and Exeter loam, all of which are course-textured, low in clay content, and have a low shrink-swell potential. Therefore, soils onsite represent a low risk of subsidence.

3.8.1.5 Dam and Levee Failure
Hundreds of dams and reservoirs have been built in California for water supply, flood control, hydroelectric power, and recreational uses. The storage capacity of these dams varies across the State from large reservoirs with capacities exceeding millions of acre-feet (AF) to small reservoirs with capacities from hundreds to thousands of AF. Depending on the season, water from these reservoirs is released into the river system of the State and eventually reaches the Pacific Ocean. The Kings River, which flows approximately 9 miles east, is the primary river in the vicinity. The Kings River is impounded by a dam which forms the one million AF Pine Flat reservoir, approximately 23 miles northeast of the Project site. If Pine Flat dam were to fail, a large portion of Fresno County, including the City, would be inundated with water. 5 Harden, D.R. 1998, California Geology, Prentice Hall, 479 pages 6 USDA NRCS Soil Survey. Accessed June 18, 2021.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Geology and Soils
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-28 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a-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. a-ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
a-i and a-ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an area traditionally characterized by relatively low seismic activity. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (Section 2622 of Chapter 7.5, Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code). The nearest major fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 65 miles southwest of the Project site. The Nunez Fault is approximately 51 miles southwest and the Poso Fault is approximately 51 miles south.

Although there are no known earthquake faults within the vicinity of the Project and strong ground shaking is unlikely, construction of the proposed residential structures would comply with the most recent seismic standards as set forth in the California Building Standards Code. Compliance with these standards would ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a-iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water-saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Although no specific liquefaction hazard areas have been identified in Fresno County, this potential is recognized throughout the San Joaquin Valley where unconsolidated sediments and a high-water table coincide. Using the USDA NRCS soil survey of Fresno County, an analysis of the soils onsite was performed. Soils in the area consist of Hanford sandy loam, Hesperia fine sandy loam, and Exeter loam, all of which are well-drained and course-textured, representing a low risk for liquefaction or seismic-related ground failure. In addition, the average depth to groundwater within the City is approximately 85 to 95 feet which further reduces potential for liquefaction. Furthermore, as mentioned above in Impact Assessments VIa-i and VI-a-ii, strong seismic ground shaking is unlikely to occur. Any impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. a-iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. The Project is located on the Valley floor where no major geologic landforms exist, and the topography is essentially flat and level. The nearest foothills are approximately 15 miles northeast. Therefore, the Project site has minimal-to-no landslide susceptibility, and there will be no impact.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Earthmoving activities associated with the Project would include excavation, trenching, grading, and construction over an area of approximately 29-acres. These activities could expose soils to erosion processes and the extent of erosion would vary depending on slope steepness/stability, vegetation/cover, concentration of runoff, and weather conditions. Dischargers whose projects disturb one (1) or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Geology and Soils
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-29 restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Since the Project site has relatively flat terrain with a low potential for soil erosion and would comply with the SWRCB requirements, the impact would be less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Would the project 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? c and d) Less than Significant Impact. Soils onsite consist of Hanford sandy loam, Hesperia fine sandy loam, and Exeter loam, all of which are well-drained, low in clay content, and coarse-textured. These soils have a low shrink-swell potential and a low plasticity index, and therefore, are not considered expansive soils. Furthermore, the aforementioned physical properties of these soils make subsidence, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other ground failure unlikely. Any impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic installation or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not necessary for the Project.

There will be no impact.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact. No known paleontological resources exist within the Project area. The Project site would be a residential development lot that has been historically farmed. Previous discing and site grading activities onsite have not uncovered any paleontological resources. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project are not expected to be conducted significantly below grade, at a level where they would have the potential to disturb any previously unknown paleontological resources or geologic features. Impacts would be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-30 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 3-13. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
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?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The Earth’s climate has been warming for the past century. Experts believe this warming trend is related to the release of certain gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (GHG) absorb infrared energy that would otherwise escape from the Earth. As the infrared energy is absorbed, the air surrounding the Earth is heated.

An overall warming trend has been recorded since the late 19th century, with the most rapid warming occurring over the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year—from January through September, with the exception of June—were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record—in all three cases, behind records set in 2015.7 Human activities have been attributed to an increase in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases. Commonly identified GHG emissions and sources include the following:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless natural greenhouse gas. CO2 is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing.

Anthropogenic sources include the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

Methane (CH4) is a flammable greenhouse gas. A natural source of methane is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and ruminants such as cattle.

Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.

Water vapor is the most abundant, and variable greenhouse gas. It is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere, it maintains a climate necessary for life.

Ozone (O3) is known as a photochemical pollutant and is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and, therefore, is not global in 7 NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally. January 18, 2017. Accessed 6/24/21.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-31 nature. Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.

Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Of all the greenhouse gases, HFCs are one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are human-made for applications such as air conditioners and refrigerants.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere; therefore, PFCs have long atmospheric lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth, and what the effects of clouds will be in determining the rate at which the mean temperature will increase. There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. About threequarters of human emissions of CO2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased 31 percent, 151 percent, and 17 percent respectively since the year 1750 (CEC 2008). GHG emissions are typically expressed in carbon dioxideequivalents (CO2e), based on the GHG’s Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 21 tons of CO2. Therefore, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2.

An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Evaluation Report was prepared in September 2021, and is contained in Appendix A. The essential conclusions of this Report are as follows:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or,
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

In accordance with SJVAPCD’s CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-32 Emission Impacts for New Projects8, proposed projects complying with Best Performance Standards (BPS) would be determined to have a less-than-significant impact. Projects not complying with BPS would be considered less than significant if operational GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by a minimum of 29 percent, in comparison to business-as-usual (year 2004) conditions. In addition, project-generated emissions complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would also be determined to have a less-than-significant impact.

3.9.1.1 Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Short term construction related emissions were calculated using the CalEEmod Version 2020.4.0. emissions modeling software and was assumed to end in 2024. Other assumptions were made on the default parameters in the model. The modeling output can be found in Appendix A.

3.9.1.2 Long-Term Operational Emissions
Long-term operational related emissions were also calculated using the CalEEmod Version 2020.4.0. emissions modeling software and was assumed to start after construction finishes in 2024. Operational emissions are viewed on a per year basis. Some assumptions were made on the default parameters in the model. The modeling output can be found in Appendix A.

Impact Assessment

3.9.2.1 Thresholds of Significance
Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Estimated construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14. Short-Term Construction-Generated GHG Emissions Year Emissions (MT CO2e)
(1)
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,100 AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Stationary Source Projects* 10,000 Maximum Estimated Annual Emissions 543.7347
Exceed Threshold? No

1. Emissions were quantified using the CalEEmod, Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions. Totals may not sum due to rounding. * As published in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Accessed 6/25/21 Long-Term Operational Emissions
Estimated long-term operational emissions are summarized in Table 3-15. 8 Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf Accessed 6/25/21
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-33 Table 3-15. Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions (MT CO2e)
(1)
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,100 AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Stationary Source Projects* 10,000 Maximum Estimated Annual Emissions 913
Exceed Threshold? No

1. Emissions were quantified using the CalEEmod, Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions. Totals may not sum due to rounding. * As published in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Accessed 6/25/21. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in long term operational emissions that would exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of 1,100 MT CO2e annually. The Project is estimated to emit 913 MT CO2e annually. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-34 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Table 3-16. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
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?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions

3.10.1.1 Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC's EnviroStor database provides DTSC's component of Cortese List data (DTSC, 2010). In addition to the EnviroStor database, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and non-UST cleanup programs, including Spills- Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-35 Leaks-Investigations-Cleanups (SLIC) sites, Department of Defense (DOD) sites, and Land Disposal program.

A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker performed on July 1, 2021 determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity.

3.10.1.2 Airports
The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately 9 miles north-northwest, the Selma Municipal Airport is located approximately 3.5 miles south-southwest, and a private airstrip is located approximately 3.6 miles southeast of the Project.

3.10.1.3 Emergency Response Plan
The Fresno County Office of Emergency Services coordinates the development and maintenance of the Fresno County Operational area Master Plan.

3.10.1.4 Sensitive Receptors
The Project site is immediately north of Fowler High School and east of Marshall Elementary School.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? a-c) Less than Significant Impact. At its nearest point, the Project area is located approximately 160 feet east of Marshall Elementary School and 1,100 feet north of Fowler High School. Construction of the Project will involve the use of hazardous materials associated with construction equipment, such as diesel fuel, lubricants, and solvents. However, the contractor will implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and will comply with all Cal/OSHA regulations regarding regular maintenance and inspection of equipment, spill prevention, and spill remediation in order to reduce the potential for incidental release of pollutants or hazardous substances onsite. Furthermore, any potential accidental hazardous materials spills during construction are the responsibility of the contractor to remediate in accordance with industry best management practices and State and county regulations. The operational phase of the Project will not involve the use or transport of hazardous materials. Impacts will be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project does not involve land that is 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. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or known hazardous material spill sites within the Project site. There will be no impact.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-36 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?
No Impact. The Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately nine miles north-northwest, the Selma Municipal Airport is located approximately 3.5 miles south-southwest, and a private airstrip is located approximately 3.6 miles southeast of the Project. Construction and implementation of the Project would not be a safety hazard for people working in the area. There would be no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes the construction of a residential subdivision on a parcel northeast of the intersection of Adams Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. Construction traffic associated with the Project would be minimal and temporary, construction would take place over approximately 2.5 years.

Operational traffic will consist of vehicle trips associated with residential development. Temporary road closures, detours, or lane diversions may be necessary for connection of utilities and development of residential streets during construction. Disturbances to traffic patterns, such as a potential lane diversion will be temporary and minimal in nature, as there will be alternate routes available. Therefore, Project-related impacts to emergency evacuation routes or emergency response routes on local roadways would be considered less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The nearest wildland area, which has a moderate fire risk, according to Cal Fire9is located approximately 15 miles northeast of the Project site. Given the absence of wildlands in the vicinity, implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. There would be no impact. 9 Cal Fire. Fresno County FHSZ Map. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_fresno Accessed 17 December 2018.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis - Hydrology and Water Quality Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-37 Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 3-17. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
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 off-site;
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?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The City is located within the Kennedy Pond watershed; Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 180300090206. The San Joaquin River and the Kings River are the two principal drainages within the San Joaquin Valley, and Fowler is generally located approximately 18 miles south of the San Joaquin River and nine miles west of the Kings River.

The City lies entirely within the Kings Groundwater Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.10 Due to groundwater overdraft and contamination from agricultural chemicals, provision of reliable sources of groundwater in both quantity and quality have been a challenge throughout most of the Central Valley. 10 DWR Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ Accessed 25 June 2021.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis - Hydrology and Water Quality Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-38 Water supply is produced from six groundwater wells located throughout the City and distribution is provided by the Water Division of the City’s Public Works Department through a system in which pumps deliver water from beneath the ground to a network of watermains, pipelines and laterals which distribute water to residents and businesses. Municipal water is tested monthly to ensure quality. According to the Annual Water Quality Report (2017), the average depth to groundwater is 85 to 95 feet, and the existing wells produce drinking water of good quality that does not require treatment.

In 2014, the City entered into an agreement with Consolidated Irrigation District (CID) to fund groundwater recharge programs in order to sustain the groundwater aquifer the City is reliant upon. CID provides water from the Kings River for groundwater recharge and irrigation to over 6,000 growers within its 144,000-acre service area, which includes the vicinity surrounding the City.

The Project site is approximately 3,000 feet from the nearest 100-year floodplain (Figure 3-2).

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Surface runoff from the subdivision would be accommodated by a new retention basin maintained by the property owner on the northeast section of the subdivision, as well as an existing retention basin that abuts the northeastern section of the property. A SWPPP would be completed prior to construction of the subdivision. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. Potable water is pumped from the Kings River Basin underground aquifer through wells operated by the City. According to the Fowler Public Works Director, maximum production of all seven existing wells is 10.1 million gallons per day (mgd). In 2015, the City had 6,000 residents and pumped an average of 310 gallons per day/per person for all municipal uses, or about 2.0 mgd. That leaves 8.0 mgd remaining well capacity. As a result, adequate groundwater resources are available to meet the long term water demand of the City to the year 2035 and beyond with available underground water supplies; no surface water would need to be imported.

The proposed 74-lot subdivision would be expected to use approximately 104,780 gallons of water per day under normal operation, including domestic and landscape irrigation. This equates to approximately 117.37 acre feet per year. Although the Project would utilize groundwater for domestic purposes, the amount of water use is not considered significant and would not significantly lower the groundwater table of the aquifer or interfere substantially with the recharge of the underground aquifer.

The City plans on providing additional well capacity as needed so that there is never an insufficiency of water supply in any given area of the City with respect to meeting maximum day demands or fire flow. The proposed project would pay its fair share of installation of improvements and pay all development fees related to water service. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project 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:
c-i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Chapter 3 Impact Analysis - Hydrology and Water Quality Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-39 c-ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; c-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 c-iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
c-i-iv) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in some soil erosion and the loss of topsoil due to Project related construction activities. The drainage pattern of the new subdivision would be altered to flow to the proposed and existing stormwater basins at the northeast of the Project site. The construction of a new stormwater basin within the subdivision would provide for increased runoff capacity for the site and surrounding areas. Through the completion of a SWPPP and the implementation of the applicable best management practices, any potential impacts from the altering of drainage patterns would be limited to less than significant.
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no streams or rivers onsite or in the immediate vicinity of the Project.

