Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-75
groundwater table through the disposal of treated disinfected wastewater from its wastewater treatment facility. Each day approximately 5 million gallons of water is processed through the facility.
Stormwater Drainage : The existing drainage infrastructure within the City of Hanford’s Stormwater Management Program include natural drainage channels, retention basins, natural vegetation, piping, and pump sta tions. There are some areas where storm drainage is controlled by drainage inlets and underground structures. The system consists of 30 pump stations, 5 6 miles of pipeline, and 181 acres of drainage basins and drainage ditches. 29 Additionally, the City is planning to add approximately 317 acre- feet of additional drainage basins. The Project would connect to a stormwater basin in the Billingsley Ranch subdivision adjacent to the Project site.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
The CWA requires the EPA to develop, publish, and periodically update ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health. In 1980, the EPA published water quality criteria for 64 pollutants and pollutant classes and considered non -cancer, cancer, and t aste and odor effects. Over the years, these criteria have evolved and have included additional pollutants and pollutant classes.
During the last decade, policy has shifted from a program -by-program, source -by-source, pollutant -by- pollutant approach to mor e watershed-based strategies. Ultimately, these criteria are used by states for establishing water quality standards under Section 303 (c) of the CWA and provide a basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Regulations The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act established the NPDES permit program to control discharges of pollutants from point sources (CWA 402. The 1987 amendments to CWA created a new sectio n of CWA devoted to stormwater permitting (CWA 402[p]). The EPA has granted California primacy in administering and enforcing the provisions of CWA and the NPDES permit program, which is the primary federal program that regulates point -source and nonpoint -source discharges to waters of the United States. SWRCB issues both general and individual permits for certain activities. Relevant general and individual NPDES permits are discussed below.
Phase II MS4 Permit
The SWRCB, in response to the EPA, issued Water Quality Order No. 2013-001-DWQ NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004, Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Systems (MS4s) in February 2013 which went into e ffect July 2013. The MS4 Permit requires urban municipalities with predetermined inclusion reequipments to file an application and comply with prescriptive tasks over the 5-year permit term. The prescriptive tasks include, but are not limited to, public outreach and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE), construction site runoff control, post -construction storm water management, municipality facility and operation good housekeeping, water quality monitoring, and municipality assessment and reporting.
Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit
A Construction NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit (CGP), Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) is required for dischargers or projects who disturb one acre or more of soil or whose project disturbs less than one acre, but which is
29 (City of Hanford 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-76
part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one acre or more. This CGP was adopted in September 2009 and went into effect July 2010.
The CGP requires the development of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) which include the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and propose d buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list/describe BMPs the discharger would use to prevent polluted stormwa ter runoff and show the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non -visible” pollutants, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Attachment B of the CGP describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP. Additional PRD requirements are described in Attachments C-E in the CGP.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969
The P orter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins, each with a RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency responsible for protecting the quality of the States surface and groundwater supplies, w hile the regional boards are responsible for developing and enforcing water quality objectives and implementation plans. The Project would be within the jurisdiction of Central Valley RWQCB.
The act authorizes the SWRCB to enact State policies regarding w ater quality in accordance with the CWA Section 303. In addition, the act authorizes the SWRCB to issue WDRs for projects that would discharge to state waters. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires that the SWRCB or the Central Valley RWQCB adopt water quality control plans (basin plans) for the protection of water quality. A basin plan must:
Identify beneficial uses of water to be protected;
Establish water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of the beneficial uses; and Establish a program of implementation for achieving the water quality objectives.
Basin plans also provide the technical basis for determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. Basin plans are up dated and reviewed every 3 years in accordance with Article 3 of Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and CWA 303(c) (Central Valley RWQCB 2004 with approved amendments).
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region – Basin Plan Water quality in streams and aquifers of the region is guided and regulated by the Central Valley RWQCB Tulare Lake Basin Plan. 30 State policy for water quality control is directed at achieving the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state. To develop water quality standards consistent with the uses of a water body, the Central Valley RWQCB classifies historical, present, and potential future beneficial uses as part of its basin plan. The Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan identifies the beneficial uses of the Tulare Lake basin.
30 (State of California Water Boards-Central Valley Region 5 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-77
The Basin Plan lists the Valley Floor Creeks are listed for agricu lture, industrial, process water, recreation, warm water habitat, wild habitat, rare species habitat, and groundwater recharge. A detailed discussion of beneficial uses and water quality objectives can be found in the Basin Plan.
The Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan has also established the water quality objectives for dissolved oxygen in various habitats. The objective for warm water beneficial use habitats is 5mg/L minimum; and for cold water habitats is 7mg/L minimum.31
The Central Valley RWQCB Basin Pla n also states that turbidity shall not be increased by more than 1 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) when ambient turbidity is between 0 and 5 NTU. Turbidity shall not be increased by more than 20 percent when ambient turbidity is between 5 and 50 NTU. Finally, when ambient turbidity is greater than 100 NTU, turbidity shall not be increased by more than 10 percent.32
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, the California Legislature enacted a three -bill law (AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319), known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA was created to provide a framework for the sustainable management of groundwater supplies and intended to empower local agencies to adopt groundwater management plans that are tailored to the resources and needs of their communities, such that sustainable management would provide a buffer against drought and climate change and ensure reliable water supplies regardless of weather patterns. SGMA is considered part of the statewide, comprehensive California Water Action Plan that includes water conservation, water recycling, expanded water storage, safe drinking water, and wetlands and watershed restoration. It protects existing surface water and groundwater rights and does not affect current drought response measures.
Local
City of Hanford General Plan
Policy O25. Recharge Basins . Protect existing groundwater recharge basins and natural and manmade sloughs and seek the establishment of new basins within and around Hanford.
Policy O29. Water Conservation Measures for New Development. Encourage new development projects to include water conservation measures, including use of graywater, reclaimed, or recycled water for landscaping, water-conserving plumbing fixtures and appliances, and water-efficient landscapes.
Policy O30. Storm Water Pollution Prevention . Implement the NPDES Stormwater Permit and for those properties exempt from the Permit, require a storm water pollution prevention plan, including use of best management practices, to control erosion and sedimentation during construction.
Policy P3. Water Supply and Fire Flow Availability . Conditional approval of new development projects and water service extensions on the availability of adequate water supply and the ability to meet domestic and fire flow needs of the area.
31 (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region 2018) 32 Ibid.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-78
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality due to potentially polluted runoff generated during construction activities. Construction may include excavation, grading, and other types of earthworks across the 12.17-acre Project site . During storm events, exposed construction areas across the Project site may cause runoff to carry pollutants, such a chemicals, oils, sediment, and debris. Because the Project site is greater than 1 acre in size, implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the Project. A SWPPP identifies all potential sources of pollution that could affect stormwater discharges from the Project site and identifies best management practices (BMPs) related to stormwater runoff. In a ddition, runoff resulting from the Project would be managed by the City in compliance with the Storm Drainage Master Plan in addition to approved grading and drainage plans. As such, any impact would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantial ly decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwa ter supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. According to t he City of Hanford 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) the demand for water in 2020 was 11,714 acre feet. In 2020, single family uses used 6,903 AF, which accounted for 59 percent of the total water used. 33 The Project consists of 8 2 dwelling units and the average household size in Hanford is 3. 09 people; therefore, the Project would house approximately 247 people.34 According to the UWMP, the amount of groundwater predicted to be pumped in 2020 was 11,714 acre feet or 10.4 million gallons per day.
The 82-lot subdivision would be expected to use approximately 42,237 gallons of water per day (people (247) x 2020 average gallons per day per person (171)) under normal operation, including domestic and landscape irrigation. This equates to approximately 47.3 acre feet per year . Although the Project woul d utilize groundwater for domestic purposes, the amount of water used is not considered significant and would not substantially lower the groundwater table of the aquifer or interfere substantially with the recharge of the underground aquifer. Additionally, the Project would pay its fair share of installation of improvements and pay all development fees related to water service. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
33 (City of Hanford 2021)
34 (United States Census Bureau 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-79
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in some soil erosion and the loss of topsoil due to Project related construction activities. The drainage pattern of the new subdivision would be alter ed to flow to the stormwater basin located within the future Billingsley Ranch subdivision immediately to the east. The stormwater basin would be constructed prior to the Stonehaven subdivision being constructed.
Through the completion of a SWPPP and the i mplementation of the applicable best management practices, any potential impacts from the altering of drainage patterns would be limited to less than significant.
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due t o project inundations?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no streams or rivers onsite or in the immediate vicinity of the Project. The nearest 100-year flood zone is 1.7 miles northeast from the site. In order to minimize erosion and run-off during c onstruction activities, a SWPPP would be implemented, and the contractor would comply with all Cal/OSHA regulations regarding regular maintenance and inspection of equipment, spill prevention, and spill remediation in order to reduce the potential for inci dental release of pollutants or hazardous substances onsite. There is no potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Any impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Cen tral Valley RWQCB. The project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations regarding water quality and groundwater management and there is no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-80
Figure 4-2: FEMA Map
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-81
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-26: Land Use and Planning Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Physically divide an established
community?
g) 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?
Baseline Conditions
The proposed project site is in the Southwest corner of the City of Hanford. The site is approximately 2 miles Southwest of downtown Hanford. The site is currently zoned AL -10 by the County of Kings .
Additionally, the site is designated as Low Density Residential by the City of Hanford 2035 General Plan.
The site is topographically flat and is bounded by agricultural uses to the east and west, and rural residential uses to the north and south.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal land use regulations that apply to the Project.
State
There are no State land use regulations that apply to the Project.
Local
City of Hanford General Plan
The following goals and policies in the City of Hanfor d General Plan are applicable to the Project site’s residential land use designation:
Policy L10. Residential / Industrial Separation. Discourage designation of land for new residential uses south of Houston Avenue.
Policy L13. Development Boundary at 13 th Avenue. Locate the 2035 Growth Boundary at 13 th Avenue to maintain a rural agricultural land use buffer between Hanford and the communities of Grangeville and Armona.
Policy L24. Availability of Infrastructure. Ensure that new residential developments have sufficient urban infrastructure and public facilities to accommodate the number and type of development being proposed.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-82
Policy L25. Maintenance Districts. Require new residential subdivisions to form maintenance districts to maintain shared public im provements, such as landscaping, lighting, walls, streets, and other improvements as determined by the City Council.
Policy L28. Street Trees and Landscaping. Encourage all new residential developments to include shade trees along the street and install landscaping and irrigation systems that meet State requirements for low water use.
Policy L29. Agriculture. Recognize the right of agriculture to exist and continue to operate in proximity to the new residential development on the fringes of the City. Deed restrictions may be required which inform future residents of the right of agriculture to continue within t he limits of the law without interference or protest from nearby property owners.
Policy L31. Purpose of the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation. Establish the Low Density Residential land use designation to provide mainly single family development on lot sizes typically found in urban setting.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact . The Project site is located in the southwest portion of the City and within its sphere of influence. There is existing residential development 0.3 miles to the east, and rural residential uses to the north and south, while west of the site consists of agricultural land. The Project will not physically divide any of these established communities and uses. The Project proposes to c onstruct streets that are publicly accessible and would connect to Hanford Armona Road to the north. There would be no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with or cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project is proposing to subdivide and develop 82 single family low density residential subdivision in the approximately 12.17-acre Project site. The City of Hanford General Plan land use diagram designates the Project site as Low Density Residential. The Project will not conflict with any City of Hanford General Plan policies, therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation since it would be consistent with land use designation standards. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-83
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Table 4-27: Mineral Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Baseline Conditions
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) Miner al Lands Classification (MLC) data portal, the City of Hanford is not within a mineral resource study area. 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 gr avel 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 vicinity of the Project site.
Applicable Regulations
State
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
Enacted by the State Legislature in 1975, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Public Resources Code Section 2710, et seq., ensures a continuing supply of mineral resources for California. The Act creates surface mining and reclamation policy to ensure that:
• Production and conservation of minerals is encouraged; • Environmental effects are prevented or minimized;
• Consideration is given to recreational activities, watersheds, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment;
• Mined lands are reclaimed to a useable condition once mining is completed; and • Hazards to public safety both now and in the future are eliminated.
Areas in the State (i.e., a city or county) that do not have their own regulations for mining and reclamation activities rely on the Department of Conservation Division of Mine Reclamation to enforce this law. SMARA contains provisions for the inventory of mineral lands in the State of California. The State Geologist, in accordance with the SWRCB Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, must classify Mineral Resource Zones as designated below:
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-84
MRZ-1. Areas where available geologic information indicates that there is minimal l ikelihood of significant resources.
MRZ-2. Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant mineral deposits are located or likely to be located.
MRZ-2a. Areas containing mineral deposits that have geologic data to confirm that significant measured or indicated resources are present.
MRZ-2b. Areas containing mineral deposits where geologic information indicates that inferred resources are present.
MRZ-3. Areas where mineral deposits are found but the significance of the depo sits cannot be evaluated without further exploration.
MRZ-3a. Areas considered having a moderate potential for mineral deposits of economic value.
MRZ-3b. Areas that include inferred mineral deposits that could possibly qualify as mineral resources.
MRZ-4. Areas where there is not enough information to assess the zone. These are areas that have unknown mineral resource significance.
SMARA only covers mining activities that impact or disturb the surface of the land. Deep mining (tunnel) or petroleum and gas production is not covered by SMARA.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site has no known mineral r esources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, therefore the Project would not result in the loss of impede the mining of regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. There are no known mineral resources of importance to the region and the Project site is not designated under the City’s or County’s General Plan as an important mineral resource recovery site. For that reason, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of known regionally or locally important mineral resources. There is no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-85
4.13 NOISE
Table 4-28: Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is surrounded by rural residential homes to the south and north, and agricultural crops to the east and west. The site is located approximately 3.2 miles west of the Hanford Municipal Airport, but it is located outside of all of the identified airport protection zones within the Kings County, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). State Route (SR) 198, located approximately 0.35 miles north is identified as a significant transportation noise source.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with noise that are applicable to the Project.
State
State of California General Plan Guidelines
The State of California General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2003) identify guidelines for the noise elements of local GPs, including a sound level/land use compatibility chart that categorizes, by land use, outdoor Ldn ranges in up to four categories (normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable). For many land uses, the chart shows overlapping Ldn ranges for two or more compatibility categories. The noise element guideline chart identifies the normally acceptable range of Ldn values for low-density residential uses as less than 60 dB and the conditionally acceptable range as 55 –70 dB. The normally acceptable range for high-density residential uses is identified as Ldn values below 65 dB, and the conditionally acceptable range is identified as 60–70 dB. For educational and medical facilities, Ldn values below 70 dB are considered normally acceptable, and Ldn values of 60 –70 dB is considered
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-86
conditionally acceptable. For office and commercial land uses, Ldn values bel ow 70 dB are considered normally acceptable, and Ldn values of 67.5–77.5 are categorized as conditionally acceptable. When noise levels are in the conditionally acceptable range new construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the no ise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation requirements are included in the design. These overlapping Ldn ranges are intended to indicate that local conditions (existing sound levels and community attitudes toward dominant sound sources) should be considered in evaluating land use compatibility at specific locations.
Local
City of Hanford General Plan
Goal H7. Protection from the harmful and annoying effect of excessive noise.
Policy H42. Noise Evaluation for New Development . 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 as not to exceed the maximum allowable interior and exterior noise level standards.
Policy H46. Noise Ordinance. Adopt ordinances that limit noise -generating sources to acceptable, safe levels.
Policy H48. Noise Mitigation for Construction Activities. Require all development projects to mitigate noise impacts associated with construction activities.
