Hanford City Council
August 6, 2024

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-6

3.2.1 Ozone (O3)
The most severe air quality problem in the San Joaquin Valley is high concentrations of O3. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary pollutant produced through photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Significant O3 generation requires about one to three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. For this reason, the months of April through October comprise the "ozone season." O3 is a regional pollutant because O3 precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with the reaction process. The data contained in Table 3-3 shows that the Hanford and Santa Rosa Rancheria area exceeded the 1-hour average ambient O3 CAAQS and the 8-hour average ambient O3 NAAQS and CAAQS during the 2020 through 2022 period.

3.2.1.1 Ozone Health Impacts
High levels of O3 cause eye irritation and can impair respiratory functions. O3 can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, and throat irritation; it can also worse chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections. High levels of O3 can also affect plants and materials. Grapes, lettuce, spinach and many types of garden flowers and shrubs are particularly vulnerable to O3 damage.

3.2.2 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Both State and Federal particulate standards now apply to particulates under 10 microns (PM10) rather than to total suspended particulate (TSP), which includes particulates up to 30 microns in diameter. Continuing studies have shown that the smaller-diameter fraction of TSP represents the greatest health hazard posed by the pollutant; therefore, EPA has recently established NAAQS for PM2.5. The project area is classified as attainment for PM10 and non-attainment for particulates under 2.5 microns (PM2.5) for NAAQS.

Particulate matter consists of particles in the atmosphere resulting from many kinds of dust and fumeproducing industrial and agricultural operations, from combustion, and from atmospheric photochemical reactions. Natural activities also increase the level of particulates in the atmosphere; wind-raised dust and ocean spray are two sources of naturally occurring particulates. The largest sources of PM10 and PM2.5 in Kings County are vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads, demolition and construction activities, farming operations, and unplanned fires. PM10 and PM2.5 are considered regional pollutants with elevated levels typically occurring over a wide geographic area. Concentrations tend to be highest in the winter, during periods of high atmospheric stability and low wind speed.

Table 3-3 shows that PM10 levels regularly exceeded the CAAQS but not the NAAQS at two monitoring stations over the three-year period of 2020 through 2022. Table 3-3 shows that PM2.5 NAAQS were exceeded from 2019 through 2021. Similar levels can be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site.

3.2.2.1 Suspended Particulate Matter Health Impacts
In the respiratory tract, very small particles of certain substances may produce injury by themselves or may contain absorbed gases that are injurious. Particulates of aerosol size suspended in the air can both scatter and absorb sunlight, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also cause a wide range of damage to materials.

3.2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations; however, under inversion

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-7
conditions prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley, CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed over a broad area.

Internal combustion engines, principally in vehicles, produce CO due to incomplete fuel combustion. Various industrial processes also produce CO emissions through incomplete combustion. Gasoline-powered motor vehicles are typically the major source of this contaminant. Table 3-3 reports no CO data is available for the three-year period from 2020 through 2022.

3.2.3.1 Carbon Monoxide Health Impacts
CO does not irritate the respiratory tract but passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream, and by interfering with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen, thereby aggravate cardiovascular disease, causing fatigue, headaches, and dizziness. CO is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility, or materials.

3.2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Hydrocarbons
Kings County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for NO2. NO2 is the "whiskey brown" colored gas readily visible during periods of heavy air pollution. Mobile sources and oil and gas production account for nearly all of the County's NOx emissions, most of which is emitted as NO2. Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations are the primary sources in the region.

Railroads and aircraft are other potentially significant sources of combustion air contaminants. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight to form NO2 and O3.

NO2, the most significant of these pollutants, can color the atmosphere at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm on days of 10-mile visibility. NOx is an important air pollutant in the region because it is a primary receptor of ultraviolet light, which initiates the reactions producing photochemical smog. It also reacts in the air to form nitrate particulates.

Motor vehicles are the major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the basin. Other sources include evaporation of organic solvents and petroleum production and refining operations. Table 3-3 shows that the Federal and State NO2 standards have not been exceeded at the monitoring station over the three-year period of 2020 through 2022. Hydrocarbons are not currently monitored.

3.2.4.1 Nitrogen Dioxide and Hydrocarbons Health Impacts Certain hydrocarbons can damage plants by inhibiting growth and by causing flowers and leaves to fall. Levels of hydrocarbons currently measured in urban areas are not known to cause adverse effects in humans.

However, certain members of this contaminant group are important components in the reactions, which produce photochemical oxidants.

3.2.5 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Kings County has been designated as an attainment area for the NAAQS for SO2. SO2 is the primary combustion product of sulfur, or sulfur containing fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of this pollutant, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing facilities are minor contributors. Gaseous fuels (natural gas, propane, etc.) typically have lower percentages of sulfur containing compounds than liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil. SO2 levels are generally higher in the winter months. Decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere reflect the use of natural gas in power plants and boilers.

Table 3-3 shows no data has been reported over the three-year period in Kings County.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-8

3.2.5.1 Sulfur Dioxide Health Impacts
At high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when respirated in combination with particulates, SO2 can result in greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides (SOx), in combination with moisture and oxygen, results in the formation of sulfuric acid, which can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble, and oxidize iron and steel. SOx can also react to produce sulfates that reduce visibility and sunlight.

3.2.6 Lead (Pb) and Suspended Sulfate
Ambient Pb levels have dropped dramatically due to the increase in the percentage of motor vehicles that run exclusively on unleaded fuel. Ambient Pb levels in Fresno are well below the ambient standard and are expected to continue to decline; the data reported in Table 3-3 only shows the highest concentration as the number of days exceeding standards are not reported. Suspended sulfate levels have stabilized to the point where no excesses of the State standard are expected in any given year.

3.2.6.1 Lead and Suspended Sulfate Health Impacts
Pb affects most organs in the body, and children are most susceptible to the effects of Pb. In children, Pb can cause behavior and learning problems, slowed growth, anemia, and hearing problems. In adults, Pb can lead to decreased kidney function, reproductive problems, and cardiovascular effects, such as increased blood pressure and incidence of hypertension. Suspended sulfates are part of PM2.5 and therefore have similar health effects. These health effects include reduced lung function, aggravated asthmatic symptoms, and increased risk of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in people who have chronic heart or lung disease.

3.3 Climate
The most significant single control on the weather pattern of the San Joaquin Valley is the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure cell, referred to as the "Pacific High." During the summer, the Pacific High is positioned off the coast of northern California, diverting ocean-derived storms to the north. Hence, the summer months are virtually rainless. During the winter, the Pacific High moves southward allowing storms to pass through the San Joaquin Valley. Almost all of the precipitation expected during a given year occurs from December through April. During the summer, the predominant surface winds are out of the northwest.

Air enters the Valley through the Carquinez strait and flows toward the Tehachapi Mountains. This up-valley (northwesterly) wind flow is interrupted in early fall by the emergence of nocturnal, down-valley (southeasterly) winds which become progressively more predominant as winter approaches. Wind speeds are generally highest during the spring and lightest in fall and winter. The relatively cool air flowing through the Carquinez strait is warmed on its journey south through the Valley. On reaching the southern end of the Valley, the average high temperature during the summer is nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Relative humidity during the summer is quite low, causing large diurnal temperature variations. Temperatures during the summer often drop into the upper 60s. In winter, the average high temperatures reach into the mid-50s and the average low drops to the mid-30s. In addition, another high-pressure cell, known as the "Great Basin High," develops east of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range during winter. When this cell is weak, a layer of cool, damp air becomes trapped in the basin and extensive fog results. During inversions, vertical dispersion is restricted, and pollutant emissions are trapped beneath the inversion and pushed against the mountains, adversely affecting regional air quality. Surface-based inversions, while shallow and typically short-lived, are present most mornings. Elevated inversions, while less frequent than ground-based inversions, are typically longer lasting and create the more severe air stagnation problems. The winter season characteristically has the poorest conditions for vertical mixing of the entire year.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-9
Meteorological data for various monitoring stations is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center.

Meteorological data for the Project site is expected to be similar to the data recorded at the Hanford 1 S monitoring station. This data is provided in Table 3-4, which contains average precipitation data recorded at the Hanford monitoring station. Over the 117-year period from July of 1899 through June of 2016 (the most recent data available), the average annual precipitation was 8.38 inches.

Table 3-4. Hanford 1 S Weather Data
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Period 07/01/1899 to 6/09/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Avg. Maximum
Temp (F) 54.7 61.9 67.5 74.9 83.6 91.4 97.8 96.1 90.5 80.0 66.2 55.4 76.7 Avg. Minimum
Temp (F) 35.2 38.6 42.1 46.4 52.5 58.3 62.5 60.4 55.5 47.4 38.8 34.6 47.7 Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 1.60 1.53 1.48 0.77 0.26 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.39 0.84 1.24 8.38 Average Snowfall
(in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Snow
Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent of possible observations for period of record:

Max. Temp.: 98.4% Min. Temp.: 98.1% Precipitation: 98.8% Snowfall: 98.2% Snow Depth: 98.2% Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2023.

3.4 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

3.4.1 Global Climate Change
“Global climate change” refers to change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms, lasting for decades or longer. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred by some scientists and policy makers to “global warming” because it helps convey the notion that in addition to rising temperatures, other changes in global climate may occur. Climate change may result from the following influences:
► Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;
► Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and/or ► Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

As determined from worldwide meteorological measurements between 1990 and 2005, the primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit (°F) per decade. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which could induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns or more energetic aspects of extreme weather (e.g., droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and increased intensity of tropical cyclones).

Specific effects from climate change in California may include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-10
Natural earth systems and human activities, including fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, both release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other compounds cumulatively termed greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are effective at trapping radiation that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. This trapped radiation warms the atmosphere, the oceans, and the earth’s surface (USGCRP, 2014). Many scientists believe “most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (IPCC, 2017). The increased amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is the alleged primary result of human-induced warming.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. In the last 200 years, substantial quantities of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. These human-induced emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. The GHGs resulting from human activity are believed to be causing global climate change. While human-made GHGs include CO2, CH4, and N2O, some (like chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) are completely new to the atmosphere. GHGs vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), the comparative ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere. The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources of CH4 production include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Human activity accounts for an estimated 50-65% of combined methane emissions of the approximately 500 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually (U.S. EPA, n.d.). These anthropogenic sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels; digestive processes in ruminant livestock such as cattle; rice cultivation; and the decomposition of waste in landfills.

The major removal process for atmospheric CH4, the chemical breakdown in the atmosphere, cannot keep pace with source emissions; therefore, CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.

Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2008 were 30.1 billion metric tons of CO2e and have increased considerably since that time (United Nations, 2011). It is important to note that the global emissions inventory data are not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the data (U.S. EPA, 2019). Emissions from the top five emitting countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 70% of total global anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2014. Of these anthropogenic emissions, the United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions behind China. The primary GHG emitted by human activities was CO2, representing approximately 78.8% of total global anthropogenic GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 2022).