The proposed stormwater basin has been designed to adequately attenuate peak stormwater runoff discharge, and a site-specific grading plan has been prepared indicating that no drainage shall be onto adjacent properties.

In order to minimize erosion and run-off during construction activities, a SWPPP would be implemented, and the contractor would comply with all Cal/OSHA regulations regarding regular maintenance and inspection of equipment, spill prevention, and spill remediation in order to reduce the potential for incidental release of pollutants or hazardous substances onsite. There is no potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Any impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project would be within the boundary of the Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency and would follow the policies of the Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Therefore, Impacts would be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-40 Figure 3-2 FEMA Flood Map
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-41 Land Use and Planning
Table 3-18. Land Use and Planning Impacts
Land Use and Planning Impacts
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?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in the County of Fresno within the City’s sphere of influence. The City of Fowler 2025 General Plan Update land use diagram designates the Project site as Low Density Residential. The Project is identified within the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District. Lands adjacent to the site are newly developed Single Family Residential to the east and north, undeveloped agriculture land that is planned and zoned as Low Density Residential to the north, an under-construction Low Density Residential subdivision to the south, and agricultural land developed with one single family residence that is planned and zoned as Medium Density Residential to the west. General Plan land use designations and Zone Districts of the Project site and surrounding areas are illustrated in Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project involves the development of residential homes adjacent to an existing residential subdivision in northeast Fowler. The Project area is classified by the City’s General Plan as Low Density Residential and the County of Fresno’s Zoning Ordinance as AE-20. The Project will also require annexation to the City and a rezone to the R-1-10 Zone District. The Project will create an extension of existing residential housing in a manner that would encourage unification and expansion of an established community. The site of the proposed subdivision is currently an agricultural field between existing residential housing. Development of the site into residential housing would reduce commuter obstacles by creating an extension of roads and sidewalks. Implementation of the Project would provide additional housing and an expansion of services, including pedestrian access to the nearby public schools. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Project proposes to construct 74 single family low density residential units within the approximately 29-acre Project area. As illustrated in Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6, the City of Fowler 2025 General Plan Update land use diagram designates the Project site as Low Density Residential, and the County of Fresno Zoning Ordinance designates the Project site as AE-20. The Project proposes to annex the site into the City and rezone the site into the R-1-10 (Single Family Low Density Residential) Zone District. According to the City of Fowler 2025 General Plan Update, the proposed Zone District of R-1-10 is compatible with the Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Land Use and Planning
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-42 existing land use designation of Low Density Residential. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. There would be no impact.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Mineral Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-43 Mineral Resources
Table 3-16. Mineral Resources Impacts
Mineral Resources Impacts
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 land use plan?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in the City within central Fresno County, in the southern section of California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, or Central Valley. Historically, Fresno County has been a leading producer of a variety of minerals including aggregate, fossil fuels, metals, and other materials used in construction and/or industrial processes. Currently, aggregate and petroleum are the County’s most significant mineral resources.

The Coalinga area, in western Fresno County, has been a valuable region for mineral resources as a top producer of commercial asbestos and home to extensive oil recovery operations.11 The City is located within the Fresno production-consumption (PC) region, which includes parts of Madera and Fresno Counties. The California Geological Survey (CGS), previously known as California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), has analyzed this region for the presence of aggregate resources in a 1988 mineral land classification report12 and a subsequent 1999 update. 13 In each of these reports
CGS has classified the Fresno PC region according to the presence or absence of significant aggregate deposits.

The land classification is presented in the form of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). MRZ-1 represents areas where information indicates that there are no significant aggregate deposits. MRZ-2 represents areas where adequate information indicates that significant aggregate deposits ae present or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. MRZ-3 represents areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. In both CGS reports, the Fowler area is classified as MRZ-3.

All areas known to contain significant aggregate deposits within the Fresno PC region are located along the Kings River floodplain and along the San Joaquin River.

There are no known current or historic mineral resource extraction or recovery operations in the Project vicinity nor are there any known significant mineral resources onsite. 11 Fresno County General Plan. Background Report. https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=8398 Accessed 18 December 2018. 12 Special Report 158. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production-Consumption Region. 1988. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc Accessed 18 December 2018. 13 Open File Report 99-02. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Fresno Production-Consumption Region, California. 1999. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc Accessed 18 December 2018.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Mineral Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-44 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. According to the CGS’s Aggregate Sustainability Map,14 the Project is not within the vicinity of a site being used for aggregate production. The nearest aggregate production site is the Carmelita Mine located within the Kings River floodplain, approximately 13 miles northeast of the Project. In addition, California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has no record of active or inactive oil or gas wells or petroleum resources on the Project site or in the vicinity. 15 The Project lies within a large region that has
been classified by CGS as MRZ-3, representing an area containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. However, there are no known current or historic mineral resource extraction or recovery operations in the Project vicinity nor are there any known significant mineral resources onsite. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource since no known mineral resources occur in this area. Furthermore, the Project area has not been designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by a general plan, specific plan, or land use plan.

There would be no impact.
14 Map Sheet 52. CGS. Aggregate Sustainability
Map.https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/MS_52_California_Aggregates_Map_201807.pdf Accessed 28 January 2019. 15 DOGGR Map of Oil and Gas Wells.https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-119.67834/36.62998/14 Accessed 1 July 2021.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Noise
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-45 Noise
Table 3-19. Noise Impacts
Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:

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 a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
Typical noise sources in the Project’s vicinity include vehicular traffic, agricultural equipment, school bells and announcement systems, and intermittent railway traffic. The Project is located northeast of the Adams Avenue and Armstrong Avenue intersection. Both of these streets are classified as Collector Streets, but Adams Avenue is also a truck route designated for heavy commercial and industrial traffic. The Project lies approximately one mile east of State Route 99 and approximately 0.75 miles east of the Union Pacific train tracks, which would produce moderate noise from railway traffic intermittently throughout each day. The City of Fowler Police Station and Fire Department are both located within 0.5 mile of the Project site. Both of these facilities would be expected to produce intermittent noises from sirens during emergency call response. There is a public school near the Project to the west. Schools would be expected to produce intermittent noise from notification bells, alarms, announcement systems, and increased vehicular traffic, including school bus transportation systems.

City of Fowler 2025 General Plan Update: The Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of The City of Fowler 2025 General Plan Update contains the following goals and policies that relate to noise and which have potential relevance to the Project’s CEQA review:
• Roof-mounted and detached mechanical equipment shall be acoustically baffled to prevent equipment noise from exceeding 55 dBA measured at the nearest residential property line. • Adopt zoning ordinance amendments providing for such measures as increased yard spaces, masonry wall development, dust and noise control, and other performance standards for light or heavy industrial uses deemed hazardous or detrimental to public safety or adjacent land uses, especially those businesses processed as conditional uses.
• Provide designated routes and loading standards that reduce the noise and safety concerns associated with truck traffic.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Noise
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-46 • Require that the automobile and truck access of commercial and industrial land uses abutting residential parcels be located at the maximum practical distance from the nearest residential parcels to minimize noise impacts.
• Protect City residents from transportation generated noise. Increased setbacks, walls, landscaped berms, other sound-absorbing barriers, or a combination thereof shall be provided along major roadways where appropriate in order to protect adjacent noise-sensitive land uses from trafficgenerated noise impacts. Additionally, noise generators, such as commercial or industrial activities shall use these techniques to mitigate exterior noise levels.

City of Fowler General Plan (1976): The City of Fowler General Plan (1976) contains the following policies for the control of noise within the Environmental Resources Management Element:
• Adopt and enforce a noise ordinance which defines maximum allowable noise levels within residential, commercial and industrial areas and provides adequate means of enforcing these levels. • In order to maintain an acceptable noise environment, the following maximum acceptable noise levels will be used as guidelines for various land use classifications:

Exterior Interior
Urban Residential and Noise
Sensitive Receptors
60 dBA 45 dBA
Urban Commercial ----------- -----------
Urban Industrial ----------- -----------
• Within noise impact zones (areas subject to an Ldn greater than 60 dBA) the city will evaluate the noise impact on development proposals. Mitigating measures, including but not limited to the following, may be required:
o Setbacks, berms, and barriers
o Acoustical design of structures
o Location of structures on the property
• The design of all proposed development shall incorporate elements necessary to minimize adverse noise impacts on surrounding land uses and mitigate impacts existing noise levels might have upon proposed development.

City of Fowler Noise Ordinance: In addition to General Plan requirements, the City has established a Noise Ordinance in its municipal code. Noise ordinances establish limits for which penalties or enforcement action may be taken. Therefore, a noise ordinance generally must not be exceeded; whereas, General Plan limits are to be taken into consideration during the development of a project and may or may not be strictly applied, depending on the particular circumstances of the project. In preparing the noise element, a city or county must identify local noise sources and analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for various sources, including highways and freeways; passenger and freight railroad operations; ground rapid transit systems; commercial, general, and military aviation and airport operations; and other ground stationary noise sources.

The Project is subject to the City of Fowler Noise Ordinance, which is covered in Chapter 21, Article 6 of the municipal code. It prohibits continued loud noise or noise which disturbs others by placing time constraints on noise producing activities and volume limits on noise amplification devices. Specifically, construction and operation of machinery is prohibited within the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Furthermore, noise level standards by receiving land use category have been established by the City of Fowler Municipal Code, as illustrated in Table 3-20, below.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Noise
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-47 Table 3-20. Noise Level Standards
Receiving Land
Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
Residential
10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 50
7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 60
Public Uses *
10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 55
7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 60
Commercial
10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 60
7:00 a.m.—10:00 p.m. 65
Industrial Any time 70
* Public uses include schools, libraries, hospitals, churches, and parks.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project involves the development of a residential subdivision in northeast Fowler. The site is located in area that acts as a transition between urban development and rural agriculture in Fowler. The City of Fowler General Plan and the City of Fowler municipal code establishes a range of 50 dBA to 60 dBA as the normally acceptable exterior noise criteria for urban residential and noise sensitive receptors or public uses.

Activities associated with construction could result in temporary elevated noise levels, with maximum construction noise levels ranging between 74 dBA to 89 dBA at 50 feet distance. The construction noise is anticipated to be within acceptable standards. Typical construction equipment would include backhoes, tractors, air compressors, scrapers, pavers, concrete mixers, and numerous other miscellaneous tools and equipment.

Construction of the Project would result in temporary increased noise levels in the immediate vicinity.

As illustrated in Table 3-21 below, typical construction noise levels could range between 74 to 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source, according to the EPA and the FTA. 16 Implementation of feasible noise
control measures, such as the installation of mufflers or engine casing, would result in noise reduction of 5-10 dBA per source.
16 FTA Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm Accessed 28 January 2019.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Noise
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-48 Table 3-21. Typical Construction Noise Levels*
*Source: FTA Construction Equipment Noise
Emission Levels.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm Accessed 28 January 2019.

The majority of residents in newly urbanized areas recognize the reality of occasional construction activities and expect to hear construction noise on a temporary basis. Furthermore, the community of Fowler is surrounded by agriculture and most residents in rural areas understand and expect equipment-generated noise on occasion. Project construction activities would be required to operate within the regulations included in the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan. All construction activities would be limited to daytime hours and would be temporary in nature. Therefore, construction-related noise impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Typical noise sources in the Project’s vicinity include vehicular traffic, agricultural equipment, school bells and announcement systems, intermittent railway traffic, and intermittent police and fire emergency response sirens.

The Project is located approximately one mile east of State Route 99 and approximately 0.75 miles east of the Union Pacific train tracks. There are no stationary sources of excessive noise in the Project’s vicinity.

Implementation of the Project, which includes development of a residential subdivision, would be consistent with surrounding uses and would not expose the inhabitants to excessive noise levels. Therefore, all impacts related to noise levels would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. During grading and site preparation there is potential for construction equipment to generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels that could affect property owners adjacent to the Project site. There are 19 single-family units located along Aretha Avenue and Jonna Avenue which share a rear property line with the proposed development. People residing in these homes could potentially be impacted by groundborne noise or vibration during construction activities. However, construction activities will be short-term, temporary in nature, and limited to daytime hours. Furthermore, the Project site is currently in agricultural production which typically involves ground-disturbing activities on a regular basis, such as trenching for irrigation or discing of soil. Therefore, construction activities, such as intermittent grading and excavating, would not be considered a substantial variance from routine existing conditions. Habitation of the residential units will not result in the production of long-term groundborne noise or vibration levels, and the inhabitants of the proposed subdivision would not be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels since there are no known stationary sources in the vicinity. Any impacts would be less than significant.

Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 feet from
Source
Roller 74
Concrete Vibrator, Pump,
Saw 76
Backhoe 80
Generator, Air Compressor 81
Compactor, concrete pump 82
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer, Grader, Loader,
Concrete Mixer, Impact
Wrench, Pneumatic Tool
85 Truck, Jack Hammer 88
Paver, Scraper 89
Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Noise
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-49 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public use airport. There are no private airstrips in the Project vicinity. There would be no impact.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Population and Housing
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-50 Population and Housing
Table 3-22. Population and Housing Impacts
Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The City has grown at a slower rate than surrounding cities over the past decade and is expected to maintain a 2-3% growth rate over the planning period. This would be consistent with overall Fresno County growth.