Noise Ordinance
Chapter 9.10 of the City’s Municipal Code contains the City’s noise ordinance, which establishes exterior noise level standards. Applicable regulations are as follows:
Construction or Repair of Buildings, Excavation of Streets and Highways. The construction, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of streets and highways other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. In cases of emergency, const ruction or repair noises are exempt from this provision. In non -emergency situations, the city manager, or designee, may issue a permit, upon application, if the city manager, or designee, determines that the public health and safety, is affected by loud a nd raucous noise caused by construction or repair of buildings or excavation of streets and highways between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. will not be impaired, and if the city manager, or designee, further determines that loss or inconvenience would otherwise result. The permit shall grant permission in non-emergency cases for a period of not more than three (3) days. The permit may be renewed once for a period of three (3) days or less.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project will create a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of the standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies for approximately 16 months. Construction-related noise would be temporary and would cease upon completion of the Project. The construction required for the completion of this Project is exempt from the above noise regulations. In addition, according to
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-87
the inverse square law, noise diminishes from its source by six dBA with each doubling of distance from origin. As a result, any noise generated from the proposed Project would have a diminished effect when heard from people in the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact . Construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Construction and agricultural activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels from construction would be temporary in nature and further buffered from surrounding residences by the subdivision wall and landscape wall. In addition, vibration levels subside with increased distance from the source, diminishing the effect the Project w ould have. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport , would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan.
The nearest airport or airstrip to the Project site Hanford Municipal Airport approximately 3.2 miles east of the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-88
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-29: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Baseline Conditions
The United States Census Bureau stated the population in the City of Hanford to be 57,990 as of April 2020.
This is an increase of 4,023 from the 2010 census, which counted the population in the City of Hanford to be 53,967. 35 Factors that influence population growth in Hanford include job availability, housing availability, and the capacity of proposed and existing infrastructure.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The Project would result in the construction of 8 2 houses on land that would be annexed into the City as a part of the Project and remove one existing single family residence. At 3.09 residents per household, the Project could potentially add 247 new people to the City’s population. While the Project would induce population growth th rough the construction of 8 2 houses, the construction of homes on this land aligns with the City’s General Plan Land Use designation of low density residential. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numb ers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewher e. The Project would result in the new construction of 8 2 homes on land within the City of Hanford. The Project site currently contains one residence on the northeastern end of the property. This residence would be demolished to facilitate the
35 (United States Census Bureau 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-89
Project. The owner of the residence is also the property owner and is vacating the site voluntarily. As a result, no person would be displaced as a result of the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-90
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-30: 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 performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Baseline Conditions
Fire Protection: Hanford and the Project site is served by the Hanford Fire Department (HFD), which operates three fire stations within the City of Hanford. HFD would continue to provide fire protection services to the Project site following project implementation. The nearest fire station to the site is Hanford Fire Station 3 which is located approximately 0.7 miles to the east.
Police Protection : Law enforcement services are provided to the Project site via the Hanford Police Department (HPD). HPD would continue to provide police protection services to the Project site following project implementation. HPD headquarters are located approximately 3.7 miles Northeast of the Project site.
Schools: The project site is located near Roosevelt Elementary School District and Hanford Joint Union High School District (HJUHSD). HJUHSD has three high schools, with the Project site zoned for Sierra Pacific High School. Hanford also contains four private schools. The Project site is located along Hanford Armona Road, about one-quarter mile south from the nearest school (Future Hope Preschool).
Parks: There are 26 park facilities totaling 299.70 acres within the City of Hanford. The City of Hanford provides different types of parks and open space facilities, or park types, to meet park and open space recreation needs of the community. The nearest park to the Project site is Centennial Park located approximately 0.90 miles east.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-91
Applicable Regulations
Local
City of Hanford General Plan
Policy P37. Impact Fees for Police Facilities: Require new development to provide funding to meet the cost of providing vehicles, equipment, and structures, to meet the needs of new population growth.
Policy P47. Lighting for Safety: Facilitate public safety through the placement and design of outdoor lighting, while respecting the privacy of surrounding properties.
Policy P48. CPTED Principles for Safety: Create building and neighborhood design standards that are consistent with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
Policy P52. Impact Fees for Fire Facilities: Require developers to contribute impact fees to fund the cost of providing fire facilities needed to support new population growth and development.
Policy P59. Fire and Building Codes: Continue to enforce the California Fire Code, California Building Code, and Hanford Municipal Code to mitigate threats to safety and property.
Policy O65. Development Impact Fee for Parks: Adopt and periodically update a park development impact fee to fund new neighborhood and community parks needed to serve new growth.
Policy P79. Impact Fees for General Government Facilities: Require developers to contribute impact fees to fund the cost of providing expanded general gov ernment facilities needed to support new population growth and development.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection:
Less than Significant Impact. The HFD will provide fire protection services to the proposed Project. The nearest fire station to the site is approximately 0.7 miles to the eas t. The Project’s proximity to existing stations would support adequate service ratios, response times, and other objectives for fire protection services. There would not be a need for additional facilities for the proposed project. In addition, the HFD will review the Project for requirements related to water supply, fire hydrants, and fire apparatus access to the building(s) on site. However, to further reduce potential Project impacts, the Project shall be subject to Fire Protection Department Impact Fees. As a result, any impact would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-92
ii. Police Protection:
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently within the city sphere of influence and will be annexed into the city limits and therefore would be served by the HPD. The nearest police station to the proposed Project is located approximately 3.7-miles northeast from the site. While the Project may result in the need for additional police staff, the police facility is adequate in size to support additional officers, and within a distance that would allow the Department to maintain acceptable response times. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on police facilities and will not warrant the need for new or physically altered police facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios and meet performance objectives. Additionally, to further reduce potential Project impacts, the Project shall be subject to Police Protection Development Impact Fee.
iii. Schools:
Less than Significant Impact. Educational services needed for the development of the Project will be provided by the Hanford Elementary School District (HESD) and Hanford Joint Union High School District (HJUHSD). Payment of fees to a school district is considered mitigation for project impacts on school facilities (Government Code Section 659 96(a)). Therefore, the project applicant would be required to pay the statutory fees to accommodate the impact of project -generated students, reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
iv. Parks:
Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes a residential use and thus, would result in a net increase in the area population. As a new subdivision, the Project is subject to the Park Facilities Impact Fee in addition to the Quimby Act. Thus, to offset any potential impacts, the Project shall be subje ct to Park Facilities Impact Fees and the Quimby Act , whose funding goes towards the acquisition and development of parks space. The Project’s impacts would be less than significant. v. Other public facilities:
Less than Significant Impact. The City provides a wide range of public services to the public in addition to those services mentioned above. The City also provides animal control services, refuse pick -up, library facilities, and drainage management. These services are generally funded through the general fund, usage fees, fines and penalties or impact fee collection. The City of Hanford collects planning and building fees as well as impact fees for new development. Since the demand for other public facilities is driven by population, the proposed Proj ect would be required to pay fees to offset the increase in the demand for that service. With those fees, any impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-93
4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-31: Recreation Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Baseline Conditions
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 of 5.06 acres of park land per 1,000 residents based on the City’s 2018 population.36 The 2035 General Plan includes a standard goal of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents for fut ure 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 Project may also be subject to requirements of the Quimby Act, including park land dedication and/or payment of fees in -lieu thereof (or a combination of both). The nearest park to the Project site is Centennial Park located 0.9 miles east.
Applicable Regulations
Federal
There are no federal regulations pertaining to recreation that apply to the Project.
State
State Open Space Standards
State planning law (GC Section 65560) provides a structure for the preservation of open space by requiring every city and county in the state to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a “local open -space plan for the comprehensive and long -range preservation and conservation of open - space land within its jurisdiction.” The following open space categories are identified for preservation:
• Open space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to, areas that require special management or regulation due to hazardous or special conditions.
36 (City of Hanford 2020)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-94
• Open space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not l imited to, natural vegetation, fish and wildlife, and water resources.
• Open space for resource management and production, including, but not limited to, agricultural and mineral resources, forests, rangeland, and areas required for the recharge of groundwa ter basins.
• Open space for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to, parks and recreational facilities, areas that serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations (such as trails, easements, and scenic roadways), and areas of outstanding scenic and cultural value. • Open space for the protection of Native American sites, including, but not limited to, places, features, and objects of historical, cultural, or sacred significance such as Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property (further defined in PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993).
Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (GC Section 66477) authorizes cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring th at developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The Act states that the dedication requirement of parkland can be a minimum of three acres per thousand residents or more and up to five acres per thousand resi dents if the existing ratio is greater than the minimum standard. Revenues generated through in -lieu fees collected and the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. In 1982, the Act was substantially amended. The amendments further defined acceptable uses of, or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/ population standards and formulas for determining the exaction, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (i.e. via nexus) to project impacts as identified through studies required by CEQA.
Local
City of Hanford General Plan
Goal O8. A high-quality public park system that provides a variety of recreational opportunities Goal O9. Parks provided at a combined ratio of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents.
Policy O50. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan . Prepare and periodically update a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan to plan for new growth identified in the land use element Policy O53. Parkland Ratio Calculation. When determining the parkland ratio of acres per 1,000 population, include the acreage of city-owned mini, neighborhood, community, regional, special use, and storm water basin parks, along with 50% of the acreage of school playgrounds and play areas within the Planned Area Boundary
Policy O61. Community Parks Service Area . Community parks shall have a general service area of approximately two mile radius, and situated to provide adequate access to arterial and/or collector streets.
Policy O65. Development Impact Fee for Parks. Adopt and periodically update a park development impact fee to fund new neighborhood and community parks needed to serve new growth.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-95
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The Project proposes a residential use and thus, would result in a net increase in the area population. As a new subdivision, the Project is subject to the Park Facilities Impact Fee in addition to the Quimby Act. Compliance with these requirements would offset any impacts that would result in the need for new or physically altered parks. For these reasons, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not propose recreational facilities. As stated under criterion a) above, the Project is subject to the Park Facilities Impact Fee in addition to the Quimby Act.
Through compliance with these requirements, the Project is paying its “fair share” for the future construction of facilities and/or to reimburse the City for such facilities. For these reasons, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Project.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-96
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-32: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)??
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site would be located on an approximately 12.17-acre parcel along Hanford-Armona Road , between 12th Avenue and 13th Avenue. Hanford-Armona Road is an existing arterial roadway as designated by the City of Hanford General Plan Transportation & Circulation Element. There is one SR within the vicinity of the Project site, SR 198, located .32 miles north of the Project site.
Applicable Regulations
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory 37 provide details on appropriate “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less -than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed VMT analysis. Screening thresholds include:
1. Residential and office projects within a Transit Priority Area
2. Locally serving retail projects up to 50,000 square feet
3. Residential, office, or mixed‐use projects within low‐VMT generating areas
4. 100 percent affordable housing projects
5. Projects that generate fewer than 110 daily trips
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact.
37 (Governor's Office of Planning and Research 2018)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-97
Thresholds
Aligning with the aforementioned Technical Advisory, a Project that meets any of the screening thresholds above are considered less than less than significant. Should a Project be unable to screen out, the Project must demonstrate a vehicle miles per capita equal to less than 15% of the regionwide average.
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict wit h a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project would not be in conflict with the standards and goals set forth in the City of Hanford General Plan Transportation & Circulation Element. The Project is required to submit improv ement plans, including roadway improvements, for review and approval by the City Engineer to ensure improvements will be consistent with City standards. Therefore. there would be no impact. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the addition of 8 2 new homes to the City of Hanford, resulting in a population increase for the City. A rise in population for the area would result in an increased amount of VMT. The City of Hanford has identified the area as being located within a Low VMT-generating area as illustrated in Appendix E. As a result, the Project meets one of the five screening thresholds identified above. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. The Project would result in a point of access from two points from the Bil lingsley Ranch subdivision to the immediate east. Roadway design and width would be required to be approved by the City Engineer before construction could commence. Compliance with all applicable safety standards would be required and confirmed during the review of improvement plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact.The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access as it proposes two points of access. While the construction for the Project would result in truck deliveries, hauling of materials, and construction crews, and improvement plans, any work completed in existing roadways would be required to be approved by the City Engineer before they could occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-98
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-33: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in the local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Baseline Conditions
Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. For a variety of historical reasons, existing research information emphasizes the central Yokuts tribes who occupied both the valle y and particularly the foothills of the Sierra. The northernmost tribes suffered from the influx of Euro-Americans during the Gold Rush and their populations were in substantial decline by the time ethnographic studies began in the early twentieth century. In contrast, the southernmost tribes were partially removed by the Spanish to missions and eventually absorbed into multi-tribal communities on the Sebastian Indian Reservation (on Tejon Ranch), and later the Tule River Reservation and Santa Rosa Rancheri a to the north. The result is an unfortunate scarcity of ethnographic detail on southern Valley tribes, especially in relation to the rich information collected from the central foothills tribes where native speakers of the Yokuts dialects are still found. Regardless, the general details of indigenous lifeways were similar across the broad expanse of Yokuts territory, particularly in terms of environmentally influenced subsistence and adaptation and with regard to religion and belief, which were similar everywhere.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-99
Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of Euro - American diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. It is estimated that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokuts people continue to reside in the southern San Joaquin Valley today, including at the nearby Santa Rosa Rancheria.
Records Search
A records search from the SSJVIC of CHRIS, located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in February 2023 . The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built - environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the C alifornia Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced APE and an additional ½ mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (Appendix C).
Additional sources included the State Office of Historic P reservation Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
Native American Outreach
An SLF was requested from Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento in February 2023.
The NAHC was provided with a brief description of the Project and a map showing its location with a request that the NAHC perform a search of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any Native American resources have been recorded in the immediat e APE. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among many other powers and duties. NAHC provide a current list of Native American Tribal contacts to notify of the project. ASM sent outr each letters to the tribes provided on the NAHC contact list on February 16, 2023, with follow-up emails sent to the tribes on 17 March 2023.
The only response received was from the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria and who requested the following:
• The results of the archaeological survey;
• To be retained for a Cultural Presentation;
• To have a monitor onsite for all ground disturbance related to the project; • To have a Burial Treatment Plan put in place; and,
• To have a Curation Agreement put in place.
(See Appendix C)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-100
Applicable Regulations
State
California Environmental Quality Act
PRC Section 21083.2 Archaeological Resources: CEQA directs the lead agency to include in its environmental assessment for the project a determination of the project effects on unique archeological resources; defines unique archeological resource; enables a lead agency to require an applicant to make a reasonable effort to preserve or mitigate impacts to any affected unique archeological resource; sets requirements for the applicant to provide payment to cover costs of mitigation; and restricts excavation as a mitigation measure.
PRC Section 21084.1 Historic Resources: CEQA establishes that adverse effects on a historic resource qualifies as a significant effect on the environment; and defines historical resource.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5: This section defines three ways that a property can qualify as a significant historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review:
• If the resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources;
• If the resource is i ncluded in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or
• If the lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5)
In addition to determining the significance under CEQA and eligibility of any identified historical resource for the California Register, historic properties must be evaluated under the criteria for the National Register should federal funding or permitting become involved in any undertaking subject to this document.
CEQA Guidelines on Mitigation of Cultural Resources Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 states that “public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resources of an archeological nature.” The Guidelines further state that preservation-in-place is the preferred approach to mitigate impacts on archaeological resources. However, according to Section 15126.4, if data recovery through excavation is “the only feasible mitigation,” then a “data recovery plan, which makes pr ovision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resources, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken.” Data recovery is not required for a resource of an archaeologic al nature if “the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource.” The section further states that its provisions apply to those archaeological resources that also qualify as historic resources.
Native American Heritage Act
Also relevant to the evaluation and mitigation of impacts to cultural resources is the Native American Heritage Act of 1976 which established the NAHC and protects Native American religious values on state property (see PRC Section 5097.9).