In 2020, the United States emitted approximately 5,981.4 million metric tons of CO2e. Of the six major sectors nationwide (transportation, electric power industry, industry, agriculture, commercial, and residential), the transportation and electric power industry sectors combined account for approximately 52% of the US anthropogenic GHG emissions; the majority of the electrical power industry and all of the transportation emissions are generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2020, total United States GHG emissions have decreased by approximately 7.3% (U.S. EPA, 2022).

Worldwide, energy-related CO2 emissions are expected to increase at an average rate of 0.6% annually between 2018 and 2050, compared with the average growth rate of 1.8% per year from 1990 to 2018. Much of the increase in these emissions is expected to occur in the developing world where emerging economies, such as China and India, fuel economic development and advance overall standard of living with fossil fuel energy. Developing countries’ emissions are expected to grow above the world average at a rate of

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-11
approximately 1% annually between 2018 and 2050 and surpass emissions of industrialized countries by 2025 (U.S. EIA, 2019).

CARB is responsible for developing and maintaining the California GHG emissions inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted into and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the state of California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program. CARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 2000 through 2017 and is based on fuel use, equipment activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, and agricultural lands).

In 2019, emissions from statewide emitting activities were 418.2 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e), which is 7 MMT CO2e lower than 2018 levels. 2019 emissions have decreased since peak levels in 2004 and are 13 MMT CO2e below the 1990 emissions level and the State’s 2020 GHG limit. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.1 tonnes per person to 10.5 tonnes per person in 2019, a 25% decrease (CARB 2021).

CARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 40% of California’s GHG emissions in 2017, followed by electricity generation at 15%. Other sources of GHG emissions were industrial sources at 21%, residential plus commercial activities at 11%, and agriculture at 8% (CARB 2021).

CARB has projected the estimated statewide GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur with reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewables Electricity Standard (30 MMT CO2e total), will be 509 MMT of CO2e (CARB, 2014). GHG emissions from the transportation and electricity sectors as a whole are expected to increase at approximately 36% and 20% of total CO2e emissions, respectively, as compared to 2009. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions and the percentage of the total 2020 emissions is projected to be 18% of total CO2e emissions.

The remaining sources of GHG emissions in 2020 are high global warming potential gases at 6%, residential and commercial activities at 10%, agriculture at 7%, and recycling and waste at 2%.

3.4.2 Effects of Global Climate Change
Changes in the global climate are assessed using historical records of temperature changes that have occurred in the past. Climate change scientists use this temperature data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC predicted that the global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100 could range from 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) to 6.4 °C (8 to 10.4 °Fahrenheit) (IPCC, 2013). Global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC concluded that global climate change was largely the result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. However, the scientific literature is not consistent regarding many of the aspects of climate change, the actual temperature changes during the 20th century, and contributions from human versus non-human activities.

Effects from global climate change may arise from temperature increases, climate sensitive diseases, extreme weather events, and degradation of air quality. There may be direct temperature effects through increases in average temperature leading to more extreme heat waves and less extreme cold spells. Those living in warmer climates are likely to experience more stress and heat-related problems. Heat-related problems include heat rash and heat stroke, drought, etc. In addition, climate-sensitive diseases may increase, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Such diseases include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever,

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-12
and encephalitis. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes can displace people and agriculture. Global warming may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution.

According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, several climate change effects can be expected in California over the course of the next century (CalEPA, 2006). These are based on trends established by the IPCC and are summarized below.
► A diminishing Sierra snowpack declining by 70% to 90%, threatening the state’s water supply. ► A rise in sea levels, resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Sea level rises of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. (Note: This condition would not affect the Proposed Project area, as it is a significant distance away from coastal areas.) ► An increase in temperature and extreme weather events. Climate change is expected to lead to increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events and heat waves in California.

More heat waves can exacerbate chronic disease or heat-related illness. ► Increased risk of large wildfires if rain increases as temperatures rise. Wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant fuel available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90% more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. ► Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 °F under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25% to 35% increase in the number of days that ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas (see below).
► Increased vulnerability of forests due to forest fires, pest infestation, and increased temperatures. ► Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. ► Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85% more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. This increase in air quality problems could result in an increase in asthma and other health-related problems.
► A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. Climate change can cause an increase in wildfires, an enhanced insect population, and establishment of non-native species. ► Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. ► Increased ground-level ozone formation due to higher reaction rates of ozone precursors.

3.4.3 Global Climate Change Regulatory Issues
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established an agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions, including methane. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The plan consists of more than 50 voluntary programs. Additionally, the Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-13
compounds that deplete O3 in the stratosphere (chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform) were phased out by 2000 (methyl chloroform was phased out by 2005).

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The legislature stated, “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” The Act caps California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. The Act defines GHG emissions as all of the following gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This agreement represents the first enforceable statewide program in the U.S. to cap all GHG emissions from major industries that includes penalties for non-compliance. While acknowledging that national and international actions will be necessary to fully address the issue of global warming, AB32 lays out a program to inventory and reduce GHG emissions in California and from power generation facilities located outside the state that serve California residents and businesses.

AB32 charges CARB with responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to reduce those emissions. CARB has adopted a list of discrete early action measures that can be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. CARB has defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and has adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap. CARB is conducting rulemaking for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the emissions cap by 2020. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California’s energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality.

Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill (SB) 32, which expanded upon AB32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB197 which increased the legislative oversight of the CARB by adding two legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB Board and provided additional protection to disadvantaged communities; SB350, which increased California’s renewable energy electricity procurement goal and SB100, which established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electrical retail sales to end use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by 2045.

Global warming and climate change have received substantial public attention for more than 20 years. For example, the United States Global Change Research Program was established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to enhance the understanding of natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system, to monitor, understand, and predict global change, and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. Even so, the analytical tools have not been developed to determine the effect on worldwide global warming from a particular increase in GHG emissions, or the resulting effects on climate change in a particular locale. The scientific tools needed to evaluate the impacts that a specific project may have on the environment are even farther in the future.

The California Supreme Court’s CEQA decision on the Newhall Ranch development case, Center for Biological v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Case No. 217763), determined that the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the Newhall Ranch development project would reduce GHG emissions by 31 percent from business as usual (BAU). This reduction was compared to the California’s target of reducing GHG emissions statewide by 29 percent from business as usual. The Court determined that “the EIR’s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the greenhouse gas reduction effort required by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design.” In the Court’s final ruling it offered suggestions that were deemed appropriate use of the BAU methodology:

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 3-14

1. Lead agencies can use the comparison to BAU methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve in order to comply with statewide goals,

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less that significant, and

3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or could apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies.

Neither the City of Hanford or Kings County have developed specific thresholds for GHGs. As discussed in Section 4.1, the SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29% reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29% reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance. Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine significance using the project design features.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-1

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 Significance Criteria
To determine whether a proposed Project could create a potential CEQA impact, local, State, and Federal agencies have developed various means by which a project’s impacts may be measured and evaluated. Such means can generally be categorized as follows:
► Thresholds of significance adopted by air quality agencies to guide lead agencies in their evaluation of air quality impacts under the CEQA.
► Regulations established by air districts, CARB and EPA for the evaluation of stationary sources when applying for Authorities to Construct, Permits to Operate and other permit program requirements (e.g., New Source Review).
► Thresholds utilized to determine if a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the ambient air quality standards or other concentration-based limits. ► Regulations applied in areas where severe air quality problems exist.

Summary tables of these emission-based and concentration-based thresholds of significance for each pollutant are provided below along with a discussion of their applicability.

4.1.1 Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts under CEQA In order to maintain consistency with CEQA, the SJVAPCD (2015) adopted guidelines to assist applicants in complying with the various requirements. According to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, a project would have potentially significant air quality impacts when the project:
► Creates a conflict with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ► Causes a violation of any air quality standard or generates substantial contribution towards exceeding an existing or projected air quality standard;
► Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated non-attainment under a NAAQS and CAAQS (including emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors);
► Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ► Creates objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people.

The SJVAPCD GAMAQI thresholds are designed to implement the general criteria for air quality emissions as required in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Paragraph III (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations §15064.7) and CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. al). SJVAPCD’s specific CEQA air quality thresholds are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. SJVAPCD CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Criteria Pollutant Significance Level
Construction Operational
CO 100 tons/yr 100 tons/yr
NOx 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
ROG 10 tons/yr 10 tons/yr
SOx 27 tons/yr 27 tons/yr
PM10 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
PM2.5 15 tons/yr 15 tons/yr
Source: SJVAPCD 2015

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-2

4.1.2 Thresholds for Ambient Air Quality Impacts
CEQA Guidelines – Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) states that a project that would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation” would be considered to create significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, an AQIA should determine whether the emissions from a project would cause or contribute significantly to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS (presented above in Table 3-1) when added to existing ambient concentrations.

The EPA has established the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to determine what comprises “significant impact levels” (SIL) to NAAQS attainment areas. A project’s impacts are considered less than significant if emissions are below PSD SIL for a particular pollutant. When a SIL is exceeded, an additional “increment analysis” is required. As the Project would not include modification to the stationary source under NSR, it would not be subject to either PSD or NSR review. The PSD SIL thresholds are used with ambient air quality modeling for a CEQA project to address whether the Project would “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.” Ambient air quality emissions estimates below the PSD SIL thresholds would result in less than significant ambient air quality impacts for both a project and cumulative CEQA impact analysis. The SJVAB is classified as non-attainment for the O3 NAAQS and, as such, is subject to “non-attainment new source review” (NSR). PSD SILs and increments are more stringent than the CAAQS or NAAQS and represent the most stringent thresholds of significance.

4.1.3 Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states, “From a health risk perspective there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long-term public health risk impacts:
► Type A Projects: Land use projects that will place new toxic sources in the vicinity of existing receptors. ► Type B Projects: Land use projects that will place new receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources” (SJVAPCD 2015).

Table 4-2Table 4-2 presents the thresholds of significance used with toxic air contaminants when evaluating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Table 4-2. Measures of Significance - Toxic Air Contaminants Agency Level Description
Significance Thresholds Adopted for the Evaluation of Impacts Under CEQA

SJVAPCD
Carcinogens Maximally Exposed Individual risk equals or exceeds 20 in one million.

NonCarcinogens
Acute: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Chronic: Hazard Index equals or exceeds 1 for the
Maximally Exposed Individual.

Source: SJVAPCD 2015

4.1.4 Global Climate Change Thresholds of Significance
On December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009); which outlined the SJVAPCD’s methodology for assessing a project’s significance for GHGs under CEQA. The following criteria was outlined in the document to determine whether a project could have a significant impact:

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-3
► Projects determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions and would not require further environmental review, including analysis of project specific GHG emissions. Projects exempt under CEQA would be evaluated consistent with established rules and regulations governing project approval and would not be required to implement BPS.
► Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement BPS.
► Projects implementing Best Performance Standards would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. ► Projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG. ► Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, projects requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for any other reason would require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS or achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.

Neither the City of Hanford or Kings County have developed specific thresholds for GHGs. The SJVAPCD, a CEQA Trustee Agency for this Project, has developed thresholds to determine significance of a proposed project – either implement Best Performance Standards or achieve a 29% reduction from BAU (a specific numerical threshold). However, the SJVAPCD has established their BAU and baseline emissions based on the years 2002-2004 and 2020, respectively. The 2020 projected baseline has passed, and at this time, no new guidance has been approved for determining BAU and projected baseline for the next target year. Therefore, the 29% reduction from BAU cannot be applied to the subject Project in order to determine significance.

