28 Mid-Kings River Groundwater Sustainability Agency (2020). Tulare Lake Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan .
Accessed January 26 , 202 2, http://www.midkingsrivergsa.org/assets/tulare-lake-subbasin-groundwater- sustainability-plan%2c-january-2020.pdf
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 101 mentioned above, groundwater is and will continue to be the source supply in wet and dry hydrologic periods. Based on the UWMP and WSMP, the City will continue to monitor groundwater supplies as a sustainable resource in order to remain compliant with groundwater sustainability goals. In turn, future development projects are subject to compliance with the General Plan, all water quality control plans, and other hydrological requirements established by the City. Therefore, based on compliance with such plans, it can be determined that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
None Required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 102
4.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
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?
X
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
In general, the Project site is an county island that will be annexed in the near future, creating an infill site within an area of the city that is predominately characterized by commercial and residential development. The Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and south, and commercial and vacant land to the south and west. As such, the surrounding areas are largely characterized by development as well as typical infrastructure, such as roadways, streetlights, parking lot lights, and ambient light sources typical of commercial and residential development.
4.11.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact. Typically, physical division of an established community would occur if a project introduced new incompatible uses inconsistent with the planned or existing land uses or created a physical barrier that impeded access within the community. Typical examples of physical barriers include the introduction of new, int ersecting roadways, roadway closures, and construction of new major utility infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines, storm channels, etc.).
Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is an infill site within an area of the city that is predominately characte rized by commercial and residential development. The properties to the north and east are zoned and
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 103 planned for Low Density Residential and the properties to the south and west are planned for Corridor Mixed Use. The Project includes a General Plan Amendme nt that proposes a change to the site’s land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use and a Pre- Zone/Rezone that proposes the site to be zoned MX-C Corridor Mixed Use consistent with the proposed land use designation of Corrido r Mixed Use. Implementation of the Project would thereby introduce uses which would be generally consistent with the existing and planned land uses within the Project area.
Circulation System
The Project is located within the southeast portion of the city of Hanford, California, generally located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue. The portion of the Project site that is developed with existing structures is generally accessible by East Whitney Drive, Jessie Avenue, and Kruger Avenue. While no specific development project is proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development of the vacant portion that would require connections to existing roadways such as Whitney Drive, Lassen Dr ive, and Wilson Lane. These connections would not result in the introduction of new, intersecting roadways or roadway closures and would therefore not cause a physical divide.
Utility Infrastructure
Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits, it is located with the City of Hanford’s SOI and would be subject to future annexation. As a result of future annexation into city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to connect to water, sewer, stormwa ter, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. Utility systems are described and analyzed in Section 4.10 and Section 4.15. Based on the analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in the construction of new, major utility infrastructure.
Overall, the Project would not represent a significant change in the surrounding area.
Implementation of the Project would be generally consistent with the surrounding area and would not result in the physical separation of the established community. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. Generally, p olicy conflicts are environmental impacts when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to a voiding or mitigating
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 104 environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this document under specific topical sections, such as Biological Resources , Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, a discussion of certain land use plans, policies, and regulations that are applicable to the Project are included in Table 4-12. Table 4-12 provides a comparison of the Project’s characteristics with all applicable policies included in the General Plan as they relate to land use issues for the proposed Corridor Mixed Use land use designation. As discussed below, the Project is generally consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of Corridor Mixed Use.
Table 4-12 Discussion on Land Use Policies in the General Plan General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Policy L67 Design of the Corridor Mixed Use Land
Use Designation. Require that new development
projects and major site reconfigurations in the
Corridor Mixed Use land use designation provide
site layouts, buildings, landscaping, and walkways
that are designed to encourage pedestrian access
on the site and between adjacent sites. Strongly
encourage buildings to be located near the street
corridor with parking to the side of or behind
buildings.
Consistent. Project implementation would result in
new development projects. Individual projects would
be required to go through the appropriate
entitlement process through the City of Hanford. The
City would review and condition future projects for
compliance with the HMC and General Plan.
Policy L68 Location and Size of Corridor Mixed Use
Land Use Designation. Locate Corridor Mixed Use
land use designations alon g one or both sides of
portions of Arterial streets where a mix of
commercial and residential uses would benefit the
neighborhood. Specific locations shall include
portions of 10th Avenue, Lacey Boulevard, Garner
Avenue, and Hanford-Armona Road.
Consistent. The Project site is generally located east
of 10 th Avenue and north of East Lacey Boulevard ,
which are arterial streets. The site is also surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The proposed
land use designation of Corridor Mixed Use wou ld
complement the surrounding uses.
Overall, the entitlement process of future development projects that result from the Project would ensure that the Project complies with the General Plan, HMC, and any other applicable policies.
As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 105
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
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?
X
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies and designates areas within California that contain or potentially contain significant mineral resources. Lands are classified into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), which identify known or inferred significant mineral resources.
According to the California Department of Conservation, CGS’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal , the city of Hanford is not within a mineral resource study area.29 In addition, according to the General Plan, the city of Hanford is not within a Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources recognized oil field. Rather, the General Plan identifies sand and gravel for road and building construction as the only likely mineral resources in the area. Lastly, according to the Kings County General Plan, there are no oil fields or areas designated for mineral recovery in the city of Hanford.
4.12.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
29 California Department of Conservation. SMARA Mineral Land Classification. Accessed on January 26, 2022 , https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-land-classification-smara
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 106 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?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery. Therefore, the Project would not 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. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
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? No Impact. As described above, the Project site is not located in an area designated for mineral resource preservation or recovery and as a result, the Project would not 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. Further, the site is not delineated on the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, thus it would not result in the loss of availability of a loc ally important mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 107
4.13 NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
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 p roject area to
excessive noise levels?
X
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
In general, there are two (2) types of noise sources: 1) mobile source and 2) stationary sounds.
Mobile source noises are typically associated with transportation including automobiles, trains, and aircraft. Stationary sounds are sources that do not move s uch as machinery or construction sites. Two (2) noise generating activities of the Project would include construction (short -term, temporary) and operational (long-term) noise.
The Hanford General Plan Noise Element and HMC outline policies and regulations to mitigate health effects of noise in the community and prevent exposures to excessive noise levels. In particular, policies in the General Plan regarding new development include:
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 108 Policy H41 Interior Noise Exposure. Adopt State Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) concerning interior noise exposure for new single, multi-family housing, hotels and motels.
Policy H42 Noise Evaluation for New D evelopment. Evaluate proposed development proposals against existing and future noise levels from ground transportation noise sources.
Policy H43 Non-Transportation Noise. Mitigate noise created by non -transportation noise sources so as not to exceed the maximum allowable interior and exterior noise level standards.
Policy H48 Noise Mitigation for Construction Activities. Require all development projects to mitigate noise impacts associated with construction activities.
Policy H50 Sound Walls. Utilize sound walls at the perimeter of new residential developments to protect from noise generated by transportation corridors.
Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, chur ches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels.
4.13.2 Impact Assessment
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 in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? Less than Significant Impact. In general, the Project site is within an area of the city that is predominately characterized by commercial and residential development. Because the surrounding area is largely developed, there is existing ambient noise source s typical of commercial and residential uses. While no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development such as commercial and office uses. Such uses would have noise generating activities typical of the a mbient noise currently generated by surrounding uses. Thus, the Project would not introduce a new significant source of noise that is not already occurring in the Project area. Further, future projects would be subject to compliance with the General Plan p olicies and Chapter 9.10 Loud or Annoying Noises of the HMC requirements. Compliance with applicable policies and regulations would ensure that the Project would have a less than significant impact regarding noise.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 109 b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. While no development is currently proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development that would have noise generating activities. It is not anticipated that the Proje ct would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, given the type of development that would be permitted in the Project area (i.e., commercial, office). Further, a discussed under criterion a), future project-generated noise sources would be regulated by the HMC. Through compliance with the HMC, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
c. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a publ ic airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The nearest public use airport is the Hanford Municipal Airport located approximately 0.44 miles southeast of the Project site. The Hanford Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Hanford and has one (1) runway that is 2,200 feet long and 75 feet wide . The applicable airport land use plan for the Hanford Municipal Airport is the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
30F
30 adopted in 1994 and the Hanford Municipal
Airport Master Plan adopted January 19, 2010.31F
31 According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located
within the airport influence area of the Han ford Municipal Airport. Because the site is within the airport influence area, future development projects are subject to established airport compatibility policies within the ALUCP and General Plan ( including Policy T76, Policy T77 , and Policy H39 listed below) to ensure that projects would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the area.
Policy T76 New Development near Airport. Review of all new development in proximity to the Hanford Municipal Airport for compl iance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements and compatibility with Hanford Airport Master Plan standards.
Policy T77 Land Use Compatibility. Evaluate the compatibility of airport uses, activities, and operations with all new development in proximity to the Hanford Municipal Airport prior to
30 County of Kings. (1994). Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Accessed January 26, 2022, https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/3094/635274871108830000 31 City of Hanford. (2010). Accessed on January 26, 2022, https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/departments/airport/master_plan.php#revize_document_center_rz901
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 110 approval and protect sensitive uses, such as residences, schools, and hospitals from over - flight areas
Policy H39 Aircraft Noise. Evaluate proposed development proposals against the land use policies of the Kings County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan.
Further, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment that proposes a change to the site’s land use de signation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. The General Plan Amendment is requested due to incompatibility with ALUCP. According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located within Zone B1 (North) which limits the maximum residential dens ity (dwelling units/acre) to one (1) unit per 10 acres. Further, residential subdivisions and multi -family residential are identified as non -acceptable uses in this zone. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment request to change the site’s land use designati on from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use which would allow for future development of the site with uses that are compatible with uses allowed in Zone B1 (North).
Although no specific project is currently proposed , future development projec ts would be reviewed to ensure compliance with the ALUCP policies for Zone B1 as shown in Table 4-10. In particular, future projects would be required to meet development conditions including: (1) locate structures maximum distance from extended runway centerline, (2) minimum NLR of 25 dBA in residential and office buildings, and (3) dedication of avigation easement. Through compliance, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area and impacts would be less than significant.
There are no private airstrips operating within or near the project. As a result, any noise associated with private airstrips would not res ult in substantial noise levels for the project. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts from adjacent and overhead aircraft noise on noise‐sensitive land uses. Therefore, impacts associated with noise produced by public, public use, or private airports in the Project Area would be less than significant.
4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 111
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
4.14.1 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that a CEQA document discuss the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environ ment. The CEQA Guidelines provide the example of a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant that may allow for more construction within the service area. The CEQA Guidelines also note that the evaluation of growth inducement should consider the characteristics of a project that may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. Direct and Indirect Growth Inducement consists of activities that directly facilitate population growth, such as construction of new dwelling units.
4.14.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
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)?
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 112 Less than Significant Impact. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment that proposes a change to the site’s land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use.
The General Plan Amendment is requested due to incompatibili ty with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). According to the ALUCP, the Project site is located within Zone B1 (North) which restricts residential subdivisions and multi -family residential as non - acceptable uses in this zone. Ther efore, the proposed land use change would generally result i n future development of the site with uses that are compatible with uses allowed in Zone B1 (North) and the MX-C – Mixed Use Corridor zone district such as general commercial and office uses.
Further, the Project site is an infill site within an area of the city that is predominately characterized by commercial and residential development. The properties to the north and east are zoned and planned for Low Density Residential and the properties to the south and west are planned for Corridor Mixed Use. Implementation of the Project would thereby introduce uses which would be generally consistent with the existing and planned land uses within the Project area. In addition, future development that resu lts from Project implementation would not represent a significant change in the surrounding area as the site would be development with compatible uses and connected to existing roadways such as Whitney Drive, Lassen Drive, and Wilson Lane, and existing utility infrastructure. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or ho using, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The existing site is mostly vacant with some existing structures. The existing structures are generally located east of North 10 th Avenue along Kruger Avenue, Jessie Avenue, and East Whitney Drive. The existing structures are primarily residential and commercial. The vacant portion of the Project site is generally located north of Lacey Boulevard between Whitney Drive and Lassen Driv e with no existing structures . No development is proposed by the Project and therefore the Project would not result in the physical displacement of people or housing .
Therefore, the Project would have no impact.
4.14.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 113
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
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 perform ance objectives for
any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? X
ii. Police protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other public facilities? X
4.15.1 Environmental Setting
Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits within a county island, and it is located with the City of Hanford’s SOI and is expected to be annexation in the near future. As a result of future annexation into city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to fees to for the construction, acquisition, and improvements for public services:
Fire Protection Services
Fire Protection Services in the city are provided by the Hanford Fire Department (HFD). The HFD operates a total of three (3) fire stations that serve the city : Fire Station 1 located at 350 W.