Policies in the Land Use Element are intended to monitor population growth rates and allow the community to adjust the approach to growth based on the availability of services and other quality of life issues. At a 2% growth rate, the population of the City would increase from 4,100 in 2004 to approximately 6,100 in 2025. At 3%, the population would increase to 7,200, or an average annual increase of 180 residents per year.” 17 According to 2010 U.S. Census data, the City’s population was 5,570 with an estimated percent change from 2010 to 2019 of 20.1%. As of 2015-2019, there was an average of 2,075 households with an average 3.12 persons per house. 18
Impact Assessment
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would result in the introduction of 74 lot singlefamily residential subdivision on approximately 29 acres of undeveloped land historically used for agriculture.

The Project will build new local streets which will connect to existing collector streets, build new homes, and connect to the City’s public utility infrastructure. The residential density that will be introduced to northeastern Fowler will be 74 units. The Project is consistent with the City of Fowler 2025 General Plan Update and the City of Fowler Municipal Code. The Project site is zoned for low-density residential use in anticipation of a subdivision, resulting in an expansion of existing urban neighborhood. Therefore, the Project will have less than significant impact.
17 City of Fowler 2025 General Plan Update. http://www.fowlercity.org/city_departments/general_plan/Fowler_General_Plan.pdf Accessed 25 June 2018.
18 U.S. Census Data. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fowlercitycalifornia/PST045217 Accessed 23 June 2020.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Population and Housing
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-51 b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located on approximately 29 acres of land historically used for agriculture. There are two existing homes on the property. Although the Project would remove these homes, the displacement of two households would not result in the need for construction of replacement housing elsewhere, as the Project proposes to build dwelling units on-site. Furthermore, two households does not result in a substantial number of persons or housing. There will be a less than significant impact.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Public Services
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-52 Public Services
Table 3-23. Public Services Impacts
Public Services Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
Fire Protection: The Fowler Fire Department, located 0.9 miles southeast of the Project, is comprised of community volunteers that provide fire suppression and prevention, emergency and non-emergency medical services. The local Fire Department receives assistance from the California Department of Forestry and Fresno County Fire Protection District, which operates Station #82 located 4.8 miles northeast of the Project site.

Police Protection: The Fowler Police Department, located 0.8 miles southwest of the Project site, provides 24- hour policing services within the city limits.

Schools: The Fowler Unified School District (FUSD) includes three elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and Fowler Academy Continuation School, which is comprised of grades 7 through 12.

Marshall Elementary School and Casa Blanca Continuation High School are directly adjacent to the Project site. Fremont Elementary School, Sutter Middle School, and Fowler High School are all located within one mile of the Project site.

According to the California Department of Education’s Enrollment Report, total enrollment for Fowler Unified School District in 2020-21 was 2,582 students, a slight decrease from 2,589 in 2019-2020. 19 Parks: The City has four designated City Parks, three of them within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project. Panzak Park, the most visually appealing park with mature vegetation and trees, covers an area of 19California Department of Education Enrollment Reports. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/page2.asp?level=District&subject=Enrollment&submit1=Submit Accessed 23 June 2021.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Public Services
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-53 approximately 2.5 acres, located 0.5 mile southwest of the Project site. Panzak Park is an area of open space used for recreation, surrounded by medium- and high-density residential dwellings. Amenities include a covered picnic area, large shade trees, playground equipment, and tennis courts. Covered portions of the park are available for a nominal fee to rent for gatherings, while the remainder of the park is open to all on a first-come first-serve basis.

Donny Wright Park, the newest and largest park in the City, is located at 630 West Fresno Street in an area surrounded by low- to medium- density residential housing. The park covers an area of approximately 6 acres and includes an expanse of irrigated lawn and trails for recreation. Donny Wright Park is located across State Route 99, about 1.6 miles southwest of the Project site.

Margaret Cowings Park is an approximate 0.05-acre pocket park comprised of irrigated lawn and shade trees on the corner of Merced Street and Sixth Street in downtown Fowler amidst the Community Commercial District. Also considered a City Park, the Fowler Veteran’s Monument, covers an area of approximately 0.10 acres and includes benches on paved surfaces, a scenic fountain, several flag poles, ornamental hedges, and rose gardens. The Fowler Veteran’s Monument is located approximately 0.4 mile southwest of the Project site at the intersection of Merced Street and First Street in an area zoned for medium-density residential housing. There are no State or regional parks within the planning area.

Senior Center: The City operates the Edwin Blayney Senior Center, which offers a meeting place and specialized recreation opportunities for senior citizens. The Edwin Blayney Senior Center is located at 108 North Third Street, approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the Project site.

Library: The Fowler branch of the Fresno County Public Library is located 1.1 mile southwest of the Project site.

Impact Assessment
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:

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in physical changes that would require new or physically altered governmental facilities or create a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities.

The Project would have a less than significant impact on service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for Public Services as described below:

Fire Protection: The Project is within the service area of the Fowler Fire Department, which is composed of community volunteers. The local Fire Department receives assistance from the California Department of Forestry and Fresno County Fire Protection District, which operates Station #82 located 4.8 miles northeast of the Project site. The City recently constructed a new Fire Department headquarters, on Main Street between 5th and 6th Streets. The existing volunteer Fire Department has proven to be adequate for the City in the past and the Project, which proposes 74 new single-family residential homes, would not add appreciably to the burden of the volunteer operation. Although the Project proposes new local streets within the residential subdivision, construction will comply with all emergency access laws determined by federal, State, and local regulations, including the City of Fowler General Plan. The proposed street layouts within the subdivision and all right-of-way improvements along major street frontages will be constructed to provide adequate emergency access without diminishing response times. Impact would be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Public Services
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-54 Police Protection: The City of Fowler Police Department provides police protection services to the Project area.

The Project will not result in a need for new or physically altered facilities related to police protection. The potential population increase created by 74 new single-family residences is not considered significant when compared to the City’s population, and it should not require a new or modified facilities to service the Project site. The fire station is located approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the project area. The estimated response time will be similar to adjacent residential subdivisions. Although the Project proposes new local streets within the residential subdivision, construction will comply with all emergency access laws determined by federal, State, and local regulations, including the City of Fowler General Plan. The proposed street layouts within the subdivision and all right-of-way improvements along major street frontages will be constructed to provide adequate emergency access without diminishing response times. Impact would be less than significant.

Schools: The Project site is within the Fowler Unified School District (FUSD). The school child generation factor within Fowler Unified schools has ranged between 0.5 and 0.6 students per household, indicating that there is sufficient capacity for an additional 580-700 homes residential units within the district. Therefore the Project which would generate 37 to 44 students. The Project would pay applicable school impact fees in effect at the time of building permits. Impact would be less than significant.

Parks: The Project will pay park impact development fees in effect at the time of the building permits to offset potential impacts to park and recreation facilities. Impact would be less than significant.

Other Public Facilities: No impacts are anticipated to other public facilities.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Recreation
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-55 Recreation
Table 3-24. Recreation Impacts
Recreation Impacts
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
There are currently four City Parks in Fowler, all of which are administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Panzak Park covers an area of approximately 2.5 acres and includes a covered picnic area, large shade trees, playground equipment, and tennis courts. The recently developed Donny Wright Park covers an area of approximately six acres and includes an expanse of irrigated lawn and trails for recreation. Margaret Cowings Park is an approximate 0.05-acre pocket park comprised of irrigated lawn and shade trees on the corner of Merced Street and Sixth Street in downtown Fowler. Also considered a City Park, the Fowler Veteran’s Monument covers an area of approximately 0.10 acres and includes benches on paved surfaces, a scenic fountain, several flag poles, ornamental hedges, and rose gardens. There are no State or regional parks within the planning area.

In addition to the four City Parks mentioned above, the City also operates the Edwin Blayney Senior Center, which offers a meeting place and specialized recreation opportunities for senior citizens.

Impact Assessment
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? Less than Significant Impact. The potential population growth associated with the Project’s proposed 74 new single-family residential homes is not considered significant when compared to the City’s population, and it should not increase the demand for recreational facilities, nor would it impose a strain on the existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, the Project will pay park impact development fees in effect at the time of the building permits to off-set potential impacts to park and recreation facilities. Therefore, impact will be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Although the Project would provide park space, the Project does not include recreational facilities. As stated above in Impact Assessment XV-a, the potential population growth associated with the Project’s proposed 74 new single-family residential homes is not considered significant when compared Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Recreation
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-56 to the City’s population, and construction or expansion of nearby recreational facilities is not necessary. Impact will be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Transportation
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-57 Transportation
Table 3-25. Transportation Impacts
Transportation Impacts
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) 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?
Environmental Settings and Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in the northeast area of the City of Fowler within Fresno County. The City is bisected by State Route 99, Golden State Boulevard, and an active railroad used for freight trains. All three of these major transportation routes run northwest-southeast, parallel with each other.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be completed in one phase and would result in the construction of 74 single family residences, internal access roads, landscaped grounds, and off-site improvements subject to City standards. Vehicular access to the site would from Armstrong Avenue. All internal streets and related improvements will comply with City standards.

The Project does not conflict with any circulation plan. The site will maintain vehicular access to one street, which connects to the larger city-wide circulation system. Any impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The City has not yet adopted an applicable threshold of significance for vehicle miles traveled. As discussed in XVII-a), the Project does not conflict with any circulation plan. The site will maintain vehicular access to one street, which connects to the larger city-wide circulation system. Any impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project will introduce six new local streets which will connect onto the City’s existing collector street system at Armstrong Avenue on the west border of the subdivision. The Project will Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Transportation
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-58 introduce additional local streets consistent with the City’s Circulation Element. All roads will be built according to City of Fowler Street Design Standards. All rights-of-way proposed within the subdivision will be designed and constructed to meet City of Fowler Standard Specifications. The Project would not increase hazards due to Project design features or through the introduction of incompatible land uses into the existing community.

There would be a less than significant impact.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The Project shall comply with all emergency access laws determined by federal, State, and local regulations. The proposed street layouts within the subdivision and all right-of-way improvements along major street frontages will be constructed to provide adequate emergency access. The Project would comply with the City of Fowler General Plan. As such, the Project will have a less than significant impact on emergency access.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Tribal Cultural Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-59 Tribal Cultural Resources
Table 3-26. Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
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 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 the
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. In applying the 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.

Environmental Settings and Baseline Conditions
The City lies within an area once inhabited by the Northern Valley Yokuts. Yokuts villages were situated near major waterways, like the Kings River, and featured structures made with woven tule reeds. As with other Native American Tribes in California, the Yokuts population was drastically reduced following the influx of Spanish explorers, missionaries, miners, ranchers, and other European immigrants to the San Joaquin Valley after 1700. During the gold rush, miners began to settle along major waterways such as the San Joaquin River and Kings River. The momentum of the gold rush could not be sustained, and miners began to pursue vocations in ranching and farming. The successful development of irrigation systems led to the agricultural boom as more tracts of land became suitable for crops.

Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013-14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Tribal Cultural Resources
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-60 Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3., on July 13, 2016, the City received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe (Yokut Tribe) officially requesting notification. No other tribes have requested notification.

Impact Assessment
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:
a-i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or a-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. In applying the 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.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. On July 13, 2016, the City received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 officially requesting notification of Projects within the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s geographic area of traditional and cultural affiliation. On June 25, 2018, the City sent to the Yokut Tribe a formal Notification of a Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, including a Project description of the TSM No. 21-0015 applications.

In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation in writing. No request for consultation was made for the Project and less than significant impacts to tribal resources are expected. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, described above in Section 3.6, have been incorporated into the Project in the event cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Utilities and Service Systems Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-61 Utilities and Service Systems
Table 3-27. Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
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?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The City’s sewer service is provided by the Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler County Sanitation District (SKF or District) and solid waste services are provided by Waste Management, Inc. The District operates wastewater treatment and disposal facilities on a 550-acre site located approximately 10 miles south of the Project site.

Solid waste within Fresno County is transferred to the American Avenue Landfill in Kerman, CA, approximately 25.1 miles northwest of the Project site. According to the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities, “it is estimated that the [American Avenue Landfill] will be able to continue operation until 2031 when it will be full and have to be closed. 20”
The City lies entirely within the Kings Groundwater Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.21 Due to groundwater overdraft and contamination from agricultural chemicals, provision of reliable sources of groundwater in both quantity and quality have been a challenge throughout most of the Central Valley.

Water supply is produced from six groundwater wells located throughout the City and distribution is provided by the Water Division of the City’s Public Works Department through a system in which pumps deliver water from beneath the ground to a network of watermains, pipelines and laterals which distribute water to residents 20 City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities. https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/facilities-infrastructure/american-avenue-landfill/ Accessed 18 July 2021.
21 DWR Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ Accessed 18 July 2021.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Utilities and Service Systems Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-62 and businesses. Municipal water is tested monthly to ensure quality. According to the Annual Water Quality Report (2017), the average depth to groundwater is 85 to 95 feet, and the existing wells produce drinking water of good quality that does not require treatment.

In 2014, the City entered into an agreement with CID to fund groundwater recharge programs in order to sustain the groundwater aquifer the City is reliant upon. CID provides water from the Kings River for groundwater recharge and irrigation to over 6,000 growers within its 144,000-acre service area, which includes the vicinity surrounding the City.