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-101
Public Notice to California Native American Indian Tribes GC Section 65092 includes California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC in the definition of “person” to whom notice of public hearings shall be sent by local governments.
Disposition of Human Remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) When an initial study identifies the existence, or the probabl e likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native American groups or individuals as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American burials. Furthermore, HSC Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.
California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 HSC Sections 8010-8011 establish a State repatriation policy intent that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of NAGPRA. The Act strives to ensure that all California Indian human remains, and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also states the intent for the state to provide mechanisms for aiding California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims.
Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A record search of the NAH C Sacred Lands File was completed for the Project area and the results were negative for the presence of Native American tribal cultural resources. A records search from CHRIS at SSJVIC also confirmed that there are no recorded cultural or historical resou rces within the Project area. Less than significant impacts, with mitigation incorporated, to tribal resources are expected. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3, described above in Cultural Resources, as well as TCR-1 and TCR-2 are recommended in the event tribal cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 502 4.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Hanford, as the public lead agency, received a letter from the Santa Rosa I ndian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (AB 52) officially requesting notification of Projects within the Santa Rosa Rancheria’s geographic area of traditional and cultural affiliation. On May 18, 2023 the City sent the Tr ibe a formal
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-102
letter including a Project description. In accordance with the law, the letter provided 30 days from receipt of the letter to request consultation in writing. One request for tribal consultation was made for the Project. The requests from the Tribe have been incorporated into this document as mitigation measures TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3. Implementation of TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 mitigation measures outlined below will reduce any impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources will be less than significant.
In addition, although there is little chance the Project would cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined. Mitigation Measure CUL-1, CUL-2 and CUL-3, described in Cultural Resources is recommended in the event cultural materials or human remains are unearthed during excavation or construction.
Mitigation
See CUL-1, CUL-2, & CUL-3 identified in Cultural Resources TCR-1 (Tribal Cultural Resource Presentation): Due to Tribal history and knowledge of the project area, the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe has concerns and is requesting to be retained for a cultural sensitivity awareness presentation to all construction staff of the Project, prior to start of construction activities.
TCR-2 (Tribal Cultural Monitoring): An approved Tribal Monitor shall be retained to be on site to monitor during all project-related ground-disturbing construction activities within the Cultural APE (i.e., grading, excavation, etc.).
TCR-3 (Curation of Archaeological Collections): A curation agreement shall be entered into with the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, materials and documents would be professionally curated as outlined in agreement and made available to other archaeologists or researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, to an appropriate curation facility as outlined in agreement with Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, to be accompanied by payment.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-103
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-34: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Baseline Conditions
The City of Hanford provides water, sewer and garbage services to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers located within the City.
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 locat ed throughout the City. The treatment facility has a capacity of 8 million gallons per day and is located south of Houston Avenue and East of 11th Avenue. The City’s wastewater system also pursues water conservation strategies to ensure long -term reuse of treated disinfected wastewater to reduce the need for groundwater.
Solid Waste and Recycling
Solid waste in the City is collected by Kings Waste Recycling Authority (KWRA). Refuse is sorted at the KWRA facility to recover recyclable materials before being hauled to the landfill in Kettleman Hills. For single - family residential customers, the City has instituted a green waste collection mixed recycle collection program to aid in achieving the California-enacted legislation bill AB 939.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-104
Water Service Company
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 Valley Groundwater Basin. The system consists of 14 groundwater wells, three 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 sto rm water basins, local waterways, and agricultural irrigation.
Natural Gas & 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.
Applicable Regulations
State
State Water Resources Control Board – Waste Discharge Requirements Program State regulations pertaining to the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of solid waste are found in Title 27, CCR, Sec tion 20005 et seq. (hereafter Title 27). In general, the WDR Program (sometimes also referred to as the “Non Chapter 15 (Non 15) Program”) regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Wa ter Pollution Control Act.
Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of discharges (e.g. sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for each specific exemption. The scope of the WDR Program also in cludes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to Section 20230 of Title 2738. Several programs are administered under the WDR Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs.
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is the State agency designated to oversee, manage, and track wastes generated in California. In 2015, statewide disposal was 33.2 million tons of solid waste. CalRecycle develops laws and regulations to control and manage waste, for which enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40000, et seq.) or AB 939, administered by CalRecycle, requires all local and county governments to adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to identify means of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. This law set reduction targets at 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To assist local jurisdictions in achieving these targets, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires all new developments to include adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable and green waste materials.
38 (State of California Water Resources Control Board 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-105
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
As authorized by the CWA, the NPDES Permit Program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into water of the United States. In California, it is the responsibility of SWRCB and RWQCBs to preserve and enhance the quality of the States waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of WDR. WDRs for discharges to surface waters also serve as NPDES permits.39 NPDES permits also regulate the requirements of the MS4 discharges to surface waters.
California Department of Water Resources
DWR is responsible for the management and regulation of water usage in the State of California.
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7)
This State legislative package mandates a 20 percent statewide reduction of urban per capita water use by the year 2020. Its provisions require urban water suppliers to adopt reduction targets according to baseline water use determinations, and agricultural water suppliers to prepare agricultural water management plans. Following SB X7 -7, urban water management plans must include baseline water use and reduct ion targets, and report on target compliance. In addition to adopting agricultural water management plans, agricultural water suppliers must measure the volume of water delivered according to methodology adopted by DWR and adopt specified efficient water m anagement practices. Non -compliance would be penalized by disqualification for State water grants and loans. Failure to meet targets after the 2020 deadline would be considered a violation of the law.
State Water Quality Certification Program
The RWQCBs also facilitates the State Water Quality Certification Program or Section 401 Certification of the CWA. Under Section 401, states have the authority to review any permit or license that would result in a discharge or disruption to wetlands and other waters under state jurisdiction, to ensure that the actions would be consistent with the state water quality requirements. This program is most often associated with the CWA Section 404, which obligates the USACE to issue permits for the movement of dredge and fil l material into and from the “waters of the United States.” Additionally, Section 404 requires permits for activities affecting wetlands. Prospective alterations of hydrologic features such as wetlands, rivers, and ephemeral creek beds resulting from construction require Section 404 NWP.
Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit
A CGP for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (CGP, Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) is required for dischargers or projects who disturb one acre or mor e of soil or whose project disturbs less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one acre or more. The SWRCB established the CGP program to reduce surface water impacts from construction activities. This CGP was adopted in September 2009 and went into effect July 2010.
The CGP requires the development of PRDs which include the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list/describe BMPs the discharger would use to prev ent polluted stormwater runoff and show the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directl y to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Attachment B of the CGP describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP. Additional PRD requirements are described in Attachments C-E in the CGP.
39 (State of California Water Resources Control Board 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-106
Phase II MS4 Permit
The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program established under NPDES regulates storm water discharges from MS4s. In the first phase, the SWRCB issued permits to medium and large municipalities, typically grouped as co -permittees in a metropolitan region. In the second phase, t he SWRCB adopted a General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small MS4s. In 2013, SWRCB, in response to the EPA, issued Water Quality Order No. 2013 -001-DWQ NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004, Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Dischar ges from Small MS4s in February 2013 which went into effect July 2013. The MS4 Permit requires urban municipalities with predetermined inclusion reequipments to file an application and comply with prescriptive tasks over the 5-year permit term. The prescriptive tasks include, but are not limited to, public outreach and involvement, IDDE, construction site runoff control, post - construction storm water management, municipality facility and operation good housekeeping, water quality monitoring, and municipality assessment and reporting.
The City applied with the SWRCB under the Phase II MS4 Permit in July 2013, covering the City itself, and the Storm Water Management Program for County, which covers all unincorporated parts of the County, including areas within the Study Area. The City is currently in the process of adopting a Storm Water Ordinance. The City, under previous permit issuances, developed and adopted Stormwater Management Plans in 2005 and 2008, respectively. The City is currently developing a revis ion, under the current MS4 Permit, to its Stormwater Management Plan.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the SWRCB and nine RWQCB. The SWRCB sets statewide policy for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations.
The RWQCBs adopt and implement Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) which recognize regional differences in natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, an d water quality problems associated with human activities.
The City is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB in an area identified as the Tulare Lake Basin, which comprises the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley south of the San Joaquin River.
This basin consists of approximately 10.5 million acres, and includes the metropolitan areas of Bakersfield, Fresno, Porterville, Hanford, Tulare, and Visalia. 40 The Regional Board has set water quality objectives for both surface and ground water, which it achieves through an implementation plan. The RWQCB efforts emphasize the importance of controlling toxic discharges and address ground water salinity, which is identified as the greatest long-term problem facing the basin.41 The Regional B oard identifies the elimination of groundwater overdraft as an important tool to use to combat the increasing salinity of the basin, as continued overdraft would deplete good quality water supplies and introduce salts from poorer quality aquifers. Groundwa ter recharge is recommended as a major mechanism to prevent further groundwater overdraft.42
40 (State of California Water Boards-Central Valley Region 5 2022) 41 Ibid.
42 (State of California Water Boards-Central Valley Region 5 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-107
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, elect ric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be within City limits after annexation, and will be required to connect to water, stormwater, solid waste, and wastewater services. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or te lecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasona bly foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in an adjudicated subbasin, and the 2020 UWMP indicates that CalWater has no issue meeting demands of this project or future projects during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capac ity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Hanford operates and maintains a sewer system that covers the majority of the are a within the City limits. The existi ng sewer collection conveys flows to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Hanford Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is an 8.0 MGD secondary treatment facility that currently operates at an average flow of 4.7 MGD. 43The WWT P has adequate capacity to s erve the Project in addition to its existing commitments, therefore the Project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater capacity. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. KWRA provides solid waste services to the Project site. Because the City’s existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate the solid waste currently planned in the General Plan for expanded population, it can be inferred that the existing solid waste infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the Project. Although, the Project would be subject to refuse impact fees. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or Local Standards and the impact is less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project will be required to comply with all regulations applicable to solid waste generation for residential projects. In order for the Project to comply with local regulations, the Project would be provided with basic container service. Each property owner will receive a container for solid waste, green waste, and recyclable materials. Impacts would be considered less than significant.
43 (City of Hanford 2017)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-108
4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-35: Wildfire Impacts
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrollable spread of wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located in an area that is not designated as being a very high fire hazard severity zone. 44 The Project site is also not located in an area that has been designated as an SRA by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s State Responsibility Area Viewer.45 The site is considered a local responsibility area and is served by City of Hanford Fire Department.
Impact Analysis
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant con centrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project r equire the installation or maintenance of associated infr astructure (such as roads,
44 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2023) 45 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-109
fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a-d) No Impact. The Project would not be located within or near an area that has been designated as a very-high fire hazard severity zone, nor has it been designated as an SRA. The Project would result in the construction of a new 82 home small-lot subdivision on land within the City of Hanford. The lot is mostly vacant, with an existing house that would be demolished as part of the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-110
4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-36: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Statement of Findings
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigated Incorporated . The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, and tribal cultural resources from the implementation of the proposed Project will be less than s ignificant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in this analysis. Accordingly, the proposed Project will involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period of California history or prehistory.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 4-111
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. The Project would include the development of a new resi dential subdivision and associated infrastructure to connect the subdivision to the City of Hanford. The Project site was anticipated for urbanization with the development of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not resul t in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation measures and basic regulatory requirements incorporated into Project design.
c) Does the project have environmenta l effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the Project would have a less than a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Chapter 5-Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 5-1
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION,
MONITORING, AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigat ed Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project in the City of Hanford . The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.
The first column of Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.
Chapter 5-Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 5-2
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure
When
Monitoring is to
Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
AG-1 That a right-to farm provision be recorded with
the recording of the final subdivision map to
ensure that future residents of the homes in
the project area are aware of the adjacent
agricultural uses and their right to continue to
operate.
With the
recording of the
final subdivision
map
Once City of Hanford Recorded Disclosure
Agreement
AG-2 Prior to development, the Williamson Act
Contract shall be cancelled and applicable
cancellation fees shall be paid to the County
Treasure in accordance with Government Code
Section 51283(b). In the event that the City
exercises the option of not succeedi ng to the
Contract pursuant to Government Code
Section 51243.5(d), and such action is
approved by the Local Agency Formation
Commission, the Contract will be terminated,
no cancellation is required, and no cancellation
fees are required to be paid.
Prior to
construction Once City of Hanford Contract Termination
Documents
Biological Resources
BIO-1 (Avoidance): The Project’s construction
activities will occur, if feasible, between
September 16 and January 31 (outside of the
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Once City of Hanford Construction Schedule
Chapter 5-Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 5-3
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure
When
Monitoring is to
Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
nesting bird season) to avoid impacts to
nesting birds.
BIO-2 (Pre-construction Survey ): If activities must
occur within the nesting bird season (February
1 to September 15), a qualified biologist will
conduct a pre -construction survey for
Swainson’s Hawk nests onsite and within a 0.5-
mile radius. The pre-construction survey would
also provide a presence/absence survey for all
other nesting birds within the APE, no more
than seven (7) days prior to the start of
construction. All raptor nests would be
considered “active” upon the nest -building
stage.
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Once City of Hanford Submittal of Pre-
Construction Survey
BIO-3 (Establish Buffers): On discovery of any active
nests near work areas, the biologist will
determine appropriate construction setback
distances based on applicable CDFW and/or
USFWS guidelines and/or the biology of the
species in question. If necessary, construction
buffers will be identified with flagging, fencing,
or other easily visible means, and will be
maintained until the biologist has determined
that the nestlings have fledged.
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Once City of Hanford Report from Biologist
BIO-4 (Consultation with CDFW ): In the event an
active Swainson’s Hawk nest, or other nest is
detected during surveys and could be
impacted by the Project, consultation with
CDFW will be warranted to discuss how to
implement the Project and avoid impacts to
the nest.
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Once City of Hanford Report from Biologist
Chapter 5-Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 5-4
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure
When
Monitoring is to
Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
BIO-5 (Pre-Construction Survey ): A pre -construction
survey will be performed within five days of
building and tree removal. A qualified biologist
will inspect the buildings and trees for active
roosts. If the building or trees are determined
to be clear of bats, they will be removed within
five days.
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Once City of Hanford Report from Biologist
BIO-6 (Establish Buffers): On discovery of any roosts
in the APE, a qualified biologist will determine
appropriate construction setback distances.
Buffer will be removed once a qualified
biologist had determined the bat roosts are no
longer occupied.
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Once City of Hanford Report from Biologist
BIO-7 (Passive Relocation ): On discovery of any bat
roosts outside of the maternity roosting season
or overwintering season (September 1 to
November 30), bats may be passively relocated
from the roosts by a qualified biologist in
accordance with a bat relocation plan prepared
for the Project site by a qualified biologist. The
bat relocation plan shall include the methods
to be used to safely exclude bats from the roost
and prevent reentry.
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Once City of Hanford Report from Biologist
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 That a Burial Treatment Plan be ent ered to by
the applicant/property owner prior to any
earth disturbing activities.
Prior to earth-
disturbing
activities
Once City of Hanford Executed Plan
CUL-2 Should archaeological remains or artifacts be
unearthed during any stage of project
activities, work in the area of discovery shall
cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. If mitigation is warranted, the
During
construction
activities
Continuously City of Hanford
Qualified
Archaeologist
Report
Chapter 5-Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 5-5
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure
When
Monitoring is to
Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
project proponent shall abide by
recommendations of the archaeologist.
CUL-3 In the event that any human remains are
discovered on the Project site, the Kings
County Coroner must be notified of the
discovery (California Health and Safety Code,
Section 7050.5) and all activities in the
immediate area of the find or in any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
human remains must cease until appropriate
and lawful measures have been implemented.
If the Coroner determines that the remains are
not recent, but rather of Native American
origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in
Sacramento within 24 hours to permit the
NAHC to determine the Most Likely
Descendent of the deceased Native American.