Grangeville Boulevard, Fire Station 2 located at 10553 Houston Avenue, and Fire Station 3 located at 1070 S. 12 th Street. To address impacts to fire protection services, the City of Hanford has implemented the Fire Protection Development Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.45 of the HMC, which requires developers to pay the “fair share” of capital improvements related to fire protection services and facilities . A Fire Protection Development Impact Fee is assessed for
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 114 projects based on size. Further, projects are subject to review by the HFD and to regulations and standards such as the Ca lifornia Uniform Fire Code (UFC), which includes regulations on construction, maintenance and building use. The UFC addresses fire department access, fire hydrants, sprinklers, fire alarm system, etc., for new buildings.
Police Protection Services
Police Protection Services in the city are provided by the Hanford Police Department (HPD). The HPD is located at 425 North Irwin Street, which is approximately 0.63-miles east of the Project site.
According to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022/2022-2023 City of Hanford Budget, the HPD handled over 60,478 incidents in FY 2019-2020. To address impacts to police protection services, the City of Hanford has implemented the Police Protection Development Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter
15.46 of the HMC, which requires d evelopers to pay the “fair share” of capital improvements related to police protection services and facilities. A Police Protection Development Impact Fee is assessed for projects based on size.
Schools
Educational services within the Project area are primarily served by Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) and Hanford Joint Union High School District (HJUHSD). Schools within a one (1) - mile radius of the Protect site include Kennedy Jr. High School, JFK Middle School, Lee Richmond Elementary School, and Shelly Baird School . Funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq. (State statutes) which govern the amount of fees that can be levied against new developmen t. These fees are used to construct new or expanded school facilities. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” A School Impact Fee is assessed for projects based on the Developer Fee rates in place at the time payment is due.
Parks and Recreation
The nearest park to the Project site is the Lacey Park, 0.6 miles northwest. Park and Recreation Facilities are overseen by the Hanford Parks and Community Services Department. According to the 2020 Parks and Recreation M aster Plan, the City currently offers 299.70 acres of park land which equates to a total Level of Service (LOS) of 5.06 acres of park land per 1,000 residents based on the City’s 2018 population. 37F
32 The 2035 General Plan includes a LOS standard goal of 3.5 acres
32 City of Hanford. (2020) Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022, https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/2020%20Hanford%20Parks%20Master%20Plan.pdf
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 115 per 1,000 residents for future growth. Similar to other public services, the City had established the Park Facilities Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.44 of the HMC, which requires developers to pay for parks and recreational facilities improvements. The fee is assessed for all residential building permits for development.
4.15.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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:
b. Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact . The Project site is within the City of Hanford’s SOI and would be subject to future annexation. As a result of future annexation into city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be served by the HFD. The Project site would be in the service area of Fire Station 1, which is 1.2 miles from the site. Although no specific development projects are currently proposed, future development would be reviewed by the HFD for requirements related to water supply, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access to the building(s) on site. HFD’s review and approval would ensure that future d evelopment could be served by existing facilities. In addition, to further reduce potential impacts, future projects are subject to Fire Protection Department Impact Fees pursuant to the Hanford Municipal Code (HMC) requirements. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant impact. c. Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact . The Project site is within the City of Hanford’s SOI and would be subject to future annexation. As a result of future annexation into city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be served by the HPD. The nearest police station to the Project is located approximately 0.5-miles west from the site. Although no specific development projects are currently proposed, future development would be reviewed by the HPD for requirements related to police protection services. HPD’s review and approval would ensure that future development could be served by existing facilities. In addition, to further reduce potential impacts, future projects are subject to Police Protection Department Impact Fees pursuant to the HMC . As a result, the Project have a less than significant impact. i. Schools?
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 116 Less than Significant Impact. The development and managing of school sites are the responsibility of school districts and elected governing school boards. The General Plan provides policy which focuses on collaboration with school districts to determine new school locations and utilization of school facilities for general public needs. Future development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to School Impact Fees in order to mitigate the effect of the project on schools. In particular, funding for schools and school facilities impacts is outlined in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 65995 et. seq., which governs the amount of fees that can be levied against new development. Payment of fees authorized by the statute is deemed “full and complete mitigation.” As a result , the Project have a less than significant impact.
ii. Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by an increase in use from proposed residential development. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to Park Facilit ies Impact Fees . As a result , the Project would have a less than significant impact.
iii. Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development is currently proposed, future development resulting from Project implementation could increase the demand for other public services, such as libraries . However, the proposed General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use wo uld result in fewer future residential uses and thereby lessened demand for other public services. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 117
4.16 RECREATION
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?
X
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?
X
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Park and Recreation Facilities are overseen by the Hanford Parks and Community Services Department. According to the 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City currently offers 299.70 acres of park land which equates to a total Level of Service (LOS) of 5.06 acres of park land per 1,000 residents based on the City’s 2018 population. 38F 33 The 2035 General Plan includes a LOS
standard goal of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents for future growth. Similar to other public services, the City had established the Park Facilities Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 15.44 of the HMC, which requires developers to pay for parks and recreational facilities improvements. The fee is assessed for all residential building permi ts for development. Although no specific development projects are currently proposed, future development that proposes residential uses would be subject to the Park Facilities Impact Fee.
33 City of Hanford. (2020) Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2020. Accessed January 27, 2022, https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/2020%20Hanford%20Parks%20Master%20Plan.pdf
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 118
4.16.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
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?
Less than Significant Impact. Park and recreational facilities are typically impacted by a n increase in use from proposed residential development. Although no specific development projects are currently proposed, future development that proposes residential uses would be subject to the Park Facilities Impact Fee to mitigate for possible increase of use of parks or recreational facilities.
Project review and approval would ensure that future development could be served by existing recreational facilities. In addition, future projects are subject to Park Facilities Impact Fees described in Section 4.15. With mitigation incorporated, the Project’s impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact . Future residential development resulting from the Project could include the construction of recreational facilities. In such cases, development projects would be reviewed and conditioned by the City to ensure that physical effects on the environment are less than significant. In addition, future projects are subject to Park Facilities Impact Fees described in Section 4.15. With mitigation incorporated, the Project’s impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 119
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
4.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located within the southeast portion of the city of Hanford, California, generally located north of East Lacey Boulevard between North 10 th Avenue and 9 ¼ Avenue. North 10 th Avenue and Lacey Boulevard are the nearest arterial s identified by the General Plan Circulation Element. The po rtion of the Project site that is developed with existing structures is generally accessible by East Whitney Drive, Jessie Avenue, and Kruger Avenue. While no specific development project is proposed, implementation of the Project would result in future development of the vacant portion that would require connections to existing roadways such as Whitney Drive, Lassen Drive, and Wilson Lane, ultimately connecting to the arterials in the area.
Early Consultation
Early consultation was received from Caltrans on October 4, 2021, recommending that:
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 120 • Future site plans for any of the proposed development be submitted to Caltrans for review. • The project proponents(s) conduct a vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) study once development is proposed and that the preparer should refer to the Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled - Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, dated May 20, 2020. • Alternative transportation policies should be applied to the development. An assessment of multi-modal facilities shou ld be conducted to develop an integrated multi-modal transportation system to serve and help alleviate traffic congestion caused by the project and related development in this area of the City.
SB 743 and VMT Analysis
Under Senate Bill 743 (SB743), traffi c impacts are related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The VMT metric became mandatory on July 1, 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in stead of Level of Service (LOS). VMT measures how much actual automobile travel (additional miles driven) a proposed Project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive automobile travel onto roads, then the project may cause a signific ant transportation impact. Therefore, LOS measures of impacts on traffic facilities are no longer a relevant CEQA criteria for transportation impacts.
CEQA Guidelines
To implement SB 743, the CEQA Guidelines were amended by adding Section 15064.3. According to Section 15064.3, VMT measures the automobile travel generated from a proposed project (i.e., the additional miles driven). Here, ‘automobile’ refers to on-road passenger vehicles such as cars and light-duty trucks. If a proposed project adds excessive automobile travel on California roads thereby exceeding an applicable threshold of significance, then the project may cause a significant transportation impact.
Among its provisions, Section 15064.3(b) establishes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts.
Specifically, Section 15064.3(b) (1) establishes a less than significant presumption for certain land use projects that are proposed within ½ -mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high - quality transit corridor. If this presumption does not apply to a land use project, then the VMT can be qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed. The city of Hanford has not identified or designated any high quality transit corridors.
In the case that quantitative models or methods are not available to the lead agency to estimate the VMT for the project being considered, provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3) permits the lead agency to conduct a qualitative analysis. The qualitative analy sis may evaluate factors including but not limited to the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, and
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 121 construction traffic.
Lastly, Section 15064.3(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[a] lead agency has discretion to evaluate a pr oject’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to refl ect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revision to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of ad equacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”
OPR’s Technical Advisory
In April 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) (revised December 2018) to provide technical recommendations regarding VMT, thresholds of si gnificance, and mitigation measures for a variety of land use project types.
Kings County Online VMT Mapping Tool
Pursuant to OPR’s Technical Advisory, t he Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) created an online VMT mapping tool that identifies VMT per capita and VMT per employee by traffic analysis zone (TAZ). 34 KCAG’s mapping tool was created utilizing trip -based transportation models created for the eight (8) San Joaquin Valley MPOs to satisfy the requirements of SB 375.
The modeling process is described in the Documentation for the Eight San Joaquin Valley MPO Traffic Models to Meet the Requirements of SB 375 (2012) which is incorporated herein by reference. According to Appendix VIII of KCAG’s 2018 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the 2012 transportation model was revalidated for a 2015 base year and is described on Appendix VIII page 26 as:
“The KCAG model was revalidated to a 2015 base year for the 2018 RTP. The revalidation included new inventories of base year housing and employment, updates to the road network and transit coverage to reflect recent changes in the transportation system, and updated traffic counts to represent the 2015 base year. The KCAG model traffic validation
34 Kings County Association of Governments. 2022. “Kings County Online VMT Mapping Tool.” Accesse d on February 15, 2022, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=84b4b47b08ac41af88779212180ff36c .
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 122 is based on several criteria, including vehicle-miles of travel, total volume by road type, and percent of links within acceptable limits.”
Revalidation efforts utilized traffic data provided by the City of Hanford. The RTP and the City’s underlying traffic data are incorporated herein by reference. Page 26 o f Appendix VIII describes KCAG’s VMT projection process as follows:
“Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) were estimated from the travel demand model by multiplying link volumes by link distances. The model estimates intrazonal trips (trips remaining within a TAZ) but does not assign these trips to the model road network. The intrazonal trips were multiplied by the estimated intrazonal distances to calculate intrazonal VMT.” The KCAG mapping tool reflects a VMT per employee of 10.5 and 8.9 for the two TAZs in which the Project will be located, which is more than fifteen percent below the County average VMT per employee of 17.7. It can therefore be concluded that, based upon KCAG’s VMT mapping tool, the Project’s VMT impact will be less than significant because VMT associated with the Project will be below the fifteen-percent-below-existing-development threshold. Therefore, the Project may be presumed to cause a less than significant impact pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).
However, future discretionary projects could still be subject to independent VMT analysis if KCAG’s modeled VMT thresholds change or if the City adopts different VMT thresholds.
4.17.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with all project level requirements implemented by a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Although no development is currently proposed, future development projects would be required to submit im provement plans, including roadway improvements, for review and approval by the City Engineer to ensure improvements will be consistent with City standards. Therefore, through compliance with the programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the cir culation system (inclusive of transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities), a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 123 Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, Senate Bill (SB) 743 requires that relevant CEQA analysis of transportation impacts be conducted using a metric known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS).
As described previously in this initial study, for the purpose of CEQA analysis , this initial study assumes future development of general commercial development on all parcels that are currently vacant or underutilized according to the City of Hanford’s GI S data. Based on parcel size and location of the site (not adjacent to a major street), it can be assumed that the site will not be developed with regional commercial, but instead will be developed with local serving retail and employment uses. According to OPR, local serving retail can be presumed to have a less-than- significant-impact for any net increase in total VMT.
For employment related uses, the Kings County Online VMT Mapping Tool was utilized to determine average employee VMT in the project area in comparison to the County average. The Project site is located in TAZ 484 and 485. As shown in Table 4-13, the County average is 17.7 VMT per employee, while the employee VMT for TAZ 484 is 10.15 and the employee VMT for TAZ 485 is 8.91. Thus, the Project area’s employee VMT is 43% and 50% lower than the County VMT per employee average. This is much higher than the 15 percent reduction target , which is the identified significance threshold. Thus, the proposed project can be determined to have a less than significant impact as it related to VMT impacts.