Impact Assessment
a) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project proposes construction of 74 residential homes. Upon development, the Project will connect to the City’s sanitary sewer system. According to the District Engineer, the SKF County Sanitation District Treatment Plant has a capacity of 8.0 million gallons per day (mgd) with existing flows of

4.2 mgd (52.5% of capacity). By 2025, the SKF Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects total flow at 5.71 mgd (71% of capacity). According to the 2016 Collection System Master Plan Update, the design flow coefficient is 270 gallons per day (gpd) per existing single-family residence. The Project would be expected to generate approximately 27,810 gpd of wastewater at full development. The Project can be served by the SKF County Sanitation District Treatment Plant and no new facilities will be needed.

Sewer infrastructure plans must be submitted to the District, including detailed floor and plumbing plans. All sewer system facilities must be designed and constructed in accordance with the District’s Collection System Construction Standards, the District’s Sewer System Master Plan, and other requirements as may be specified by the District.

Expansion plans for a wastewater treatment plant are generally required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board when 70% of design capacity is reached. This threshold is not expected at the SKF plant until after 2025.

The District, however, is currently updating its Master Plan to include provisions for long-term expansion of the plant and will make interim improvements (such as refurbishing aerators, basin improvements, fleet replacements, etc.) in conformance with the 10-year CIP.

The developer will be responsible for planning and installing wastewater collection and water delivery facilities as determined by the City Engineer. In addition, the developer will pay current development fees to off-set potential impacts to these facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. No new or expanded water entitlements would be required for the Project. See response a), above. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in a) above, SKF has adequate capacity to serve the Project. Impacts would be less than significant.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Utilities and Service Systems Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-63 d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. The City contracts with Waste Management, Inc., as the solid waste provider.

The City’s solid waste program includes waste disposal collection, a regular recyclables pickup program, and a green waste pickup program. Based on a generation rate for single family residential units of 12 pounds/unit/day, it is estimated that the Project will generate approximately 1,236 pounds per day of solid waste, or just less than one cubic yard per day.

After removing recyclable materials, the City’s solid waste is transferred to the Fresno County-owned and operated American Avenue Landfill located 25.1 miles northwest of Fowler near the City of Kerman. It is estimated that the landfill will be able to continue operation until 2031 when it will be full and require closure.

Subsequent to closure of the American Avenue Landfill, the Fowler area will most likely be served by a new landfill that will be developed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time.

Impacts will be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The Project shall comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste. There would be no impact.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Wildfire
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-64 Wildfire
Table 3-28. Wildfire Impacts
Wildfire Impacts
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrollable spread of 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?
Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions
The Project is located in the City of Fowler in the northeast area of the City within Fresno County. The site is in a flat urbanized area of the Central San Joaquin Valley. It is in an urbanized area and would add a new subdivision to an area that has housing in the vicinity. The Project site would be served by the Fowler Fire Department, and it is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area. Additionally, the Project is not on or near land classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. The nearest very high fire hazard severity zone is located approximately 25 miles northeast.

Impact Assessment
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? Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Wildfire
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-65 a-d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The nearest State Responsibility Area (SRA) is 14 miles to the northeast of the Project site. The nearest Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) is 20.4 miles to the northeast of the Project site22. Additionally, the site is approximately 25 miles from the nearest Very High classification of Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). Therefore, further analysis of the Projects potential impacts to wildfire are not warranted. There would be no impact.
22 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. California State Responsibility Areas. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83991 Accessed June 24, 2021.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-66 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Table 3-29. Mandatory Findings of Significance Impacts
Mandatory Findings of Significance Impacts
Does the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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) 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) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Impact Assessment
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources from the implementation of the proposed Project will be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Accordingly, the proposed Project will involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction of habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period of California history or prehistory.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-67 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)?
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. The proposed Project would include the construction a new subdivision and associated infrastructure to connect the subdivision to the City. The Project site was anticipated for urbanization with the development of the 2004 General Plan Update. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures and basic regulatory requirements incorporated into future Project design.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the Project would have a less than a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly with incorporation of mitigation measures.

Chapter 3 Impact Analysis – Determination
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 3-68 Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. _______________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date
______________________________________
Printed Name/Position
Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project in the City of Fowler. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.

Table 4-1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number.

For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.

The first column of Table 4-1 identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last two columns will be used respectively by the City to verify the method utilized to confirm or implement compliance with mitigation measures and identify the individual(s) responsible to confirm mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.

Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 4-2 Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur Frequency of Monitoring
Entity Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure Bio-1: WEAP Training
Prior to initiating construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with Project construction shall attend mandatory Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a
qualified biologist, to aid workers in identifying special status resources that may occur in the Project area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and suitable habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to
biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information, along with photographs or
illustrations of sensitive species with potential to occur onsite, shall also be prepared for distribution to all
contractors, their employees, and all other personnel
involved with construction of the Project. All employees shall sign a form documenting that they have attended
WEAP training and understand the information presented
to them.

Prior to Construction/During
Construction City of Fowler Training Sign in Sheet
Mitigation Measure Bio-2: General Pre-construction Survey A pre-construction survey for special status species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities. If sensitive biological resources are present onsite, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone and label sensitive resources or areas of avoidance with flagging, fencing, or other easily visible means. If avoidance is not feasible, CDFW and/or USFWS shall be consulted to determine the best course of action.

Prior to Construction City of Fowler Survey Report
Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Marshall Estates II
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 4-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval When Monitoring is to Occur Frequency of Monitoring
Entity Responsible
for Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1:

If, during construction, cultural resources are discovered, all work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery. A professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in
prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained by the City to determine the significance of the discovery. Upon a finding of significance, the City shall implement the required mitigation (if any) as determined by the archaeologist.

During Construction City of Fowler
Mitigation Measure CUL-2:

In the event human remains are encountered during
construction activities, all work within the vicinity of the remains would halt in accordance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the Fresno
County Coroner’s Office would be contacted.

During Construction City of Fowler
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 Appendix A-1 Appendix A
CalEEMod Output Files
TSM 21-0015
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Gross acreage used. Square footage based on lot size multiplied by minimum FAR of 0.2. Population based on Housing Element persons per household.

Grading - Assumes site is balanced.

Demolition - Assumes 4,000 square feet of buildings to be demolished.

Architectural Coating - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601 applies.

Fleet Mix - Assumes 2024 SJVAPCD Residential Fleet Mix
Woodstoves - No woodstoves per Rule 4901
Area Coating - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601
Land Use Change -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Project submit to a Dust Control Plan.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 74.00 Dwelling Unit 29.04 160,851.00 237