During
construction
activities
Continuously City of Hanford
City of Hanford with
assistance of County
Coroner
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Should paleontological resources be
encountered on the Project site, all ground
disturbing activities in the area shall stop. A
qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to
assess the discovery. Mitigation may include
monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data
recovery and analysis, a final report. Public
educational outreach may also be appropriate.
Upon completion of the assessment, a report
documenting me thods, findings, and
recommendations shall be prepared and
submitted to the City of Hanford for review,
and (if paleontological materials are
recovered) a paleontological repository, such
During
construction
activities
Continuously City of Hanford
Qualified
Paleontologist
Report
Chapter 5-Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 5-6
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure
When
Monitoring is to
Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
as the University of California Museum of
Paleontology.
Tribal Cultural Resources
TRC-1 (Tribal Cultural Resource Presentation): Due to
Tribal history and knowledge of the project
area, the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut
Tribe has concerns and is requesting to be
retained for a cultural sensitivity awareness
presentation to all construction staff of the
Project, prior to start of construction activities.
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Continuously City of Hanford City of Hanford
Presentation
TRC-2 (Tribal Cultural Monitoring ): An approved
Tribal Monitor shall be retained to be on site to
monitor during all project -related ground -
disturbing construction activities within the
Cultural APE (i.e., grading, excavation, etc.).
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Continuously City of Hanford City of Hanford
TRC-3 (Curation of Archaeological Collections): A
curation agreement shall be entered into with
the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe,
materials and documents would be
professionally curated as outlined in
agreement and made available to other
archaeologists or researchers for further study.
The collections and associated records shall be
transferred, to an appropriate curation facility
as outlined in agreement with Santa Rosa
Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe, to be
accompanied by payment.
Prior to the start
of construction
activities
Continuously City of Hanford City of Hanford
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
AirNav. Quail Lake Sky Park Airport. FAA Information Effective as of July 16, 2020. 2020. "AirNav. Quail Lake Sky Park Airport. FAA Information Effective as of July 16, 2020." AirNav. Quail Lake Sky Park Airport.
FAA Information Effective as of July 16, 2020. http://www.airnav.com/airport/CL46.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. 2020. "Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines." Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Guid elines. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.
Calfornia Department of Conservation. 2019. Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx.
California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003. "California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook New and Redevelopment." California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practices Ha ndbook New and Redevelopment. https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/BMPHandbooks/BMP_NewDevRedev_Complete.pdf.
California Air Pollution Control District. 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1. Fresno: California Air Pollution Control District.
California Air Resources Control Board. 2020. California Air Resources Control Board Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate- matter-and-health.
California Department of Conservation - California Geological Survey. 2020. http://subduction.rocks/Storage%20for%20Handouts%20and%20Reference%20Materials/CGS%2 0Anniversary%20California%20Facts%20150yrs.pdf.
California Department of Conservation . 2021. Fault Activit y Map of California . Accessed April 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.
California Department of Conservation. 2020. California Department of Conservation Naturally Occurring Asbestos. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-019.pdf. —. 1999. CGS Information Warehouse. April 1.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/mlc/. —. 1984. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. May 18. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp.
California Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife. 2020. California Department of Conservation Fish and Wildlife. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.
California Department of Conservation Well Finder. 2020. California Department of Conservation Well Finder. May 18. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx.
California Department of Conservation. 2015. Landslide Map and Report 79 -04. Landslides in the Los Angeles Region, California – Effects of the February -March 1978 Rains. 1978. "California
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-2
Department of Conservation. 2015. Landslide Map and Report 79-04. Landslides in the Los Angeles Region, California – Effects of the February -March 1978 Rains." California Department of Conservation. 2015. Landslide Map and Report 79 -04. Landslides in the Los Angeles Region, California – Effects of the February -March 1978 Rains. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=landsli`des.
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. 2020. California Department of Conservation. 2016 . California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. Unites States Department of Agriculture National Statistics Service. April 24.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/AgComm/2018/2018crop yearcactb00.pdf.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection . 2023. California State Responsibility Areas. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83 991.
—. 2023. FHSZ Viewer . https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 1995. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor. 2022. California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Transportation. 2023. California Department of Transportation. https://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/index.html.
California Department of Water Resources. 2018. DWR Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2. n.d. "California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2." Mendota.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2013. "OEHHA 2013 Report: Indicators of Climate Change in California." Indicators of Climate Change in California. August 8. https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/report/2013-report-indicators-climate-change-california.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 2018. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin. May.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/tularelakebp_201805.p df.
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-3
California State Scenic Highway System Map . 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map . https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc199
83. California State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. California State Water Resources Control Board Construction Stormwater Program.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.html.
California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003. California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice .
https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/BMPHandbooks/BMP_NewDevRedev_Complete.pdf. —. 2003. California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice. https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/BMPHandbooks/BMP_NewDevRedev_Complete.pdf.
City of Hanford . 2020. 2020 Hanford Parks Master Plan . Accessed April 2023. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/DocumentCenter/View/745/2020-Hanford-Parks-Master-Plan- PDF.
City of Hanford. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan . Accessed April 13, 2023. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/DocumentCenter/View/567/2020-Urban-Water-Management- Plan-PDF?bidId=.
City of Hanford. 2017. " City of Hanford 2035 General Plan Update." Accessed March 2023. https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/383/2035-General-Plan-Policy-Document- PDF.
—. 2017. Sewer System Master Plan . https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/569/2017- Sewer-System-Master-Plan-PDF.
—. 2023. Storm Drainage. Accessed May 2023. https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/1259/Storm-Drainage.
City of Mendota General Plan. n.d. City of Mendota General Plan. http://ci.mendota.ca.us/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/City-of-Mendota-General-Plan-Update.pdf.
City of Tehachapi. 2012. "General Plan Draft EIR." Tehachapi.
City of Turlock General Plan. 2012. City of Turlock General Plan. September. https://www.cityofturlock.org/_pdf/files/generalplancomplete.pdf.
Commission, State of California Native American Heritage. 2020. State of California Native American Heritage Commission. http://nahc.ca.gov/.
Congressional Research Service Central Valley Project Issues and Legislation. 2020. May 26. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45342.
County of Kings. 2010. 2035 Kings County General Plan. January 26. Accessed February 2023. https://www.countyofkings.com/departments/community-development- agency/information/2035-general-plan.
—. 1994. Kings County Airport Land Use Compatability Plan. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/3094/635274871108830000.
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-4
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. 2010. "County of Tulare RMA Climate Action Plan." February 25.
http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/ClimateActionPlan.pdf.
Department of Water Resources Bay -Delta Office. 2018. "Mean and Extreme Climate Change Impacts on the State Water Project." A Report for California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment. August. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/Water_CCCA4-EXT-2018-004_ada.pdf.
District, Westlands Water. 2020a. "Westlands Water District Groundwater Management ." Westlands Water District Groundwater Management . https://wwd.ca.gov/water- management/groundwater-management-program.
Federal Transit Administration. n.d. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Maual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit- noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123 0.pdf.
Fresno County California Code of Ordinances . 1978. Fresno County California Code of Ordinances Title 8. https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_C H8.40NOCO.
Fresno County General Plan Background Report . 2000. Fresno County General Plan Background Report.
October 3. https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=8398.
Fresno County General Plan Policy Document. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Policy Document. October
3. https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=18117.
Google Earth. 2020. Google Earth. https://www.google.com/earth/.
Kern County Parks and Recreation Department Lake Isabella. 2020. Kern County Parks and Recreation Department Lake Isabella.
https://www.kerncounty.com/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/16/32619.
Kern County Williamson Act Eligible Agricultural Preserve/Kern County Williamson Act Parcels. n.d. Kern County Williamson Act Eligible Agricultural Preserve/Kern County Williamson Act Parcels. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0b47026d71b44be2887a1b574b0624ff&sublayer=
0. Kern County. Code of Ordinances, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.36 – Noise Control. 2020. "Kern County. Code of Ordinances, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.36 – Noise Control." Kern County.
Code of Ordinances, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.36 – Noise Control. https://library.municode.com/ca/kern_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_CH
8.36NOCO.
Kern-Tulare Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan. 2019. "Kern -Tulare Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan." Kern-Tulare Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
December 12. http://www.kerngwa.com/assets/kern -tulare-water-district-management-area- plan.pdf.
Kings County Office of Emergency Services . 2015. Emergency Operations Plan. Accessed April 11, 2023. https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument/15207/636165315566800000.
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-5
Madera County Fire Department. 2020. Madera County Fire Department. https://www.maderacounty.com/government/staffing-stations.
Madera County General Plan Background Report. 1995. Madera County General Plan Background Report.
October 24. https://www.maderacounty.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=2852.
Madera County Municipal Code. n.d. "Madera County Municipal Code Noise Regulations." Madera County Municipal Code Noise Regulations 9.58.020 General Noise Regulations. https://library.municode.com/ca/madera_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PESA MO_VOFAGPUPE_CH9.58NORE_9.58.020GENORE.
Map My Ride - Wasco Cycling Trails. 2020. Map My Ride - Wasco Cycling Trails. https://www.mapmyride.com/us/wasco-ca/.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Warmest Year on Record. 2017. NASA NOAA Data Show 2016 Warme st Year on Record Globally. January 18. https://www.nasa.gov/press -release/nasa- noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.
National Wild and Scenic River System. 2020. National Wild and Scenic River System. https://www.rivers.gov/rivers/kern.php.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. n.d. https://www.rivers.gov/river-app/index.html?state=CA.
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Files. 2020. Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Files. http://nahc.ca.gov.
North Kern Transit Guide. Kern Transit Public Transit Connecting Map. 2014. North Kern Transit Guide. Kern Transit Public Transit Connecting Map. https://shafter.com/DocumentCenter/View/3555/North- Kern-Guide-Final?bidId=.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District APR 2025. 2025. "CEQA Determinations of Significance for Projects Subject to ARB's GHG Cap-and-Trade Regulation." CEQA Determinations of Significance for Projects Subject to ARB's GHG Cap -and-Trade Regulation. https://www.valleyair.org/policies_per/Policies/APR-2025.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. "Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts." Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19. https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. —. 2009. Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies. December 17. http://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/3%20CCAP%20- %20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2009. "Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA." Accessed August 20, 2021. https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/3%20CCAP%20- %20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf.
—. 2006 -2012. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm.
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-6
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Final Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. 2015. "San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Final Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts."
Scalmanini, Luhdorff and. 2020. "Westside Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan." January. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/service/gspdocument/download/1979.
Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District, 7th Standard Management Area of the Kern County Subdivision. 2019.
Management Area Plan . Shafter-Wasco ID.
South Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 201 9. "South Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan." Tulare Lake Subbasin August 2019 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Preliminary Draft. https://southforkkings.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/2019-0906-tulare-lake-subbasin-gsp-prelim-draft_for-upload.pdf.
State of California . 2020. State Water Resources Control Board Geo Tracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
State of California Air Resources Board. 2020. State of California Air Resources Board Inhalable Particu late Matter and Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health.
State of California Department of Water Resources. n.d. "DWR Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool." State of California Department of Water Resources DWR Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.
State of California Department of Water Resources SGMA Portal. n.d. "State of California Department of Water Resources SGMA Portal." GSP Map Viewer.
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?jsonfile=https%3a%2f%2fsgma.water.ca.gov%2fportal%2fres ources%2fjs%2fmapconfigs%2fGspSubmittalsConfig.js&_dc=0.7524020922020793.
State of California Legislative Information Scenic Highways. 2020. State of California Legislative Information Scenic Highways.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title =&part=&chapter=2.&article=2.5.
State of California Legislative Information. 2014. State of California Legislative Information. September 25. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB52. —. 2013-2014. State of California Legislative Information AB-52 Native Americans California Environmental Quality Act. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB52.
State of California Public Resources Code. 2020. California Code, Public Resources Code - PRC § 4526. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-4526.html.
State of California Water Boards -Central Valley Region 5. 2022. Basin Planning. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/#basinplans.
State of California Water Resources Control Board. 2022. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)- Wastewater. Accessed April 2023.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/.
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-7
—. 2022. State Water Resources Control Board Geo Tracker . Accessed April 11, 2023. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
—. 2022. Water Di scharge Requirements Program. Accessed April 2023. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/waste_discharge_requirements/.
The County of Fresno Public Works and Planning. 2019. The County of Fresno Public Works and Planning. https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and- planning/resources-and-parks-division/landfill-operations.
Tulare County 2010 General Plan Background Report. 2010. "Tulare County 2010 General Plan Background Report." http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/BackgroundReport.pdf.
Tulare County 2030 General Plan Update. 2010. "Tulare County 2030 General Plan Update." Tulare County 2030 General Plan Update.
http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GeneralPlan2010/GeneralPlan2030Update.pdf.
United States Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. "News Release Archive." Reclamation Announces the Availability of Section 215 Water for Friant Division Water Service Contractors. March 21. https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=35605.
United States Bureau of Reclamation, Mid -Pacific Region. 2012. The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority 25 -Year Water Transfer Program Water Resource Analysis. May. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=9627.
United States Census Bureau - Fresno County. 2020. Quick Facts Fresno County, CA. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fresnocountycalifornia/PST045217.
United States Census Bureau - Madera County. 2020. "United States Census Bureau - Madera County Quick Facts." United States Census Bureau - Madera County Quick Facts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/maderacountycalifornia/PST045219.
United States Census Bureau - Stanislaus County. n.d. United States Census Bureau - Stanislaus County Quick Facts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219.
United States Census Bureau Kern County CA. 2020. "United States Census Bureau Kern County." United States Census Bureau Kern County.
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?q=Kern%20County,%20California&g=0500000US06029&ti d=ACSDP1Y2018.DP05.
United States Census Bureau Kings County CA. 2020. "Kings County, California ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES." Kings County, California ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Kings%20County,%20California&hidePreview=false&tid= ACSDP1Y2018.DP05&g=0500000US06031.
United States Census Bureau. 2022. QuickFacts Handford, CA. Accessed April 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/hanfordcitycalifornia.
United States Department of Agriculture . 2022. Web Soil Survey . Accessed April 2023. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-8
United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2020. County Ag Commissioners' Data Listing. May 18.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/AgComm/index.php.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation. 2022. NRCS Soils Report. Accessed April 2023. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
United States Department of Energy. n.d. United States Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/save-electricity-and-fuel/lighting-choices-save-you- money/how-energy-efficient-light.
United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. John P.
Clinkenbeard, California Geological Survey, Sacramento, Calif ornia: Bradley S. Van Gosen, U.S.
Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 2019. United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/states/CA/maps.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. United States Environmental Protection Agency WATERS GeoViewer. Accessed March 2023. https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer.
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
United States Geological Survey Areas of Land Subsidence in California. 2020. USGS Areas of Land Subsidence in California. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence- areas.html.
United States Geological Survey Science Explorer. 2020. United States Geological Survey Science Explorer. https://www.usgs.gov/science-explorer-results?es=Liquefaction+Susceptibility.
United States Geological Survey. 2020. United States Geological Survey. https://edits.nationalmap.gov/wbd-app/?loc=-119.5487,36.6160,13. —. 2020. USGS Areas of Land Subsidence in Califo rnia.
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html.
Weaherspark. 2023. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Hanford, California, United States.
Accessed February 2023. https://weatherspark.com/y/1484/Average -Weather-in-Hanford- California-United-States-Year-Round.
Westlands Water District. 2020b. "Article 19 Regulations Regarding the Application for and Use of Municipal and Industrial Water Wthin Westlands Water District." Article 19 Regulations Regarding the Application for and Use of Municipal and Industrial Water Wthin Westlands Water District. https://wwd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/rules19.pdf.