Table 4-13 Percent reduction in VMT per employee
TAZ 484 TAZ 485 Kings County average
VMT per employee 10.15 8.91 17.7
Percent reduction to VMT per employee 43% 50% -
c. 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. Although no development is currently proposed, future development projects will be reviewed by the city to ensure that project design does not contain any geometric design features that would create hazards. The Project will also be subject to review by th e City Engineer to ensure that improvements are designed pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local design standards. Compliance with such standards would ensure that any traffic hazards are minimized. Further, the Project does not propose an incompa tible use as it is consistent with the existing development in the area and is similar in nature to the surrounding uses. As a result, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 124 Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not involve a change to any emergency response plan. In addition, a lthough no development is currently proposed, future development projects will be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department and Fire Department to ensure adequate site access including emergency access. In the case that future construction requires lane closures, access through existing roadways would be maintained through st andard traffic control and therefore, potential lane closures would not affect emergency evacuation plans. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
Non required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 125
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in PRC section 21074
as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined
in te rms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC section 5020.1(k), or,
X
b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of PRC section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of th e resource to a
California Native American tribe.
X
4.18.1 Environmental Setting
Generally, the term ‘cultural resources’ describes property types such as prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, buildings, bridges, roadways, and tribal cultural resources. As defined by CEQA, historical resources include sites, structures, obje cts, or districts that may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Such resources are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission. The city of Hanford has three (3) buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places: Hanford Carnegie Library, Kings County Courthouse, and Taoist Temple. Some of these types of cultural resources are readily apparent on the ground surface, s ome may be buried and therefore unknown until discovered through ground disturbances.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 126 Hanford General Plan
The General Plan identifies policies on historic and cultural resources related to new development including:
Policy O46 Archaeological Site Consult ation. Consult with appropriate Native American associations about potential archaeological sites in the beginning stages of the development review process.
Policy O47 Archaeological Site Study. Require archaeological studies by a certified archeologist in areas of archeological potential significance prior to approval of development projects.
Policy O48 Cultural Site Consultation. Consult with the California Archaeological Inventory Southern San Joaquin Valley at California State University, Bakersfield about potential cultural sites on projects that could have an impact on cultural resources.
Policy O49 Cultural Site Discovery. Halt construction at a development site if cultural resources are encountered unexpectedly during construction.
Early Consultation
A consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within Kings County was requested and received from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on October 25, 2021. Early consultation was conducted with the listed tribes on October 19, 2021 (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082). The listed tribes were:
• Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe,
• Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe,
• Table Mountain Rancheria,
• Tule River Indian Tribe, and
• Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band.
In response to the early consultation, the City received a comment letter dated October 19, 2021from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe. The Tribe re quested to have a Native American monitor on site for development of the Project.
AB 52 and SB 18 Tribal Consultation
The City of Hanford conducted the formal tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014) and SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes 2004) on December 28, 2021, utilizing the
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 127 consultation list of tribes received from the NAHC. The same five (5) tri bes listed above were included in the formal consultation. Consultation ended on January 26, 2022. A response was received from Table Mountain Rancheria which indicated the project site was beyond their area of interest. A second response was received fr om the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi -Yokut Tribe, requesting that a Native American monitor be present on-site during project construction.
California Historical Resource Information System Record Search The Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJIC) was requested by the City of Hanford to conduct a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Record Search for the Project site and surrounding “Project Area” area (0.5-mile radius from perimeter of project site ) on January 18, 2022. Full results are provided in Appendix B.
The CHRIS Record Searches generally review file information based on results of Class III pedestrian reconnaissance surveys of project sites conducted by qualified individuals or consultant firms which are required to be submitted, along with official stat e forms properly completed for each identified resource, to the Regional Archaeological Information Center. Guidelines for the format and content of all types of archaeological reports have been developed by the California Office of Historic Preservation, and reports will be reviewed by the regional information centers to determine whether they meet those requirements.
The results of the SJJIC CHRIS Record Search indicate:
(1) There have been eight (8) studies previously conducted within the 0.5-mile radius.
(2) There is one (1) recorded cultural resource within the Project site, P -16-00246, and there are eight (8) recorded resources within the 0.5 -mile radius, consisting of historic era buildings, an historic era railroad, an historic era canal, and an historic era trash scatter .
Resource P-16-00246, People’s Ditch, has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and is also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
Resources P-16-000289, Taoist Temple, and 9-16-000290, Hanford Carnegie Library, which are located within the 0.5-mile radius, are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources.
Further, the SJJIC provided the following comments and recommendations:
(1) Because a cultural resources study has not been completed on the majority of this project site, it is unknown if any cultural resources are present. Therefore, if the project will result in any ground disturbance activities, we recommend a qualifie d, professional consultant first conduct a field survey to determine if any cultural resources are present. If no ground
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 128 disturbance will occur as a result of this project, then no further cultural resource investigation is recommended at this time.
(2) Contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento for a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist 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.
4.18.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . Based on the CHRIS Record Search, there is one (1) known historical resource, People’s Ditch, on the Project site. While there is no evidence that other historical resources exist on the Project site, there is some possibility that additional hidden and buried resources may exist with no surface evidence. Hanford General Plan Policy O49 partially mitigates for cultural resources that are encoun tered unexpectedly during construction. In addition, mitigation measure MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 are incorporated herein to mitigate for potential subsurface cultural resources. Therefore, if any cultural resources were discovered, implementation of related regulations and mitigation measures would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The Project site has not been determined by the City to be a significant resource pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1 and to-date, no substantial information has been provided to the city to indicate otherwise. According to the
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 129 NAHC records, no sacred sites or tribal cultural resources are known in or near the study area.
Further, the Project site, inclusive of site features, is not listed in t he California Register of Historical Sources. However, there is some possibility that a non-visible, buried site may exist and may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities which would constitute a significant impact. Hanford General Plan Policy O49 imposes measures to mitigate when resources are uncovered during construction. In addition, mitigation measure MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 are incorporated herein to mitigate for potential subsurface cultural resources. Therefore, if any cultural resources were discovered, implementation of related regulations and mitigation measures would reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant.
4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project shall implement and incorporate, as applicable, the Cultural Resources related mitigation measures CR-1 and CR-2 as identified above and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Chapter 5.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 130
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effect?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
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?
X
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?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 131
4.19.1 Environmental Setting
Although the Project site is currently outside of city limits, it is located with the City of Hanford’s SOI and would be subject to future annexation. As a result of future annexation into city limits, future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to connect to water, sewer, stormwater, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications are provided by private companies. Each utility system is described below.
Overall, the review of future development projects by the City and responsible agencies indicates that the Project would not require or result in the major relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities and as such, would not cause significant environmental effects.
Water
The City of Hanford’s water supply system is a groundwater system. The city is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and is within the Tulare Lake Groundwater Subbasin which transmits, filters, and stores water from the main San Joaquin Va lley Groundwater Basin. The system consists of 14 groundwater wells, three (3) storage reservoirs, distribution mains, and fire hydrants. The system does not use surface water. Groundwater is recharged by rain and snowfall in addition to percolation from storm water basins, local waterways, and agricultural irrigation.
Wastewater
The City of Hanford wastewater system provides for treatment, disposal, and reuse of effluent, which meets all of the state’s discharge requirements for the city. The wastewater system consists of a treatment plant and 21 sanitary sewer lift stations located throughout the city. The treatment facility has a capacity of 8.0 million gallons per day and is located south of Houston Avenue and east of 11th Avenue. The City’s wastewater s ystem also pursues water conservation strategies to ensure long-term reuse of treated disinfected wastewater to reduce the need for groundwater.
Solid Waste
Solid waste in the city is collected by a private contractor, Kings Waste Recycling Authority (KWRA).
Refuse is sorted at the KWRA facility to recover recyclable materials before being hauled to the landfills in Kettleman Hills.
Stormwater
The existing drainage infrastructure within the City of Hanford’s Stormwater Management Program include natural drainage channels, retention basins, natural vegetation, piping, and pump stations. There are some areas where storm drainage is controlled by drainage inlets and
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 132 underground structures. The system consists of 30 pump stations, 57 miles of pipeline, and 220 acres of drainage basins and drainage ditches.
Natural Gas and Electricity
PG&E and Southern California Edison Company are the natural gas and electric service providers for the area, incrementally expands and updates its service system as needed to serve its users.
Pre-Consultation Received: Early consultation comments were received from PG&E on September 9, 2021, with information and requirements as it related to Gas facilities and Electric facilities. Such requirements shall be incorporated in Conditions of Approval for future development projects resulting from Project implementation.
Telecommunications
Accordingly, telecommunications providers in the area (AT&T and Comcast) incrementally expand and update their service systems in response to usage and demand.
4.19.2 Impact Assessment
Would the project:
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?
Less t han Significant Impact. Although no specific development is currently proposed, future development projects resulting from the Project would be required to connect to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services. Natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications provided by private companies. The City and responsible agencies will review the projects through the entitlement review process to determine adequate capacity in these systems and ensure compliance with applicable conne ction requirements. In addition, future projects would be served by the appropriate natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications providers for the Project area. As a result, t hrough compliance with the applicable connection requirements, the Project would have a less than significant impact. b. 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. As discussed in detail in Section 4.10, potable water demands for the Project were estimated using land-use-based unit water demand factors last updated for the City
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 133 in 2018. The Project site has an existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential and proposes a cha nge to Corridor Mixed Use. According to the land-use based unit water demand factors for the City of Hanford, the Medium Density Residential land use has an average daily demand of 2,900 gallons per day (gpd) per net acre, compared to 1,390 gpd/net acre for the Corridor Mixed Use land use. .
Table 4-11 summarizes the total water demands to be expected by land use, indicating that the Corridor Mixed Use land use would generate significantly less demand for water than Medium Density Residential.
Given the significant reduction in water demand from what is planned, it can be determined that the City’s existing and planned water supply will be adequate to support anticipated demands from the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, adherence to connection requirements and recommendat ions pursuant to the City’s water supply planning efforts (i.e., compliance with California Plumbing Code, efficient appliances, efficient landscaping, etc.) should not negatively impact the City’s water provision. For these reasons, a less than significan t impact would occur because of the Project.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is the city’s facility for treatment, disposal, and reuse of wastewater for residential, commercial, and industrial accounts. Although no specific development project is currently proposed, the wastewater impacts of future development projects would be evaluated by the City Engineer to ensure compliance with the City’s wastewater treatment requirements and capacity. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. Although no specific development project is currently proposed, future construction and operation would be required to comply with HMC Chapter 13.12 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, which outlines requirements and specifications for solid waste collection. In addition, the General Plan outlines goals and policies for source reduction and recycling:
Goal P5: Adequate solid waste disposal capacity to meet existing and future demands.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 134 Goal P6: Continued waste stream reduction through education, recycling and other means.
Policy P27 Recycling Programs. Participate in and encourage waste diversion and recycling programs and efforts.
Policy P28 Kings Waster Recycling Authority. Participate as a member and support the Kings Waste Recycling Authority.
Compliance with these measures a nd policies would serve to reduce impacts of solid waste by promoting regular collection and encouraging the recycling of materials. For this reason, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management an d reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. As described under criterion d) above, future development that generates solid waste would be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project.
4.19.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 135
4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
4.20.1 Environmental Setting
The Hanford Fire Department provides emergency and fire protection services within the city limits of Hanford. Emergency services provided by the Fire Department include technical rescue, hazardous materials response, emergency medical services, and emerge ncy disaster management. Station 1, located at 350 W. Grangeville Boulevard provides service north of SR 198, while Station 2 at 10553 Houston Avenue provides south of SR 198. The Project site is located north of SR 198 and therefore would be served by Station 1 upon future annexation.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 136 The Project site is located on a relatively flat property within the City’s SOI. Further, the Project site is not identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) or the City of Hanford as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); rather, the site is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) as defined by Cal Fire and is considered an area of low fire risk. 39F 35 Lastly,
the Project has been reviewed by the City and the Hanford Fire Depa rtment and future development projects resulting from Project implementation would be required to be developed and operate in compliance with all regulations of the current California Fire Code.
4.20.2 Impact Assessment
If located in or near state responsibility 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?
Less than Significant Impact . To determine adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation and emergency vehicle access, future development projects resulting from the Project would be reviewed and conditioned by the City’s Police Department and Fire Department for compliance with applicable code and regulations. Review an d approval by the City would ensure that future projects do not substantially impair the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur because of the Project. b. Due to slope, prevailing wi nds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a relatively flat area with minimal slope.
Further, the site is partially developed with residential and commercial uses and the vacant portion of the site is surrounded by a mix of urban uses. In addition, the site is not located within a wildland, which precludes the risk of wildfire. As such, the risk of downslope winds and other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks is limited. For these reasons, Project implementation would not change the degree of exposure to wildfires and the Project would have a less than significant impact.
35 Cal Fire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on January 27, 2022, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 137 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the City’s SOI in areas with existing or planned urban uses. As such, the site is generally served by existing infrastructure such as roads and utilities. As Project implementat ion results in future development, the installation and maintenance of new infrastructure would be reviewed and/or conditioned by the City for compliance with applicable standards, specifications, and code . Such infrastructure would be typical for urban us es within an urbanized area and would thereby not exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
d. Expose people or structures to significa nt risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. The Project site is located on a relatively flat property with minimal slope and is not subject to downs lope, downstream flooding, or landslides. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks and no impact would occur as a result of the Project.