Additionally, a Best Performance Standards threshold has not been established. For this Project, compliance with locally adopted climate plans will be used to determine level of significance for GHG. Therefore, the GHG analysis for this Project follows the suggestions from the Court’s ruling on the Newhall Ranch development project in order to determine significance using the project design features.

4.2 Project Related Emissions
This document was prepared pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. The GAMAQI identifies separate thresholds for a project’s short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) emissions.

Project emissions were estimated for the following project development stages:
► Short-term (Construction and Demolition) – Construction emissions of the proposed Project were estimated in CalEEMod using the default construction schedule and defaults for construction equipment for the development of 64 multi-family dwelling units, a 3,500 square foot Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive Thru, and a convenience store with 12 fueling pumps.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-4
► Long-term (Operations) – Long term emissions were also estimated in CalEEMod using model defaults for operations of the aforementioned land use types. Vehicle trip rates were revised per the Project Trip Generation data provided (Ruettgers and Schuler 2023).

4.2.1 Short-Term Emissions
The construction emissions were based on the default CalEEMod equipment list for the proposed Project’s land use type and development intensity and applying model defaults as well as a conservative analysis approach. Construction emissions were estimated under the assumption that the residential phase would begin construction in October 2024 followed by the commercial phase beginning in November 2025. The dates entered into the CalEEMod program represent the earliest construction timeline, which would estimate the worst-case emissions as construction equipment technology and emissions improve over time; therefore, all estimated emission totals are conservative and reflect a reasonable and legally sufficient estimate of potential impacts. All construction equipment activity levels assumed were based on the applicant-specified values for type and number of equipment and CalEEMod adjusted hours per day and horsepower.

SJVAPCD’s required measures for all projects were also applied:
► Water exposed areas 3 times per day; and
► Reduce vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour.

Table 4-3 presents the Project’s short-term emissions based on the anticipated construction period.

Table 4-3. Short-Term Project Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated
2024 Construction Emissions 0.06 0.50 0.57 0.00 0.11 0.06 2025 Construction Emissions 0.77 1.45 1.91 0.00 0.12 0.08 2026 Construction Emissions 0.15 0.88 1.07 0.00 0.04 0.03 Mitigated
2024 Construction Emissions 0.06 0.50 0.57 0.00 0.06 0.04 2025 Construction Emissions 0.77 1.45 1.91 0.00 0.11 0.07 2026 Construction Emissions 0.15 0.88 1.07 0.00 0.04 0.03 Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No Source: Trinity Consultants 2023
As calculated with CalEEMod, the estimated short-term construction-related emissions for criteria pollutants would not exceed SJVAPCD significance threshold levels during any given year and would therefore be less than significant.

4.2.2 Long-Term Operations Emissions
Long-term emissions are caused by operational mobile, area, and energy sources. Long-term emissions would consist of the following components:

4.2.2.1 Fugitive Dust Emissions
Operation of the Project site at full build-out is not expected to present a substantial source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. The main source of PM10 emissions would be from vehicular traffic associated with the Project site.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-5
PM10, on its own as well as in combination with other pollutants, creates a health hazard. The SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII establishes required controls to reduce and minimizing fugitive dust emissions. The following SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations apply to the proposed Project (and all projects):
► Rule 4102 – Nuisance – prohibits a facility from posing as a nuisance to surrounding receptors and can impose penalties for nuisance issues such as dust, smoke, excess emissions, etc. Compliance with this rule ensures that the area around the Project site will not be adversely impacted by such issues. ► Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions – a series of regulations to reduce and/or eliminate generation of particulate matter (PM) that can adversely impact visibility as well as the health and safety of people on-site or in the vicinity of the Project.
 Rule 8011 - General Requirements – this rule is to reduce ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic (human-caused) fugitive dust emissions.
 Rule 8021 - Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities – restricts generation of airborne dust and visibility impacts from these activities. Places limits on opacity and equipment operation under certain adverse weather conditions.  Rule 8041 - Carryout and Trackout – requires that equipment and vehicles leaving the construction site control the amount of dirt, soil or mud that is tracked offsite and onto public roadways. This helps eliminate or minimize dust generation and opacity degradation.  Rule 8051 - Open Areas – limits fugitive dust from open areas, i.e., areas on a construction site that are not actively being constructed upon but may generate wind-blown dust.

The Project would comply with applicable SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations, the local zoning codes, and additional emissions reduction measures recommended later in this analysis, in Section 7, Mitigation and Other Recommended Measures.

4.2.2.2 Exhaust Emissions
Project-related transportation activities from employees and consumers would generate mobile source ROG, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions would vary substantially from day to day but would average out over the course of an operational year. The variables factored into estimating total Project emissions include: level of activity, site characteristics, weather conditions, and number of visitors. As the Project is not expected to generate an adverse change in current activity levels, substantial emissions are not anticipated. The trip rates used in CalEEMod were adjusted to reflect Project-specific estimates (Ruettgers and Schuler, 2023).

4.2.2.3 Projected Emissions
The proposed Project is expected to have long-term air quality impacts as shown in Table 4-4. The output from the CalEEMod runs are available in Appendix B. Mitigation measures implemented within CalEEMod include:
► Increase Diversity
► Improve Walkability Design
► Improve Destination Accessibility
► Increase Transit Accessibility
► Improve Pedestrian Network
► Clean Landscape Equipment (3%)
► No Hearths Installed

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-6
Table 4-4. Post-Project (Operational) Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (tons/year)
ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Area Emissions 0.35 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 1.08 1.10 7.62 0.02 1.67 0.45
Total 1.44 1.20 8.15 0.02 1.68 0.46
Mitigated Operational Emissions
Area Emissions 0.35 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 1.00 0.64 4.99 0.00 0.39 0.11
Total 1.36 0.75 5.52 0.01 0.40 0.12
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No No No Source: Trinity Consultants 2023
As shown in Table 4-4, operation-related emissions, as calculated by CalEEMod (see Appendix B), would be less than the SJVAPCD significant threshold levels; therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact during Project operations.

4.3 Potential Impact on Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as locations where young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, or people who are more sensitive than the general population reside, such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.

Table 4-5. Sensitive Receptors Located < 2 miles from Project Receptor Type of facility Distance from
Project in Miles
Direction from
Project
Frontier Elementary School 0.34 NW
Pioneer Union Elementary School 0.36 NW
Sierra Pacific High School School 0.67 SW
College of the Sequoias School 0.77 SW
Simas Elementary School 0.81 NE
New Testament Baptist School School 1.20 E
Community Day School School 1.66 E
Jefferson Academy School 1.66 E
Hanford Adult School School 1.25 E
Pioneer Union Elementary School 1.55 NW
Adventist Health Hanford Hospital 1.58 SE
Womens’ Health Adventist Hospital 1.25 SE
United Health Centers Hospital 1.56 SE
Hanford Post Acute Nursing Home 1.65 SE
Advancement Care Nursing Home 2.0 SE
Vail Family Daycare Daycare 0.58 SE
Maria’s Daycare Daycare 1.05 E
Our Little Blessings Daycare 1.19 SE

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-7

4.4 Potential Impacts to Visibility to Nearby Areas
Visibility impact analyses are intended for stationary sources of emissions which are subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements in 40 CFR Part 60; they are not usually conducted for area sources. Because the Project’s PM10 emissions increase is predicted to be less than the PSD threshold levels, an impact at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation within 100 kilometers of the Project (including San Rafael Wilderness, Domeland Wilderness, Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Station, and the entire R-2508 Airspace Complex) is extremely unlikely. Therefore, based on the Project’s predicted less-than significant PM10 emissions, the Project would be expected to have a less than significant impact to visibility at any Class 1 area or military/airspace operation.

4.5 Potential Impacts from Carbon Monoxide
Ambient CO concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Relatively high concentrations of CO would be expected along heavily traveled roads and near busy intersections. CO concentrations are also influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. CO concentrations may be more uniformly distributed when inversion conditions are prevalent in the valley. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations along a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels for sensitive receptors, e.g. children, the elderly, hospital patients, etc. This localized impact can result in elevated levels of CO, or “hotspots” even though concentrations at the closest air quality monitoring station may be below NAAQS and CAAQS.

The localized Project impacts depend on whether ambient CO levels in the Project vicinity would be above or below NAAQS. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if a project’s emissions would exceed of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state standard, a project’s emissions are considered significant if they would increase one-hour CO concentrations by 10 ppm or more or eight-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. There are two criteria established by the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:

1. A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or

2. A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

A traffic study was completed for this Project (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023). According to the traffic study, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

4.6 Predicted Health Risk Impacts
GAMAQI recommends that Lead Agencies consider situations wherein a new or modified source of HAPs is proposed for a location near an existing residential area or other sensitive receptor when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs.

The proposed Project would result in emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and would be located near existing residents; therefore, an assessment of the potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed Project is required.

To predict the potential health risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project, ambient air concentrations were predicted with dispersion modeling to arrive at a conservative

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-8
estimate of increased individual carcinogenic risk that might occur as a result of continuous exposure over a 70-year lifetime. Similarly, predicted concentrations were used to calculate non-cancer chronic and acute hazard indices (HIs), which are the ratio of expected exposure to acceptable exposure. The basis for evaluating potential health risk is the identification of sources with increased HAPs. HAP emissions from anticipated heavy heavy duty (HHD) trucks, commercial cooking, and a gasoline dispensing facility were evaluated.

Health risk is determined using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software distributed by the CARB; HARP2 requires peak 1-hour emission rates and annual-averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source (CARB 2015). Assumptions used to calculate the emission rates for the proposed Project are outlined below.

The most recent version of EPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model - AERMOD was used to predict the dispersion of emissions from the proposed Project. The analysis employed all of the regulatory default AERMOD model keyword parameters, including elevated terrain options.

For construction health impacts, diesel combustion emissions from diesel on-site construction equipment and HHD trucks from hauling and vendor trips were modeled as an area source for on-site construction activity on the property. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using CalEEMod for on-site construction equipment. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was input to AERMOD for the area source.

For operational health impacts, diesel combustion emissions from diesel HHD trucks making 10 trips per week were modeled as volume line sources for on-site travel following the most impactful route of travel. HHD truck idling emissions were modeled as a point source with fifteen minutes of idling per trip. Diesel particulate matter was calculated using EMFAC approved emission factors for HHD trucks traveling at 15 miles per hour (representative of on-site speed). EMFAC idling emissions were used for Kings County, year 2024, annual.

EMFAC emission factors are provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB 2023). Additionally, toxics were modeled for the proposed drive thru and the gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) based on SJVAPCD emission factors for commercial cooking and GDF modeling guidance. A unit emission rate of 1 grams/second (g/sec) was input to AERMOD for each source.

Discrete receptors were placed on residences and businesses within close proximity of the Project site. A total of 1,668 discrete off-site receptors analyzed. Elevated terrain options were employed even though there is not complex terrain in the Project area.