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Area Mitigation - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 150.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 150 50
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.02
tblFleetMix LDA 0.52 0.53
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.05 0.21
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.17
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.8290e-003 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.16 0.06
tblFleetMix MH 2.9750e-003 2.0000e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.0000e-003
tblFleetMix OBUS 7.0700e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.4960e-003 2.0000e-004
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8900e-004 4.3000e-003
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 133,200.00 160,851.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 24.03 29.04
tblLandUse Population 212.00 237.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.70 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.70 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.3054 2.9229 2.5993 4.9400e0030.4348 0.1388 0.5736 0.1914 0.1293 0.3207 0.0000 432.1601 432.1601 0.1114 2.6800e003435.7437 2023 0.2165 1.9228 2.2084 3.9500e0030.0350 0.0914 0.1264 9.4500e0030.0860 0.0955 0.0000 343.6929 343.6929 0.0725 3.6500e003346.5924 2024 0.5364 0.2925 0.4217 7.0000e0044.8100e0030.0139 0.0187 1.2900e0030.0130 0.0143 0.0000 61.4661 61.4661 0.0158 2.6000e00461.9397 Maximum 0.5364 2.9229 2.5993 4.9400e0030.4348 0.1388 0.5736 0.1914 0.1293 0.3207 0.0000 432.1601 432.1601 0.1114 3.6500e003435.7437 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.3054 2.9229 2.5993 4.9400e0030.2117 0.1388 0.3505 0.0905 0.1293 0.2197 0.0000 432.1597 432.1597 0.1114 2.6800e003435.7432 2023 0.2165 1.9228 2.2084 3.9500e0030.0350 0.0914 0.1264 9.4500e0030.0860 0.0955 0.0000 343.6926 343.6926 0.0725 3.6500e003346.5921 2024 0.5364 0.2925 0.4217 7.0000e0044.8100e0030.0139 0.0187 1.2900e0030.0130 0.0143 0.0000 61.4660 61.4660 0.0158 2.6000e00461.9396 Maximum 0.5364 2.9229 2.5993 4.9400e0030.2117 0.1388 0.3505 0.0905 0.1293 0.2197 0.0000 432.1597 432.1597 0.1114 3.6500e003435.7432 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.01 0.00 31.04 49.94 0.00 23.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 1.0960 1.0960
2 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.9612 0.9612
3 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.5886 0.5886
4 10-1-2022 12-31-2022 0.5894 0.5894
5 1-1-2023 3-31-2023 0.5294 0.5294
6 4-1-2023 6-30-2023 0.5346 0.5346
7 7-1-2023 9-30-2023 0.5405 0.5405
8 10-1-2023 12-31-2023 0.5412 0.5412
9 1-1-2024 3-31-2024 0.5378 0.5378
10 4-1-2024 6-30-2024 0.2803 0.2803
Highest 1.0960 1.0960
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.6983 0.0340 0.5610 2.1000e0045.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0030.0000 32.9549 32.9549 1.4800e0035.9000e00433.1669 Energy 9.5900e0030.0820 0.0349 5.2000e0046.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0030.0000 149.5182 149.5182 0.0107 2.8100e003150.6221 Mobile 0.2094 0.3913 2.4905 7.0000e0030.7532 5.0800e0030.7583 0.2007 4.7400e0030.2055 0.0000 666.0493 666.0493 0.0483 0.0321 676.8352 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 17.3192 0.0000 17.3192 1.0235 0.0000 42.9076 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5296 3.3981 4.9277 0.1577 3.7800e0039.9944 Total 0.9173 0.5072 3.0864 7.7300e0030.7532 0.0170 0.7702 0.2007 0.0167 0.2174 18.8488 851.9205 870.7693 1.2416 0.0393 913.5262 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.6983 0.0340 0.5610 2.1000e0045.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0030.0000 32.9549 32.9549 1.4800e0035.9000e00433.1669 Energy 9.5900e0030.0820 0.0349 5.2000e0046.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0030.0000 149.5182 149.5182 0.0107 2.8100e003150.6221 Mobile 0.2086 0.3857 2.4540 6.8600e0030.7382 4.9900e0030.7432 0.1967 4.6500e0030.2014 0.0000 653.1478 653.1478 0.0476 0.0317 663.7697 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 17.3192 0.0000 17.3192 1.0235 0.0000 42.9076 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5296 3.3981 4.9277 0.1577 3.7800e0039.9944 Total 0.9165 0.5017 3.0499 7.5900e0030.7382 0.0169 0.7551 0.1967 0.0166 0.2133 18.8488 839.0190 857.8678 1.2409 0.0388 900.4607 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 2/11/2022 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/12/2022 3/11/2022 5 20 3 Grading Grading 3/12/2022 5/13/2022 5 45
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.08 1.10 1.18 1.81 2.00 0.53 1.97 2.00 0.54 1.89 0.00 1.51 1.48 0.06 1.25 1.43 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/14/2022 1/19/2024 5 440 5 Paving Paving 1/20/2024 3/8/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/9/2024 4/26/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 325,723; Residential Outdoor: 108,574; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 30
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 135
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 18.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 27.00 8.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.9700e0030.0000 1.9700e0033.0000e0040.0000 3.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0396 0.3858 0.3089 5.8000e0040.0186 0.0186 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 50.9853 50.9853 0.0143 0.0000 51.3434 Total 0.0396 0.3858 0.3089 5.8000e0041.9700e0030.0186 0.0206 3.0000e0040.0173 0.0176 0.0000 50.9853 50.9853 0.0143 0.0000 51.3434 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.0000e0051.3800e0032.6000e0041.0000e0051.5000e0041.0000e0051.7000e0044.0000e0051.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.5316 0.5316 0.0000 8.0000e0050.5566 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.6000e0045.2000e0045.8200e0032.0000e0051.8000e0031.0000e0051.8100e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.4707 1.4707 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.4852 Total 7.9000e0041.9000e0036.0800e0033.0000e0051.9500e0032.0000e0051.9800e0035.2000e0042.0000e0055.5000e0040.0000 2.0022 2.0022 5.0000e0051.2000e0042.0418 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 8.9000e0040.0000 8.9000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0396 0.3858 0.3089 5.8000e0040.0186 0.0186 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 50.9853 50.9853 0.0143 0.0000 51.3433 Total 0.0396 0.3858 0.3089 5.8000e0048.9000e0040.0186 0.0195 1.3000e0040.0173 0.0175 0.0000 50.9853 50.9853 0.0143 0.0000 51.3433 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.0000e0051.3800e0032.6000e0041.0000e0051.5000e0041.0000e0051.7000e0044.0000e0051.0000e0056.0000e0050.0000 0.5316 0.5316 0.0000 8.0000e0050.5566 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.6000e0045.2000e0045.8200e0032.0000e0051.8000e0031.0000e0051.8100e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.4707 1.4707 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.4852 Total 7.9000e0041.9000e0036.0800e0033.0000e0051.9500e0032.0000e0051.9800e0035.2000e0042.0000e0055.5000e0040.0000 2.0022 2.0022 5.0000e0051.2000e0042.0418 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1966 0.0000 0.1966 0.1010 0.0000 0.1010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0317 0.3308 0.1970 3.8000e0040.0161 0.0161 0.0148 0.0148 0.0000 33.4394 33.4394 0.0108 0.0000 33.7098 Total 0.0317 0.3308 0.1970 3.8000e0040.1966 0.0161 0.2127 0.1010 0.0148 0.1159 0.0000 33.4394 33.4394 0.0108 0.0000 33.7098 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.1000e0044.1000e0044.6500e0031.0000e0051.4400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1765 1.1765 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.1881 Total 6.1000e0044.1000e0044.6500e0031.0000e0051.4400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1765 1.1765 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.1881 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0885 0.0000 0.0885 0.0455 0.0000 0.0455 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0317 0.3308 0.1970 3.8000e0040.0161 0.0161 0.0148 0.0148 0.0000 33.4394 33.4394 0.0108 0.0000 33.7097 Total 0.0317 0.3308 0.1970 3.8000e0040.0885 0.0161 0.1046 0.0455 0.0148 0.0603 0.0000 33.4394 33.4394 0.0108 0.0000 33.7097 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.1000e0044.1000e0044.6500e0031.0000e0051.4400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1765 1.1765 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.1881 Total 6.1000e0044.1000e0044.6500e0031.0000e0051.4400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.1765 1.1765 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.1881 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2071 0.0000 0.2071 0.0822 0.0000 0.0822 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0816 0.8740 0.6534 1.4000e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0338 0.0338 0.0000 122.7029 122.7029 0.0397 0.0000 123.6950 Total 0.0816 0.8740 0.6534 1.4000e0030.2071 0.0368 0.2439 0.0822 0.0338 0.1161 0.0000 122.7029 122.7029 0.0397 0.0000 123.6950 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5100e0031.0300e0030.0116 3.0000e0053.6000e0032.0000e0053.6200e0039.6000e0042.0000e0059.7000e0040.0000 2.9413 2.9413 1.0000e0049.0000e0052.9704 Total 1.5100e0031.0300e0030.0116 3.0000e0053.6000e0032.0000e0053.6200e0039.6000e0042.0000e0059.7000e0040.0000 2.9413 2.9413 1.0000e0049.0000e0052.9704 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0370 0.0000 0.0370 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0816 0.8740 0.6534 1.4000e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0338 0.0338 0.0000 122.7027 122.7027 0.0397 0.0000 123.6948 Total 0.0816 0.8740 0.6534 1.4000e0030.0932 0.0368 0.1300 0.0370 0.0338 0.0708 0.0000 122.7027 122.7027 0.0397 0.0000 123.6948 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5100e0031.0300e0030.0116 3.0000e0053.6000e0032.0000e0053.6200e0039.6000e0042.0000e0059.7000e0040.0000 2.9413 2.9413 1.0000e0049.0000e0052.9704 Total 1.5100e0031.0300e0030.0116 3.0000e0053.6000e0032.0000e0053.6200e0039.6000e0042.0000e0059.7000e0040.0000 2.9413 2.9413 1.0000e0049.0000e0052.9704 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1408 1.2883 1.3500 2.2200e0030.0667 0.0667 0.0628 0.0628 0.0000 191.1733 191.1733 0.0458 0.0000 192.3183 Total 0.1408 1.2883 1.3500 2.2200e0030.0667 0.0667 0.0628 0.0628 0.0000 191.1733 191.1733 0.0458 0.0000 192.3183 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.3600e0030.0356 0.0101 1.4000e0044.3800e0033.8000e0044.7600e0031.2600e0033.7000e0041.6300e0030.0000 13.1795 13.1795 1.0000e0041.9900e00313.7738 Worker 7.4900e0035.1100e0030.0576 1.6000e0040.0178 9.0000e0050.0179 4.7300e0038.0000e0054.8200e0030.0000 14.5597 14.5597 4.8000e0044.4000e00414.7033 Total 8.8500e0030.0407 0.0677 3.0000e0040.0222 4.7000e0040.0227 5.9900e0034.5000e0046.4500e0030.0000 27.7391 27.7391 5.8000e0042.4300e00328.4770 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1408 1.2883 1.3500 2.2200e0030.0667 0.0667 0.0628 0.0628 0.0000 191.1731 191.1731 0.0458 0.0000 192.3181 Total 0.1408 1.2883 1.3500 2.2200e0030.0667 0.0667 0.0628 0.0628 0.0000 191.1731 191.1731 0.0458 0.0000 192.3181 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.3600e0030.0356 0.0101 1.4000e0044.3800e0033.8000e0044.7600e0031.2600e0033.7000e0041.6300e0030.0000 13.1795 13.1795 1.0000e0041.9900e00313.7738 Worker 7.4900e0035.1100e0030.0576 1.6000e0040.0178 9.0000e0050.0179 4.7300e0038.0000e0054.8200e0030.0000 14.5597 14.5597 4.8000e0044.4000e00414.7033 Total 8.8500e0030.0407 0.0677 3.0000e0040.0222 4.7000e0040.0227 5.9900e0034.5000e0046.4500e0030.0000 27.7391 27.7391 5.8000e0042.4300e00328.4770 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383 Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3462 301.3462 0.0717 0.0000 303.1383 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1200e0030.0457 0.0137 2.1000e0046.9000e0032.9000e0047.1900e0031.9900e0032.8000e0042.2700e0030.0000 20.0019 20.0019 1.1000e0043.0100e00320.9018 Worker 0.0109 7.0400e0030.0830 2.4000e0040.0281 1.4000e0040.0282 7.4600e0031.3000e0047.5800e0030.0000 22.3448 22.3448 6.7000e0046.4000e00422.5523 Total 0.0120 0.0527 0.0967 4.5000e0040.0350 4.3000e0040.0354 9.4500e0034.1000e0049.8500e0030.0000 42.3467 42.3467 7.8000e0043.6500e00343.4541 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380 Total 0.2045 1.8700 2.1117 3.5000e0030.0910 0.0910 0.0856 0.0856 0.0000 301.3458 301.3458 0.0717 0.0000 303.1380 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1200e0030.0457 0.0137 2.1000e0046.9000e0032.9000e0047.1900e0031.9900e0032.8000e0042.2700e0030.0000 20.0019 20.0019 1.1000e0043.0100e00320.9018 Worker 0.0109 7.0400e0030.0830 2.4000e0040.0281 1.4000e0040.0282 7.4600e0031.3000e0047.5800e0030.0000 22.3448 22.3448 6.7000e0046.4000e00422.5523 Total 0.0120 0.0527 0.0967 4.5000e0040.0350 4.3000e0040.0354 9.4500e0034.1000e0049.8500e0030.0000 42.3467 42.3467 7.8000e0043.6500e00343.4541 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0110 0.1008 0.1213 2.0000e0044.6000e0034.6000e0034.3300e0034.3300e0030.0000 17.3887 17.3887 4.1100e0030.0000 17.4915 Total 0.0110 0.1008 0.1213 2.0000e0044.6000e0034.6000e0034.3300e0034.3300e0030.0000 17.3887 17.3887 4.1100e0030.0000 17.4915 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.0000e0052.6400e0037.7000e0041.0000e0054.0000e0042.0000e0054.1000e0041.1000e0042.0000e0051.3000e0040.0000 1.1343 1.1343 1.0000e0051.7000e0041.1853 Worker 5.8000e0043.6000e0044.4200e0031.0000e0051.6200e0031.0000e0051.6300e0034.3000e0041.0000e0054.4000e0040.0000 1.2566 1.2566 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2677 Total 6.4000e0043.0000e0035.1900e0032.0000e0052.0200e0033.0000e0052.0400e0035.4000e0043.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 2.3909 2.3909 4.0000e0052.0000e0042.4529 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0110 0.1008 0.1213 2.0000e0044.6000e0034.6000e0034.3300e0034.3300e0030.0000 17.3887 17.3887 4.1100e0030.0000 17.4915 Total 0.0110 0.1008 0.1213 2.0000e0044.6000e0034.6000e0034.3300e0034.3300e0030.0000 17.3887 17.3887 4.1100e0030.0000 17.4915 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.0000e0052.6400e0037.7000e0041.0000e0054.0000e0042.0000e0054.1000e0041.1000e0042.0000e0051.3000e0040.0000 1.1343 1.1343 1.0000e0051.7000e0041.1853 Worker 5.8000e0043.6000e0044.4200e0031.0000e0051.6200e0031.0000e0051.6300e0034.3000e0041.0000e0054.4000e0040.0000 1.2566 1.2566 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.2677 Total 6.4000e0043.0000e0035.1900e0032.0000e0052.0200e0033.0000e0052.0400e0035.4000e0043.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 2.3909 2.3909 4.0000e0052.0000e0042.4529 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0173 0.1667 0.2560 4.0000e0048.2000e0038.2000e0037.5400e0037.5400e0030.0000 35.0464 35.0464 0.0113 0.0000 35.3298 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0173 0.1667 0.2560 4.0000e0048.2000e0038.2000e0037.5400e0037.5400e0030.0000 35.0464 35.0464 0.0113 0.0000 35.3298 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e0044.6000e0045.7300e0032.0000e0052.1000e0031.0000e0052.1100e0035.6000e0041.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 1.6289 1.6289 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.6433 Total 7.5000e0044.6000e0045.7300e0032.0000e0052.1000e0031.0000e0052.1100e0035.6000e0041.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 1.6289 1.6289 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.6433 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0173 0.1667 0.2560 4.0000e0048.2000e0038.2000e0037.5400e0037.5400e0030.0000 35.0464 35.0464 0.0113 0.0000 35.3298 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0173 0.1667 0.2560 4.0000e0048.2000e0038.2000e0037.5400e0037.5400e0030.0000 35.0464 35.0464 0.0113 0.0000 35.3298 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e0044.6000e0045.7300e0032.0000e0052.1000e0031.0000e0052.1100e0035.6000e0041.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 1.6289 1.6289 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.6433 Total 7.5000e0044.6000e0045.7300e0032.0000e0052.1000e0031.0000e0052.1100e0035.6000e0041.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 1.6289 1.6289 5.0000e0054.0000e0051.6433 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.5032 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e0030.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Total 0.5064 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5000e0041.5000e0041.9100e0031.0000e0057.0000e0040.0000 7.0000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5430 0.5430 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.5478 Total 2.5000e0041.5000e0041.9100e0031.0000e0057.0000e0040.0000 7.0000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5430 0.5430 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.5478 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.5032 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e0030.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Total 0.5064 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e0051.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0031.0700e0030.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e0040.0000 4.4745 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5000e0041.5000e0041.9100e0031.0000e0057.0000e0040.0000 7.0000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5430 0.5430 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.5478 Total 2.5000e0041.5000e0041.9100e0031.0000e0057.0000e0040.0000 7.0000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5430 0.5430 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.5478 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2086 0.3857 2.4540 6.8600e0030.7382 4.9900e0030.7432 0.1967 4.6500e0030.2014 0.0000 653.1478 653.1478 0.0476 0.0317 663.7697 Unmitigated 0.2094 0.3913 2.4905 7.0000e0030.7532 5.0800e0030.7583 0.2007 4.7400e0030.2055 0.0000 666.0493 666.0493 0.0483 0.0321 676.8352

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 698.56 705.96 632.70 2,022,083 1,981,641 Total 698.56 705.96 632.70 2,022,083 1,981,641
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 48.40 15.90 35.70 86 11 3 Improve Pedestrian Network

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.527700 0.209000 0.167500 0.055600 0.000900 0.000900 0.008000 0.021400 0.000000 0.004300 0.002500 0.000200 0.002000

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 54.5958 54.5958 8.8300e0031.0700e00355.1356 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 54.5958 54.5958 8.8300e0031.0700e00355.1356 NaturalGas
Mitigated

9.5900e0030.0820 0.0349 5.2000e0046.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0030.0000 94.9224 94.9224 1.8200e0031.7400e00395.4865 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

9.5900e0030.0820 0.0349 5.2000e0046.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0030.0000 94.9224 94.9224 1.8200e0031.7400e00395.4865

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.77878e
+006

9.5900e0030.0820 0.0349 5.2000e0046.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0030.0000 94.9224 94.9224 1.8200e0031.7400e00395.4865 Total 9.5900e0030.0820 0.0349 5.2000e0046.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0030.0000 94.9224 94.9224 1.8200e0031.7400e00395.4865 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.77878e
+006

9.5900e0030.0820 0.0349 5.2000e0046.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0030.0000 94.9224 94.9224 1.8200e0031.7400e00395.4865 Total 9.5900e0030.0820 0.0349 5.2000e0046.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0036.6300e0030.0000 94.9224 94.9224 1.8200e0031.7400e00395.4865 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
590073 54.5958 8.8300e0031.0700e00355.1356
Total 54.5958 8.8300e0031.0700e00355.1356
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
590073 54.5958 8.8300e0031.0700e00355.1356
Total 54.5958 8.8300e0031.0700e00355.1356
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.6983 0.0340 0.5610 2.1000e0045.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0030.0000 32.9549 32.9549 1.4800e0035.9000e00433.1669 Unmitigated 0.6983 0.0340 0.5610 2.1000e0045.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0030.0000 32.9549 32.9549 1.4800e0035.9000e00433.1669