4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
None required.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 138
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the
potential to 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, 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?
X
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 pro bable future
projects)?
X
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
4.21.1 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
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 139 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 an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the Project would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the Project for biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation measures are incorporated herein to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
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. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. Due to the nature of the project and consistency with environmental polic ies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. All project-related impacts were determined to be less than significant.
The Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or creat e any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.). As such, Project impacts are not considered to be cumulatively considerable given the insignificance o f project -induced impacts. The impact is therefore less than significant.
c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analyses of environmental issues contained in this Initial Study indicate that the project is not expected to have substantial impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Standard requirements and conditions have been incorporated in the project to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 140 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation measure monitoring and reporting c hecklist was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 and Section 21081.6 of the PRC (PRC). The timing of implementing each mitigation measure is identified in in the checklist, as well as identifies the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation measures applied to a project are performed.
Project applicants are responsible for providing evidence that mitigation measures are implemented. As lead agency, the City of Hanford is responsible for verifying that mitigation is performed/completed.
Mitigation Measures Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initials
Biological Resources
MM BIO -1: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for possible disturbance to Swainson’s hawks if they are nesting within 0.5 miles of the Project site:
• Avoidance. If feasible, vegetation removal and initial grading of the Project site will occur outsid e the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1-September 15).
• Pre-construction Surveys. If vegetation removal and
initial grading must occur between March 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct pre -construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk nests following the survey methodology developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory
Committee (SWHA TAC 2000) prior to the onset of these
construction activities. In addition, a pre -activity survey for active nests will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of Project implementation. • Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be
discovered within 0.5 miles of proposed construction zones, the biologist will identify a suitable construction -free buffer around the nest. This buffer will be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing, and will be maintained until the biologist has determined that the young have fledged.
Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of
Hanford to
verify.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 141 • Monitor Nest. Should construction activity be
necessary within the designated buffer ar ound an active Swainson’s hawk nest, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week, and thereafter once a week,
throughout the duration of construction activity. Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitoring will occur daily for one week and then resume the once -a-week regime. If, at any time, the biologist determines that
construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that Swainson’s hawks at the nest site are no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.
• Nest Tree Replacement. In the unlikely event that a
SWHA nest tree is found on the site during preconstruction surveys, LOA recommends that the nest tree be replaced with appropriate native tree species plantings at a ratio of 3:1 at or near the Project site or in other immediately suitable lands.
MM BIO -2: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for loss of suitable habitat and impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox during ground -disturbing activities of the Project site:
• Pre-construction Surveys. Preconstruction surveys for the SJKF shall be conducted on and within 200 feet of the project site, where accessible, within 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance activities on the site. The primary objective is to identify kit fox habitat features (e.g., potential dens and refugia) on and adjacent to the site and evaluate their use by kit foxes.
• Avoidance. Should active kit fox dens be detected
during preconstruction surveys, the Sacramento Field Office of the USFWS and the Fresno Field Office of CDFW will be
notified. A disturbance-free buffer will be established around Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground-
disturbing
activities
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of
Hanford to
verify.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 142 the burrows in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW, to be maintained until an agency -approved biologist has
determined that the burrows have been abandoned.
• Exclusion. If the kit fox does not abandon the burrow, then a den exclusion plan will be developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW. The exclusion plan would, at a
minimum, include the following elements.
o Kit fox will be excluded from the den(s), outside the natal season (June 1 -December 31), through installation of one-way doors consisting of a 5” pipe with a plastic flap over the top. The one -way doors will be in stalled in all onsite burrows large enough to accommodate the San
Joaquin kit fox. The one-way doors will be supported by sandbags to ensure a tight fit in the burrow and to
discourage the foxes from digging around the one -way
doors to gain access to the dens.
o The one-way doors will be monitored for three days
through the placement of motion sensing cameras and
daily review of the captured images by a qualified
biologist.
o Once the cameras show no more activity at a den site, the interior of the den will be viewed through the use of a bore scope to ensure kit fox are absent from the dens. o Once the den is determined vacant it will be plugged
with sand bags and immediately and carefully excavated
following the USFWS Standardized recommendations for
protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance (USFWS 2011). The dens
will be completely excavated, backfilled, and compacted to prevent later use by kit foxes.
MM BIO -3: The Project shall implement the following
measures to mitigate for loss of nesting habitat of the Project in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant Fish and Game Codes:
Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 143 • Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to nesting
raptors and migratory birds, the Project will be constructed, if feasible, from September 16th and January 31st, which is outside the avian nesting season.
• Preconstruction Surveys. If Project activities must
occur during the nesting season (February 1-September 15), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for active raptor and migratory bird nests within 10 days prior to the start of these activities. The survey will include the proposed work area(s) and surrounding lands within 500 feet, where accessible, for all nesting raptors and migratory birds. If no active nests are found within the survey area, no further mitigation is required.
• Establish Buffers. Should any active nests be
discovered near proposed work areas, no disturbance buffers of 250 feet around active nests of non -listed bird species and 500 feet around active nests of non -listed raptors will be established. If work needs to occur within these no
disturbance buffers, a qualified biologist will monitor the nest daily for one week, and thereafter once a week, throughout the duration of construction activity. Should the nature of construction activity significantly change, such that a higher level of disturbance will be generated, monitor ing will occur daily for one week and then resume the once-a-week regime.
If, at any time, the biologist determines that construction activity may be compromising nesting success, construction activity within the designated buffer will be altered or suspended until the biologist determines that the nest site is no longer susceptible to deleterious disturbance.
ground-
disturbing
activities
Hanford to
verify.
Cultural Resources
MM CR-1: In order to avoid the potential for impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the
following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 144 conjunction with the construction of each phase of the
Project:
a. Cultural Resources Alert on Project Plans. The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground
disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources.
b. Pre-Construction Briefing. The project proponent shall retain Santa Rosa Rancheria Cultural Staff to provide a pre- construction Cultural Sensitivity Training to construction staff regarding the discovery of cultural resources and the
potential for discovery during ground disturbing activities, which will include information on potential cultural material finds and on the procedures to be enacted if resources are found.
c. Stop Work Near any Discovered Cultural Resources. The project proponent shall retain a professional archaeologist on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction for the project to review, identify and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction.
Should previously unidentified cultural resources be
discovered during construction of the project, the project proponent shall cease work within 100 feet of the resources, and Kings County Community Development Agency (CDA)
shall be notified immediately. The archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are
historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under CEQA.
d. Mitigation for Discovered Cultural Resources. If the professional archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource, he/she shall notify the project proponent and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommended mitigation measures to
mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation ground-
disturbing
activities
Hanford to
verify.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 145 measures may include avoidance, preservation in-place,
recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery, among other options. Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the City of Hanford. The archaeologist shall document the resources using DPR 523 forms and file said forms with the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be photo documented and collected by the archaeologist for submittal to the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s Cultural and
Historical Preservation Department. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the County for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken.
e. Native American Monitoring. Prior to any ground
disturbance, the project proponent shall offer the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe the opportunity to provide a Native American Monitor during ground disturbing activities during construction. Tribal participation would be dependent upon the availability and interest of the Tribe.
f. Disposition of Cultural Resources. Upon coordination with the City of Hanford, any pre-historic archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate Tribal
custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.
MM CR-2. Protection of Buried Human Remains. In order to avoid the potential for impacts to buried human remains, the following measures shall be implemented, as necessary, in conjunction with the construction of each phase of the
Project:
Onsite
Verification
During
Project
Construction,
prior to
ground-
Developer to
provide (or
comply), City of
Hanford to
verify.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 146 a. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found at any time during on- or off-site construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the Kings County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall
identify the person believed to be the Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). The project proponent and MLD, with the assistance of the archaeologist, shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects with appropriate dignity (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(d)).
The agreed upon treatment shall address the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours for the MLD to make their wishes known to the landowner after being granted access to the site. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method, the project will follow Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) which states that ". . . the
landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." b. Any findings shall be submitted by the archaeologist in a professional report submitted to the project applicant, the MLD, the City of Hanford, and the California Historical Resources Information System, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center.
disturbing
activities
Tribal Cultural Resources
See MM CR-1 and CR-2 under Cultural Resources
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 147
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 148 6 REPORT PREPARATION
Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study:
Lead Agency
Lead Agency City of Hanford
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
(559) 585-2578
Mary E. Beatie, Interim
Director, Community
Development Department
Initial Study Consultant
Initial Study Precision Civil Engineering
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Bonique Emerson, AICP, VP of
Planning
Jenna Chilingerian, Senior
Associate Planner
Shin Tu, Assistant Planner
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 149 7 APPENDICES
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 150 Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Prepared by Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. dated February 1, 2022.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot Acreage: total acreage of vacant and underutilized parcels Square Feet: assumes
50%
lot coverage and
1 -story buildings
Construction Phase - Lots are vacant thus would not need demolition.