SJVAPCD-provided, AERMET UStar processed meteorological datasets for the Hanford monitoring station, calendar years 2013 through 2017 was input to AERMOD (SJVAPCD 2018). This was the most recent available dataset available at the time the modeling was conducted. Rural dispersion parameters were used because the operation and the majority of the land surrounding the facility is considered "rural" under the Auer land use classification method (Auer 1978).

Plot files generated by AERMOD were uploaded to the Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Assessment Tool (ADMRT) program in the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP 2) (CARB 2015). ADMRT post-processing was used to assess the potential for excess cancer risk and chronic non-cancer effects using the most recent health effects data from the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Risk reports were generated using the derived OEHHA analysis method for carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic chronic and acute risk. Site parameters are included in the HARP2 output files. Total cancer risk was predicted for the inhalation pathway at each receptor. A hazard index was computed for chronic noncancer health effects for each applicable endpoint and each receptor.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-9
SJVAPCD has set the level of significance for carcinogenic risk at twenty in one million, which is understood as the possibility of causing twenty additional cancer cases in a population of one million people. The level of significance for chronic and acute non-cancer risk is a hazard index of 1.0. All receptors were modeled as residential receptors with a 1-year exposure for each construction phase and 68-year exposure for operation.

The carcinogenic risk and the health hazard index (HI) for chronic and acute non-cancer risk at the point of maximum impact (PMI) do not exceed the significance levels of twenty in one million (20 x 10-6) and 1.0, respectively for the proposed Project. The PMIs are identified by receptor location and risk and are provided in Table 4-6. The electronic AERMOD and HARP2 output files are provided in Attachment E.

Table 4-6. Potential Maximum Impacts Predicted by HARP2 Value UTM East UTM North
Excess Cancer Risk - Total 1.79E-05
259259.01 4025252.23
Construction 1.35E-05
Operations 4.42E-06
Chronic Hazard Index - Max 2.43E-02
Construction 1.52E-02
Operations 9.05E-03
Acute Hazard Index - Max 5.04E-02
Operations 5.04E-02
As shown above in Table 4-6, the maximum predicted cancer risk for the proposed Project is 1.79E-05. The maximum chronic non-cancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 2.43E-02. The maximum acute noncancer hazard index for the proposed Project is 5.04E-02. Since the PMI remained below the significance threshold for cancer, chronic and acute risk, this Project would not have an adverse effect to any of the surrounding communities.

The potential health risk attributable to the proposed Project is determined to be less than significant based on the following conclusions:

1. Potential carcinogenic risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of twenty in a million at each of the modeled receptors; and

2. The hazard index for the potential chronic non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors; and

3. The hazard index for the potential acute non-cancer risk from the proposed Project is below the significance level of 1.0 at each of the modeled receptors.

Therefore, potential risk to the population attributable to emissions of HAPs from the proposed Project would be less than significant.

4.7 Potential Impacts from Valley Fever
The proposed project has the potential to generate fugitive dust and suspend Valley Fever spores with the dust that could then reach nearby sensitive receptors. It is possible that onsite workers could be exposed to Valley Fever spores as fugitive dust is generated during construction. In order to mitigate potential risk, the proposed Project would provide training and personal protective respiratory equipment to construction workers and provide information to all construction personnel and visitors about Valley Fever. Therefore, the exposure to Valley Fever would be minimized. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, dust from

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-10
the construction of the proposed project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

4.8 Potential Impacts from Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading of development projects, and at mining operations.

Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in the counties associated with the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. However, according to information provided by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (CDCDMG, 2000). Therefore, impacts associated with exposure of construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to asbestos would be less than significant.

4.9 Odor Impacts and Mitigation
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI states “An analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for both of the following two situations:

1. Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and

2. Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.” (SJVAPCD 2015).

The GAMAQI also states, “The District has identified some common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. These are presented in Table 6 (Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources), along with a reasonable distance from the source within which, the degree of odors could possibly be significant. [Table 6] can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors.” (SJVAPCD, 2015). Because the Project is a convenience store, gasoline dispensing facility, fast-food restaurant and residential units and the anticipated activities for the Project site are not listed in Table 6 of the GAMAQI as a source that would create objectionable odors, the Project is not expected to be a source of objectionable odors.

Based on the provisions of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the proposed Project would not exceed any screening trigger levels to be considered a source of objectionable odors or odorous compounds (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any significant source of objectionable odors in close proximity that may adversely impact the Project site when it is in operation. Additionally, the Project emissions estimates indicate that it would not be expected to adversely impact surrounding receptors. As such, the proposed Project would not be a source of any odorous compounds nor would it likely be impacted by any odorous source.

4.10 Impacts to Ambient Air Quality
As stated in the GAMAQI (2015, p 96-97), SJVAPCD has developed screening levels for requiring an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA). The SJVAPCD recommends that an AAQA be performed for all criteria pollutants when emissions of any criteria pollutant resulting from project construction or operational activities exceed

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-11
the 100 pounds per day screening level, after compliance with Rule 9510 requirements and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.

Based on the emissions shown in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4, average daily emissions for construction and operational activities associated with this Project would not exceed 100 pounds per day. Therefore, an AAQA is not required for this project.

4.11 Impacts to Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
In the decade after South Coast AQMD adopted the Interim GHG Significance Threshold, several new laws and executive orders were adopted that require additional reductions in years after 2020. For instance, Senate Bill 32 (Lara, 2016) requires that GHG emissions be 40% less than 1990 levels by 2030. More drastic still, Senate Bill 100 (de Leon, 2018) which was signed by the Governor recently requires 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045. On the day SB 100 was signed into law, the Governor also signed Executive Order B-55- 18 which commits California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Clearly, the 2008 Guidance may be somewhat inadequate in producing a meaningful comparison by today’s standards which propose a grand vision that, if achieved, would fundamentally change how business is conducted and citizens live in the State. Thus, as discussed in the most recent updates to the Scoping Plan, objectives of the Scoping Plan affect entire sectors of the economy and it no longer makes sense to evaluate GHG emissions on a project-level.

For these reasons, Project GHG emissions levels presented in Table 4-7 are primarily for disclosure purposes because impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). The approach used by South Coast AQMD to assess GHG impacts from that project recognizes that consumers of electricity and transportation fuels are, in effect, regulated by requiring providers and importers of electricity and fuel to participate in the GHG Cap-and-Trade Program and other Programs (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, renewable portfolio standard, etc.). Each such sector-wide program exists within the framework of AB 32 and its descendant laws the purpose of which is to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

In summary, the Project would generate GHGs from electricity use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near the top of the supply-chain. As such, each citizen of California (including the operator of the Project) will have no choice but to purchase electricity and fuels produced in a way that is acceptable to the California market. Thus, Project GHG emissions will be consistent with the relevant plan (i.e., AB 32 Scoping Plan). The Project would meet its fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative impact of global climate change because SHP is purchasing energy from the California market. Thus, the Project would have a less than significant impact on applicable GHG reduction plans.

Nonetheless, GHG emissions impacts from implementing the Project were calculated at the Project-specific level for construction and operations as explained in the previous paragraphs. Impact analysis for the Project follows the approach certified by South Coast AQMD in the Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project on December 12, 2014 (South Coast AQMD, 2014). In summary, this approach takes into account the cumulative nature of the energy industry and recognizes that consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 4-12
Table 4-7. Estimated Annual GHG Emissions (MT/Year)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated Construction Emissions
Total 550.22 0.11 0.00 553.95
Mitigated Operational Emissions
Area Emissions 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.79
Energy Emissions 121.66 0.01 0.00 122.52
Mobile Emissions 421.43 0.09 0.05 439.82
Water Emissions 14.16 0.84 0.00 35.08
Waste Emissions 5.28 0.18 0.00 10.91
Total Project Operational Emissions 563.30 1.11 0.06 609.12 Annualized Construction Emissions1 18.34 0.00 0.00 18.46 Project Emissions 563.30 1.11 0.06 609.12
*Note: 0.000 could represent <0.000
Per South Coast AQMD’s Methodology
The Project will not result in the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the other gases identified as GHG in AB32. The proposed Project will be subject to any regulations developed under AB32 as determined by CARB.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-1

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
By its very nature, air pollution has a cumulative impact. The District’s nonattainment status is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB. Furthermore, attainment of ambient air quality standards can be jeopardized by increasing emissions-generating activities in the region. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. When assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Per CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) a Lead Agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located. (SJVAPCD 2015)
GAMAQI also states “If a project is significant based on the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, then it is also cumulatively significant. This does not imply that if the project is below all such significance thresholds, it cannot be cumulatively significant.” (SJVAPCD 2015). Based on the analysis conducted for this Project, it is individually less than significant. This AQIA, however, also considered impacts of the proposed Project in conjunction with the impacts of other projects previously proposed in the area. The following cumulative impacts were considered:
► Cumulative O3 Impacts (ROG and NOx) from numerous sources within the region including transport from outside the region. O3 is formed through chemical reactions of ROG and NOx in the presence of sunlight.
► Cumulative CO Impacts produced primarily by vehicular emissions. ► Cumulative PM10 Impacts from within the region and locally from the various projects. Such projects may cumulatively produce a significant amount of PM10 if several projects conduct grading or earthmoving activities at the same time.
► Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Impacts on sensitive receptors.

5.1 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
The most recent, certified SJVAB Emission Inventory data available from the SJVAPCD is based on data gathered for the 2020 annual inventory1. This data will be used to assist the SJVAPCD in demonstrating attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards (SJVAPCD 2007a). Table 5-1 provides a comparative look at the impacts proposed by the proposed Project to the SJVAB Emissions Inventory. 1 SJVAPCD Emissions for Aggregated Stationary, Area-Wide, Mobile, and Natural Sources

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-2
Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis Based on SJV Air Basin 2020 Inventory - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Kings County - 2020 7,884.0 4,745.0 11,935.5 73.0 730.0 657.0 SJVAB - 2020 108,113.0 74,204.5 162,425.0 2,847.0 96,652.0 21,535.0 Proposed Project 1.36 0.75 5.52 0.01 0.40 0.12
Proposed Project’s % of Kings 0.017% 0.016% 0.046% 0.007% 0.055% 0.018% Proposed Project’s % of SJVAB 0.001% 0.001% 0.003% 0.000% 0.000% 0.001% Note: This is the latest inventory available as of March 2023 Source: CARB 2023b
As shown in Table 5-1 the proposed Project does not pose a substantial increase to basin emissions, as such basin emissions would be essentially the same if the Project is approved.

Table 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 provide CARB Emissions Inventory projections for the year 2025 for both the SJVAB and the Kings County portion of the air basin. Looking at the SJVAB Emissions predicted by the CARB year 2025 emissions inventory, the Kings County portion of the air basin is a moderate source of the emissions.

The proposed Project produces a small portion of the total emissions in both Kings County and the entire SJVAB.