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0503 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.6282 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 3.2400e0030.0277 0.0118 1.8000e0042.2400e0032.2400e0032.2400e0032.2400e0030.0000 32.0574 32.0574 6.1000e0045.9000e00432.2479 Landscaping 0.0165 6.3300e0030.5492 3.0000e0053.0400e0033.0400e0033.0400e0033.0400e0030.0000 0.8975 0.8975 8.6000e0040.0000 0.9191 Total 0.6983 0.0340 0.5610 2.1000e0045.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0030.0000 32.9549 32.9549 1.4700e0035.9000e00433.1669 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0503 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.6282 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 3.2400e0030.0277 0.0118 1.8000e0042.2400e0032.2400e0032.2400e0032.2400e0030.0000 32.0574 32.0574 6.1000e0045.9000e00432.2479 Landscaping 0.0165 6.3300e0030.5492 3.0000e0053.0400e0033.0400e0033.0400e0033.0400e0030.0000 0.8975 0.8975 8.6000e0040.0000 0.9191 Total 0.6983 0.0340 0.5610 2.1000e0045.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0035.2800e0030.0000 32.9549 32.9549 1.4700e0035.9000e00433.1669 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 4.9277 0.1577 3.7800e0039.9944
Unmitigated 4.9277 0.1577 3.7800e0039.9944

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

4.8214 /

3.03958

4.9277 0.1577 3.7800e0039.9944
Total 4.9277 0.1577 3.7800e0039.9944
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

4.8214 /

3.03958

4.9277 0.1577 3.7800e0039.9944
Total 4.9277 0.1577 3.7800e0039.9944
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 17.3192 1.0235 0.0000 42.9076
Unmitigated 17.3192 1.0235 0.0000 42.9076
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

85.32 17.3192 1.0235 0.0000 42.9076
Total 17.3192 1.0235 0.0000 42.9076
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

85.32 17.3192 1.0235 0.0000 42.9076
Total 17.3192 1.0235 0.0000 42.9076
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 34 Date: 10/13/2021 11:41 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied TSM 21-0015
Fresno County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Gross acreage used. Square footage based on lot size multiplied by minimum FAR of 0.2. Population based on Housing Element persons per household.

Grading - Assumes site is balanced.

Demolition - Assumes 4,000 square feet of buildings to be demolished.

Architectural Coating - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601 applies.

Fleet Mix - Assumes 2024 SJVAPCD Residential Fleet Mix
Woodstoves - No woodstoves per Rule 4901
Area Coating - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601
Land Use Change -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Project submit to a Dust Control Plan.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 74.00 Dwelling Unit 29.04 160,851.00 237

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Area Mitigation - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 150.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 150 50
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.02
tblFleetMix LDA 0.52 0.53
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.05 0.21
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.17
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.8290e-003 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.16 0.06
tblFleetMix MH 2.9750e-003 2.0000e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.0000e-003
tblFleetMix OBUS 7.0700e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.4960e-003 2.0000e-004
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8900e-004 4.3000e-003
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 133,200.00 160,851.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 24.03 29.04
tblLandUse Population 212.00 237.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.70 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.70 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.7028 38.8863 29.6401 0.0636 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 6,168.152 8 6,168.152
8 1.9487 0.0322 6,218.117
8 2023 1.6783 14.7719 17.0848 0.0306 0.2760 0.7030 0.9791 0.0745 0.6615 0.7360 0.0000 2,930.707 7 2,930.707
7 0.6142 0.0307 2,955.207
9 2024 28.9540 13.8247 16.9470 0.0305 0.2760 0.6166 0.8926 0.0745 0.5800 0.6544 0.0000 2,923.055 3 2,923.055
3 0.7167 0.0299 2,947.207
9 Maximum 28.9540 38.8863 29.6401 0.0636 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 6,168.152 8 6,168.152
8 1.9487 0.0322 6,218.117
8 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.7028 38.8863 29.6401 0.0636 8.9935 1.6357 10.6068 4.5853 1.5049 6.0696 0.0000 6,168.152 8 6,168.152
8 1.9487 0.0322 6,218.117
8 2023 1.6783 14.7719 17.0848 0.0306 0.2760 0.7030 0.9791 0.0745 0.6615 0.7360 0.0000 2,930.707 7 2,930.707
7 0.6142 0.0307 2,955.207
9 2024 28.9540 13.8247 16.9470 0.0305 0.2760 0.6166 0.8926 0.0745 0.5800 0.6544 0.0000 2,923.055 3 2,923.055
3 0.7167 0.0299 2,947.207
9 Maximum 28.9540 38.8863 29.6401 0.0636 8.9935 1.6357 10.6068 4.5853 1.5049 6.0696 0.0000 6,168.152 8 6,168.152
8 1.9487 0.0322 6,218.117
8 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.11 0.00 46.42 53.99 0.00 42.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Energy 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Mobile 1.4946 2.0818 15.4772 0.0423 4.3489 0.0286 4.3774 1.1565 0.0266 1.1832 4,428.919 0 4,428.919
0 0.2913 0.1946 4,494.190
9 Total 5.5276 3.2763 22.0581 0.0498 4.3489 0.1533 4.5021 1.1565 0.1514 1.3079 0.0000 5,875.131 5 5,875.131
5 0.3294 0.2209 5,949.195
8 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Energy 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Mobile 1.4900 2.0522 15.2311 0.0414 4.2619 0.0281 4.2899 1.1334 0.0262 1.1596 4,342.909 6 4,342.909
6 0.2869 0.1916 4,407.179
7 Total 5.5230 3.2468 21.8120 0.0489 4.2619 0.1528 4.4146 1.1334 0.1509 1.2843 0.0000 5,789.122 0 5,789.122
0 0.3250 0.2179 5,862.184
6 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 2/11/2022 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/12/2022 3/11/2022 5 20 3 Grading Grading 3/12/2022 5/13/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/14/2022 1/19/2024 5 440 5 Paving Paving 1/20/2024 3/8/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/9/2024 4/26/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.08 0.90 1.12 1.65 2.00 0.33 1.94 2.00 0.32 1.81 0.00 1.46 1.46 1.33 1.35 1.46 Residential Indoor: 325,723; Residential Outdoor: 108,574; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 30
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 135
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 18.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 27.00 8.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1313 0.0000 0.1313 0.0199 0.0000 0.0199 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 0.1313 1.2427 1.3739 0.0199 1.1553 1.1751 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 2.3000e0030.0876 0.0173 3.7000e0040.0105 9.1000e0040.0114 2.8800e0038.7000e0043.7600e00339.0515 39.0515 3.1000e0046.1400e00340.8894 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0585 0.0321 0.4490 1.1600e0030.1232 6.2000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.7000e0040.0333 117.5567 117.5567 3.3900e0033.1400e003118.5765 Total 0.0608 0.1198 0.4663 1.5300e0030.1337 1.5300e0030.1353 0.0356 1.4400e0030.0370 156.6081 156.6081 3.7000e0039.2800e003159.4659 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0591 0.0000 0.0591 8.9400e0030.0000 8.9400e0030.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 0.0591 1.2427 1.3017 8.9400e0031.1553 1.1642 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 2.3000e0030.0876 0.0173 3.7000e0040.0105 9.1000e0040.0114 2.8800e0038.7000e0043.7600e00339.0515 39.0515 3.1000e0046.1400e00340.8894 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0585 0.0321 0.4490 1.1600e0030.1232 6.2000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.7000e0040.0333 117.5567 117.5567 3.3900e0033.1400e003118.5765 Total 0.0608 0.1198 0.4663 1.5300e0030.1337 1.5300e0030.1353 0.0356 1.4400e0030.0370 156.6081 156.6081 3.7000e0039.2800e003159.4659 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0701 0.0385 0.5388 1.3900e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 141.0680 141.0680 4.0600e0033.7700e003142.2918 Total 0.0701 0.0385 0.5388 1.3900e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 141.0680 141.0680 4.0600e0033.7700e003142.2918 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.8457 0.0000 8.8457 4.5461 0.0000 4.5461 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 8.8457 1.6126 10.4582 4.5461 1.4836 6.0297 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0701 0.0385 0.5388 1.3900e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 141.0680 141.0680 4.0600e0033.7700e003142.2918 Total 0.0701 0.0385 0.5388 1.3900e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 141.0680 141.0680 4.0600e0033.7700e003142.2918 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0779 0.0428 0.5986 1.5400e0030.1643 8.2000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.6000e0040.0443 156.7422 156.7422 4.5200e0034.1800e003158.1020 Total 0.0779 0.0428 0.5986 1.5400e0030.1643 8.2000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.6000e0040.0443 156.7422 156.7422 4.5200e0034.1800e003158.1020 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.1416 0.0000 4.1416 1.6442 0.0000 1.6442 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 4.1416 1.6349 5.7765 1.6442 1.5041 3.1483 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0779 0.0428 0.5986 1.5400e0030.1643 8.2000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.6000e0040.0443 156.7422 156.7422 4.5200e0034.1800e003158.1020 Total 0.0779 0.0428 0.5986 1.5400e0030.1643 8.2000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.6000e0040.0443 156.7422 156.7422 4.5200e0034.1800e003158.1020 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.4129 0.1203 1.6600e0030.0542 4.6400e0030.0589 0.0156 4.4400e0030.0201 176.0305 176.0305 1.3400e0030.0265 183.9643 Worker 0.1052 0.0578 0.8081 2.0800e0030.2218 1.1100e0030.2229 0.0588 1.0200e0030.0599 211.6020 211.6020 6.1000e0035.6500e003213.4377 Total 0.1220 0.4707 0.9285 3.7400e0030.2760 5.7500e0030.2818 0.0745 5.4600e0030.0799 387.6324 387.6324 7.4400e0030.0322 397.4019 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0168 0.4129 0.1203 1.6600e0030.0542 4.6400e0030.0589 0.0156 4.4400e0030.0201 176.0305 176.0305 1.3400e0030.0265 183.9643 Worker 0.1052 0.0578 0.8081 2.0800e0030.2218 1.1100e0030.2229 0.0588 1.0200e0030.0599 211.6020 211.6020 6.1000e0035.6500e003213.4377 Total 0.1220 0.4707 0.9285 3.7400e0030.2760 5.7500e0030.2818 0.0745 5.4600e0030.0799 387.6324 387.6324 7.4400e0030.0322 397.4019 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.9000e0030.3364 0.1038 1.6000e0030.0542 2.2500e0030.0565 0.0156 2.1500e0030.0178 169.4664 169.4664 9.3000e0040.0255 177.0874 Worker 0.0967 0.0506 0.7370 2.0100e0030.2218 1.0500e0030.2228 0.0588 9.6000e0040.0598 206.0313 206.0313 5.4500e0035.1900e003207.7144 Total 0.1056 0.3870 0.8408 3.6100e0030.2760 3.3000e0030.2793 0.0745 3.1100e0030.0776 375.4978 375.4978 6.3800e0030.0307 384.8018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.9000e0030.3364 0.1038 1.6000e0030.0542 2.2500e0030.0565 0.0156 2.1500e0030.0178 169.4664 169.4664 9.3000e0040.0255 177.0874 Worker 0.0967 0.0506 0.7370 2.0100e0030.2218 1.0500e0030.2228 0.0588 9.6000e0040.0598 206.0313 206.0313 5.4500e0035.1900e003207.7144 Total 0.1056 0.3870 0.8408 3.6100e0030.2760 3.3000e0030.2793 0.0745 3.1100e0030.0776 375.4978 375.4978 6.3800e0030.0307 384.8018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.6500e0030.3363 0.1013 1.5800e0030.0542 2.2700e0030.0565 0.0156 2.1700e0030.0178 166.5731 166.5731 8.8000e0040.0251 174.0639 Worker 0.0893 0.0447 0.6788 1.9500e0030.2218 9.9000e0040.2228 0.0588 9.1000e0040.0597 200.7833 200.7833 4.8800e0034.8000e003202.3363 Total 0.0979 0.3810 0.7802 3.5300e0030.2760 3.2600e0030.2793 0.0745 3.0800e0030.0775 367.3564 367.3564 5.7600e0030.0299 376.4002 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.6500e0030.3363 0.1013 1.5800e0030.0542 2.2700e0030.0565 0.0156 2.1700e0030.0178 166.5731 166.5731 8.8000e0040.0251 174.0639 Worker 0.0893 0.0447 0.6788 1.9500e0030.2218 9.9000e0040.2228 0.0588 9.1000e0040.0597 200.7833 200.7833 4.8800e0034.8000e003202.3363 Total 0.0979 0.3810 0.7802 3.5300e0030.2760 3.2600e0030.2793 0.0745 3.0800e0030.0775 367.3564 367.3564 5.7600e0030.0299 376.4002 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0496 0.0248 0.3771 1.0800e0030.1232 5.5000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 111.5463 111.5463 2.7100e0032.6700e003112.4091 Total 0.0496 0.0248 0.3771 1.0800e0030.1232 5.5000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 111.5463 111.5463 2.7100e0032.6700e003112.4091 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0496 0.0248 0.3771 1.0800e0030.1232 5.5000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 111.5463 111.5463 2.7100e0032.6700e003112.4091 Total 0.0496 0.0248 0.3771 1.0800e0030.1232 5.5000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 111.5463 111.5463 2.7100e0032.6700e003112.4091 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.7567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 28.9374 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0165 8.2700e0030.1257 3.6000e0040.0411 1.8000e0040.0413 0.0109 1.7000e0040.0111 37.1821 37.1821 9.0000e0048.9000e00437.4697 Total 0.0165 8.2700e0030.1257 3.6000e0040.0411 1.8000e0040.0413 0.0109 1.7000e0040.0111 37.1821 37.1821 9.0000e0048.9000e00437.4697 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.7567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 28.9374 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0165 8.2700e0030.1257 3.6000e0040.0411 1.8000e0040.0413 0.0109 1.7000e0040.0111 37.1821 37.1821 9.0000e0048.9000e00437.4697 Total 0.0165 8.2700e0030.1257 3.6000e0040.0411 1.8000e0040.0413 0.0109 1.7000e0040.0111 37.1821 37.1821 9.0000e0048.9000e00437.4697 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.4900 2.0522 15.2311 0.0414 4.2619 0.0281 4.2899 1.1334 0.0262 1.1596 4,342.909 6 4,342.909
6 0.2869 0.1916 4,407.179
7 Unmitigated 1.4946 2.0818 15.4772 0.0423 4.3489 0.0286 4.3774 1.1565 0.0266 1.1832 4,428.919 0 4,428.919
0 0.2913 0.1946 4,494.190
9 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 698.56 705.96 632.70 2,022,083 1,981,641 Total 698.56 705.96 632.70 2,022,083 1,981,641
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 48.40 15.90 35.70 86 11 3 Improve Pedestrian Network