Area Mitigation -
Energy Mitigation -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building
472.80
1000sqft
21.71 472,843.80
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.7 45
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2025
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98
0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays
20.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
6/28/2022
5/31/2022
tblLandUse
LandUseSquareFeet
472,800.00
472,843.80
tblLandUse
LotAcreage
10.85 21.71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2022
0.1859
1.7353
1.5734
3.6800e-
003
0.3385
0.0747
0.4131
0.1360
0.0695
0.2055
0.0000
329.2458
329.2458
0.0627
0.0117
334.2871
2023
0.2771
2.3539
2.7358
6.8900e-
003
0.2233
0.0947
0.3180
0.0609
0.0891
0.1500
0.0000
621.9419
621.9419
0.0765
0.0327
633.5833
2024
3.3224
0.2967
0.4020
8.6000e-
004
0.0225
0.0124
0.0349
6.1100e-
003
0.0116
0.0177
0.0000
77.5196
77.5196
0.0131
2.7800e-
003
78.6745
Maximum
3.3224
2.3539
2.7358
6.8900e-
003
0.3385
0.0947
0.4131
0.1360
0.0891
0.2055
0.0000
621.9419
621.9419
0.0765
0.0327
633.5833
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
0.1859
1.7353
1.5734
3.6800e-
003
0.3385
0.0747
0.4131
0.1360
0.0695
0.2055
0.0000
329.2456
329.2456
0.0627
0.0117
334.2869
2023
0.2771
2.3539
2.7358
6.8900e-
003
0.2233
0.0947
0.3180
0.0609
0.0891
0.1500
0.0000
621.9415
621.9415
0.0765
0.0327
633.5829
2024
3.3224
0.2967
0.4020
8.6000e-
004
0.0225
0.0124
0.0349
6.1100e-
003
0.0116
0.0177
0.0000
77.5195
77.5195
0.0131
2.7800e-
003
78.6744
Maximum
3.3224
2.3539
2.7358
6.8900e-
003
0.3385
0.0947
0.4131
0.1360
0.0891
0.2055
0.0000
621.9415
621.9415
0.0765
0.0327
633.5829
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 6-1-2022
8-31-2022
0.9352
0.9352
2 9-1-2022
11-30-2022
0.7361
0.7361
3 12-1-2022
2-28-2023
0.6808
0.6808
4 3-1-2023
5-31-2023
0.6643
0.6643
5 6-1-2023
8-31-2023
0.6619
0.6619
6 9-1-2023
11-30-2023
0.6595
0.6595
7 12-1-2023
2-29-2024
0.7734
0.7734
8 3-1-2024
5-31-2024
3.0670
3.0670
Highest
3.0670
3.0670
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area
2.1758
4.0000e-
005
4.3300e-
003
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
8.4500e-
003
8.4500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
9.0000e-
003
Energy
0.0329
0.2995
0.2516
1.8000e-
003
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0000
712.7508
712.7508
0.0688
0.0136
718.5123
Mobile
1.5399
2.5764
13.6146
0.0318
3.1256
0.0287
3.1543
0.8365
0.0269
0.8634
0.0000
3,006.816
9 3,006.816
9 0.1639
0.1711
3,061.904
9 Waste
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
89.2551
0.0000
89.2551
5.2748
0.0000
221.1258
Water
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
26.6596
58.7492
85.4088
2.7477
0.0658
173.7119
Total
3.7487
2.8759
13.8705
0.0336
3.1256
0.0514
3.1771
0.8365
0.0497
0.8862
115.9148
3,778.325
4 3,894.240
2 8.2553
0.2505
4,175.264
0 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area
2.0378
4.0000e-
005
4.3300e-
003
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
8.4500e-
003
8.4500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
9.0000e-
003
Energy
0.0329
0.2995
0.2516
1.8000e-
003
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0000
712.7508
712.7508
0.0688
0.0136
718.5123
Mobile
1.5399
2.5764
13.6146
0.0318
3.1256
0.0287
3.1543
0.8365
0.0269
0.8634
0.0000
3,006.816
9 3,006.816
9 0.1639
0.1711
3,061.904
9 Waste
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
89.2551
0.0000
89.2551
5.2748
0.0000
221.1258
Water
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
26.6596
58.7492
85.4088
2.7477
0.0658
173.7119
Total
3.6106
2.8759
13.8705
0.0336
3.1256
0.0514
3.1771
0.8365
0.0497
0.8862
115.9148
3,778.325
4 3,894.240
2 8.2553
0.2505
4,175.264
0 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
6/1/2022
5/31/2022
5 0
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
6/29/2022
7/12/2022
5 10
3 Grading
Grading
7/13/2022
8/30/2022
5 35
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
3.68 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) 4 Building Construction
Building Construction
8/31/2022
1/30/2024
5 370
5 Paving
Paving
1/31/2024
2/27/2024
5 20
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
2/28/2024
3/26/2024
5 20
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: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 709,266; Non-Residential Outdoor: 236,422; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating
–
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 105
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 356
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00
0.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00
0.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
8 20.00
0.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 151.00
77.00 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 30.00
0.00 0.00
10.80 7.30
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 358
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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
0.0983
0.0000
0.0983
0.0505
0.0000
0.0505
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0159
0.1654
0.0985
1.9000e-
004
8.0600e-
003
8.0600e-
003
7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
0.0000
16.7197
16.7197
5.4100e-
003
0.0000
16.8549
Total
0.0159
0.1654
0.0985
1.9000e-
004
0.0983
8.0600e-
003
0.1064
0.0505
7.4200e-
003
0.0579
0.0000
16.7197
16.7197
5.4100e-
003
0.0000
16.8549
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
3.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000
7.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.5984
0.5984
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6044
Total
3.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000
7.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.5984
0.5984
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6044
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.0983
0.0000
0.0983
0.0505
0.0000
0.0505
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0159
0.1654
0.0985
1.9000e-
004
8.0600e-
003
8.0600e-
003
7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
0.0000
16.7197
16.7197
5.4100e-
003
0.0000
16.8549
Total
0.0159
0.1654
0.0985
1.9000e-
004
0.0983
8.0600e-
003
0.1064
0.0505
7.4200e-
003
0.0579
0.0000
16.7197
16.7197
5.4100e-
003
0.0000
16.8549
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 360
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
3.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000
7.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.5984
0.5984
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6044
Total
3.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000
7.2000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
1.9000e-
004
0.0000
0.5984
0.5984
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6044
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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
0.1611
0.0000
0.1611
0.0639
0.0000
0.0639
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0634
0.6798
0.5082
1.0900e-
003
0.0286
0.0286
0.0263
0.0263
0.0000
95.4356
95.4356
0.0309
0.0000
96.2072
Total
0.0634
0.6798
0.5082
1.0900e-
003
0.1611
0.0286
0.1897
0.0639
0.0263
0.0903
0.0000
95.4356
95.4356
0.0309
0.0000
96.2072
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 361
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
1.2000e-
003
8.4000e-
004
9.5400e-
003
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8100e-
003
7.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.6000e-
004
0.0000
2.3270
2.3270
8.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.3504
Total
1.2000e-
003
8.4000e-
004
9.5400e-
003
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8100e-
003
7.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.6000e-
004
0.0000
2.3270
2.3270
8.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.3504
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.1611
0.0000
0.1611
0.0639
0.0000
0.0639
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
0.0634
0.6798
0.5082
1.0900e-
003
0.0286
0.0286
0.0263
0.0263
0.0000
95.4354
95.4354
0.0309
0.0000
96.2071
Total
0.0634
0.6798
0.5082
1.0900e-
003
0.1611
0.0286
0.1897
0.0639
0.0263
0.0903
0.0000
95.4354
95.4354
0.0309
0.0000
96.2071
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 362
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
1.2000e-
003
8.4000e-
004
9.5400e-
003
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8100e-
003
7.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.6000e-
004
0.0000
2.3270
2.3270
8.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.3504
Total
1.2000e-
003
8.4000e-
004
9.5400e-
003
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.8100e-
003
7.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
7.6000e-
004
0.0000
2.3270
2.3270
8.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.3504
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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
0.0751
0.6871
0.7200
1.1900e-
003
0.0356
0.0356
0.0335
0.0335
0.0000
101.9591
101.9591
0.0244
0.0000
102.5698
Total
0.0751
0.6871
0.7200
1.1900e-
003
0.0356
0.0356
0.0335
0.0335
0.0000
101.9591
101.9591
0.0244
0.0000
102.5698
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 363
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
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
7.3300e-
003
0.1860
0.0535
7.1000e-
004
0.0225
2.0700e-
003
0.0245
6.4900e-
003
1.9800e-
003
8.4700e-
003
0.0000
68.0322
68.0322
4.4000e-
004
0.0102
71.0826
Worker
0.0227
0.0160
0.1812
4.8000e-
004
0.0531
3.0000e-
004
0.0534
0.0141
2.8000e-
004
0.0144
0.0000
44.1739
44.1739
1.5000e-
003
1.3600e-
003
44.6179
Total
0.0301
0.2020
0.2347
1.1900e-
003
0.0756
2.3700e-
003
0.0780
0.0206
2.2600e-
003
0.0229
0.0000
112.2060
112.2060
1.9400e-
003
0.0116
115.7005
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.0751
0.6871
0.7200
1.1900e-
003
0.0356
0.0356
0.0335
0.0335
0.0000
101.9590
101.9590
0.0244
0.0000
102.5697
Total
0.0751
0.6871
0.7200
1.1900e-
003
0.0356
0.0356
0.0335
0.0335
0.0000
101.9590
101.9590
0.0244
0.0000
102.5697
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 364
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
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
7.3300e-
003
0.1860
0.0535
7.1000e-
004
0.0225
2.0700e-
003
0.0245
6.4900e-
003
1.9800e-
003
8.4700e-
003
0.0000
68.0322
68.0322
4.4000e-
004
0.0102
71.0826
Worker
0.0227
0.0160
0.1812
4.8000e-
004
0.0531
3.0000e-
004
0.0534
0.0141
2.8000e-
004
0.0144
0.0000
44.1739
44.1739
1.5000e-
003
1.3600e-
003
44.6179
Total
0.0301
0.2020
0.2347
1.1900e-
003
0.0756
2.3700e-
003
0.0780
0.0206
2.2600e-
003
0.0229
0.0000
112.2060
112.2060
1.9400e-
003
0.0116
115.7005
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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
3.5000e-
003
0.0910
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
3.5000e-
003
0.0910
0.0910
0.0856
0.0856
0.0000
301.3462
301.3462
0.0717
0.0000
303.1383
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0110
0.4425
0.1355
2.0200e-
003
0.0664
2.8600e-
003
0.0692
0.0192
2.7400e-
003
0.0219
0.0000
193.5100
193.5100
8.3000e-
004
0.0290
202.1586
Worker
0.0616
0.0414
0.4885
1.3700e-
003
0.1569
8.3000e-
004
0.1578
0.0417
7.7000e-
004
0.0425
0.0000
127.0857
127.0857
3.9600e-
003
3.7000e-
003
128.2864
Total
0.0727
0.4838
0.6241
3.3900e-
003
0.2233
3.6900e-
003
0.2270
0.0609
3.5100e-
003
0.0644
0.0000
320.5957
320.5957
4.7900e-
003
0.0327
330.4450
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.2045
1.8700
2.1117
3.5000e-
003
0.0910
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
3.5000e-
003
0.0910
0.0910
0.0856
0.0856
0.0000
301.3458
301.3458
0.0717
0.0000
303.1380
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0110
0.4425
0.1355
2.0200e-
003
0.0664
2.8600e-
003
0.0692
0.0192
2.7400e-
003
0.0219
0.0000
193.5100
193.5100
8.3000e-
004
0.0290
202.1586
Worker
0.0616
0.0414
0.4885
1.3700e-
003
0.1569
8.3000e-
004
0.1578
0.0417
7.7000e-
004
0.0425
0.0000
127.0857
127.0857
3.9600e-
003
3.7000e-
003
128.2864
Total
0.0727
0.4838
0.6241
3.3900e-
003
0.2233
3.6900e-
003
0.2270
0.0609
3.5100e-
003
0.0644
0.0000
320.5957
320.5957
4.7900e-
003
0.0327
330.4450
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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
0.0162
0.1479
0.1778
3.0000e-
004
6.7500e-
003
6.7500e-
003
6.3500e-
003
6.3500e-
003
0.0000
25.5034
25.5034
6.0300e-
003
0.0000
25.6542
Total
0.0162
0.1479
0.1778
3.0000e-
004
6.7500e-
003
6.7500e-
003
6.3500e-
003
6.3500e-
003
0.0000
25.5034
25.5034
6.0300e-
003
0.0000
25.6542
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 367
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
9.1000e-
004
0.0375
0.0112
1.7000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.4000e-
004
5.8600e-
003
1.6200e-
003
2.3000e-
004
1.8600e-
003
0.0000
16.1123
16.1123
7.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
16.8320
Worker
4.8100e-
003
3.0800e-
003
0.0382
1.1000e-
004
0.0133
7.0000e-
005
0.0134
3.5300e-
003
6.0000e-
005
3.5900e-
003
0.0000
10.4838
10.4838
3.0000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
10.5774
Total
5.7200e-
003
0.0406
0.0494
2.8000e-
004
0.0189
3.1000e-
004
0.0192
5.1500e-
003
2.9000e-
004
5.4500e-
003
0.0000
26.5961
26.5961
3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
003
27.4094
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.0162
0.1479
0.1778
3.0000e-
004
6.7500e-
003
6.7500e-
003
6.3500e-
003
6.3500e-
003
0.0000
25.5034
25.5034
6.0300e-
003
0.0000
25.6541
Total
0.0162
0.1479
0.1778
3.0000e-
004
6.7500e-
003
6.7500e-
003
6.3500e-
003
6.3500e-
003
0.0000
25.5034
25.5034
6.0300e-
003
0.0000
25.6541
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 368
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
9.1000e-
004
0.0375
0.0112
1.7000e-
004
5.6200e-
003
2.4000e-
004
5.8600e-
003
1.6200e-
003
2.3000e-
004
1.8600e-
003
0.0000
16.1123
16.1123
7.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
16.8320
Worker
4.8100e-
003
3.0800e-
003
0.0382
1.1000e-
004
0.0133
7.0000e-
005
0.0134
3.5300e-
003
6.0000e-
005
3.5900e-
003
0.0000
10.4838
10.4838
3.0000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
10.5774
Total
5.7200e-
003
0.0406
0.0494
2.8000e-
004
0.0189
3.1000e-
004
0.0192
5.1500e-
003
2.9000e-
004
5.4500e-
003
0.0000
26.5961
26.5961
3.7000e-
004
2.7000e-
003
27.4094
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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
9.8800e-
003
0.0953
0.1463
2.3000e-
004
4.6900e-
003
4.6900e-
003
4.3100e-
003
4.3100e-
003
0.0000
20.0265
20.0265
6.4800e-
003
0.0000
20.1885
Paving
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
9.8800e-
003
0.0953
0.1463
2.3000e-
004
4.6900e-
003
4.6900e-
003
4.3100e-
003
4.3100e-
003
0.0000
20.0265
20.0265
6.4800e-
003
0.0000
20.1885
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 369
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
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
4.3000e-
004
2.8000e-
004
3.4500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2100e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.9468
0.9468
3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.9552
Total
4.3000e-
004
2.8000e-
004
3.4500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2100e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.9468
0.9468
3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.9552
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road
9.8800e-
003
0.0953
0.1463
2.3000e-
004
4.6900e-
003
4.6900e-
003
4.3100e-
003
4.3100e-
003
0.0000
20.0265
20.0265
6.4800e-
003
0.0000
20.1884
Paving
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
9.8800e-
003
0.0953
0.1463
2.3000e-
004
4.6900e-
003
4.6900e-
003
4.3100e-
003
4.3100e-
003
0.0000
20.0265
20.0265
6.4800e-
003
0.0000
20.1884
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 370
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
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
4.3000e-
004
2.8000e-
004
3.4500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2100e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.9468
0.9468
3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.9552
Total
4.3000e-
004
2.8000e-
004
3.4500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.2100e-
003
3.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.9468
0.9468
3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.9552
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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
3.2875
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
1.8100e-
003
0.0122
0.0181
3.0000e-
005
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
2.5533
2.5533
1.4000e-
004
0.0000
2.5569
Total
3.2893
0.0122
0.0181
3.0000e-
005
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
2.5533
2.5533
1.4000e-
004
0.0000
2.5569
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 371
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
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
8.7000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
6.9000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.5000e-
004
0.0000
1.8935
1.8935
5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.9104
Total
8.7000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
6.9000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.5000e-
004
0.0000
1.8935
1.8935
5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.9104
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating
3.2875
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Off-Road
1.8100e-
003
0.0122
0.0181
3.0000e-
005
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
2.5533
2.5533
1.4000e-
004
0.0000
2.5568
Total
3.2893
0.0122
0.0181
3.0000e-
005
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
0.0000
2.5533
2.5533
1.4000e-
004
0.0000
2.5568
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 372
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
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
8.7000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
6.9000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.5000e-
004
0.0000
1.8935
1.8935
5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.9104
Total
8.7000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