Table 5-2. Emission Inventory SJVAB 2025 Projection - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 107,346.5 52,450.5 145,963.5 2,920.0 95,922.0 21,279.5 Percent Stationary Sources 32.78% 19.28% 6.93% 85.00% 5.97% 15.44% Percent Area-Wide Sources 52.70% 5.15% 13.30% 3.75% 89.38% 71.87% Percent Mobile Sources 14.52% 75.57% 79.77% 11.25% 4.68% 12.86% Total Stationary Source Emissions 35,186.0 10,110.5 10,110.5 2,482.0 5,730.5 3,285.0 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 56,575.0 2,701.0 19,418.0 109.5 85,738.5 15,293.5 Total Mobile Source Emissions 15,585.5 39,639.0 116,435.0 328.5 4,489.5 2,737.5 Source: CARB 2023b
Note: Total may not add due to rounding
Table 5-3. Emission Inventory SJVAB - Kings County Portion 2025 Projection - Tons per Year ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Total Emissions 7,811.0 3,577.0 11,315.0 73.0 7,044.5 1,679.0 Percent Stationary Sources 17.29% 8.16% 3.23% 50.00% 4.15% 6.52% Percent Area-Wide Sources 58.88% 2.04% 3.23% 0.00% 85.49% 56.52% Percent Mobile Sources 23.83% 89.80% 93.55% 50.00% 9.84% 36.96% Total Stationary Source Emissions 1,350.5 292.0 365.0 36.5 292.0 109.5 Total Area-Wide Source Emissions 4,599.0 73.0 365.0 0.0 6,022.5 949.0 Total Mobile Source Emissions 1,861.5 3,212.0 10,585.0 36.5 693.5 620.5 Source: CARB 2023b
Note: Total may not add due to rounding

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 5-3
Table 5-4. 2025 Emissions Projections - Proposed Project, Kings County, and SJVAB ROG NOx PM10
Proposed Project 1.36 0.75 0.40
Kings County 7,811 3,577 7,045
SJVAB 107,347 52,451 95,922
Proposed Project Percent of Kings County 0.017% 0.021% 0.006% Proposed Project Percent of SJVAB 0.001% 0.001% 0.000%
Kings County Percent of SJVAB 7.28% 6.82% 7.34%
Source: CARB 2023b
As shown above, the proposed Project would pose an inconsequential impact on regional O3 and PM10 formation. Therefore, this Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable in its contribution to regional O3 and PM10 impacts.

5.2 Cumulative Local Air Quality Impacts
SJVAPCD uses a single threshold for determination of significance for both project specific and cumulative impacts. Air quality in SJVAB has improved over the past decades as shown in Section 3.3, which indicates that the single threshold is sufficient for assessing cumulative impacts. The proposed Project would generate less than significant impacts to criteria air pollutants; therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3); (SJVAPCD 2015).

5.3 Cumulative Hazardous Air Pollutants
The GAMAQI also states that when evaluating potential impacts related to HAPs, “impacts of local pollutants (CO, HAPs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects will exceed air quality standards.” Because the Project would not be a significant source of HAPs, the proposed Project would also not be expected to pose a significant cumulative CO or HAPs impact.

5.4 Cumulative Carbon Monoxide (CO) – Mobile Sources
The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI has identified CO impacts from impacted traffic intersections and roadway segments as being potentially cumulatively considerable. Traffic increases and added congestion caused by a project can combine to cause a violation of the SJVAPCD’s CO standard also known as a “Hotspot”. There are two criteria established by the GAMAQI by which CO “Hot Spot” modeling is required:
► A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or ► A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

A traffic study was completed for this Project (Ruettgers & Schuler, 2023). According to the traffic study, impacted intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at a LOS of C or better. Therefore, CO “Hotspot” Modeling was not conducted for this Project and no concentrated excessive CO emissions are expected to be caused once the proposed Project is completed.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-1

6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN
Air quality impacts from proposed projects within the Kings County are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the Kings County General Plan (KCCDA, 2008). In order to demonstrate that a proposed project would not cause further air quality degradation in either the SJVAPCD’s plan to improve air quality within the air basin or the federal requirements to meet certain air quality compliance goals, each project should also demonstrate consistency with the SJVAPCD’s adopted Air Quality Attainment Plans (AQAP) for O3 and PM10. The SJVAPCD is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to CARB that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires air pollution control districts with severe or extreme air quality problems to provide for a 5% reduction in non-attainment emissions per year. The AQAP prepared for the San Joaquin Valley by the SJVAPCD complies with this requirement. CARB reviews, approves or amends the document and forwards the plan to the EPA for final review and approval within the SIP.

Air pollution sources associated with stationary sources are regulated through the permitting authority of the SJVAPCD under the New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule (SJVAPCD Rule 2201). Owners of any new or modified equipment that emits, reduces, or controls air contaminants, except those specifically exempted by the SJVAPCD, are required to apply for an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate (SJVAPCD Rule 2010). Additionally, best available control technology (BACT) is required on specific types of stationary equipment and are required to offset both stationary source emission increases along with increases in cargo carrier emissions if the specified threshold levels are exceeded (SJVAPCD Rule 2201, 4.7.1). Through this mechanism, the SJVAPCD would ensure that all stationary sources within the project area would be subject to the standards of the SJVAPCD to ensure that new developments do not result in net increases in stationary sources of criteria air pollutants.

6.1 Required Evaluation Guidelines
State CEQA Guidelines and the Federal Clean Air Act (Sections 176 and 316) contain specific references on the need to evaluate consistencies between the proposed project and the applicable AQAP for the project site.

To accomplish this, CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable AQAP:

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed.

The SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified AQAP as approved by CARB.

2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The proposed Project is included in within the growth projected in the Kings County General Plan.

3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures.

The proposed project incorporates various policy and rule-required implementation measures that will reduce related emissions.

The CCAA and AQAP identify transportation control measures as methods to further reduce emissions from mobile sources. Strategies identified to reduce vehicular emissions such as reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion, in order to reduce vehicular emissions, can be implemented as control measures under the CCAA as well. Additional measures may also be implemented through the building process such as providing electrical outlets on exterior walls of structures to encourage use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment or measures such as electrical outlets for electrical systems on diesel trucks to reduce or eliminate idling time.

As the growth represented by the proposed Project was anticipated by the Kings County General Plan and incorporated into the AQAP, conclusions may be drawn from the following criteria:

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-2

1. That, by definition, the proposed emissions from the Project are below the SJVAPCD’s established emissions impact thresholds;

2. That the primary source of emissions from the Project will be motor vehicles that are licensed through the State of California and whose emissions are already incorporated into CARB’s San Joaquin Valley Emissions Inventory.

Based on these factors, the Project appears to be consistent with the AQAP.

6.2 Consistency with the Kings County Council of Government’s Regional Conformity Analysis
The Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG) Air Quality Conformity Analysis (KCAG 2022) demonstrates that the 2023 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2023 FTIP) and 2022 Regional Transportation Plan (2022 RTP) in the Kings County would not hinder the efforts set out in the CARB’s SIP for each area’s non-attainment pollutants (CO, O3, PM10 and PM2.5). The analysis uses the California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Forecasts 2010 to 2060 (KCAG 2022).

The KCAG Air Quality Conformity Analysis considers General Plan Amendments (GPA) and zone changes that were enacted at the time of the analysis as projected growth within the area based on land use designations incorporated within the Kings County General Plan. Land use designations that are altered based on subsequent GPAs that were not included in the Air Quality Conformity Analysis were not incorporated into the KCAG analysis. Consequently, if a proposed project is not included in the regional growth forecast using the latest planning assumptions, it may not be said to conform to the regional growth forecast. Under the current City of Hanford Zoning, the Project site is designated as “Mixed Use” (see Figure 6-1).

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 6-3
Figure 6-1. City of Hanford Zoning

Under current policies, only after a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved, can housing and employment assumptions be updated to reflect the capacity changes. Since the proposed development does require a GPA and zone change, the existing growth forecast will be modified to reflect these changes. However, estisting employment and population growth forecast for the analysis area appear to be sufficient to account for 100% of the planned employment and population growth attributed to the proposed Project. In order to be considered “consistent” and, therefore, in conformance with the AQAP, these increases would need to occur over the same time as the adopted growth forecast. According to Table 2-2 of KCAG’s Air Quality Conformity Analysis there is a projected population increase of 2,467 and an employee increase of 800 in Kings County between 2024 and 2026.

Project
Location

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 7-1

7. MITIGATION AND OTHER RECOMMENDED MEASURES
The estimated construction and operational emissions from the proposed Project would be less than significant, after specific mitigation measures listed below. However, to ensure that Project is in compliance with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and emissions are further reduced, the applicant should implement and comply with a number of measures that are either recommended as a “good operating practice” for environmental stewardship or they are required by regulation. Some of the listed measures are regulatory requirements or construction requirements that would result in further emission reductions through their inclusion in Project construction and long-term design. The following measures either have been applied to the Project through the CalEEMod model and would be incorporated into the Project by design or would be implemented in conjunction with SJVAPCD rules as conditions of approval.

7.1 SJVAPCD Required PM10 Reduction Measures
As the Project would be completed in compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust control measures would be taken to ensure compliance specifically during grading and construction phases. The required Regulation VIII measures are as follows:
► Water previously exposed surfaces (soil) whenever visible dust is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity.
► Water all unpaved haul roads a minimum of three-times/day or whenever visible dust from such roads is capable of drifting from the site or approaches 20% opacity. ► Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. ► Install and maintain a track out control device that meets the specifications of SJVAPCD Rule 8041 if the site exceeds 150 vehicle trips per day or more than 20 vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles.
► Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for production purposes using water, chemical stabilizers or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover. ► Control fugitive dust emissions during land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, leveling, grading, or cut and fill operations with application of water or by presoaking. ► When transporting materials offsite, maintain a freeboard limit of at least 6 inches and cover or effectively wet to limit visible dust emissions.
► Limit and remove the accumulation of mud and/or dirt from adjacent public roadways at the end of each workday. (Use of dry rotary brushes is prohibited except when preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit visible dust emissions and use of blowers is expressly forbidden). ► Stabilize the surface of storage piles following the addition or removal of materials using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressants.
► Remove visible track-out from the site at the end of each workday. ► Cease grading or other activities that cause excessive (greater than 20% opacity) dust formation during periods of high winds (greater than 20 mph over a one-hour period).

7.2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Equipment Exhaust
In addition, the GAMAQI guidance document lists the following measures as approved and recommended for construction activities. These measures are recommended:
► Maintain all construction equipment as recommended by manufacturer manuals. ► Shut down heavy duty equipment when not in use for extended periods. ► Heavy duty construction equipment shall operate no longer than eight (8) cumulative hours per day.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 7-2
► Use electric equipment for construction whenever possible in lieu of diesel or gasoline powered equipment.
► Curtail use of high-emitting construction equipment during periods of high or excessive ambient pollutant concentrations, which may include ceasing construction activity during the peak-hour of vehicle activity on adjacent roadways.
► All construction vehicles shall be equipped with proper emissions control equipment and kept in good and proper running order to substantially reduce NOx emissions. ► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use diesel particulate filters if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► On-Road and Off-Road diesel equipment shall use cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) if permitted under manufacturer’s guidelines.
► All construction workers shall be encouraged to shuttle (car-pool) to retail establishments or to remain on-site during lunch breaks.