Chapter 6-References
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 6-9
—. 2017. Water Management Plan.
https://cs.westlandswater.org/resources/resources_files/misc/environmental_docs/010120/wat er-management-plan-2017.pdf.
Appendices
Stonehaven Subdivision
May 2023 A-1
Appendix A: Air Quality Report
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Hanford, California
April 2023
Prepared for:
DR Horton
Visalia, California
Prepared by:
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
400 East Main Street, Suite 300
Visalia, California 93291
COPYRIGHT 2023 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
Report Prepared for:
DR Horton
419 West Murray Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Contact:
Matthew Chavez
(559) 378-1482
Report Prepared by:
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Jarred Olsen, AICP, Associate Planner
Wyatt Czeshinski, Assistant Planner
Amy Wilson, QA/QC
Contact:
Jarred Olsen
(559) 636-1166
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Summary of Analysis Results .................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.1 Federal ............................................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.1.2 State ................................................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.1.3 Regional .......................................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.1.4 Local ................................................................................................................................................ 2-4
2.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 2-5
2.2.1 Climate Meteorology, Topography ............................................................................................ 2-5
2.2.2 Attainment Status .......................................................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.3 Ambient Air Quality Levels ........................................................................................................ 2-6
2.3 Threshold of Significance .......................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 2-8
2.4.1 Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions ..................................................................... 2-8
2.4.2 Long-Term Operational Emissions ........................................................................................... 2-8
2.5 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5.1 Consistency with Air Quality Plan ............................................................................................. 2-9
2.5.2 Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts ...................................................................................... 2-9
2.5.3 Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................................................... 2-11
2.5.4 Objectionable Odors .................................................................................................................... 2-2 3 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.1 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.1 Federal ............................................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.1.2 State ................................................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.1.3 Local ................................................................................................................................................ 3-7
3.2 Threshold of Significance .......................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 3-8
3.3.1 Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions ..................................................................... 3-8
3.3.2 Long-Term Operational Emissions ........................................................................................... 3-8
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
3.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Inventory ......................................................................................................... 3-8
3.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans.............................................................................................. 3-9 4 References ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-15 5 Air Quality Output Files .................................................................................................................................... 5-16 List of Tables
Table 1-1 Impact Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Table 2-1: Ambient Air Quality Attainment Designation ......................................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-2: Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2018-2020) .......................................................... 2-7 Table 2-3: Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants ............................................................................ 2-7 Table 2-4: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources ........................................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-5: Thresholds of Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants ........................................................................ 2-8 Table 2-6 Construction Emission Summary, Criteria Air Pollutants ................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-7 Operational Emissions Summary, Criteria Air Pollutants .................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-8 Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions, Criteria Air Pollutants ........................ 2-11 Table 3-1 Construction Emissions, Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................ 3-8 Table 3-2 Operational Emissions, Greenhouse Gases .............................................................................................. 3-9 Table 3-3 AB 32 Consistency Table ............................................................................................................................. 3-9 Table 3-4 SB 32 Consistency Table ........................................................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-5 AB 1279 Consistency Table ...................................................................................................................... 3-14
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Abbreviations
AB .................................................................................................................................................................... Assembly Bill APCD ................................................................................................................................. Air Pollution Control District AQ ........................................................................................................................................................................Air Quality AQMD.......................................................................................................................... Air Quality Management District AQP ............................................................................................................................................................Air Quality Plan BPS ........................................................................................................................................ Best Performance Standards CAFE ......................................................................................................................... Corporate Average Fuel Economy CARB ............................................................................................................................... California Air Resources Board CAAQS .......................................................................................................... California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod ......................................................................................................... California Emissions Estimator Model CalGreen Code ........................................................................................... California Green Building Standards Code CCA ................................................................................................................................................................. Clean Air Act CCAA .......................................................................................................................................... California Clean Air Act CCR .................................................................................................................................. California Code of Regulations CEC .................................................................................................................................. California Energy Commission CEQA .................................................................................................................. California Environmental Quality Act City .............................................................................................................................................................. City of Hanford CO ........................................................................................................................................................... Carbon monoxide DCP......................................................................................................................................................... Dust Control Plan District ............................................................................................. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District DPM ............................................................................................................................................. Diesel particulate matter EMFAC ........................................................................................................................................... ARB Emission Factor EO .............................................................................................................................................................. Executive Order EPA .................................................................................................... United States Environmental Protection Agency GAMAQI ................................................................................... Guideline for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG ......................................................................................................................................................... Greenhouse Gas IPCC............................................................................. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Lead Agency .............................................................................................................................................. City of Hanford MTCO2e ......................................................................................................... Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NAAQS ........................................................................................................... National Ambient Air Quality Standards NHTSA ............................................................................................. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOX ......................................................................................................................................................Oxides of Nitrogen
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
PM10 ........................................................................................................................ Particulate matter 10 microns or less PM2.5 ....................................................................................................................... Particulate matter 2.5 microns or less Project ........................................................................................................................................... Stonehaven Subdivision ROG................................................................................................................................................. Reactive organic gases SB........................................................................................................................................................................... Senate Bill SCAQMD ............................................................................................. South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS .............................................................................................................................. Sustainable Communities Strategy SIP ............................................................................................................................................ State Implementation Plan SJVAB ................................................................................................................................. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD ........................................................................................ San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLCP .................................................................................................................................. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant SO2 ................................................................................................................................................................. Sulfur dioxide TAC ................................................................................................................................................ Toxic Air Contaminant VOC .................................................................................................................................... Volatile Organic Compounds ZEV .............................................................................................................................................. Zero Emission Vehicles
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 1-1
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Purpose and Methods of Analysis
The following air quality (AQ) and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis was prepared to evaluate whether the estimated criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants ( TACs), and GHG emissions generated from the construction and operation of the Stonehaven Subdivision (Project) would cause significant impacts to air resources in the Project area. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.). The methodology follows the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or District) for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resourc es1 and the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land ‐Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA.2
1.2 Project Description
The Project proposes to develop a 82-dwelling unit detached single-family residential subdivision. The Project site is approximately 11.81 acres. Project construction is expected to begin in August 2023 and end in March 2025. One single-family dwelling of approximately 2,000 square feet in floor area, would be demolished.
1.3 Summary of Analysis Results
The following is a summary of the analysis results. As shown below, the Project would result in less than significant impacts for all air quality impact criteria, and all GHG impact criteria analyzed.
Table 1-1 Impact Summary
Impact Appendix G Question Result
AIR-1 The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Less than Significant Impact.
AIR-2 The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Less than Significant Impact.
AIR-3 The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Less than Significant Impact.
AIR-4 The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Less than Significant Impact.
GHG-1 The project would not generate direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment.
Less than Significant Impact.
GHG-2 The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Less than Significant Impact.
1 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2015) 2 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2009)
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-2
2 Air Quality
2.1 Regulatory Setting
2.1.1 Federal
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The EPA's air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The federal CAA was first signed into law in 1963. Congress substantially amended the federal CAA in 1970, 1977, and 1990.
The EPA deals with global, international, national, and interstate air pollution issues. Their primary role at the state level is one of oversight of state air quality programs. The EPA sets federal standards for vehicle and stationary sources and provides research and guidance in air pollution programs.
The federal CAA required the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several problem air pollutants on the basis of human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare (e.g., crops, forests, materials, visibility, etc.). Primary NAAQS have been established for the following criteria air pollutants:
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Ozone (O3)
• Respirable particulate matter (PM10)
• Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Lead (Pb)
All of the above, except CO, also have some form of secondary standard. The primary NAAQS standards are intended to protect, within an adequate margin of safety, those persons most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as people suffering from asthma or other illness, the elderly, very young children, or others engaged in strenuous work or exercise.
The EPA designates areas with air quality not meeting federal standards as “nonattainment.” The federal CAA further classifies nonattainment areas based on the severity of the nonattainment problem, with marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment classifications for ozone. Nonattainment classifications for PM range from marginal to serious.
The federal CAA requires areas with air quality violating the NAAQS to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP contains the strategies and control measures that states such as California will use to atta in the NAAQS. The federal CAA amendments of 1990 require states containing areas that violate the NAAQS to revise their SIP to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to re flect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, rules, and regulations of Air Basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The EPA reviews SIPs to determine if they conform to the mandates of the federal CAA amendments and wi ll achieve air quality goals when implemented. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it may prepare a Federal Implementation Plan for the nonattainment area and impose additional control measures.
In addition to setting health-based standards for air pollutants, the EPA also oversees state and local actions to improve air quality. The following list provides a brief explanation of important regulations set forth by EPA:
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-2
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA)
Requires air quality plans to include measures necessary to achieve NAAQS. Requires all plans, programs, and projects that require federal approval, including transportation plans, to conform to air quality plans.
Requires sanctions if all feasible measures are not expeditiously adopted.
2.1.2 State
States are required to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the EPA. States may also establish their own standards, provided the state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes.
The California Legislature established the Air Resources Board (C ARB) in 1967. The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988. The CCAA provides a planning framework for attainment of the CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2, and NO2. The CCAA classifies ozone nonattainment areas as moderate, serious, severe, and extreme based on severity of violation of state ambient air quality standards. For each class, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted. For all nonattainment categories, attainment plans are required to demonstrate a five-percent-per-year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three -year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. Air districts responsible for air basins with air quality that is in violation of CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2, and NO2 are required to prepare an air quality attainment plan that lays out a program to attain the CCAA mandates.
Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts (APCDs) and air quality management districts (AQMDs), establishing CAAQS (which are more stringent than the NAAQS in many cases), setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles, and reviewing district input for the SIP required by the federal CAA amendments. The SIP consists of the emissions standards for vehicular sources set by the CARB as well as attainment plans adopted by the APCD or AQMD and approved by the CARB.
The State of California, through the CARB and Bureau of Automotive Repair, develops programs to reduce pollution from vehicles and consumer products. The following list provides a brief explanation of important regulations set forth by the State of California:
California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
Requires all feasible control measures, including transportation control measures, to reduce emissions. Provides for indirect source programs in attainment plans. Contains targets for emission reductions, vehicle miles traveled, and average vehicle ridership.
AB (Assembly Bill) 170
Requires cities and counties in the Valley to incorporate strategies to improve air quality in their general planning efforts.
SB (Senate Bill) 709
Gave the Air District more responsibility in terms of permitting, fee implementation, and agricultural assistance, but also gives the Air District the authority to require the use of best available control
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-3
technology (BACT) for existing sources, promote cleaner-burning alternative fuels, and encourage and facilitate ridesharing.
Allows the Air District to adopt a surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees in counties within the Air District.
California Government Code Section 65089
Requires trip reduction and travel demand management in Congestion Management Programs.
2.1.3 Regional
Air pollution does not respect political boundaries. Therefore, many air quality problems are best managed on a regional basis. In 1991 the State Legislature determined that management of an air basin by a single agency would be more effective than management through each county within that basin. Air basins are geographic areas sharing a common "air-shed." Most major metropolitan areas in Cal ifornia now fall under the authority of multi-county APCDs or AQMDs.
Air districts have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from all sources other than direct motor vehicle emissions, which are the responsibility of the CARB and EPA. Air districts adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve state and federal ambient air quality standards and enforce applicable state and federal law.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), formed in 1991, has jurisdiction over air quality matters in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), spanning the counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and the western portion of Kern.
Until the passage of the CCAA, the primary role of county APCD s was controlling stationary sources of pollution, such as industrial processes and equipment. With the passage of the CCAA and federal CAA amendments, air districts were required to implement transportation control measures and were encouraged to adopt in direct source control programs to reduce mobile source emissions. These mandates created the necessity for air districts to work closely with cities, counties, and regional transportation planning agencies to develop new programs.
The Air District entered into a memorandum of understanding with the eight San Joaquin Valley County transportation planning agencies in 1992. This memorandum of understanding ensures a coordinated approach in the development and implementation of transportation plans throughout the Valley. This action has helped the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies comply with pertinent provisions of the federal and state Clean Air Acts as well as related transportation legislation (such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act).
The Air District develops plans and implements control measures in an effort to advance Valley attainment of CAAQS and NAAQS. The Air District has developed plans to attain state and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The Air District’s air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control methods have worked, and to show how air pollution will be reduced. The plans also use computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution and make sure that the Valley will meet air quality goals on time.
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-4
Control measures applicable to this Project are as follows:
Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
Regulation VIII is a control measure that is one main strategies from the 2006 PM10 Plan for reducing the PM10 emissions that are part of fugitive dust. Projects over 10 acres are required to file a Dust Control Plan (DCP) containing dust control practices sufficient to comply with Regulation VIII. The Project is required to prepare a DCP to comply with Regulation VIII.
Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants The purpose of the rule is to incorporate the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories from Part 63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations to protect the health and safety of the pub lic from hazardous air pollutants, such as asbestos.
Rule 4102—Nuisance
The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. Agricultural activities are exempt from the nuisance rule.
Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review
The purpose of this rule is to ensure that land use development projects reduce their construction/operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 20%/40% and 33.3%/50%, respectively. Operational emissions are required to be reduced over a period of 10 years. Emission reductions can be obtained either by implementing on -site improvements, such as using more efficient construction equipment, improved land use design, electr ical vehicle chargers, photovoltaic panels, or by simply paying an in -lieu fee that goes towards emission -reducing projects elsewhere in the Air District’s region. This project is required to submit an Air Impact Assessment and address its emissions prior to commencement of both construction and operation.
Other Measures
Other control measures that apply to the Project are Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operation that requires reductions in volatile organic compound ( VOC) emissions during paving and Rule 4601 —Architectural Coatings that limits the VOC content of all types of paints and coatings sold in the San Joaquin Valley. These measures apply at the point of sale of the asphalt and coatings, so Project compliance is ensured.
2.1.4 Local
The City of Hanford adopted its General Plan Update in April 2017.3 The applicable air quality goals and policies from the Transportation and Circulation Element are listed below.
Policy T50: Carpool Programs. Encourage the use of carpooling, vanpooling and flexible employment hours.
Policy T70 : Pedestrian Connections . Increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, village centers and other destinations throughout the City.
3 (City of Hanford, 2017)
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-5
2.2 Environmental Setting
Air quality impacts are both loca l and regional. Regional and local air quality is impacted by topography, dominant airflows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season. The Project is located in the SJVAB, which experiences some of the most challenging environmental conditions for air quality in the nation. The following section describes these conditions as they pertain to the Air Basin. The information in this section is primarily from the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI.4
2.2.1 Climate Meteorology, Topography
The SJVAB, in which the City of Hanford is situated, has an inland Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cooler winters. Summer temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F ) and can vary as much as 30°F. Winters are for the most part mild and humid , with average high in the 50s, while the average daily low temperature is approximately 45°F.
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the Valley is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. Air temperature usually decreases as altitude increases. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height, is termed an inversion. Air above and below an inversion does not mix because of differences in air density thereby restricting air pollutant dispersal.
Wind speed and dir ection play an important role in the dispersion and transport of air pollutants. During summer periods, winds typically originate from the north ern San Joaquin Valley and flow in a south - southeasterly direction through the Valley, down through the Tehachap i Pass and into the neighboring Southeast Desert Air Basin. During winter months, winds occasionally originate in the opposite direction, from the south end of the Valley and flow in a north-northwesterly direction. Also, during winter months, the Valley experiences light, variable winds, less than 10 miles per hour. Low wind speeds, combined with low inver sion layers in the winter, create a climate conducive to high concentrations of certain air pollutants.
The SJVAB is basically a flat area bordered on t he east by the Sierra Nevada Mountains; on the west by the Coast Ranges; and to the south by the Tehachapi Mountains. Airflow in the SJVAB is primarily influenced by marine air that enters through the Carquinez Straits where the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta empties into the San Francisco Bay. The region’s topographic features restrict air movement through and out of the basin. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Frequent transport of pollutants into the SJVAB from upwind sources also contributes to poor air quality.