6.9000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.4100e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.5000e-
004
0.0000
1.8935
1.8935
5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.9104
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 373
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
1.5399
2.5764
13.6146
0.0318
3.1256
0.0287
3.1543
0.8365
0.0269
0.8634
0.0000
3,006.816
9 3,006.816
9 0.1639
0.1711
3,061.904
9 Unmitigated
1.5399
2.5764
13.6146
0.0318
3.1256
0.0287
3.1543
0.8365
0.0269
0.8634
0.0000
3,006.816
9 3,006.816
9 0.1639
0.1711
3,061.904
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
General Office Building
4,605.07
1,044.89
330.96
8,330,408
8,330,408
Total
4,605.07
1,044.89
330.96
8,330,408
8,330,408
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
General Office Building
9.50 7.30
7.30 33.00
48.00 19.00
77 19
4 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
General Office Building
0.517111
0.052324
0.170980
0.155671
0.027786
0.007423
0.013424
0.026160
0.000649
0.000313
0.023324
0.001439
0.003395
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 374
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
386.7437
386.7437
0.0626
7.5800e-
003
390.5680
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
386.7437
386.7437
0.0626
7.5800e-
003
390.5680
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0329
0.2995
0.2516
1.8000e-
003
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0000
326.0071
326.0071
6.2500e-
003
5.9800e-
003
327.9444
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0329
0.2995
0.2516
1.8000e-
003
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0000
326.0071
326.0071
6.2500e-
003
5.9800e-
003
327.9444
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 375
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
General Office
Building
6.10914e
+006
0.0329
0.2995
0.2516
1.8000e-
003
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0000
326.0071
326.0071
6.2500e-
003
5.9800e-
003
327.9444
Total
0.0329
0.2995
0.2516
1.8000e-
003
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0000
326.0071
326.0071
6.2500e-
003
5.9800e-
003
327.9444
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
General Office
Building
6.10914e
+006
0.0329
0.2995
0.2516
1.8000e-
003
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0000
326.0071
326.0071
6.2500e-
003
5.9800e-
003
327.9444
Total
0.0329
0.2995
0.2516
1.8000e-
003
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
0.0000
326.0071
326.0071
6.2500e-
003
5.9800e-
003
327.9444
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 376
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Use Low VOC Paint - Non-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
General Office
Building
4.17994e
+006
386.7437
0.0626
7.5800e-
003
390.5680
Total
386.7437
0.0626
7.5800e-
003
390.5680
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
4.17994e
+006
386.7437
0.0626
7.5800e-
003
390.5680
Total
386.7437
0.0626
7.5800e-
003
390.5680
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 377
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed
Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies
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
2.0378
4.0000e-
005
4.3300e-
003
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
8.4500e-
003
8.4500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
9.0000e-
003
Unmitigated
2.1758
4.0000e-
005
4.3300e-
003
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
8.4500e-
003
8.4500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
9.0000e-
003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 378
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
0.3287
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.8467
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
4.0000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.3300e-
003
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
8.4500e-
003
8.4500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
9.0000e-
003
Total
2.1758
4.0000e-
005
4.3300e-
003
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
8.4500e-
003
8.4500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
9.0000e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 379
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
0.3287
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.7086
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
4.0000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.3300e-
003
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
8.4500e-
003
8.4500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
9.0000e-
003
Total
2.0378
4.0000e-
005
4.3300e-
003
0.0000
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
8.4500e-
003
8.4500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
0.0000
9.0000e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 380
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated
85.4088
2.7477
0.0658
173.7119
Unmitigated
85.4088
2.7477
0.0658
173.7119
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
General Office
Building
84.0325 /
51.5038
85.4088
2.7477
0.0658
173.7119
Total
85.4088
2.7477
0.0658
173.7119
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 381
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
General Office
Building
84.0325 /
51.5038
85.4088
2.7477
0.0658
173.7119
Total
85.4088
2.7477
0.0658
173.7119
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
89.2551
5.2748
0.0000
221.1258
Unmitigated
89.2551
5.2748
0.0000
221.1258
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 382
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Office
Building
439.7
89.2551
5.2748
0.0000
221.1258
Total
89.2551
5.2748
0.0000
221.1258
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Office
Building
439.7
89.2551
5.2748
0.0000
221.1258
Total
89.2551
5.2748
0.0000
221.1258
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 383
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
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
Date: 2/1/2022 3:02 PM
Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use - San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 384
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 151 Appendix B: CHRIS Search Records
Prepared by SSJIC dated January 18, 2022.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 385
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
To: Shin Tu Record Search 22-004
Precision Civil Engineering, Inc.
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Date: January 18, 2022
Re: City of Hanford – Lassen Rezone
County: Kings
Map(s): Hanford 7.5’
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California O ffice of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical R esources 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, res earchers, and t he public. Re commendations mad e by IC coordina tors or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the eval uation or opinion of the State Hi storic Preserva tion Officer in carrying out t he O HP’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 kno wn and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, a nd resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State His torical L andmarks, Calif ornia Register of Historical Resources, Calif ornia 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 sub mitted to the OHP are availa ble via this rec ords search. Addi tional 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 in the project area. There have been eight studies conducted within the one-half mile radius, KI-00028, 00108, 00109, 00110, 00111, 00210, 00229, and 00289.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) R
ecord Search 22-004
KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS There is one r ecorded res ource wit hin th e pr oject area, P- 16-00246. It is not known if any ot her resource exists there. There are eight recorded res ources within the one -half mile radius , P -16-000122, 000130, 000131, 000132, 000133, 000289, 000290, and 000476. These resources prima rily consist of historic era buildings. They also include an historic era railroad, an historic era canal, and an historic era trash scatter.
Resources P-16-000289 (Taoist Temple , located at 12 China Alley) and P-16-000290 (Hanford Carnegie Library, located at 10 9 E. 8 th Street) have been given National Register status code s of 1 S, indicating they are listed in the National Register of Historic Places by the Keeper. They are also listed in the California Reg ister of Historical Resources. Resource P-16-000246, People’s Ditch, has been given a National Register status code of 2S2, indicat ing it has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by a consensus through the Section 106 process. It is also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
There are no other recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register o f Hi storic Places , the Ca lifornia Reg ister of H istorical R esources, t he Cali fornia Poin ts o f Hi storical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand this project site includes existing structures . No information was given as to the age of the existing structures or the nature of the project. According to our records, no structures listed at the provided address have ever been recorded or evaluated for hist orical significance. Therefore, if this project will result in alteration or demolition of any existing structures more than 45 years old, then we recommend the structures first be recorded and evaluated for historical significance. If t he project will result in any ground disturbance activities on a ny undeveloped land, we recommend a qualified, professiona l consultant first conduct a field survey t o determine if any cultural resources are present. If ground disturbance will not take place on a ny vacant land and no structures more than 45 years old will be impacted, then no further cultural resource investigation is recommended at this time. However, if any cultural resources are unearthed during any ground disturbance a ctivities, all work must halt in the area of the find and a qualified, professional consultant should be called out to assess the findings and make the appropriate mitigation recommendations. 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 p rovide you wi th a current li st of N ative American i ndividuals/organizations that can ass ist yo u wi th information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native group s 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 ma naged. Fina lly, pl ease c onsult wi th t he lead age ncy on th is projec t t o deter mine if any ot her cultural re source inv estigation is r equired. If you ne ed a ny additional in formation or have a ny questi ons or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.
By:
Ce
leste M. Thomson, Coordinator Date: January 18, 2022
P
lease note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 387
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MARCH 2022
CITY OF HANFORD – Lassen Drive Corridor Mixed Use | 152 Appendix C: Early Consultation Letters
Received by the City of Hanford.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 388
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-7373 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
October 4, 2021
06-KIN-198-0000001062
GPA #2021-01 RZ#2021-09
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CITY OF HANFORD
Sent via email
Gabrielle Meyers
Community Development-Planning Division
315-321 North Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Dear Gabrielle Meyers:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the General Plan Amendment and Rezone at four different locations. The Amendment No. 2021-01 A requests to change the current designation of 1.04 acres of Downtown Mixed-Use to Service Commercial. The Amendment No. 2021-01 B requests to change the current designation of 1.45 acres of Neighborhood Mixed Use to Regional Commercial. The Amendment No. 2021-01C is to change the current designation of 28 acres of Medium-Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. The Amendment No. 2021-01 D is to change the 2.06 acres of Corridor Mixed Use to Public Utility. All four rezones are considered infill development and are located in the City of Hanford, in Kings County.
The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. The Local Development ‐Intergovernmental Review (LD‐IGR) Program reviews land use projects and plans through the lenses of our mission and state planning priorities of infill, conservation, and travel‐efficient development. To ensure a safe and efficient transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all development projects that utilize the multimodal transportation network.
Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 389
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Gabrielle Meyers
October 4, 2021
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
1. C
altrans recommends that the future site plans for any of the proposed development be submitted to Caltrans for review when the plans are available. If the City of Hanford requires the Project to conduct a Traffic Impact Study, Caltrans would like the opportunity to review and comment on the Scope of Work.
2. I
t is recommended that the City and Kings County should consider the importance of developing a traffic impact fee program to fund future improvements to local and State facilities driven by the continuous and accumulated impacts of development in the region. Caltrans, in the past, has partnered with the City as well as the County on various improvement projects on SR 198 and will continue to partner with the City future need project in the area.
3. G
iven that the future development may attract regional traffic, Caltrans recommends the project proponents(s) conduct a vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) study once development is proposed. In the absence of a local agency VMT guideline, the preparer should refer to the Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide, dated May 20, 2020. Improvements for existing/future bike and pedestrian facilities on roads in the vicinity of the Project and connectivity between home to work/home to shops should be considered and included in the VMT mitigation plan.
4. Alt
ernative transportation policies should be applied to the development. An assessment of multi-modal facilities should be conducted to develop an integrated multi-modal transportation system to serve and help alleviate traffic congestion caused by the project and related development in this area of the City. The assessment may include pedestrian walkways linking this proposal to an internal project area walkway, transit facilities, as well as other walkways in the surrounding area.
If you have any further questions, please contact Nicholas Isla at (559) 981-7373 or email [email protected].
Sincerely,
DAVID PADILLA, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning – North
Signing on Behalf of:
Edgar Hernandez, Associate Transportation Planner
Transportation Planning – North
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 390
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Hello Gabrielle,
Attached is the signed request for comments for the General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 (Part A-D), Rezone No. 2021-09 – 2021-12, and Associated Entitlements.
At this time our department has no comments for the proposed rezoning or amendments to the general plan; however, regarding the SPR 2021-05 (Holiday Inn Express), our department would like to include the following comments:
1. If service of a continental breakfast or other meal prep area is proposed, the facility will need to obtain an annual food vending permit from our department. All food service equipment must be new, commercial grade, and approved for food service by an independent testing agency. A pre-construction plan check of the food service area may also be required. Please contact our office at 559-584-1411 for additional information prior to construction.
2. The applicant must submit to our department 3 sets of complete construction plans for the swimming pool and/or spa to be reviewed for compliance with applicable California and local codes and regulations. No construction of the pool or spa is permitted without prior written approval from our department. To access the plan check application visit our website at http://www.countyofkings.com/Health/ehs/forms.
3. Annual fees to operate a public swimming pool and spa, continental breakfast area and operation of the hotel/motel are required by this department. If you have any questions, please contact us at 559-584-14711.
Thank you for this opportunity and please let me know if you have any questions.
Liliana Stransky, MPA, REHS
Environmental Health Officer
Kings County Department of Public Health
330 Campus Drive | Hanford, CA | 93230
Phone: (559)852-2628 | Fax: (559)584-6040
www.countyofkings.com/ehs
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, (or authorized to receive for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 391
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments and contact the sender by reply e-mail or telephone 559.584.1411.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 392
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
October 25, 2021
Gabrielle de Silva Myers
City of Hanford
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4, General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 (Part A through D); Rezone No. 2021-09, -10, - 11, and -12 Project, Kings County
Dear Ms. Myers:
Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties.
Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.
The law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.
The NAHC also believes that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded or are adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response;
• Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-
Stenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 393
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code §6254.10.
3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission.