7.3 Other Measures to Reduce Project Impacts
The following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential for long-term emissions from the Project. These measures are required as a matter of regulatory compliance:
► The Project design shall comply with applicable standards set forth in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code to minimize total consumption of energy.
► The developer shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4601 - Architectural Coatings, during the construction of all buildings and facilities. Application of architectural coatings shall be completed in a manner that poses the least emissions impacts whenever such application is deemed proficient. ► The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 4641 during the construction and pavement of all roads and parking areas within the project area. Specifically, the applicant shall not allow the use of:
 Rapid cure cutback asphalt;
 Medium cure cutback asphalt;
 Slow cure cutback asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.3); or Emulsified asphalt (as specified in SJVAPCD Rule 4641, Section 5.1.4).
 The developer shall comply with applicable provisions of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 8-1

8. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The proposed Project would have short-term air quality impacts due to facility construction activities as well as vehicular emissions. Both of these impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in long-term air quality impacts due to operational and related mobile source emissions. These impacts would be mitigated and were found to be less than significant before and after mitigation.

The proposed Project would result in impacts to greenhouse gases and climate change due to construction and operational emissions. These impacts were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative short-term and long-term impacts to air quality. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts would be mitigated, are below thresholds of significance, and would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts were found to be less than significant.

The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and foreseeable future projects, would result in cumulative long-term impacts to global climate change. Given the cumulative nature of the energy industry and given consumers of electricity and diesel fuel are in effect regulated by higher level emissions restrictions on the producers of these energy sources, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to these impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible and are considered less than significant.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 9-1

9. REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, released May 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023a. website – Background Emissions Data. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam, accessed February 2023.
--------. 2023b. Almanac Emission Projection Data.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emssumcat.php, accessed February 2023. --------. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data --------. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
--------. 2015. Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) User Guide. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/harp/docs2/harp2admrtuserguide.pdf, accessed April 2021.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2023. (Public Resources Code 21000 to 21177) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).
--------. 2018. Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text. December 28, 2018.

Enviropedia, 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emissions website, accessed September 2019. http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Global_Warming/Emissions.php.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf ---------. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.

Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG). September 2022. Air Quality Conformity Analysis Kings County Community Development Agency (KCCDA), 2010. 2035 Kings County General Plan.

Ruettgers and Schuler. 2023. Trip Generation Lemoore Industrial Project.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2021a. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm, accessed April 2021.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 9-2
----------. 2021b. Air Monitoring Location Map. http://valleyair.org/aqinfo/air-monitoring.htm, accessed April 2021.
----------. 2021c. Attainment Plant Revision for the 1998 Annual PM2.5 Standard. August 19, 2021. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/spjlsext/attainment-plan-revision.pdf ----------. 2021d. Annual Report to the Community 2020-2021. Accessed December 2021. https://www.valleyair.org/General_info/pubdocs/2020-21-Annual-Report.pdf ----------. 2020. 2020 Annual Report on the District’s Indirect Source Review Program. September 17, 2020. https://www.valleyair.org/ISR/Documents/2020-ISR-Final-Annual-Report.pdf ----------. 2018. 2018 PM2.5 Plan for the 1998, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. https://ww2.valleyair.org/plans/2018-pm-2-5-plan-for-the-san-joaquin-valley/ ----------. 2017. UStar Meteorological Datasets for Hanford 2013-2017. https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm#met_data ----------. 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. June 16, 2016. http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm ----------. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. ----------. 2007a. SJVAB Emissions Inventory to Demonstrating Attainment of Federal 1-hour O3 Standards, SJVAPCD. September 2007.
----------. 2007b. 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. September 20, 2007. http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/Maintenance%20Plan10-25-07.pdf United Nations, 2011. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/(2011_E)%20MDG%20Report%202011_Book%20LR.pdf United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2019. International Energy Outlook 2019. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/ieo2019.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventoryreport-archive. April 11, 2019. ----------. 2022. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2020. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. April 15, 2022.
----------. (n.d.). Overview of Greenhouse Gases. EPA. Retrieved May 5, 2022, from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/, accessed September 2019.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants 9-3
Western Regional Climate Center, 2023. Hanford, California, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 07/01/1899 to 6/09/2016. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3747, accessed March 2023.

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants A-1
APPENDIX A. EXISTING AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA

Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily 24-Hour PM2.5 Averages
at Hanford-S Irwin Street
2020 2021 2022
Date 24-Hr
Average Date 24-HrAverage Date 24-HrAverage
National:

First High: Aug 22 147.0 Oct 4 81.0 Nov 24 62.9
Second High: Aug 21 135.1 Oct 3 70.6 Jan 13 51.2
Third High: Sep 14 117.9 Aug 19 63.1 Nov 25 49.4
Fourth High: Aug 23 116.7 Oct 5 60.1 Nov 27 49.0
California:

First High: Aug 22 147.0 Oct 4 81.0 Nov 24 62.9
Second High: Aug 21 135.1 Oct 3 70.6 Jan 13 51.2
Third High: Sep 14 117.9 Aug 19 63.1 Nov 25 49.4
Fourth High: Aug 23 116.7 Oct 5 60.1 Nov 27 49.0
National:
'06 Estimated # Days > 24-
Hr Std: 52.0 31.6 27.0
'06 Measured # Days > 24-
Hr Std: 52 31 27
2006 24-Hr Std Design
Value: 69 61 62
2006 24-Hr Std 98th
Percentile: 86.9 56.4 42.7
2006 Annual Std Design
Value: 16.6 15.9 16.6
2012 Annual Std Design
Value: 16.6 15.9 16.6
'06 Annual Average: 19.8 15.6 14.1
California:

Annual Std Designation
Value: 20 20 20
Annual Average: 19.8 15.6 14.2
Year Coverage: 100 100 100
Notes:

Daily PM2.5 averages and related statistics are available at Hanford-S Irwin Street between 2010 and 2022.

Some years in this range may not be represented.

All averages expressed in micrograms per cubic meter.

An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard.

State statistics are based on California approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. State and national statistics may therefore be based on different samplers.

Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid.
* means there was insufficient data available to determine the value.

About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Daily PM2.5 Averages https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php 1 of 1 12/8/2023, 8:06 AM Page 579 of 1322
Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily 24-Hour PM10 Averages
at Hanford-S Irwin Street
2020 2021 2022
Date 24-Hr
Average Date 24-HrAverage Date 24-HrAverage
National:

First High: Sep 12 180.4 Sep 25 175.0 May 20 250.8
Second High: Oct 6 168.6 Aug 20 160.7 Sep 9 147.1
Third High: Sep 30 159.9 Sep 7 129.6 Sep 6 139.1
Fourth High: Nov 5 144.2 Oct 1 128.6 Oct 23 136.4
California:

First High: Sep 12 180.9 Sep 28 192.7 May 20 251.6
Second High: Oct 6 168.4 Oct 4 181.6 Sep 9 140.9
Third High: Sep 30 158.4 Sep 25 176.6 Oct 23 138.7
Fourth High: Nov 5 147.7 Jun 18 172.2 Oct 20 136.1
National:

Estimated # Days > 24-Hr
Std: * * 1.0
Measured # Days > 24-Hr
Std: 3 2 1
3-Yr Avg Est # Days > 24-
Hr Std: * * 14.0
Annual Average: 51.5 48.1 48.4
3-Year Average: 48 48 55
California:

Estimated # Days > 24-Hr
Std: * 151.7 143.0
Measured # Days > 24-Hr
Std: 22 146 141
Annual Average: * 52.8 49.9
3-Year Maximum Annual
Average: 48 53 53
Year Coverage: 93 97 0
Notes:

Daily PM10 averages and related statistics are available at Hanford-S Irwin Street between 1993 and 2022.

Some years in this range may not be represented.

All averages expressed in micrograms per cubic meter.

The national annual average PM10 standard was revoked in December 2006 and is no longer in effect.

Statistics related to the revoked standard are shown in italics or italics .

An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard.

All values listed above represent midnight-to-midnight 24-hour averages and may be related to an exceptional event.

State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons:

State statistics are based on California approved samplers, whereas national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. State and national statistics may therefore be based on different samplers.

State statistics for 1998 and later are based on local conditions (except for sites in the South Coast Air Basin, where State statistics for 2002 and later are based on local conditions). National statistics are based on standard conditions.

State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria.

Measurements are usually collected every six days. Measured days counts the days that a measurement was greater than the level of the standard; Estimated days mathematically estimates how many days concentrations would have been greater than the level of the standard had each day been monitored.

About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Daily PM10 Averages https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php 1 of 2 12/8/2023, 8:07 AM Page 580 of 1322
3-Year statistics represent the listed year and the 2 years before the listed year.

Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid.
* means there was insufficient data available to determine the value.

Top 4 Daily PM10 Averages https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php 2 of 2 12/8/2023, 8:07 AM Page 581 of 1322



 
 







  

 !"##$%


&'&'&'&(&'&&
)*+,-./012,0*3,)*+,-./012,0*3,)*+, -./012,0*3,
4*+567*8&'(9:+;<'='>'
??@AB
C50D+/53EB 462('='F91G3&-'='-9:,?F '='-(
:,H67;/53EB 462I'='99JG7(-'='>- K*L&9 '='-'
ME50;/53EB 462&'='9N1G3&O'='>N1G3(> '='>>
C6G0+E/53EB 462N'='9'1G3I''='>&1G3(F '='>9
P*85Q6075*:+;<'='>'??@AB
C50D+/53EB 462('='FF1G3&-'='-F:,?F '='-(
:,H67;/53EB 462I'='99JG7(-'='>- K*L&9 '='-'
ME50;/53EB 462&'='9N1G3&O'='>N1G3(> '='>-
C6G0+E/53EB 462N'='9(1G3I''='>I1G3(F '='>F
4*+567*8&'(9:+;<'='>'
??@AB
R)*LD1S62,+E,:+*7;*0;B 'N (N
4*+T8:+*7;*0;),D537
U*8G,B VV V
4*+567*8W,*0P62,0*3,B '-- OO
P*85Q6075*:+;<'='>'??@AB
R)*LD1S62,+E,:+*7;*0;B 'N (>
P*85Q6075*),D537*+567
U*8G,B '='FF'='-F '='-F
XY?,H+,;Z,*[)*L
P67H,7+0*+567B VV V
P*85Q6075*W,*0P62,0*3,B '-- OO
46+,DB
X53E+.E6G06\67,*2,0*3,D*7;0,8*+,;D+*+5D+5HD*0,*2*58*S8,*+:*7+*]6D*]*7HE,05*.(>&&9J,0D,L S,+^,,7&'&'*7;&'&&=:6@,L,*0D57+E5D0*73,@*L76+S,0,?0,D,7+,;= 188*2,0*3,D,Y?0,DD,;57?*0+D?,0@588567=
17,YH,,;*7H,6Q*D+*7;*0;5D76+7,H,DD*058L0,8*+,;+6*2568*+5676Q+E,D+*7;*0;= :+*+,*7;7*+567*8D+*+5D+5HD@*L;5QQ,0Q60+E,Q6886^5730,*D67DB 4*+567*8-.E6G0*2,0*3,D*0,+0G7H*+,;+6+E0,,;,H5@*8?8*H,D_:+*+,-.E6G0*2,0*3,D*0,06G7;,;+6+E0,,;,H5@*8?8*H,D= :+*+,H05+,05*Q60,7DG0573+E*+;*+**0,DGQQ5H5,7+8LH6@?8,+,Q60H*8HG8*+573-.E6G0*2,0*3,D*0,@60,D+0573,7++E*7+E,7*+567*8H05+,05*= )*58L@*Y5@G@-.E6G0*2,0*3,D*DD6H5*+,;^5+E+E,4*+567*8'='>'??@D+*7;*0;,YH8G;,+E6D,-.E6G0 *2,0*3,D+E*+E*2,Q50D+E6G0DS,+^,,7@5;753E+*7;FB''*@`Z*H5Q5H:+*7;*0;M5@,=    
1S6G+aG0b60[],D6G0H,DcGD57,DD1DD5D+*7H,]G8,@*[5734,^D

 







 


















































!"