2.2.2 Attainment Status
The EPA and the CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8‐hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8‐hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three‐year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. The current attainment designations for the Air Basin are shown in Table 2-1. The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.
4 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2015)
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-6
Table 2-1: Ambient Air Quality Attainment Designation
Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Designation
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards National Standards
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour Nonattainment/Severe No Federal Standard
8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment (Extreme)
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
AAM5 Nonattainment Attainment 24-hour
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM Nonattainment Nonattainment 24-hour
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour
Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified 8-hour
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM Attainment Attainment/Unclassified 1-hour
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM
Attainment Attainment/Unclassified 24-hour
3-hour
1-hour
Lead (Pb)
30-day
Average
Attainment No Designation/Classification
Calendar
Quarter
Rolling 3-
Month
Average
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour Attainment No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S) 1-hour Unclassified No Federal Standards
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl) 24-hour Attainment No Federal Standards
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour Unclassified No Federal Standards Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2.2.3 Ambient Air Quality Levels
Criteria air pollutant concentrations are measured at several monitoring stations in the surrounding area. Table 2-2 summarizes the air quality data measured at monitoring stations near the project site during the last three available years (2018-2020). The Hanford-S Irwin Street station is the closest station to the project site with recent data for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. Both CARB and EPA use monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants (attainment designations are summarized above in Table 2-1).
5 Annual Arithmetic Mean
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-7
Table 2-2: Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2018-2020) 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3)
Maximum concentration (1-hr/8-hr avg, ppm) 0.108/0.082 0.093/0.076 0.103/0.088 Number of days state standard exceeded (1-hr/8-hr) 1/30 0/13 6/27 Number of days national standard exceeded (8-hr) 29 13 26 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum concentration (24-hour μg/m3) 107.8 48.2 147.0
Number of days national standard exceeded (24 -hour
measured)
31 20 52
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
Maximum concentration (μg/m3) 174.2 211.7 180.4
Number of days state standard exceeded 19 17 22
Number of days national standard exceeded 1 1 3
Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million Source: CARB 2020
2.3 Threshold of Significance
The District’s annual emission significance thresholds used for the Project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
Table 2-3: Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria
Pollutant
Emissions (in tons per year)
Construction Operations
ROG 10 10
CO 100 100
NOX 10 10
SOX 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day ‐care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas. The District has determined the common land use types that are known to produce odors in the Air Basin. These types are shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfills 1 mile
Transfer Stations 1 mile
Composting Facilities 1 mile
Petroleum Refineries 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plants 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturers 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturers 1 mile
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-8
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Food Processors 1 mile
Feed Lots and Dairies 1 mile
Rendering Plants 1 mile
The District’s current thresholds of significance for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the operations of both permitted and non-permitted sources are combined and presented in Table 2-5 below.
Table 2-5: Thresholds of Significance for Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminant Type Threshold
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk
equals or exceeds 20 in one million
Non-Carcinogen, Acute Effects Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual
Non-Carcinogen, Chronic Effects Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual
2.4 Methodology
2.4.1 Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEmod), Version 2022.1. These output files can be found in Chapter 5. The sections below detail the methodology of the air quality emissions analysis and its conclusions.
The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on CalEEMod default assumptions.
2.4.2 Long-Term Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from three main sources: area sources, energy usage, and motor v ehicles usage known as mobile sources. Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting. Operations are expected to commence in March 2025. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Chapter 5. The unmitigated long-term operational emissions for the Project are listed in Table 2-7.
2.5 Impact Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated. A significant impact would occur if the Project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard; c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-9
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
While the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the District recommends that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. If the Lead Agency finds that the Project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the Project should be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The applicable District thresholds and methodologies are contained under each impact statement below.
2.5.1 Consistency with Air Quality Plan
Impact AIR‐1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Impact Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The GAMAQI indicates that projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD regional criteria pollutant emissions quantitative thresholds wou ld not conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality plan (AQP).
As discussed in Impact AIR ‐2 below, emissions of ROG, NO X, PM 10, and PM 2.5 associated with the construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the District’s significance t hresholds. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to air quality violations.
The Project’s emissions would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants and would not result in inconsistency with the AQP for this criterion. The Project complies with all applicable control measures from the AQP therefore, the Project is consistent with the AQP, and the impact would be less than significant.
2.5.2 Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts
Impact AIR‐2: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impact Analysis
To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be true:
a) Regional analysis: emissions of nonattainment pollutants must be below the District’s regional significance thresholds. This is an approach recommended by the District in its GAMAQI. b) Summary of projections: the project must be consistent with current air quality attainment plans including control measures and regulations. This is an approach consistent with Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
c) Cumulative health impacts: the project must result in less than significant cumulative health effects from the nonattainment pollutants.
Project-generated emissions are below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds and the Project is consistent with current air quality at tainment plans including control measures and regulations , as depicted below in Table 2-6 and Table 2-7.
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-10
With respect to cum ulative health impacts, the air basin is in non -attainment for O3, PM 2.5, and PM 10 (state only), which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards. The air quality standards were set to protect public health, including the health of sensitive individuals (such as children, the elderly, and persons with pre -existing respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses (the infirm)). Therefore, when the concentration of those pollutants exceeds the standard, it is likely that some sensitive individuals in the population would experience adverse health effects. Since the air basin is already in non-attainment, it is considered to have an existing significant cumulative health impact without the Project.
The issue is whether the Project’s contribution to the existing violation of air quality standards is cumulatively considerable.
The SJVAPCD through its GAMAQI has determined that projects that exceed regional thresholds would have a cumulatively considerable health impact. As demonstrated in Table 2-6 and Table 2-7 the Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds and its cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant.
Construction Emissions
The results of the modeling are presented in Table 2-6. The emissions that would occur during construction activities were compared with the significance threshold for each pollutant. For assumptions in estimating the emissions, please refer to Section 0. As shown in Table 2-6, the emissions are below the significance thresholds. Therefore, the emissions would be less than significant on a Project basis.
Table 2-6 Construction Emission Summary, Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions (in tons per year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Emissions 0.42 1.51 1.90 <0.005 0.30 0.16 Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Chapter 5
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from two main sources: area sources and motor vehicles, or mobile sources. Operations are expected to commence in March 2025. The SJVAPCD considers construction and operational emissions separately when making significance determinations.
As shown in Table 2-7, the emissions are below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds prior to application of mitigation measures or taking credit for Project design features that would reduce Project emissions and, therefore, would result in a less than significant impact.
Table 2-7 Operational Emissions Summary, Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions (in tons per year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Emissions 1.18 0.73 4.38 0.01 0.38 0.17
Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: Chapter 5
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-11
2.5.3 Sensitive Receptors
Impact AIR‐3: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact Analysis
Sensitive Receptors
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with pre‐existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The District considers a sensitive receptor a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The closest off ‐site sensitive receptors are existing residences north and south of th e Project site , in addition to a residential subdivision approximately 0.32 miles east of the Project site . For criteria pollutants, impacts to receptors are based on emissions during the highest daily emissions during construction and operations. As shown in Table 2-8, emissions generated from construction and operation of the Project are less than SJVAPCD screening criteria. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Localized Pollutant Screening Analysis
Emissions occurring at or near the Project have the potential to create a localized impact, also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if, when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health‐based air quality standard. The impact from localized pollutants is based on the impact to the nearest sensitive receptor.
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI includes screening thres holds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on ‐site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant a fter compliance with applicable rules and regulations and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an ambient air quality analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and CO.
The highest daily emissions occur during Project grading activities except for reactive organic gas ( ROG) emissions, which are highest during application of architectural coatings. The results of the construction screening analysis are presented in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8 Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions, Criteria Air Pollutants Source Daily Emissions (in Pounds)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction – Summer 4.04 39.8 36.5 0.06 21.6 11.8
Construction – Winter 40.7 37.4 32.3 0.06 10.9 5.16
Operations - Summer 8.71 4.64 43.7 0.12 4.19 2.95
Operations – Winter 7.88 4.99 37 0.11 4.19 2.94
SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No
Maximum Daily Operational Emissions
An analysis of maximum daily emissions during operation was conducted to determine if emissions would exceed 100 pounds per day for any pollutant of concern . Operational emissions include emissions generated on‐site by area sources such as natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, an emergency generator, and off‐site by motor vehicles accessing the Project. Most motor vehicle emissions would occur distant from
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-12
the site and would not contribute to a violation of ambient air quality standards; therefore, operational emissions reflect a conservative assumption. The results of the screening analysis are presented in Table 2-8.
The Project would not exceed SJVAPCD screening thresholds for localized operational criteria pollutant impacts; therefore, the Project’s localized criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant.
Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The spores live in soil and can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions.
Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off‐road activities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that 752 of the 8,657 persons (8.7 percent) hospitalized in California between 2000 and 2007 for Valley fever died.6 California experienced a record number of Valley Fever cases in 2017 with 7,466 new cases. The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley fever. Within the region, Kings County reported an infection risk of greater than 10 per 100,000.7
The distribution of C. immitis within endemic areas is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. Listed below are ecologic factors and sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis:
1) Rodent burrows (often a favorable site for C.
immitis, perhaps because temperatures are
more moderate and humidity higher than on
the ground surface)
2) Old (prehistoric) Indian campsites near fire
pits
3) Areas with sparse vegetation and alkaline soils
4) Areas with high salinity soils
5) Areas adjacent to arroyos (where residual
moisture may be available)
6) Packrat middens
7) Upper 30 centimeters of the soil horizon,
especially in virgin undisturbed soils
8) Sandy, well ‐aerated soil with relatively high
water‐holding capacities
Sites within endemic areas less favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis include:
1) Cultivated fields
2) Heavily vegetated areas (e.g. grassy lawns)
3) Higher elevations (above 7,000 feet)
4) Areas where comm ercial fertilizers (e.g.
ammonium sulfate) have been applied
5) Areas that are continually wet
6) Paved (asphalt or concrete) or oiled areas
7) Soils containing abundant microorganisms
8) Heavily urbanized areas where there is
little undisturbed virgin soil (USGS 2000).
The Project site is situated in an urban infill area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a low probability of the site having C. immitis growth sites and exposure to the spores from disturbed soil, however exposure to blowing dust should be minimized.
Construction activities would generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. The size of the Project would require the preparation and compliance with a Dust Control Plan, which would minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities. Therefore, due to Project size, combined with the relatively low probability of the presence of C. immitis spores, would reduce Valley fever impacts to less than significant.
6 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevenetion, 2009)
7 (Kings County Department of Public Health, 2014)
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 2-2
During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, because most of the Project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This condition would preclude the possibility of the Project from providing habitat suitable for C. immitis spores and for generating fugitive dust that may contribute to Valley fever exposure. Impacts would be less than significant.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
DPM can be of particular concern as Project construction occurs as it is emitted from the combustion of diesel fuel. Because construction equipment is often used for lengths of time within close proximity to existing sensitive receptors, there is a concern that the increase in DPM emissions could cause a localized health risk.
A construction Health Risk Assessment was prepared using Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool version 21081 was prepared for the Project , using the emissions found in Chapter 5. Receptors were placed at existing homes and the subdivision found to the east.
The maximum impact was found to be 9.46 in a million. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.
2.5.4 Objectionable Odors
Impact AIR-4: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact Analysis
Construction of the Project would require the use of diesel-powered off-road construction equipment, however these emissions would not occur continuously and would cease after construction concludes. The Project would not engage in any of the activities listed in Table 2-4. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roaster, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plant s, among other uses.
The Project does not include any of these activities or land uses. The Project would therefore have a less than significant impact with respect to generation of emissions leading to odors or other adverse or objectionable emissions.
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-3
3 Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance, specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fourt h Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios. 8 The report also concluded that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid‐20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
An individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to cause a discernible change in global climate.
However, the Project participates in the potential for global climate change by its incremental contribution of GHGs—and when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs—constitute potential influences on global climate change.
3.1 Regulatory Setting
3.1.1 Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The EPA is the federal agency responsible for executing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and thus the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions. The ruling resulted in the EPA taking steps to regulate GHG emissions and lend support for State and local agency in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions.
Federal Regulations for Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards
The EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2012 issued final rules to reduce GHG emissions and improve the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles of model years 2017 and beyond. These CAFE standards have been enacted since 1978 under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This program requires automobile manufacturers to build a single nation light-duty fleet that meets both the requirements under federal programs and those of California and other states. This program would improve fuel econo my to 54.5 miles per gallon -equivalent limiting vehicle emissions to 153 grams of CO2 per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025, which represents five percent annual increases in fuel economy.
The EPA and NHTSA jointly publis hed in 2018 a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks” (SAFE Rule), which proposed:
(1) new and amended CO2 and CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks;
8 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007)
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-4
(2) to withdraw the waiver EPA had previously provided to California for that State’s GHG and zero emission vehicle (ZEV) programs under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, and; (3) regulatory text to implement NHTSA’s statutory authority to set nationally applicable fuel economy standards to explicitly preempt California’s GHG and ZEV programs.
In 2019, Part One of the SAFE Rule (One National Program) became effective, which withdrew California’s waiver from EPA and finalized NHTSA’s regulat ory text related to preemption of State regulations. In 2020, EPA and NHTSA announced Part Two of the SAFE Rule, which would establish amended fuel economy and CO2 standards for passenger cars and light trucks of model years 2021 -2026. These revised standards would increase in stringency by 1.5 percent per year from model year 2020 over model years 2021-2026.
3.1.2 State
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05
In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued EO S-3-05, proclaiming that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The EO declares that increasing temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To address those concerns, the EO established GHG emission ta rgets for the State and identified responsibilities for State agencies in meeting the targets. Specifically, statewide emissions are to be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 32
In 2006, AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was signed into law. AB 32 establishes regulations, reporting requirements, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also requires that:
“(a) the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit shall remain in effect unless otherwise amended or repealed.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the sta tewide greenhouse gas emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020.
(c) The [CARB] shall make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how to continue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020.” [California Health and Safety Code, Division
25.5, Part 3, Section 38551]
EO B-30-15
In 2015, Governor Brown issued EO B -30-15 which established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long -term target previously established under EO S -3-05 to reach the goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is consistent with scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold at which major climate disruptions are projected, such as super droughts and risi ng sea levels.
SB 32
In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law and serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020.
SB 32 amended existing regulations to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 199 0 levels by no later than December 31, 2030, codifying the 2030 target established by EO B-30-15.
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-5
AB (AB) 1493 (Pavley)
AB 1493, enacted in 2002, requires the reduction of GHGs from automobiles and light ‐duty trucks to the maximum extent feasible and cost-effective. In 2004, CARB approved the “Pavley I” regulations that applied to new passenger vehicles beginning with model year 2009 through 2016. Pavley I was anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from regulated vehicles by 30 percent from 2002 levels by 2016. Pavley II was incorporated into Amendments to the Low‐Emission Vehicle Program referred to as LEV III. The amendments, which took effect in 2012, apply to vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025.
Advanced Clean Cars Program
Also in 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program which sought to combine the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of zer o-emission vehicles, into a single package of regulatory standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. These regulations strengthen the GHG standard for 2017 models and beyond and would be achieved through existing and more efficient technologies. The program’s ZEV regulation would require battery, fuel cell, and/or plug - in hybrid electric vehicles to comprise up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. The program also included a clean fuels outlet regulation designed to support the development of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by requiring increased numbers of hydrogen fueling stations throughout the state. By 2025, when it was assumed, the rules would be fully implemented, the statewide fleet of new cars and light trucks would emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions than the statewide fleet in 2016.