The request form can be found at http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Local-Government- Tribal-Consultation-List-Request-Form-Update.pdf.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we are able to assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 394
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) From: Samantha McCarty
To: Gabrielle Myers
Cc: Shana Powers; Maria Gonzales; William K. Barrios; Paige Berggren; Damion Cuara Subject: RE: General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 (Part A-D), Rezone No. 2021-09 - 2021-12, and Associated Entitlements
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:20:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Gabrielle,
I apologize, I realize I made a mistake in my response to you. This email will have the correct response.
Thank you for contacting the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe regarding: General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 (Part A-D), Rezone No. 2021-09 - 2021-12, and Associated Entitlements.
The Tribe has concerns with parts A and B and is requesting to have monitors on site for all future development. If you have any questions, comments, and or concerns please contact myself or the Santa Rosa Rancheria Cultural Department. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Samantha McCarty
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe
Cultural Specialist ll
[email protected]
Office: (559) 924-1278 x 4091
Cell: (559) 633-6640
*PLEASE KEEP ALL CULTURAL STAFF IN EMAILS UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE
From: Samantha McCarty
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Shana Powers <[email protected]>; Maria Gonzales <mgonzales@tachi-yokut- nsn.gov>; William K. Barrios <[email protected]>; Paige Berggren <pberggren@tachi- yokut-nsn.gov>; Damion Cuara <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 (Part A-D), Rezone No. 2021-09 - 2021-12, and Associated Entitlements
Dear Gabrielle,
Thank you for contacting the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe regarding: General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01 (Part A-D), Rezone No. 2021-09 - 2021-12, and Associated Entitlements.
The Tribe has concerns with parts A and B and is requesting to have monitors on site for all ground
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 395
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) disturbance related to the project. If you have any questions, comments, and or concerns please contact myself or the Santa Rosa Rancheria Cultural Department. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Samantha McCarty
Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut Tribe
Cultural Specialist ll
[email protected]
Office: (559) 924-1278 x 4091
Cell: (559) 633-6640
*PLEASE KEEP ALL CULTURAL STAFF IN EMAILS UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 396
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
6111 Bollinger Canyon Road 3370A
San Ramon, CA 94583
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
September 9, 2021
Gabrielle Myers
City of Hanford
317 N Douty St
Hanford, CA 93230
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Gabrielle Myers,
Thank you for submitting the Site Plan Review No 2021-22 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.
Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.
Below is additional information for your review:
1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building-
and-renovation/overview/overview.page.
2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.
3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.
Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.
This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.
Sincerely,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 397
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf
1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.
2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.
Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.
Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.
Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).
No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.
4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.
5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 12 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 398
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.)
Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.
Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.
For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 12 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.
7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 12 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.
If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.
8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.
9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.
10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.
Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 399
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.
12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.
With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.
13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 400
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:
1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”
2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.
Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.
3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.
4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.
5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.
6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.
Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.
7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 401
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.
9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.
10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.
11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.
12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (
https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.
Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.
Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.
13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.
15.A.d
Packet Pg. 402
Attachment: Attachment 1 ISMND 2022-31 (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C) Kurt Lavenson & Lesly Avedisian
1842 Leimert Boulevard
Oakland, CA 94602
510-530-0970
October 26, 2022
Natalie Corral
City Clerk
City of Hanford
319 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
via email to: [email protected]
RE: General Plan Amendment 2021-01C and Pre/Rezone 2021-11 Specifically parcels: 014-221-020 and 014-221-026
Dear Ms. Corral,
We are writing to provide our comments for the City Council Meeting meeting scheduled for November 1, 2022, specifically General Plan Amendment No. 2021-01C and the Pre- Zone/Rezone 2021-11. As long-time owners of land within the subject site (also known as a portion of Island #4 pending Annexation) we support and are strongly in favor of the proposed General Plan Amendment and the Rezoning.
We also support the General Plan Amendment and Pre/Rezoning for its effect on our neighbors who own adjacent parcels described in the hearing notice. It is important to us, and we think it is important to the larger community, that development in the pending Island #4 Annexation area be allowed and encouraged. The zoning change from Medium Density Residential (R-M) to Corridor Mixed Use (MX-C) will facilitate this.
The General Plan Amendment and Pre/Rezoning will alleviate a serious conflict with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) that prohibits most forms of residential development. After the rezoning, the land could be developed into an array of mixed uses, including some specified residential uses, in combinations that satisfy the conditions of the ALUCP. That will provide the maximum benefit to this growing area of the community and to the resurgence of commerce along E. Lacey Boulevard.
We thank you and the City Council members for your time and attention on these matters and we appreciate all of the efforts of the Planning Department to resolve the General Plan conflicts.
Sincerely,
Kurt Lavenson Lesly Avedisian
15.A.e
Packet Pg. 403
Attachment: Attachment 2 - Lavenson-Avedisian comments to City Council re Zoning Changes_10-26-2022_SIGNED (Lassen GPA 2021-01 C)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022
AGENDA SECTION: A
SUBJECT:
PW: Approval of amendments to two (2) existing Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services to waive approximately $500,000 in under performance penalties; reduce future performance guarantees by 25%; and provide for a ten year Operation and Maintenance (O&M) contract valued at $1,059,974.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council approve amendments to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services that will eliminate approximately $500,000 in under performance penalties, reducing the future performance guarantees by 25%, and providing a ten-year Operation and Maintenance (O&M) contract valued at $1,059,974.
BACKGROUND:
In November 2011, City entered into a $4,325,556 contract with Chevron Energy Services, later ENGIE, to design and install a 1 megaWatt (mW) solar photo-voltaic system to reduce grid- supplied power use at the City's wastewater treatment facility. For convenience, this contract will be referred to as Phase 1.
Then, in March 2014, City entered into a second contract with Chevron, valued at $9,995,139, to design and install an additional 2.2 mW solar system adjacent to the first. In addition, this contract made energy efficiency upgrades to 15 city-owned facilities. Upgrades included facility interior and exterior lighting improvements, conversion of 181 high intensity discharge traffic light heads to LED fixtures, replacement of 108 street name fixtures with LED lighting, and the installation of 120 workstation occupancy controllers. For convenience, this contract will be referred to as Phase 2.
Both contracts included a ten-year maintenance warranty and a 15-year minimum production guarantee. The ten-year maintenance contract for Phase 1 will expire in 2023. The Phase 2 maintenance contract will expire in 2026.
16.A
Packet Pg. 404
Over the lifetime of the projects, the solar systems have under-performed by about 15%. Per the terms of the existing contract, ENGIE made under-performance payments to City of approximately $120,000 during the first few years after installation. For the most part, the under-performance was due to a collection of relatively minor component failures.
At issue now is an additional under performance payment to City of about $500,000, which has resulted from large, critical component failures such as the main breaker and multiple string inverters. Due to supply chain disruptions, these components took several months to receive, resulting in all or a large portion of the system remaining offline, resulting in a significant loss of production. These components have all been replaced and the systems are now functioning in line with what is expected.
ENGIE is proposing an alternative to the cash payment.
In lieu of the cash payment, the recommended amendment would establish a ten-year O&M agreement whereby ENGIE would assume all operation and maintenance of the system, including real-time monitoring, repair work, cleaning, and reporting. The value of the services is $1,059,974 over the ten-year period. In addition, to ensure timely repairs are made as needed, ENGIE has agreed to provide a production guarantee, though at a 25% reduced rate.
In evaluating the amendment, staff looked at historical monthly performance data. Production data tracks closely with guaranteed numbers except when major components failed. Once repairs were made, the system rebounded to expected performance. This is important because going forward, it is unlikely City would see payments anywhere approaching those of the past.
As such, the value that City will receive from the ten-year O&M agreement far exceeds what could be expected from the pending and future under performance payments.
It is also important to note that despite the fact that ENGIE could have contested some of the prior payments as resulting from City’s actions or inactions (such as cleaning frequency), they did not do so. ENGIE has stood by the terms of the contracts agreed to by their predecessor, Chevron Energy Solutions. In addition, the services being offered are twice the value of the pending payment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In lieu of an under performance payment to City of approximately $500,000, ENGIE will provide ten years of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) services valued at $1,059,974.
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Hanford Phases 1 & 2 OM Services 20221013
City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract
City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract
16.A
Packet Pg. 405
1 ENGIE Services U.S. Inc.
150 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 360
Pasadena, CA 91105
Ed Jakimzak
Project Director
Tel 714 482-5182
[email protected]
October 13, 2022
Mr. Jim Ross
Deputy Public Works Director
City of Hanford
900 S. 10th Avenue
Hanford, CA 93230
RE: Post-Construction Services Amendments to the Phase I Energy Services Contract (CU1236) dated November 1, 2011, and the Phase II Energy Savings Contract (CU1408) dated March 18, 2014 by and between ENGIE Services U.S. Inc. and City of Hanford (collectively, as amended by all Change Order(s) to date, the “Contracts”).
Dear Mr. Ross:
This amendment letter (“Amendment”) is a n agreement by the City of Hanford and ENGIE Services U.S.’s to amend the Contracts to provide ten (10) years of complimentary Solar PV O&M Services (as defined in Scope of Work below) and adjust the savings guarantees as set forth below.
I. Energy Services Contract CU1236 and its Change Order No. 1 (Phase I)
1. Attachment H (SAVINGS MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION PLAN) a. In subclause 1.(b) the Total Projected PV Production table is to be amended as follows:
Year Total Annual Production
(kWh)
1 1,993,590
2 1,983,622
3 1,973,704
4 1,963,835
5 1,954,016
6 1,458,185
7 1,450,894
8 1,443,639
9 1,436,421
10 1,429,239
11 1,422,093
12 1,414,982
13 1,407,907
14 1,400,868
15 1,393,863
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 406
Attachment: City of Hanford Phases 1 & 2 OM Services 20221013 (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
2 2. Attachment K (MAINTENANCE SERVICES)
a. In subclause I., term shall be amended by deleting the phrase “up to ten (10) years from the M&V Commencement Date” and replacing it with the phrase “up to twenty (20) years from the M&V Commencement Date”.
b. Subclause II. shall be deleted in its entirety.
c. Subclause III. shall be deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following:
“III. Preventive Maintenance Services Provided
The following PM Services will be provided during the term:
Scope of Work
1. Preventative Maintenance:
Inspections and Electrical Testing
▪ Inspect PV module arrays, panel mounting, wiring, and array support structure ▪ Inspect tracker system for correct operation, and mechanical and structural integrity ▪ Inspect monitoring equipment and weather stations to ensure good working order ▪ Inspect and perform thermal scanning tests on all inverter switch boxes, inverter control board terminations, disconnect switch panels, PV systems transformers and interconnection where medium voltage is accessible
▪ DC String Testing: Perform IV Curve Testing or Voc and string circuit tests if no data is available from the monitoring system
▪ Verify energy meters and inverter HMI readings are properly calibrated ▪ Follow manufacturer’s recommendation for factory-certified inverter inspection and cleaning ▪ Quarterly inverter filter cleaning – replacing as needed ▪ Torque wiring connections where needed
▪ Complete comprehensive annual report with all documented inspection and testing results ▪ Provide a complete list of recommendation for any repairs needed and to improve the system operation ▪ Dedicated customer SharePoint website to access all pertinent information related to the system site services, deliverables, as-builts and more
2. Solar Panel Inspection and Cleaning:
Array Visual Inspection
▪ Visually inspect arrays, panel mounting clips, solar panel ground clips, solar panel ground wire, DC string wiring, and DC combiner boxes. Note any rust, missing labels, clips, wire chaffing/deterioration, hanging wires, water infiltration, structural damage, or other problems ▪ Identify broken modules on a site plan for follow up replacement ▪ Take ‘Before Washing’ Photos
Array Cleaning
▪ To be performed on semi-annual basis
▪ Proper lift equipment will be used as needed when reaching above solar modules ▪ Water used for cleaning will be near ambient temperature ▪ Will avoid washing broken solar panels to prevent electrical shortage ▪ Clean modules surface & frames, according to solar panel manufacturer’s warranty specifications
3. Performance Monitoring & Reporting
a. Monitor system performance on a daily basis. The automated alarming system notifies both subscribed customers and our field team simultaneously of any issue via email. b. Monthly PV Performance Reports. Comparison of actual vs. predicted production enables us to track performance loss and recommend corrective maintenance to minimize lost production and downtime.
c. Analytic and performance reports are available 24/7/365 from the monitoring system website.
Unlimited users can instantly pull up to date reports as needed. Additionally, users can subscribe to automated customized reports that are emailed at the frequency the user selects
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 407
Attachment: City of Hanford Phases 1 & 2 OM Services 20221013 (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
3 d. System performance is evaluated by comparing onsite solar Inverter and Net Generation Output Meter (NGOM) production data and actual onsite measured weather data to the production values predicted by PVsyst modeling software. These weather-adjusted evaluations are performed automatically within the monitoring system software and always available as reports on the website. These production evaluations are also alarmed on if production is deficient by 5% or more from the predictive model. We look for these greater-than-predicted degradations which may indicate the need for further inspection and possible recommendation for panel washing
4. Warranty Management
a. ENGIE manages your remaining equipment warranty with the manufacturer and handles all required paperwork. All new equipment and systems installed under this program are covered with a minimum one-year materials and workmanship warranty b. Upon completion of any maintenance or repair work, ENGIE will update service logs detailing the work performed, location and any notes relevant to safe and efficient operations. c. If ENGIE is no longer the provider of Maintenance Services, the Customer’s new provider will maintain similar service logs. ENGIE shall have reasonable access to inspect service logs to determine that adequate Maintenance Services are being performed.”