#











 



$





 

Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Averages at Hanford-S Irwin Street
2020 2021 2022
Date 8-Hr Average Date 8-Hr Average Date 8-Hr Average
National 2015 Std (0.070
ppm):

First High: Oct 2 0.088 Jun 18 0.095 Sep 6 0.081
Second High: Aug 21 0.085 Aug 28 0.093 Aug 16 0.079
Third High: Oct 4 0.085 Jun 19 0.082 May 25 0.077
Fourth High: Aug 24 0.084 Aug 29 0.076 Sep 3 0.075
California Std (0.070 ppm):

First High: Oct 2 0.088 Jun 18 0.096 Sep 6 0.082
Second High: Aug 21 0.085 Aug 28 0.093 Aug 16 0.080
Third High: Sep 14 0.085 Jun 19 0.083 May 25 0.077
Fourth High: Oct 4 0.085 Aug 29 0.076 Aug 17 0.075
National 2015 Std (0.070
ppm):
# Days Above the Standard: 26 16 12
Nat'l Standard Design
Value: 0.080 0.078 0.078
National Year Coverage: 98 89 97
California Std (0.070 ppm):
# Days Above the Standard: 27 18 13
California Designation
Value: 0.088 0.088 0.088
Expected Peak Day
Concentration: 0.089 0.088 0.089
California Year Coverage: 97 88 96
Notes:

Eight-hour ozone averages and related statistics are available at Hanford-S Irwin Street between 1994 and 2022. Some years in this range may not be represented.

All averages expressed in parts per million.

An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard.

State and national statistics may differ for the following reasons:

National 8-hour averages are truncated to three decimal places; State 8-hour averages are rounded to three decimal places.

State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating 8-hour averages are more stringent than the national criteria.

Daily maximum 8-hour averages associated with the National 0.070 ppm standard exclude those 8-hour averages that have first hours between midnight and 6:00 am, Pacific Standard Time.

Daily maximum 8-hour averages associated with the National 0.070 ppm standard include only those 8-hour averages from days that have sufficient data for the day to be considered valid.

Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid.
* means there was insufficient data available to determine the value.

About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Eight-Hour Ozone Averages https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php 1 of 1 12/8/2023, 8:06 AM Page 584 of 1322
Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily Maximum Hourly Nitrogen Dioxide Measurements
at Hanford-S Irwin Street
2020 2021 2022
Date Measurement Date Measurement Date Measurement
National:

First High: Nov 3 51.9 Dec 1 51.5 Nov 25 45.8
Second High: Nov 4 51.5 Apr 10 47.5 Nov 24 44.4
Third High: Nov 5 50.2 Nov 29 42.9 Feb 11 43.7
Fourth High: Dec 2 47.4 Feb 8 41.0 Oct 21 43.1
California:

First High: Nov 3 51 Dec 1 51 Nov 25 45
Second High: Nov 4 51 Apr 10 47 Nov 24 44
Third High: Nov 5 50 Nov 29 42 Feb 11 43
Fourth High: Dec 2 47 Feb 8 41 Oct 21 43
National:
1-Hour Standard Design
Value: 48 44 42
1-Hour Standard 98th
Percentile: 43.7 40.8 40.9
# Days Above the Standard: 0 0 0
Annual Standard Design
Value: 9 8 8
California:
1-Hour Std Designation
Value: 60 60 50
Expected Peak Day
Concentration: 62 57 51
# Days Above the Standard: 0 0 0
Annual Std Designation
Value: 8 8 8
Annual Average: 8 8 8
Year Coverage: 99 97 95
Notes:

Hourly nitrogen dioxide measurements and related statistics are available at Hanford-S Irwin Street between 1994 and 2022. Some years in this range may not be represented.

All concentrations expressed in parts per billion.

An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard.

Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid.
* means there was insufficient data available to determine the value.

About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Hourly Nitrogen Dioxide Measurements https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php 1 of 1 12/8/2023, 8:07 AM Page 585 of 1322



 
 


 

    



!"


#$#$#$#%#$##
&'() *)'+,-).)/(&'() *)'+,-).)/(&'() *)'+,-).)/(
01-+(21345 678%$9$:;<,3#=$9$>?@)A= $9$>%
@)B7/C21345 678D$9$E>F,/%=$9$=%@)AE $9$==
G41-C21345 678#$9$E=<,3#>$9$=%<,3%: $9$=E
07,-(421345 678;$9$ED<,3D$$9$=$ *'H#? $9$=?
I'J1K7-/1'5
L&'H+<M78)(4)@('/C'-C5 $% $
I'J1K7-/1'&)+13/'(17/
N'J,)5 $9$:$9%$ $9%$
OPA)B()CQ)'R&'H
I7/B)/(-'(17/5 SS S
6'(17/'J5
TUVWXYZ[\]^_]`^VabVcbd ee e
fgh]VciX^jkV^]bilm]n^]b
opkZ]c[qiln]]bVan]
UVWXd
rr ese
tgh]VciX^jkV^]bilm]n^]b
opkZ]c[qiln]]bVan]
UVWXd
eseese ese
oV^uv`^VabVcbU]Xjwa
xVvp]d reseyt eseyy
z)'-I78)-'3)5 $=> >>
67()+5
27,-JH7{7/).)'+,-).)/(+'/C-)J'()C+('(1+(1B+'-)'8'1J'MJ)'(@'/('|7+'|'/B4)-1'}%:##?F)-+)H M)(~))/#$#$'/C#$##9@7.)H)'-+1/(41+-'/3).'H/7(M)-)A-)+)/()C9 <JJB7/B)/(-'(17/+)PA-)++)C1/A'-(+A)-.1JJ17/9
G4)/'(17/'J%}47,-7{7/)+('/C'-C~'+-)87R)C1/F,/)#$$?9@('(1+(1B+-)J'()C(7(4)/'(17/'J%}47,-7{7/) +('/C'-C'-)+47~/1/7-9
</)PB))C'/B)7K'+('/C'-C1+/7(/)B)++'-1JH-)J'()C(7'817J'(17/7K(4)+('/C'-C9 z)'-I78)-'3)1/C1B'()+(4))P()/((7~41B4'8'1J'MJ).7/1(7-1/3C'('-)A-)+)/((4)(1.)7K(4)H)'-~4)/ B7/B)/(-'(17/+'-))PA)B()C(7M)4134)+(9$.)'/+(4'(C'('-)A-)+)/(/7/)7K(4)4134A)-17C%$$.)'/+ (4'(C'('-)A-)+)/((4))/(1-)4134A)-17C9<4134z)'-I78)-'3)C7)+/7(.)'/(4'((4)-)~'++,KK1B1)/( C'('K7-'//,'J+('(1+(1B+(7M)B7/+1C)-)C8'J1C9
S.)'/+(4)-)~'+1/+,KK1B1)/(C'(''8'1J'MJ)(7C)()-.1/)(4)8'J,)9    
<M7,(€,-7-R|)+7,-B)+‚,+1/)++<++1+('/B)|,J).'R1/36)~+

Top 4 Summary: Highest 4 Daily Maximum Hourly Ozone Measurements at Hanford-S Irwin Street
2020 2021 2022
Date Measurement Date Measurement Date Measurement
First High: Aug 21 0.103 Jun 18 0.102 Sep 3 0.091
Second High: Oct 4 0.101 Aug 28 0.102 Sep 6 0.088
Third High: Sep 14 0.100 Jun 19 0.088 Sep 8 0.086
Fourth High: Oct 2 0.098 Sep 23 0.086 Aug 16 0.085
California:
# Days Above the Standard: 6 2 0
California Designation
Value: 0.10 0.10 0.10
Expected Peak Day
Concentration: 0.101 0.098 0.097
National:
# Days Above the Standard: 0 0 0
3-Year Estimated Expected
Number of Exceedance
Days:

0.0 0.0 0.0
1-Year Estimated Expected
Number of Exceedance
Days:

0.0 0.0 0.0
Nat'l Standard Design
Value: 0.100 0.101 0.101
Year Coverage: 98 90 95
Notes:

Hourly ozone measurements and related statistics are available at Hanford-S Irwin Street between 1994 and 2022. Some years in this range may not be represented.

All concentrations expressed in parts per million.

The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in June 2005. Statistics related to the national 1-hour ozone standard are shown in or .

An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard.

Year Coverage indicates the extent to which available monitoring data represent the time of the year when concentrations are expected to be highest. 0 means that data represent none of the high period; 100 means that data represent the entire high period. A high Year Coverage does not mean that there was sufficient data for annual statistics to be considered valid.
* means there was insufficient data available to determine the value.

About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News Top 4 Hourly Ozone Measurements https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php 1 of 1 12/8/2023, 8:06 AM Page 587 of 1322
Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants B-1
APPENDIX B. PROJECT EMISSION CALCULATIONS

Grangeville
Kings County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot acreage adds up to total agreage of the site Construction Phase -
Vehicle Trips - Trip rate adjusted to match the traffic study Fleet Mix - SJVAPCD approved residential fleet mix for 2025 Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 64.00 Dwelling Unit 3.75 64,000.00 183

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 37

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblFleetMix LDA 0.51 0.52
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.05 0.21
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.17
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 8.0000e-004
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.5080e-003 9.0000e-004
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 2.5000e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.06
tblFleetMix MH 3.2530e-003 2.2000e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 8.2580e-003 7.6000e-003
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.9100e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.0940e-003 1.0000e-004
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8700e-004 4.3000e-003
tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.00 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 7.59
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 7.59
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 7.59
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.75 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.0562 0.5031 0.5663 1.0500e0030.0894 0.0223 0.1117 0.0421 0.0209 0.0630 0.0000 92.1200 92.1200 0.0209 7.5000e00492.8646 2025 0.7426 1.2164 1.6505 2.9900e0030.0389 0.0507 0.0896 0.0104 0.0476 0.0581 0.0000 260.5835 260.5835 0.0537 2.4000e003262.6422 Maximum 0.7426 1.2164 1.6505 2.9900e0030.0894 0.0507 0.1117 0.0421 0.0476 0.0630 0.0000 260.5835 260.5835 0.0537 2.4000e003262.6422 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.0562 0.5031 0.5663 1.0500e0030.0421 0.0223 0.0644 0.0184 0.0209 0.0393 0.0000 92.1199 92.1199 0.0209 7.5000e00492.8645 2025 0.7426 1.2164 1.6505 2.9900e0030.0389 0.0507 0.0896 0.0104 0.0476 0.0581 0.0000 260.5833 260.5833 0.0537 2.4000e003262.6420 Maximum 0.7426 1.2164 1.6505 2.9900e0030.0421 0.0507 0.0896 0.0184 0.0476 0.0581 0.0000 260.5833 260.5833 0.0537 2.4000e003262.6420 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.84 0.00 23.48 45.19 0.00 19.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 10-1-2024 12-31-2024 0.5562 0.5562
2 1-1-2025 3-31-2025 0.4619 0.4619
3 4-1-2025 6-30-2025 0.4664 0.4664
4 7-1-2025 9-30-2025 0.4167 0.4167
Highest 0.5562 0.5562