SB 100
In 2018, SB 100 increased California’s Renewable Energy Portfolio targets for utility companies to 52 percent renewables by 2027 and 60 pe rcent renewables by 2030. It also established a new zero -carbon electricity mandate by 2040.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standa rds for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. Title 24 Part 6 was established by California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards are updated triennially and have resulted in substantial gains in energy efficiency in new construction with each code update cycle.
The 2022 Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted by CEC in 2021 and took effect in 2023. The standards are designed to move the State closer to its zero net energy goals for new residential development. It does so by requiring all new residences to install enough renewable energy to offset all the site electricity needs of each residential unit. CEC estimates that the 2022 Energy Code would provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and reduce 10 million metric tons of GHGs.9
The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary in response to local climatologic, geologic, or topograp hic conditions, provided that these standards are demonstrated to be cost effective and exceed the energy performance required by Title 24 Part 6.
9 (California Energy Commission, 2021)
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-6
California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 11) In 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted Part 11 of CCR Title 24, titled the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) which became effective in 2009 as a voluntary code. The 2010 CALGreen Code was the first mandatory edition and took effect in 2011 and is now a part of the triennial code update cycle. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for residential and non ‐ residential building construction and encourages sustainable construction practices in the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. Although the CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the CALGreen Cod e standards have co‐benefits of reducing energy consumption from residential and non‐residential buildings subject to the standard.
SB 97
SB 97, enacted in 2007, amended the CEQA statute to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. The legislation directed the California Office of Planning and Research to develop draft CEQA Guidelines “for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions” and directed the California Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt the State CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of GHG Emissions, was added as part of the CEQA Guideline amendments that became effective in 2010 and describes the criteria needed in a GHG reduction plan that would allow for the tiering and streamlining of CEQA analysis for development projects.
SB X7-7
SB X7‐7 requires water suppliers to reduce urban per capita water consumption 20 percent from a baseline level by 2 020. The production and treatment of water, as well as the treatment of wastewater, requires substantial amount of electricity, and thus there this a direct relationship between water and greenhouse gases.
California Integrated Waste Management Act
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties were required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by 1995, and 50 percent by 2000. Through other statutes and regulations, this 50 percent diversion rate also applies to State agencies. In order of priority, waste reduction efforts must promote sourc e reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.
In 2011, AB 341 modified the California Integrated Waste Management Act and directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. The resulting Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation (2012) requires that after 2012, certain businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week shall arrange r ecycling services. To comply with this requirement, businesses may either separate recyclables and self -haul them or subscribe to a recycling service that includes mixed waste processing. AB 341 also established a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent; the 50 percent disposal reduction mandate still applies for cities and counties under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act.
Climate Change Scoping Plan
In 2022, the CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels and substantially advance toward our 20 45 climate goal to reduce GHG emissions by 8 5 percent below 1990 levels. The 2022 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap -and-Trade Program, and
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-7
implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation. The 2022 Scoping Plan includes a wide variety of goals related to energy efficiency and renewable energy that are intended to help meet the State’s targets.10 Cap-and-Trade Program
The Cap-and-Trade program was developed to reduce GHG emissions from major emissions sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions that is gradually reduced over time while employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the State’s emission-reduction goals. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions , including electricity generators, large industrial facilities emitting a specified amount of annual emissions, and distributors of transportation, natural gas, and other fuels, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long -term investment in cleane r fuels and more efficient use of energy. The program is designed to provide the approximately 450 entities covered by the program with the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. All covered entities are required to demonstrate compliance with the cap -and-trade program by implementing GHG reduction activities on-site or through use of free or purchased allowances, or purchase of offsets.
3.1.3 Local
The City of Hanford adopted its Air Quality Element of its General Plan in April 2017 and its portion of the Regional Climate Action Plan in May of 2014 .11,12 The applicable greenhouse gas goals and policies are listed below.
Objective AQ 10: Identify and achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets consistent with the City’s proportionate fair share as may be allocated by the California Air Resources Board and Kings County Association of Governments.
Policy AQ 10.1 : As recommended in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (December 2009), the City establishes an initial goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from development projects within its authority by 29 percent below year 2020 business as usual emissions. The City will also work with Kings County Association of Governments to ensure that it achieves its proportionate fair share reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as may be identified under the provisions of SB 375 (2008 Chapter 728) for any projects or activities requiring approval of Kings County Association of Governments.
Policy AQ 10.4: The City will participate in the Sustainable Communities Strategy/Regional Blueprint Planning effort and will ensure that local plans are consistent with the Regional Plan.
3.2 Threshold of Significance
The City of Hanford has not adopted its own GHG thresholds or prepared a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan that can be used as a basis for determining project significance. In accordance with SJVAPCD ’s CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects,13 proposed projects complying with Best Performance Standards (BPS) would be determined to have a less-than-significant impact. The SJVAPCD does not have an adopted threshold for GHGs; however, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has set a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e.14 This threshold has been applied to this Project. Compliance with BPS and projects generating less than 10,000 MTCO2e per year would result in
10 (California Air Resources Board, 2017)
11 (City of Hanford, 2017)
12 (City of Hanford, 2014)
13 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2009) 14 (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008)
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-8
less than significant impacts. In addition, project -generated emissions complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would also be determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
3.3 Methodology
3.3.1 Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated CalEEmod, Version 2022.1.
These output files can be found in Chapter 5. The sections below detail the methodology of the air quality emissions analysis and its conclusions. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips.
3.3.2 Long-Term Operational Emissions
Operational emissions occur over the lifetime of the Project and are from three main sources: area sources, energy usage, and motor vehicles usage known as mobile sources. Area source emissions inclu de emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting. First occupancy of the Project is expected as early as March 2025 and was used as the Project buildout modeling year for the subdivision as a conservative assumption. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Chapter 5.
3.4 Impact Analysis
3.4.1 Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Impact GHG‐1: The project would generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions; however, these emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment.
Impact Analysis
Construction
Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 3-1. The SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing the significance of construction ‐related emissions.
However, other jurisdictions, such as the SCAQMD, have conclude d that construction emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. In order to account for the construction emissions, amortization of the total emissions generated during construction were ba sed on the life of the development (residential—30 years) and added to the operational emissions.
Table 3-1 Construction Emissions, Greenhouse Gases
MTCO2e
Total Construction
Emissions 327
Amortized over 30 years 10.9
Notes:
Calculation totals use unrounded numbers from CalEEMod output.
Source: Chapter 5
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-9
Operations
Total GHG emissions generated during operations are presented in Table 3-2. The amortized construction emissions have been added to the operational emissions generated by the Project. The Project would result in approximately 1,168 MTCO2e resulting from operational activities. This falls below the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Table 3-2 Operational Emissions, Greenhouse Gases
MTCO2e
Operational Emissions 1,184
Amortized Construction Emissions 10.9
Total Operational Emissions plus Amortized Construction Emissions 1,194.9 Notes:
Calculation totals use unrounded numbers from CalEEMod output.
Source: Chapter 5
3.4.2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
Impact GHG‐2: The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Impact Analysis
The City of Hanford has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. In addition, the City has not completed the GHG inventory, benchmarking, or goal‐ setting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provi sions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018.
The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are applic able to development projects. Therefore, the SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan cannot be applied to the project. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the project is assessed for its consistency with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plans. This would be achieved with an assessment of the project’s compliance with Scoping Plan measures contained in the 2008 Scoping Plan and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.
AB 32 Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan contains a variety of strategies to reduce the State’s emis sions. As shown in Table 3-3, the project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the project. As discussed earlier, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update strategies primarily rely on increasing the stringency of existing regulations with which the project would continue to comply, support through the project’s design, and implementation of the General Plan goals and policies.
Table 3-3 AB 32 Consistency Table
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
Regulation for the California Cap
on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Market ‐ Based Compliance
Mechanism October 20, 2015
(CCR 95800)
Consistent. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program applies to large industrial sources such as power plants, refineries, and cement manufacturers.
However, the regulation indirectly affects people who use the products and services produced by these industrial sources when increased cost of products or services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in California, whether generated in‐state or imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap‐and‐Trade Program. The Cap‐and‐Trade
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-10
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period.
Pavley I 2005 Regulations to
Control GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
2012 LEV III Amendments to the
California Greenhouse Gas and
Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission Standards
Consistent. This measure applies to all new vehicles starting with model year 2012. The Project would not conflict wi th its implementation as it would apply to all new passenger vehicles purchased in California. Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later, associated with construction and operation of the Project would be required to comply with the Pavley emissions standards. 2009 readopted in 2015.
Regulations to Achieve
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions Subarticle 7. Low
Carbon Fuel Standard CCR 95480
Consistent. This measure applies to transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in California. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Motor vehicles associated with construction and operation of the project would utilize low carbon transportation fuels as required under this measure.
Regional Transportation ‐Related
Greenhouse Gas Targets of SB
375
Consistent. The Project will provide a public service facility in the region that is consistent with the land uses assessed in the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The Project is not within an SCS priority area and so is not subject to requirements applicable to those areas.
Goods Movement Action Plan of
January 2007
Not applicable. The Project does not propose any changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal facilities or forms of transportation. 2010 Amendments to the Truck
and Bus Regulation, the Drayage
Truck Regulation and the
Tractor‐Trailer Greenhouse Gas
Regulation
Consistent. This measure applies to medium ‐ and heavy ‐ duty vehicles that operate in the State. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Medium ‐ and heavy‐duty vehicles associated with construction of the project would be required to comply with the requirements of this regulation.
High Speed Rail Not applicable. This is statewide measure cannot be imple mented by a project applicant or lead agency.
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency
Regulation
Title 24 Part 6 Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential
Buildings
Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. The Project will comply with the latest energy efficiency standards and incorporate applicable energy efficiency features designed to reduce project energy consumption. 2010 Regulation to Implement the
Renewable Electricity Standard
(33% 2020)
SB 350 Clean Energy and
Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
(50% 2030)
Consistent. Pacific Gas & Electric obtained 33 percent of its power supply from renewable sources such as solar and geothermal in 2017, and about 70 percent of the electricity it delivers is carbon ‐free, including nuclear and large hydroelectric facilities. The owner of the Project would purchase power that consists of a greater percentage of renewable sources and could install renewab le solar power systems that will assist the utility in achieving exceeding the renewable mandate.
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-11
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
Million Solar Roofs Program Consistent. This measure is intended to increase solar throughout California by means of a variety of electricity providers and existing solar programs. Projects within the plan area will be able to take advantage of incentives that are in place at the time of construction.
The Project design does not preclude the future installation of solar panels.
Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
SBX 7 ‐7—The Water
Conservation Act of 2009
Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance
Consistent. The Project will comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, which requires a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use. The Project will also comply with the MWELO as required by the City’s development code and water ordinance.
Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
Consistent. The State will increase the use of green building practices. The Project would implement required green building strategies through existing regulation that requires the project to comply with various CALGreen requirements. The Project includes sustainability design features that support the Green Building Strategy.
2010 ARB Mandatory Reporting
of Industrial Emissions
Regulation
Not applicable. The Project is not an industrial land use.
Title 24 Part 11 California Green
Building Code Standards
AB 341 Statewide 75 Percent
Diversion Goal
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with implementation of these measures. The Project is required to achieve the recycling mandates via compliance with the CALGreen code. The Project would utilize City of Hanford recycling services.
Cap‐and‐Trade Offset Projects for
Sustainable Forests
Not applicable. The Project site is in an area design ated for urban uses. No forested lands exist on‐site.
ARB Refrigerant Management
Program CCR 95380
Not applicable. The regulations are applicable to refrigerants used by large air conditioning systems and large commercial and industrial refrigerators and cold storage system. The Project is not expected to use large systems subject to the refrigerant management regulat ions adopted by ARB.
Cap‐and‐Trade Offset Projects for
Livestock and Rice Cultivation
Not applicable. The Project site is proposed for urban development. No grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural activities that generate manure occur currently exist on‐site or are proposed to be implemented by the project.
SB 32 Scoping Plan
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan) includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S ‐3‐05 and SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes the following summary of its overall strategy for reaching the 2030 target:
• SB 350, which seeks to achieve a 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard by 2030, as well as doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which proposed increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020).
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-12
• Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) , which sought to m aintain existing GHG standards for light‐ and heavy‐duty vehicles, as well as put 4.2 million ZEVs on the roads. • Sustainable Freight Action Plan ‐ Improve freight system efficiency. ‐ Maximize use of near ‐zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy. ‐ Deploy over 100,000 zero‐emission trucks and equipment by 2030.
• Short‐Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy sought to reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons, as well as black carbon, by 40 percent and 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, respectively.
Table 3-4 provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures.
Table 3-4 SB 32 Consistency Table
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
SB 350 50% Renewable Mandate
Utilities subject to the legislation will be required to increase their renewable energy mix from 33% in 2020
to 50% in 2030.
Consistent. The Project will purchase electricity
from a utility subje ct to the SB 350 Renewable
Mandate.
SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030
This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from 2014
building energy usage compared to current projected
2030 levels
Not Applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply
with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are
expected to increase in stringency until
nonresidential buildings achieve zero net energy.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
This measure requires fuel providers to meet an 18
percent reduction in carbon content by 2030.
Consistent. Vehicles accessing the Project site will
use fuel containing lower carbon content as the
fuel standard is implemented. Mobile Source
Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Sce nario)
Vehicle manufacturers will be required to meet
existing regulations mandated by the LEV III
program. The strategy includes a goal of having 4.2
million ZEVs on the road by 2030. Project
residents can be expected to purchase increasing
numbers of more fuel efficient and zero emission
cars and trucks each year. The 2019 CALGreen
Code requires electrical service in residential
projects to be EV charger‐ ready.
Sustainable Freight Action Plan
The plan’s target is to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent by increasing the value of goods and
services produced from the freight sector, relative to
the amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This
would be achieved by deploying over 100,000 freight
vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission
operation and maximize near ‐zero emission freight
vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy
by 2030.
Not Applicable. The measure applies to owners
and operators of trucks and freight operations.
However, trucks accessing the Project site are
expected to be made by increasing number of ZEV
delivery trucks.
SLCP Reduction Strategy
The strategy requires the reduction of SLCPs by 40
percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and the reduction of
black carbon by 50 percent from 2013 levels by 2030.
Consistent. The Project will be accessed by
vehicles meeting increasingly stringent particulate
matter standards that reduce black carbon
compared to older trucks.
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-13
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include a
sustainable communities strategy for reduction of per
capita vehicle miles traveled.
Consistent. The Project will be located in a low
VMT area as depicted in the City’s VMT
Guidelines..
Post‐2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program
The Post 2020 Cap‐and‐Trade Program continues the
existing program for another 10 years. The Cap ‐and‐
Trade Program applies to large industrial sources such
as power plants, refineries, and cement manufacturers.
Consistent. The post ‐2020 Cap ‐and‐Trade
Program indirectly affects people who use the
products and services produced by the regulated
industrial sources when increased cost of products
or services (such as electricity and fuel) are
transferred to the consumers. The Cap‐and‐Trade
Program covers the GHG emissions associated
with electric ity consumed in California, whether
generated in‐state or imported. Accordingly, GHG
emissions associated with CEQA projects’
electricity usage are covered by the Cap‐ and‐Trade
Program. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program also covers
fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel
providers and transportation fuel providers) to
address emissions from such fuels and from
combustion of other fossil fuels not directly
covered at large sources in the program’s first
compliance period.
Natural and Working Lands Action Plan
ARB is working in coordination with several other
agencies at the federal, state, and local levels,
stakeholders, and with the public, to develop measures
as outlined in the Scoping Plan Update and the
governor’s Executive Order B ‐30‐15 to redu ce GHG
emissions and to cultivate net carbon sequestration
potential for California’s natural and working land.