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.527700 0.209000 0.167500 0.055600 0.000900 0.000900 0.008000 0.021400 0.000000 0.004300 0.002500 0.000200 0.002000

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
4873.37 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Total 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing

4.87337 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Total 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Unmitigated 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.2758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.4422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0790 0.6751 0.2873 4.3100e0030.0546 0.0546 0.0546 0.0546 0.0000 861.8824 861.8824 0.0165 0.0158 867.0041 Landscaping 0.1835 0.0703 6.1025 3.2000e0040.0338 0.0338 0.0338 0.0338 10.9929 10.9929 0.0106 11.2566 Total 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.2758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.4422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0790 0.6751 0.2873 4.3100e0030.0546 0.0546 0.0546 0.0546 0.0000 861.8824 861.8824 0.0165 0.0158 867.0041 Landscaping 0.1835 0.0703 6.1025 3.2000e0040.0338 0.0338 0.0338 0.0338 10.9929 10.9929 0.0106 11.2566 Total 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:43 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied TSM 21-0015
Fresno County, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Gross acreage used. Square footage based on lot size multiplied by minimum FAR of 0.2. Population based on Housing Element persons per household.

Grading - Assumes site is balanced.

Demolition - Assumes 4,000 square feet of buildings to be demolished.

Architectural Coating - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601 applies.

Fleet Mix - Assumes 2024 SJVAPCD Residential Fleet Mix
Woodstoves - No woodstoves per Rule 4901
Area Coating - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601
Land Use Change -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Project submit to a Dust Control Plan.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 74.00 Dwelling Unit 29.04 160,851.00 237

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Area Mitigation - Assumes Year 2022 SJVAPCD Rule 4601

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 150.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 150 50
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.02
tblFleetMix LDA 0.52 0.53
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.05 0.21
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.18 0.17
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.8290e-003 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.16 0.06
tblFleetMix MH 2.9750e-003 2.0000e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.0000e-003
tblFleetMix OBUS 7.0700e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.4960e-003 2.0000e-004
tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8900e-004 4.3000e-003
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 133,200.00 160,851.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 24.03 29.04
tblLandUse Population 212.00 237.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.70 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.70 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.6937 38.8937 29.5508 0.0635 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 6,150.481 1 6,150.481
1 1.9493 0.0329 6,200.600
2 2023 1.6668 14.8041 16.9818 0.0303 0.2760 0.7030 0.9791 0.0745 0.6616 0.7360 0.0000 2,907.876 6 2,907.876
6 0.6149 0.0313 2,932.587
8 2024 28.9521 13.8559 16.8552 0.0303 0.2760 0.6166 0.8926 0.0745 0.5800 0.6544 0.0000 2,900.874 1 2,900.874
1 0.7170 0.0305 2,925.222
1 Maximum 28.9521 38.8937 29.5508 0.0635 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 6,150.481 1 6,150.481
1 1.9493 0.0329 6,200.600
2 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 3.6937 38.8937 29.5508 0.0635 8.9935 1.6357 10.6068 4.5853 1.5049 6.0696 0.0000 6,150.481 1 6,150.481
1 1.9493 0.0329 6,200.600
2 2023 1.6668 14.8041 16.9818 0.0303 0.2760 0.7030 0.9791 0.0745 0.6616 0.7360 0.0000 2,907.876 6 2,907.876
6 0.6149 0.0313 2,932.587
8 2024 28.9521 13.8559 16.8552 0.0303 0.2760 0.6166 0.8926 0.0745 0.5800 0.6544 0.0000 2,900.874 1 2,900.874
1 0.7170 0.0305 2,925.222
1 Maximum 28.9521 38.8937 29.5508 0.0635 8.9935 1.6357 10.6068 4.5853 1.5049 6.0696 0.0000 6,150.481 1 6,150.481
1 1.9493 0.0329 6,200.600
2 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.11 0.00 46.42 53.99 0.00 42.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Energy 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Mobile 1.0758 2.3267 14.1798 0.0382 4.3489 0.0286 4.3774 1.1565 0.0267 1.1832 4,013.244 3 4,013.244
3 0.3109 0.2063 4,082.499
3 Total 5.1088 3.5213 20.7607 0.0457 4.3489 0.1533 4.5022 1.1565 0.1514 1.3079 0.0000 5,459.456 7 5,459.456
7 0.3490 0.2326 5,537.504
2 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Energy 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Mobile 1.0717 2.2938 13.9866 0.0375 4.2619 0.0281 4.2899 1.1334 0.0262 1.1596 3,935.624 8 3,935.624
8 0.3067 0.2032 4,003.841
1 Total 5.1047 3.4884 20.5675 0.0450 4.2619 0.1528 4.4147 1.1334 0.1509 1.2843 0.0000 5,381.837 2 5,381.837
2 0.3448 0.2295 5,458.846
0 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 2/11/2022 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/12/2022 3/11/2022 5 20 3 Grading Grading 3/12/2022 5/13/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/14/2022 1/19/2024 5 440 5 Paving Paving 1/20/2024 3/8/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/9/2024 4/26/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.08 0.93 0.93 1.62 2.00 0.34 1.94 2.00 0.32 1.81 0.00 1.42 1.42 1.21 1.35 1.42 Residential Indoor: 325,723; Residential Outdoor: 108,574; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 30
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 135
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 18.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 27.00 8.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1313 0.0000 0.1313 0.0199 0.0000 0.0199 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 0.1313 1.2427 1.3739 0.0199 1.1553 1.1751 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 2.2200e0030.0937 0.0177 3.7000e0040.0105 9.2000e0040.0114 2.8800e0038.8000e0043.7600e00339.0772 39.0772 3.0000e0046.1500e00340.9163 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0516 0.0377 0.3820 1.0300e0030.1232 6.2000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.7000e0040.0333 104.3029 104.3029 3.7900e0033.4900e003105.4383 Total 0.0539 0.1314 0.3997 1.4000e0030.1337 1.5400e0030.1353 0.0356 1.4500e0030.0370 143.3801 143.3801 4.0900e0039.6400e003146.3546 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0591 0.0000 0.0591 8.9400e0030.0000 8.9400e0030.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 0.0591 1.2427 1.3017 8.9400e0031.1553 1.1642 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 2.2200e0030.0937 0.0177 3.7000e0040.0105 9.2000e0040.0114 2.8800e0038.8000e0043.7600e00339.0772 39.0772 3.0000e0046.1500e00340.9163 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0516 0.0377 0.3820 1.0300e0030.1232 6.2000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.7000e0040.0333 104.3029 104.3029 3.7900e0033.4900e003105.4383 Total 0.0539 0.1314 0.3997 1.4000e0030.1337 1.5400e0030.1353 0.0356 1.4500e0030.0370 143.3801 143.3801 4.0900e0039.6400e003146.3546 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0620 0.0452 0.4584 1.2300e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 125.1635 125.1635 4.5400e0034.1900e003126.5259 Total 0.0620 0.0452 0.4584 1.2300e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 125.1635 125.1635 4.5400e0034.1900e003126.5259 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.8457 0.0000 8.8457 4.5461 0.0000 4.5461 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 8.8457 1.6126 10.4582 4.5461 1.4836 6.0297 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0620 0.0452 0.4584 1.2300e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 125.1635 125.1635 4.5400e0034.1900e003126.5259 Total 0.0620 0.0452 0.4584 1.2300e0030.1479 7.4000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.8000e0040.0399 125.1635 125.1635 4.5400e0034.1900e003126.5259 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0688 0.0503 0.5093 1.3700e0030.1643 8.2000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.6000e0040.0443 139.0705 139.0705 5.0500e0034.6600e003140.5844 Total 0.0688 0.0503 0.5093 1.3700e0030.1643 8.2000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.6000e0040.0443 139.0705 139.0705 5.0500e0034.6600e003140.5844 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.1416 0.0000 4.1416 1.6442 0.0000 1.6442 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 4.1416 1.6349 5.7765 1.6442 1.5041 3.1483 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0688 0.0503 0.5093 1.3700e0030.1643 8.2000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.6000e0040.0443 139.0705 139.0705 5.0500e0034.6600e003140.5844 Total 0.0688 0.0503 0.5093 1.3700e0030.1643 8.2000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.6000e0040.0443 139.0705 139.0705 5.0500e0034.6600e003140.5844 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0163 0.4405 0.1246 1.6700e0030.0542 4.6500e0030.0589 0.0156 4.4500e0030.0201 176.1861 176.1861 1.3200e0030.0266 184.1333 Worker 0.0929 0.0679 0.6875 1.8500e0030.2218 1.1100e0030.2229 0.0588 1.0200e0030.0599 187.7452 187.7452 6.8200e0036.2900e003189.7889 Total 0.1092 0.5083 0.8121 3.5200e0030.2760 5.7600e0030.2818 0.0745 5.4700e0030.0799 363.9314 363.9314 8.1400e0030.0329 373.9222 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0163 0.4405 0.1246 1.6700e0030.0542 4.6500e0030.0589 0.0156 4.4500e0030.0201 176.1861 176.1861 1.3200e0030.0266 184.1333 Worker 0.0929 0.0679 0.6875 1.8500e0030.2218 1.1100e0030.2229 0.0588 1.0200e0030.0599 187.7452 187.7452 6.8200e0036.2900e003189.7889 Total 0.1092 0.5083 0.8121 3.5200e0030.2760 5.7600e0030.2818 0.0745 5.4700e0030.0799 363.9314 363.9314 8.1400e0030.0329 373.9222 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.3400e0030.3599 0.1073 1.6100e0030.0542 2.2600e0030.0565 0.0156 2.1600e0030.0178 169.7911 169.7911 9.0000e0040.0256 177.4325 Worker 0.0857 0.0594 0.6305 1.7900e0030.2218 1.0500e0030.2228 0.0588 9.6000e0040.0598 182.8756 182.8756 6.1300e0035.7700e003184.7493 Total 0.0941 0.4192 0.7378 3.4000e0030.2760 3.3100e0030.2793 0.0745 3.1200e0030.0776 352.6667 352.6667 7.0300e0030.0313 362.1818 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.3400e0030.3599 0.1073 1.6100e0030.0542 2.2600e0030.0565 0.0156 2.1600e0030.0178 169.7911 169.7911 9.0000e0040.0256 177.4325 Worker 0.0857 0.0594 0.6305 1.7900e0030.2218 1.0500e0030.2228 0.0588 9.6000e0040.0598 182.8756 182.8756 6.1300e0035.7700e003184.7493 Total 0.0941 0.4192 0.7378 3.4000e0030.2760 3.3100e0030.2793 0.0745 3.1200e0030.0776 352.6667 352.6667 7.0300e0030.0313 362.1818 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.1000e0030.3598 0.1048 1.5800e0030.0542 2.2700e0030.0565 0.0156 2.1800e0030.0178 166.8946 166.8946 8.5000e0040.0251 174.4051 Worker 0.0794 0.0524 0.5836 1.7300e0030.2218 9.9000e0040.2228 0.0588 9.1000e0040.0597 178.2806 178.2806 5.5200e0035.3400e003180.0094 Total 0.0875 0.4121 0.6884 3.3100e0030.2760 3.2600e0030.2793 0.0745 3.0900e0030.0775 345.1752 345.1752 6.3700e0030.0305 354.4145 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.1000e0030.3598 0.1048 1.5800e0030.0542 2.2700e0030.0565 0.0156 2.1800e0030.0178 166.8946 166.8946 8.5000e0040.0251 174.4051 Worker 0.0794 0.0524 0.5836 1.7300e0030.2218 9.9000e0040.2228 0.0588 9.1000e0040.0597 178.2806 178.2806 5.5200e0035.3400e003180.0094 Total 0.0875 0.4121 0.6884 3.3100e0030.2760 3.2600e0030.2793 0.0745 3.0900e0030.0775 345.1752 345.1752 6.3700e0030.0305 354.4145 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0441 0.0291 0.3242 9.6000e0040.1232 5.5000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 99.0448 99.0448 3.0700e0032.9700e003100.0052 Total 0.0441 0.0291 0.3242 9.6000e0040.1232 5.5000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 99.0448 99.0448 3.0700e0032.9700e003100.0052 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0441 0.0291 0.3242 9.6000e0040.1232 5.5000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 99.0448 99.0448 3.0700e0032.9700e003100.0052 Total 0.0441 0.0291 0.3242 9.6000e0040.1232 5.5000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 99.0448 99.0448 3.0700e0032.9700e003100.0052 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.7567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 28.9374 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0147 9.6900e0030.1081 3.2000e0040.0411 1.8000e0040.0413 0.0109 1.7000e0040.0111 33.0149 33.0149 1.0200e0039.9000e00433.3351 Total 0.0147 9.6900e0030.1081 3.2000e0040.0411 1.8000e0040.0413 0.0109 1.7000e0040.0111 33.0149 33.0149 1.0200e0039.9000e00433.3351 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.7567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 28.9374 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0147 9.6900e0030.1081 3.2000e0040.0411 1.8000e0040.0413 0.0109 1.7000e0040.0111 33.0149 33.0149 1.0200e0039.9000e00433.3351 Total 0.0147 9.6900e0030.1081 3.2000e0040.0411 1.8000e0040.0413 0.0109 1.7000e0040.0111 33.0149 33.0149 1.0200e0039.9000e00433.3351 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.0717 2.2938 13.9866 0.0375 4.2619 0.0281 4.2899 1.1334 0.0262 1.1596 3,935.624 8 3,935.624
8 0.3067 0.2032 4,003.841
1 Unmitigated 1.0758 2.3267 14.1798 0.0382 4.3489 0.0286 4.3774 1.1565 0.0267 1.1832 4,013.244 3 4,013.244
3 0.3109 0.2063 4,082.499
3 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 698.56 705.96 632.70 2,022,083 1,981,641 Total 698.56 705.96 632.70 2,022,083 1,981,641
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 48.40 15.90 35.70 86 11 3 Improve Pedestrian Network