II. Energy Services Contract CU1408 (Phase II)
1. Attachment H (SAVINGS MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION PLAN) a. In subclause 1.(b), Table H-2: Projected PV Production for ECM PV -1 is to be amended as follows:
Year Total Annual Production
(kWh)
1 4,482,940
2 4,460,525
3 4,438,223
4 3,312,024
5 3,295,463
6 3,278,985
7 3,262,589
8 3,246,275
9 3,230,043
10 3,213,892
11 3,197,821
12 3,181,831
13 3,165,921
14 3,150,090
15 3,134,339
2. Attachment K (MAINTENANCE SERVICES)
a. In subclause I., term shall be amended by deleting the phrase “up to ten (10) years from the M&V Commencement Date” and replacing it with the phrase “up to seventeen (17) years from the M&V Commencement Date”.
b. Subclause II. shall be deleted in its entirety.
c. Subclause III. shall be deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following:
“III. Preventive Maintenance Services Provided
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 408
Attachment: City of Hanford Phases 1 & 2 OM Services 20221013 (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
4 The following PM Services will be provided during the term:
Scope of Work
1. Preventative Maintenance:
Inspections and Electrical Testing
▪ Inspect PV module arrays, panel mounting, wiring, and array support structure ▪ Inspect tracker system for correct operation, and mechanical and structural integrity ▪ Inspect monitoring equipment and weather stations to ensure good working order ▪ Inspect and perform thermal scanning tests on all inverter switch boxes, inverter control board terminations, disconnect switch panels, PV systems transformers and interconnection where medium voltage is accessible
▪ DC String Testing: Perform IV Curve Testing or Voc and string circuit tests if no data is available from the monitoring system
▪ Verify energy meters and inverter HMI readings are properly calibrated ▪ Follow manufacturer’s recommendation for factory-certified inverter inspection and cleaning ▪ Quarterly inverter filter cleaning – replacing as needed ▪ Torque wiring connections where needed
▪ Complete comprehensive annual report with all documented inspection and testing results ▪ Provide a complete list of recommendation for any repairs needed and to improve the system operation ▪ Dedicated customer SharePoint website to access all pertinent information related to the system site services, deliverables, as-builts and more
2. Solar Panel Inspection and Cleaning:
Array Visual Inspection
▪ Visually inspect arrays, panel mounting clips, solar panel ground clips, solar panel ground wire, DC string wiring, and DC combiner boxes. Note any rust, missing labels, clips, wire chaffing/deterioration, hanging wires, water infiltration, structural damage, or other problems ▪ Identify broken modules on a site plan for follow up replacement ▪ Take ‘Before Washing’ Photos
Array Cleaning
▪ To be performed on semi-annual basis
▪ Proper lift equipment will be used as needed when reaching above solar modules ▪ Water used for cleaning will be near ambient temperature ▪ Will avoid washing broken solar panels to prevent electrical shortage ▪ Clean modules surface & frames, according to solar panel manufacturer’s warranty specifications
3. Performance Monitoring & Reporting
a. Monitor system performance on a daily basis. The automated alarming system notifies both subscribed customers and our field team simultaneously of any issue via email. b. Monthly PV Performance Reports. Comparison of actual vs. predicted production enables us to track performance loss and recommend corrective maintenance to minimize lost production and downtime.
c. Analytic and performance reports are available 24/7/365 from the monitoring system website.
Unlimited users can instantly pull up to date reports as needed. Additionally, users can subscribe to automated customized reports that are emailed at the frequency the user selects d. System performance is evaluated by comparing onsite solar Inverter and Net Generation Output Meter (NGOM) production data and actual onsite measured weather data to the production values predicted by PVsyst modeling software. These weather-adjusted evaluations are performed automatically within the monitoring system software and always available as reports on the website. These production evaluations are also alarmed on if production is deficient by 5% or more from the predictive model. We look for these greater-than-predicted degradations which may indicate the need for further inspection and possible recommendation for panel washing
4. Warranty Management & Repair Logs
a. ENGIE manages your remaining equipment warranty with the manufacturer and handles all
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 409
Attachment: City of Hanford Phases 1 & 2 OM Services 20221013 (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
5 required paperwork. All new equipment and systems installed under this program are covered with a minimum one-year materials and workmanship warranty b. Upon completion of any maintenance or repair work, ENGIE will update service logs detailing the work performed, location and any notes relevant to safe and efficient operations. c. If ENGIE is no longer the provider of Maintenance Services, the Customer’s new provider will maintain similar service logs. ENGIE shall have reasonable access to inspect service logs to determine that adequate Maintenance Services are being performed.”
Value of Services
Below is the value of the services being provided at no cost to City of Hanford as consideration for this Amendment to the Guaranteed Savings under both Contracts, including forgiveness by City of Hanford of any past Guarantee Shortfalls under either or both Contracts:
Year Preventive
Maintenance
Panel
Washing
Performance
Monitoring Total O&M Cost
2023 $50,302 $33,500 $8,660 $92,462
2024 $51,811 $34,505 $8,920 $95,236
2025 $53,365 $35,540 $9,187 $98,093
2026 $54,966 $36,606 $9,463 $101,036
2027 $56,615 $37,705 $9,747 $104,067
2028 $58,314 $38,836 $10,039 $107,189
2029 $60,063 $40,001 $10,340 $110,404
2030 $61,865 $41,201 $10,651 $113,717
2031 $63,721 $42,437 $10,970 $117,128
2032 $65,633 $43,710 $11,299 $120,642
Total $576,655 $384,041 $99,276 $1,059,974
For the avoidance of doubt, no Guarantee Payments are due or owing for any prior years under either Contract.
[Signatures on the following page.]
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 410
Attachment: City of Hanford Phases 1 & 2 OM Services 20221013 (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
6 All other provisions of the Contracts shall remain in full force and effect. If there is any conflict between this Amendment and any provision of the Contracts, the provisions of this Amendment shall control.
This Amendment is considered a completely integrated agreement, supersedes all pre vious contracts of any kind, oral or written, and constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties as it relates to the subject matter contained herein. No extrinsic evidence of any kind or character may be admitted to supplement, vary, explain, or otherwise amend the terms of this completely integrated agreement, unless evidenced by an amendment to the Contract(s) superseding this Amendment.
Sincerely,
ENGIE SERVICES U.S.
ACCEPTED AND AGREED on the date indicated below:
Dated: , 2022
ENGIE SERVICES U.S. INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
Dated: , 2022
CITY OF HANFORD
By:
Name:
Title:
cc: Ed Jakimzak, ENGIE Services U.S.
Ashu Jain, ENGIE Services U.S.
Gary Reams, ENGIE Services U.S.
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 411
Attachment: City of Hanford Phases 1 & 2 OM Services 20221013 (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 412
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 413
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 414
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 415
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 416
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 417
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 418
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 419
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 420
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 421
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 422
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 423
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 424
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 425
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 426
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 427
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 428
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 429
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 430
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 431
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 432
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 433
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 434
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 435
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 436
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 437
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 438
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 439
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 440
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 441
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 442
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 443
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 444
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 445
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 446
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 447
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 448
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 449
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 450
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 451
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 452
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.b
Packet Pg. 453
Attachment: City of Hanford Executed Energy Services Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 454
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 455
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 456
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 457
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 458
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 459
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 460
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 461
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 462
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 463
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 464
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 465
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 466
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 467
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 468
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 469
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 470
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 471
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 472
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 473
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 474
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 475
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 476
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 477
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 478
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 479
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 480
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 481
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 482
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 483
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 484
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 485
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 486
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 487
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 488
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 489
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 490
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 491
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 492
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 493
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 494
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 495
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 496
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
16.A.c
Packet Pg. 497
Attachment: City of Hanford Phase 2 Executed Contract (PW: Amendment to two Energy Services Contracts with ENGIE Services.)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022
AGENDA SECTION: B
SUBJECT:
Community Development: Authorization to submit a grant application for the Urban Community Drought Relief Program and, if awarded, authorization for the City to Accept the grant agreement and the City Manager to execute any related documents
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager or designee to submit any required documents, invoices, and reports required to obtain grant funding via the Urban Community Drought Relief Program.
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has released a solicitation package for the Urban Community Drought Relief Program and is currently accepting applications. The program has three primary funding sources: Urban Community Drought Relief ($175 million allocation), Turf Replacement ($38 million allocation) and Conservation for Urban Suppliers ($71 million allocation). The intent of the program is to provide water to communities that face the loss or contamination of their water supplies, to address immediate impacts on human health and safety, to secure the future of California’s water supply, and to protect fish and wildlife resources.
City Staff is requesting authorization to apply for up to $7,000,000 for two wells, two water storage tanks, and to replace non-functional turf with drought tolerant landscaping at City facilities and parks. As currently designed, City Staff expects to apply for up to $6,250,000 to fund the well and tank project with the remaining $750,000 to fund turf replacement. The City has $1,750,000 available that may be used as a grant match for the projects.
Applications are being accepted on an on-going basis with a January 31, 2023 deadline.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Up to 25% match unless the City recevies a cost share waiver (50% of the primary benefit serves an under represented community).
16.B
Packet Pg. 498
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 22-43-R
16.B
Packet Pg. 499
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE GRANT APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE AND
EXECUTION FOR THE URBAN COMMUNITY DROUGHT RELIEF PROGRAM
At regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford duly called and held on November 1, 2022, it was moved by Council Member , and seconded by Council Member, and carried that the following resolution be adopted
WHEREAS, the City of Hanford proposes to construct two wells and two water storage tanks and replace ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscaping;
WHEREAS, the City of Hanford has the legal authority and is authorized to enter into a funding agreement with the State of California; and
WHEREAS, City of Hanford intends to apply for grant funding from the California Department of Water Resources through the Urban Community Drought Relief Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Hanford City Council as follows:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the [Governing Body] of the [Agency Name] as follows:
1. That pursuant and subject to all of the terms and provisions of Budget Act of 2021 (Stats. 2021, ch. 240, § 80) as amended (Stats. 2022, ch. 44, § 25), the City of Hanford City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and file an application for funding with the Department of Water Resources, and take such other actions necessary or appropriate to obtain grant funding.
2. The City of Hanford City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to execute the funding agreement with the Department of Water Resources and any amendments thereto.
3. The City of Hanford City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to submit any required documents, invoices, and reports required to obtain grant funding.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on November 1, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member ___________________________
NOES: Council Member ___________________________
ABSTAIN: Council Member ___________________________
ABSENT: Council Member ___________________________
Approved ___________________________________
Kalish Morrow
Mayor of the City of Hanford
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 500
Attachment: Resolution 22-43-R (CD: Authorization to Apply for the Urban Community Drought Relief Program) ATTEST:
____________________________
Natalie Corral
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF KINGS )
CITY OF HANFORD )
I, Natalie Corral, City Clerk of the City of Hanford, do hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hanford held on the 20th day of September, 2022.
Date: ____________________ ___________________________________ City Clerk
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 501
Attachment: Resolution 22-43-R (CD: Authorization to Apply for the Urban Community Drought Relief Program)
AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022
AGENDA SECTION:
SUBJECT:
Council Future Agenda Items
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Council Future Agenda Items
Packet Pg. 502
Council Future Agenda Items
Originated
Date Item Originator Staff Lead Date Estimate
12/21/21
Review of City Ordinance related to
property line setbacks for Patio
structures and Driveway Awnings
Council
Consensus
Tom Webb
12/6/2022
1/18/22
Discussion of options for New Business
Incentives in the Downtown District
Council
Consensus
Mario Cifuentez
11/15/2022
7/19/2022 Formal direction from Council on
roundabouts or signalized
intersections in the Downtown
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety project
Council
Consensus
Various 11/15/2022
8/2/2022 Discussion regarding a process to
formally oppose any movement of
groundwater outside of the jurisdiction
of Kings County and update on
Groundwater
Council
Consensus
Jason Waters 12/6/2022
9/20/22 Review of Measurable Objectives for
Parks as previously reviewed and
approved by Council on June 7, 2022
Council
Consensus
Brad Albert 12/6/2022
10/18/2022 Update on Hidden Valley Park
including change of zoning and scoping
meetings.
Council
Consensus
Brad Albert 12/6/2022
17.a
Packet Pg. 503
Attachment: Council Future Agenda Items (Council: Future Agenda Items)