Not Applicable. The Project is a residential
development and will not be considered natural or
working lands.
Accordingly, taking into accoun t the proposed Project’s emissions, Project design features, and the progress being made by the State towards reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment. Impacts would be less than significant.
AB 1279 Scoping Plan
The Climate Crisis Act (2022), or AB 1279, seeks to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions after 2045. The bill seeks to ensure that statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels.
Table 3-5 provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan Update measures.
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 3-14
Table 3-5 AB 1279 Consistency Table
Scoping Plan Strategy Consistency Finding
Reduction in per capita vehicle miles traveled of 30
percent by 2045
Consistent. The Project is located in a Low VMT
zone in the City’s adopted VMT Guidelines.
100% adoption of light-duty ZEVs by 2034 Consistent. The Project is not of such intensity or magnitude such that approval could prevent the
State achieving this goal.
Carbon sequestration on majority of petroleum
refineries by 2030
Consistent. The Project would not preclude
attainment of this goal as it does not propose to
modify a petroleum refinery.
100% sales of electric HVAC and water heaters for
existing buildings
Consistent. The Project would comply with all
applicable building codes. Appliances would be
replaced at end-of-life with regulations in-place at
that time.
Reduction in dairy emissions Consistent. The Project would not preclude attainment of this goal because it does not propose
to construct or modify dairies.
Carbon Dioxide Removal Consistent. The Project does not preclude the construction of carbon removal systems.
In summary, the Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32, SB 32, AB 1279, and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The impact would be less than significant.
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 4-15
4 References
California Air Resources Board. (2017, January 20). The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. Retrieved from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf California Energy Commission. (2021, August 11). Energy Commission Adopts Updated Building Standards to Improve Efficiency, Reduce Emissions From Homes and Businesses. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-08/energy-commission-adopts-updated-building-standards- improve-efficiency-reduce
Centers for Disease Control and Prevenetion. (2009, February 13). Increase in Coccidioidomycosis --- California, 2000--2007. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5805a1.htm
City of Hanford. (2014, May 28). Final Regional Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from https://cms6.revize.com/revize/hanfordca/document_center/Planning/Plans/RegionalCAP- GHGAppendices.pdf
City of Hanford. (2017, April). 2035 General Plan Policy Document. Retrieved from https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/DocumentCenter/View/383/2035-General-Plan-Policy- Document-PDF
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/
Kings County Department of Public Health. (2014, May). Increase in Reported Valley Fever Cases in California in 2017. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from
https://www.countyofkings.com/home/showpublisheddocument?id=20302 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2009, November 5). Guidance for Land‐use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Retrieved June 30 2022, from http://www.valleyair.org/programs/CCAP/11-05-
09/3_CCAP_FINAL_LU_Guidance_Nov_05_2009.pdf
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (2015, March 19). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf
South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2008, December 5). Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2
DR Horton
Stonehaven Subdivision
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • April 2023 5-16
5 Air Quality Output Files
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
1 / 49
Stonehaven Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
2 / 49
3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.11. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.13. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
3 / 49
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
4 / 49
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
5 / 49
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
6 / 49
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
7 / 49
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Stonehaven
Construction Start Date 8/15/2023
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.40
Precipitation (days) 23.0
Location 36.31040917411529, -119.6853951843739
County Kings
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2612
EDFZ 9
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.8
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq
ft)
Population Description
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
8 / 49
Single Family
Housing
82.0 Dwelling Unit 11.8 129,478 960,454 — 254 —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.80 4.04 39.8 36.5 0.06 1.81 19.8 21.6 1.66 10.1 11.8 — 6,777 6,777 0.28 0.06 1.25 6,803 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.53 40.7 37.4 32.3 0.06 1.59 9.35 10.9 1.47 3.69 5.16 — 6,757 6,757 0.28 0.06 0.03 6,781 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.14 2.28 8.26 10.4 0.02 0.36 1.34 1.64 0.33 0.59 0.87 — 1,962 1,962 0.08 0.03 0.39 1,974 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.21 0.42 1.51 1.90 < 0.005 0.07 0.24 0.30 0.06 0.11 0.16 — 325 325 0.01 0.01 0.06 327
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
9 / 49
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 4.80 4.04 39.8 36.5 0.06 1.81 19.8 21.6 1.66 10.1 11.8 — 6,777 6,777 0.28 0.06 0.74 6,803 2024 1.61 1.36 11.5 14.8 0.02 0.50 0.24 0.74 0.46 0.06 0.52 — 2,761 2,761 0.11 0.04 1.25 2,778 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 4.53 3.82 37.4 32.3 0.06 1.59 9.35 10.9 1.47 3.69 5.16 — 6,757 6,757 0.28 0.06 0.03 6,781 2024 1.59 1.34 11.5 14.5 0.02 0.50 0.24 0.74 0.46 0.06 0.52 — 2,731 2,731 0.11 0.04 0.03 2,747 2025 1.49 40.7 10.8 14.3 0.02 0.43 0.24 0.67 0.40 0.06 0.46 — 2,725 2,725 0.11 0.04 0.03 2,740 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.87 0.73 6.90 6.48 0.01 0.30 1.34 1.64 0.28 0.59 0.87 — 1,179 1,179 0.05 0.01 0.11 1,184 2024 1.14 0.96 8.26 10.4 0.02 0.36 0.17 0.53 0.33 0.04 0.37 — 1,962 1,962 0.08 0.03 0.39 1,974 2025 0.07 2.28 0.52 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 115 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 116 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.16 0.13 1.26 1.18 < 0.005 0.06 0.24 0.30 0.05 0.11 0.16 — 195 195 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 196 2024 0.21 0.18 1.51 1.90 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.07 — 325 325 0.01 0.01 0.06 327 2025 0.01 0.42 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.1 19.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.2
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.10 8.71 4.64 43.7 0.12 2.80 1.39 4.19 2.70 0.24 2.95 489 7,837 8,326 6.83 0.29 18.0 8,601
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
10 / 49
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 7.26 7.88 4.99 37.0 0.11 2.80 1.39 4.19 2.70 0.24 2.94 489 7,440 7,929 6.87 0.31 1.37 8,194 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.21 6.47 3.99 24.0 0.06 0.71 1.36 2.07 0.69 0.24 0.92 144 6,784 6,928 5.21 0.29 8.14 7,153 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.77 1.18 0.73 4.38 0.01 0.13 0.25 0.38 0.13 0.04 0.17 23.8 1,123 1,147 0.86 0.05 1.35 1,184
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.36 3.17 2.86 19.9 0.05 0.04 1.39 1.43 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 4,855 4,855 0.20 0.26 17.1 4,955 Area 4.65 5.50 1.03 23.4 0.06 2.70 — 2.70 2.60 — 2.60 446 876 1,321 2.10 < 0.005 — 1,375 Energy 0.09 0.04 0.76 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,022 2,022 0.15 0.01 — 2,028 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 84.8 90.9 0.63 0.02 — 111 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 — 131 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Total 8.10 8.71 4.64 43.7 0.12 2.80 1.39 4.19 2.70 0.24 2.95 489 7,837 8,326 6.83 0.29 18.0 8,601 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.97 2.77 3.25 17.9 0.04 0.04 1.39 1.43 0.04 0.24 0.29 — 4,470 4,470 0.24 0.28 0.44 4,560 Area 4.20 5.07 0.98 18.8 0.06 2.70 — 2.70 2.60 — 2.60 446 863 1,309 2.10 < 0.005 — 1,362
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
11 / 49
Energy 0.09 0.04 0.76 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,022 2,022 0.15 0.01 — 2,028 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 84.8 90.9 0.63 0.02 — 111 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 — 131 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Total 7.26 7.88 4.99 37.0 0.11 2.80 1.39 4.19 2.70 0.24 2.94 489 7,440 7,929 6.87 0.31 1.37 8,194 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.95 2.76 2.99 17.2 0.04 0.04 1.36 1.40 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 4,478 4,478 0.22 0.26 7.22 4,569 Area 1.16 3.67 0.24 6.51 0.01 0.61 — 0.61 0.59 — 0.59 100 200 300 0.47 < 0.005 — 312 Energy 0.09 0.04 0.76 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,022 2,022 0.15 0.01 — 2,028 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 84.8 90.9 0.63 0.02 — 111 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 — 131 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Total 4.21 6.47 3.99 24.0 0.06 0.71 1.36 2.07 0.69 0.24 0.92 144 6,784 6,928 5.21 0.29 8.14 7,153 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.54 0.50 0.55 3.13 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 741 741 0.04 0.04 1.19 756 Area 0.21 0.67 0.04 1.19 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 16.6 33.1 49.7 0.08 < 0.005 — 51.7 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 335 335 0.02 < 0.005 — 336 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.02 14.0 15.0 0.11 < 0.005 — 18.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 6.20 0.00 6.20 0.62 0.00 — 21.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.15
Total 0.77 1.18 0.73 4.38 0.01 0.13 0.25 0.38 0.13 0.04 0.17 23.8 1,123 1,147 0.86 0.05 1.35 1,184
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
12 / 49
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
3.39 2.84 27.3 23.5 0.03 1.20 — 1.20 1.10 — 1.10 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.19 0.16 1.50 1.29 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.27 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
13 / 49
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 0.55 136 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.75 6.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.85 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.12 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.13 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00
3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
4.70 3.95 39.7 35.5 0.05 1.81 — 1.81 1.66 — 1.66 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
14 / 49
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.11 1.09 0.97 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.20 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.07 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 157 157 0.01 0.01 0.64 159 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
15 / 49
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.94 3.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.00 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 0.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00
3.5. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
4.43 3.72 37.3 31.4 0.06 1.59 — 1.59 1.47 — 1.47 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
4.43 3.72 37.3 31.4 0.06 1.59 — 1.59 1.47 — 1.47 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
16 / 49
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.36 0.31 3.07 2.58 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 542 542 0.02 < 0.005 — 544 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.76 0.76 — 0.30 0.30 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.56 0.47 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 89.8 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 90.1 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.08 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 179 179 0.01 0.01 0.74 182 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 158 158 0.01 0.01 0.02 161 Vendor 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 0.00
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
17 / 49
Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.27 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.50 1.26 11.8 13.2 0.02 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.13 1.20 1.34 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 244 244 0.01 < 0.005 — 245 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
18 / 49
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.02 0.22 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 40.4 40.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.5 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.15 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 234 234 0.02 0.01 0.03 237 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 106 106 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 111 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.7 24.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.3 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.08 4.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.15 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.79 1.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Hauling 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 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
19 / 49
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.44 1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.03 0.86 8.04 9.39 0.02 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 1,717 1,717 0.07 0.01 — 1,723 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.19 0.16 1.47 1.71 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.15 0.11 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 259 259 0.01 0.01 0.99 263 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 105 105 < 0.005 0.02 0.26 109 Hauling 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 0.00
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
20 / 49
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.13 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 229 229 0.01 0.01 0.03 232 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 105 105 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 109 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 170 170 0.01 0.01 0.31 173 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 74.9 74.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 78.3 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.1 28.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.0 Hauling 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 0.00
3.11. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
21 / 49
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.34 Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.12 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 224 224 0.01 0.01 0.02 227 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 103 103 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 107 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.36 1.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.38 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.63 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 Hauling 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 0.00
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
22 / 49
3.13. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
23 / 49
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 115 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.47 6.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.57 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.07 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00
3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 40.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
24 / 49
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 2.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 44.8 44.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.4 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.55 2.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.58 Vendor 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 0.00
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
25 / 49
Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.42 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
3.36 3.17 2.86 19.9 0.05 0.04 1.39 1.43 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 4,855 4,855 0.20 0.26 17.1 4,955 Total 3.36 3.17 2.86 19.9 0.05 0.04 1.39 1.43 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 4,855 4,855 0.20 0.26 17.1 4,955 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
2.97 2.77 3.25 17.9 0.04 0.04 1.39 1.43 0.04 0.24 0.29 — 4,470 4,470 0.24 0.28 0.44 4,560 Total 2.97 2.77 3.25 17.9 0.04 0.04 1.39 1.43 0.04 0.24 0.29 — 4,470 4,470 0.24 0.28 0.44 4,560 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.54 0.50 0.55 3.13 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 741 741 0.04 0.04 1.19 756
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
26 / 49
Total 0.54 0.50 0.55 3.13 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 741 741 0.04 0.04 1.19 756
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,062 1,062 0.07 0.01 — 1,066
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,062 1,062 0.07 0.01 — 1,066 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,062 1,062 0.07 0.01 — 1,066
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,062 1,062 0.07 0.01 — 1,066 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 176 176 0.01 <
0.005 — 177
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 176 176 0.01 < 0.005 — 177
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
27 / 49
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.09 0.04 0.76 0.32 <
0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 960 960 0.08 < 0.005 — 962 Total 0.09 0.04 0.76 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 960 960 0.08 < 0.005 — 962 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.09 0.04 0.76 0.32 <
0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 960 960 0.08 < 0.005 — 962 Total 0.09 0.04 0.76 0.32 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 960 960 0.08 < 0.005 — 962 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.02 0.01 0.14 0.06 <
0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 159 Total 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 — 159
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 4.20 2.08 0.98 18.8 0.06 2.70 — 2.70 2.60 — 2.60 446 863 1,309 2.10 < 0.005 — 1,362 Consum
er
Products
— 2.77 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
28 / 49
————————————————0.22—Architect
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.45 0.43 0.05 4.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 Total 4.65 5.50 1.03 23.4 0.06 2.70 — 2.70 2.60 — 2.60 446 876 1,321 2.10 < 0.005 — 1,375 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 4.20 2.08 0.98 18.8 0.06 2.70 — 2.70 2.60 — 2.60 446 863 1,309 2.10 < 0.005 — 1,362 Consum
er
Products
— 2.77 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.20 5.07 0.98 18.8 0.06 2.70 — 2.70 2.60 — 2.60 446 863 1,309 2.10 < 0.005 — 1,362 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.17 0.09 0.04 0.77 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 16.6 32.1 48.7 0.08 < 0.005 — 50.7 Consum
er
Products
— 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.02 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.04 Total 0.21 0.67 0.04 1.19 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 16.6 33.1 49.7 0.08 < 0.005 — 51.7
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
29 / 49
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 84.8 90.9 0.63 0.02 — 111
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 84.8 90.9 0.63 0.02 — 111 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 84.8 90.9 0.63 0.02 — 111
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 6.13 84.8 90.9 0.63 0.02 — 111 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.02 14.0 15.0 0.11 <
0.005 — 18.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.02 14.0 15.0 0.11 < 0.005 — 18.4
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
30 / 49
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 — 131
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 — 131 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 — 131
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 — 131 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.20 0.00 6.20 0.62 0.00 — 21.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 6.20 0.00 6.20 0.62 0.00 — 21.7
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
31 / 49
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.93 0.93
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.15
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.15
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
32 / 49
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
33 / 49
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
34 / 49
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
35 / 49
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 8/15/2023 9/12/2023 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/13/2023 9/27/2023 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 9/28/2023 11/9/2023 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 11/10/2023 1/3/2025 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 1/4/2025 2/1/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/2/2025 3/2/2025 5.00 20.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
36 / 49
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel A verage 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
37 / 49
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 29.5 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 8.77 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
38 / 49
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 5.90 10.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 3.50 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 262,193 87,398 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
39 / 49
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.90 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
774 782 701 279,161 4,968 5,021 4,500 1,791,692
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 41
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
40 / 49
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 41
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 4
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 4
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
262192.95 87,398 0.00 0.00 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 728,690 532 0.0330 0.0040 2,993,902
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
41 / 49
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 3,201,014 18,820,360
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 69.47 0.00
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential
A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freez
ers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
Stonehaven Detailed Report, 4/18/2023
42 / 49
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)