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.527700 0.209000 0.167500 0.055600 0.000900 0.000900 0.008000 0.021400 0.000000 0.004300 0.002500 0.000200 0.002000

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
4873.37 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Total 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing

4.87337 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Total 0.0526 0.4491 0.1911 2.8700e0030.0363 0.0363 0.0363 0.0363 573.3372 573.3372 0.0110 0.0105 576.7443 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Unmitigated 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.2758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.4422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0790 0.6751 0.2873 4.3100e0030.0546 0.0546 0.0546 0.0546 0.0000 861.8824 861.8824 0.0165 0.0158 867.0041 Landscaping 0.1835 0.0703 6.1025 3.2000e0040.0338 0.0338 0.0338 0.0338 10.9929 10.9929 0.0106 11.2566 Total 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.2758 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

3.4422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0790 0.6751 0.2873 4.3100e0030.0546 0.0546 0.0546 0.0546 0.0000 861.8824 861.8824 0.0165 0.0158 867.0041 Landscaping 0.1835 0.0703 6.1025 3.2000e0040.0338 0.0338 0.0338 0.0338 10.9929 10.9929 0.0106 11.2566 Total 3.9805 0.7455 6.3898 4.6300e0030.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0884 0.0000 872.8752 872.8752 0.0271 0.0158 878.2607 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 29 Date: 10/13/2021 11:44 AM TSM 21-0015 - Fresno County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 Appendix B-1 Appendix B
Biological Resources Information
City of Fowler
Tentative Subdivision
Map No. 21-0015 Project
Biological Resources Information
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Report – Nine Quad Element Search • A thorough search of the CNDDB for published accounts of special status plant and animal species was conducted for the Porterville 7.5-minute quadrangles that contains the Project site in its entirety, and for the eight surrounding quadrangles: Frazier Valley, Lindsay, Cairns Corner, Success Dam, Sausalito School, Ducor, Woodville, and Fountain Springs.
• Report ran on September 3, 2021.
o 20 special status animal species have been documented in the Area of Potential Effect (APE).
o With mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, potential impacts nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant. o 12 special status plant species have been documented in the Project. ▪ Mitigation is not warranted for special status plants due to ongoing disturbance and/or absence of suitable habitat.

IPaC System - Explore Locations Resources
• Report ran on September 10, 2021.
• There are no critical habitats in the Project APE.

California Natural Diversity Database Report – 9 Quad
Element Search
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
American badger
Taxidea taxus
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Antioch efferian robberfly
Efferia antiochi
IIDIP07010 None None G1G2 S1S2
black-crowned night heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
ABNGA11010 None None G5 S4
bristly sedge
Carex comosa
PMCYP032Y0 None None G5 S2 2B.1
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC
California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
PDBRA31010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
PMPOA3D020 None None G4 S3 2B.1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S3 WL
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
ARACF12100 None None G3G4 S3S4 SSC
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G3G4 S1S2
double-crested cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
ABNFD01020 None None G5 S4 WL
forked hare-leaf
Lagophylla dichotoma
PDAST5J070 None None G2 S2 1B.1
Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
AMAFD03151 Endangered Endangered G3TH SH
great egret
Ardea alba
ABNGA04040 None None G5 S4
Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
AMACC05030 None None G3G4 S4
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Malaga (3611966)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Sanger (3611965)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Selma (3611955)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Conejo (3611956)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Caruthers (3611957)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fresno South (3611967)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fresno North (3611977)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Clovis (3611976)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Round Mountain (3611975)) Report Printed on Friday, September 10, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 3 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 3/3/2022
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Hurd's metapogon robberfly
Metapogon hurdi
IIDIP08010 None None G1G2 S1S2
least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
PDPLM09130 None None G3 S3 1B.2
midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
ICBRA03150 None None G2 S2S3
molestan blister beetle
Lytta molesta
IICOL4C030 None None G2 S2
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
ARACC01020 None None G3 S3 SSC
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA None None G3 S3.1
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S2
San Joaquin pocket mouse
Perognathus inornatus
AMAFD01060 None None G2G3 S2S3
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
snowy egret
Egretta thula
ABNGA06030 None None G5 S4
spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
succulent owl's-clover
Castilleja campestris var. succulenta
PDSCR0D3Z1 Threatened Endangered G4?T2T3 S2S3 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S1S2 SSC
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T2 S3
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
Report Printed on Friday, September 10, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 3 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 3/3/2022
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 None None G2G3 S3 SSC
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
Record Count: 44
Report Printed on Friday, September 10, 2021
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 3 2021 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 3/3/2022
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IPaC System - Explore Locations Resources
9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 1/9 IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Project information
NAME
City of Fowler Marshall Estates

LOCATION
Fresno County, California

DESCRIPTION
None
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 2/9 Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 3/9 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.

Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Log in to IPaC.

2. Go to your My Projects list.

3. Click PROJECT HOME for this project.

4. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Mammals
1 2

NAME STATUS
9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 4/9 Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
Endangered
Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482
Threatened

NAME STATUS
California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891
Threatened
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 5/9 Fishes
Insects
Crustaceans
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.

Migratory birds

NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
1 2
9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 6/9 THERE ARE NO MIGRATORY BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN EXPECTED TO OCCUR AT THIS LOCATION.

Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf 9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 7/9 guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.

Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize 9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 8/9 potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.

Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted.

Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. 9/10/21, 10:25 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/KFJJ3T2DKNFAVMOGQHSTSMMDGY/resources 9/9 Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.

Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.

These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 Appendix C-1 Appendix C
Cultural Resources Information
City of Fowler
Tentative Subdivision
Map No. 21-0015 Project
Cultural Resources Information
Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, CSU Bakersfield, California Historical Resources Information System: Record Search 21-254, dated July 6, 2021. • There have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project area.
• There has been one cultural resource study conducted within a one-quarter mile radius, FR-00288.
• There are no recorded resources within the project area, and it is not known if any exist. • There are two recorded cultural resources within the one-quarter mile radius, P-10- 002864 and P-10-004423. These resources are an historic era trash scatter and an historic era park, respectively.
• There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

AB 52 Consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.3.1 • The City of Fowler has received a letter from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe.
• A Tribal Consultation Notification Request Letter was sent out by the City of Fowler via certified mail dated June 8, 2021, which included a Project Description, map of the APE and a Topo map.
• No correspondence has been received by the City of Fowler pursuant to the Tribal Consultation Notification Request Letter.

CHRIS – Record Search Results
To: Jacqueline Lancaster Record Search 21-254
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
130 N. Garden Street
Visalia, CA 93291
Date: July 6, 2021
Re: City of Fowler, Tentative Subdivision Map 21-0015
County: Fresno
Map(s): Malaga 7.5’

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the OHP are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project area. There has been one study conducted within a one-half mile radius, FR00288.

Record Search 21-254

KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS There are no recorded resources within the project area, and it is not known if any exist there. There are two recorded resources within the one-half mile radius, P-10-002864 and P-10-004423. These resources are an historic era trash scatter and an historic era park, respectively.

There are no recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand this project consists of a subdivision of approximately 29 acres to allow for the creation of 103 single-family residential lots. Further, we understand two residences that currently exist in the project area, one of which was built in 1925, will be demolished as part of the project activities. Because no cultural resource studies have taken place on this project area, it is unknown if any cultural resources are present.

Therefore, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant conduct a field survey to determine if cultural resources are present. Further, according to our records, the existing structures have never been recorded or evaluated for historical significance. We recommend a qualified, professional consultant record and evaluated the structure prior to demolition. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.

We also recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will provide you with a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist you with information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed. Finally, please consult with the lead agency on this project to determine if any other cultural resource investigation is required. If you need any additional information or have any questions or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.

By:

Celeste M. Thomson, Coordinator Date: July 6, 2021
Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

AB 52 Tribal Consultation
__________________________________________________________________________________ City of Fowler 128 S. Fifth Street, Fowler, CA 93625 (559) 834-3110 June 18, 2021
Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Leo Sisco, Chairman
C/O Cultural Department
P.O. Box 8
Lemoore, CA 93245
Subject: Consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 for Tentative Subdivision Map No. 21-0015, located on the east side of South Armstrong Avenue between East Hogan and East Adams Avenues in the City of Fowler, Fresno County, CA Dear Chairman Sisco:

The City of Fowler is the Lead Agency for the project described above. The City is requesting your review to determine if formal consultation is appropriate pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (Assembly Bill 52). The project proposes the following activities at Fresno County Assessor’s Parcel No. 340-130-14:

Subdivision of a 29.04-gross acre parcel for the purposes of creating a 103-lot singlefamily residential subdivision. An approximately 2.09-acre ponding basin and 1.54-acre park would be constructed within the subdivision.

We understand that pursuant to Public Resources Code Subdivision 21080.3.1(d) the Tribe has 30 days from receipt of this letter to request formal consultation. Please call Jarred Olsen at (559) 636-1166 Ext 535 or email at [email protected] with any questions.

Respectfully,
Dawn Marple
City Planner Enclosures: Quad Map
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • October 2021 Appendix D-1 Appendix D
Soils Report
Natural Resource Conservation Services - Custom Soil
Resource Report
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Eastern Fresno
Area, California
Marshall Estates II
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
September 28, 2021
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Eastern Fresno Area, California......................................................................13 Ex—Exeter loam......................................................................................... 13 Hc—Hanford sandy loam............................................................................14 Hst—Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep.........................................................15 References............................................................................................................17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4057930 4057990 4058050 4058110 4058170 4058230 4058290 4057930 4057990 4058050 4058110 4058170 4058230
260930 260990 261050 261110 261170 261230 261290 261350 261410 261470 260930 260990 261050 261110 261170 261230 261290 261350 261410 261470 36° 38' 24'' N
119° 40' 26'' W
36° 38' 24'' N
119° 40' 4'' W
36° 38' 12'' N
119° 40' 26'' W
36° 38' 12'' N N 119° 40' 4'' W
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 35 70 140 210
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,590 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Eastern Fresno Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 13, May 29, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 21, 2021—Feb 1, 2021
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ex Exeter loam 2.3 7.6%
Hc Hanford sandy loam 1.3 4.1%
Hst Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep 27.2 88.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 30.8 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report
11 onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Eastern Fresno Area, California
Ex—Exeter loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hl3w
Elevation: 200 to 450 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 14 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 225 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Exeter and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Exeter
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 15 inches: loam
Bt - 15 to 30 inches: loam
Bqm - 30 to 40 inches: cemented
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to duripan Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 14 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Unnamed, ponded
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Depressions on stream terraces
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Hc—Hanford sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hl5f
Elevation: 200 to 500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Hanford and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hanford
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, rise Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 16 inches: sandy loam
C - 16 to 72 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, channeled
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Channels on alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Hst—Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2yc9g
Elevation: 230 to 310 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 314 to 327 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Hesperia, deep, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hesperia, Deep
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Coarse-loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap1 - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Ap2 - 5 to 11 inches: fine sandy loam
Bt - 11 to 32 inches: fine sandy loam
Btk - 32 to 43 inches: fine sandy loam
2Bdk - 43 to 63 inches: stratified silt loam
2Cd - 63 to 79 inches: stratified silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 43 inches to densic material Drainage class: Well drained
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low (0.01 to

0.14 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 2.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, reclaimed
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, loam surface
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
18