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3271 0.0294 0.4849 1.8000e0044.5700e0034.5700e0034.5700e0034.5700e0030.0000 28.5015 28.5015 1.2700e0035.1000e00428.6849 Energy 4.7100e0030.0403 0.0171 2.6000e0043.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0030.0000 71.0704 71.0704 4.8500e0031.3300e00371.5893 Mobile 0.1245 0.2453 1.5626 4.5500e0030.5204 3.4600e0030.5238 0.1386 3.2200e0030.1419 0.0000 439.5997 439.5997 0.0268 0.0202 446.2933 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9761 0.0000 5.9761 0.3532 0.0000 14.8054 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.3229 2.9389 4.2618 0.1364 3.2700e0038.6438 Total 0.4563 0.3150 2.0647 4.9900e0030.5204 0.0113 0.5317 0.1386 0.0110 0.1497 7.2990 542.1106 549.4096 0.5225 0.0253 570.0167 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3241 5.4300e0030.4713 2.0000e0052.6100e0032.6100e0032.6100e0032.6100e0030.0000 0.7693 0.7693 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7876 Energy 4.7100e0030.0403 0.0171 2.6000e0043.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0030.0000 71.0704 71.0704 4.8500e0031.3300e00371.5893 Mobile 0.1074 0.1193 0.7399 1.3500e0030.1424 1.1900e0030.1436 0.0379 1.1100e0030.0390 0.0000 130.5008 130.5008 0.0132 9.0100e003133.5146 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9761 0.0000 5.9761 0.3532 0.0000 14.8054 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.3229 2.9389 4.2618 0.1364 3.2700e0038.6438 Total 0.4362 0.1649 1.2284 1.6300e0030.1424 7.0500e0030.1495 0.0379 6.9700e0030.0449 7.2990 205.2794 212.5783 0.5083 0.0136 229.3407 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/1/2024 10/7/2024 5 5 2 Grading Grading 10/8/2024 10/17/2024 5 8
3 Building Construction Building Construction 10/18/2024 9/4/2025 5 230 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

4.41 47.64 40.51 67.33 72.64 37.50 71.89 72.63 36.87 70.00 0.00 62.13 61.31 2.71 46.25 59.77 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4 Paving Paving 9/5/2025 9/30/2025 5 18
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/1/2025 10/24/2025 5 18 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Residential Indoor: 129,600; Residential Outdoor: 43,200; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0491 0.0000 0.0491 0.0253 0.0000 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0679 0.0458 1.0000e0043.0700e0033.0700e0032.8300e0032.8300e0030.0000 8.3643 8.3643 2.7100e0030.0000 8.4319 Total 6.6500e0030.0679 0.0458 1.0000e0040.0491 3.0700e0030.0522 0.0253 2.8300e0030.0281 0.0000 8.3643 8.3643 2.7100e0030.0000 8.4319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 46.00 7.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2810 0.2810 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2835 Total 1.3000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2810 0.2810 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2835 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0192 0.0000 0.0192 9.8500e0030.0000 9.8500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0679 0.0458 1.0000e0043.0700e0033.0700e0032.8300e0032.8300e0030.0000 8.3643 8.3643 2.7100e0030.0000 8.4319 Total 6.6500e0030.0679 0.0458 1.0000e0040.0192 3.0700e0030.0222 9.8500e0032.8300e0030.0127 0.0000 8.3643 8.3643 2.7100e0030.0000 8.4319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2810 0.2810 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2835 Total 1.3000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2810 0.2810 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2835 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0283 0.0000 0.0283 0.0137 0.0000 0.0137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0681 0.0590 1.2000e0042.9000e0032.9000e0032.6700e0032.6700e0030.0000 10.4256 10.4256 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5099 Total 6.6500e0030.0681 0.0590 1.2000e0040.0283 2.9000e0030.0312 0.0137 2.6700e0030.0164 0.0000 10.4256 10.4256 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5099 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7000e0041.1000e0041.3800e0030.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3747 0.3747 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3780 Total 1.7000e0041.1000e0041.3800e0030.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3747 0.3747 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3780 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0111 0.0000 0.0111 5.3400e0030.0000 5.3400e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0681 0.0590 1.2000e0042.9000e0032.9000e0032.6700e0032.6700e0030.0000 10.4256 10.4256 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5099 Total 6.6500e0030.0681 0.0590 1.2000e0040.0111 2.9000e0030.0140 5.3400e0032.6700e0038.0100e0030.0000 10.4256 10.4256 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5099 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7000e0041.1000e0041.3800e0030.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3747 0.3747 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3780 Total 1.7000e0041.1000e0041.3800e0030.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3747 0.3747 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3780 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0390 0.3563 0.4284 7.1000e0040.0163 0.0163 0.0153 0.0153 0.0000 61.4400 61.4400 0.0145 0.0000 61.8032 Total 0.0390 0.3563 0.4284 7.1000e0040.0163 0.0163 0.0153 0.0153 0.0000 61.4400 61.4400 0.0145 0.0000 61.8032 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.2000e0048.3100e0032.6700e0034.0000e0051.2400e0036.0000e0051.2900e0033.6000e0045.0000e0054.1000e0040.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.0000e0055.2000e0043.7783 Worker 3.4000e0032.2300e0030.0280 8.0000e0059.7900e0035.0000e0059.8400e0032.6000e0034.0000e0052.6500e0030.0000 7.6123 7.6123 2.1000e0042.1000e0047.6798 Total 3.6200e0030.0105 0.0306 1.2000e0040.0110 1.1000e0040.0111 2.9600e0039.0000e0053.0600e0030.0000 11.2345 11.2345 2.2000e0047.3000e00411.4581 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0390 0.3563 0.4284 7.1000e0040.0163 0.0163 0.0153 0.0153 0.0000 61.4399 61.4399 0.0145 0.0000 61.8032 Total 0.0390 0.3563 0.4284 7.1000e0040.0163 0.0163 0.0153 0.0153 0.0000 61.4399 61.4399 0.0145 0.0000 61.8032 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.2000e0048.3100e0032.6700e0034.0000e0051.2400e0036.0000e0051.2900e0033.6000e0045.0000e0054.1000e0040.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.0000e0055.2000e0043.7783 Worker 3.4000e0032.2300e0030.0280 8.0000e0059.7900e0035.0000e0059.8400e0032.6000e0034.0000e0052.6500e0030.0000 7.6123 7.6123 2.1000e0042.1000e0047.6798 Total 3.6200e0030.0105 0.0306 1.2000e0040.0110 1.1000e0040.0111 2.9600e0039.0000e0053.0600e0030.0000 11.2345 11.2345 2.2000e0047.3000e00411.4581 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1210 1.1036 1.4235 2.3900e0030.0467 0.0467 0.0439 0.0439 0.0000 205.2487 205.2487 0.0483 0.0000 206.4549 Total 0.1210 1.1036 1.4235 2.3900e0030.0467 0.0467 0.0439 0.0439 0.0000 205.2487 205.2487 0.0483 0.0000 206.4549 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 7.2000e0040.0276 8.7000e0031.2000e0044.1300e0031.8000e0044.3100e0031.1900e0031.8000e0041.3700e0030.0000 11.8955 11.8955 4.0000e0051.7100e00312.4065 Worker 0.0106 6.6500e0030.0869 2.6000e0040.0327 1.5000e0040.0329 8.6900e0031.4000e0048.8300e0030.0000 24.8103 24.8103 6.4000e0046.5000e00425.0195 Total 0.0113 0.0343 0.0956 3.8000e0040.0368 3.3000e0040.0372 9.8800e0033.2000e0040.0102 0.0000 36.7058 36.7058 6.8000e0042.3600e00337.4260 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1210 1.1036 1.4235 2.3900e0030.0467 0.0467 0.0439 0.0439 0.0000 205.2485 205.2485 0.0483 0.0000 206.4547 Total 0.1210 1.1036 1.4235 2.3900e0030.0467 0.0467 0.0439 0.0439 0.0000 205.2485 205.2485 0.0483 0.0000 206.4547 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 7.2000e0040.0276 8.7000e0031.2000e0044.1300e0031.8000e0044.3100e0031.1900e0031.8000e0041.3700e0030.0000 11.8955 11.8955 4.0000e0051.7100e00312.4065 Worker 0.0106 6.6500e0030.0869 2.6000e0040.0327 1.5000e0040.0329 8.6900e0031.4000e0048.8300e0030.0000 24.8103 24.8103 6.4000e0046.5000e00425.0195 Total 0.0113 0.0343 0.0956 3.8000e0040.0368 3.3000e0040.0372 9.8800e0033.2000e0040.0102 0.0000 36.7058 36.7058 6.8000e0042.3600e00337.4260 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.3800e0030.0678 0.1096 1.7000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9300e0032.9300e0030.0000 14.7404 14.7404 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8562 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.3800e0030.0678 0.1096 1.7000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9300e0032.9300e0030.0000 14.7404 14.7404 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8562 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.7000e0042.9000e0043.8400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.0970 1.0970 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1062 Total 4.7000e0042.9000e0043.8400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.0970 1.0970 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1062 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.3800e0030.0678 0.1096 1.7000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9300e0032.9300e0030.0000 14.7404 14.7404 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8562 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.3800e0030.0678 0.1096 1.7000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9300e0032.9300e0030.0000 14.7404 14.7404 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8562 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.7000e0042.9000e0043.8400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.0970 1.0970 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1062 Total 4.7000e0042.9000e0043.8400e0031.0000e0051.4500e0031.0000e0051.4500e0033.8000e0041.0000e0053.9000e0040.0000 1.0970 1.0970 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1062 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.6007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5400e0030.0103 0.0163 3.0000e0054.6000e0044.6000e0044.6000e0044.6000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3011 Total 0.6022 0.0103 0.0163 3.0000e0054.6000e0044.6000e0044.6000e0044.6000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3011 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e0041.3000e0041.7300e0031.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 6.5000e0041.7000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.4937 0.4937 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4978 Total 2.1000e0041.3000e0041.7300e0031.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 6.5000e0041.7000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.4937 0.4937 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4978 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.6007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5400e0030.0103 0.0163 3.0000e0054.6000e0044.6000e0044.6000e0044.6000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3011 Total 0.6022 0.0103 0.0163 3.0000e0054.6000e0044.6000e0044.6000e0044.6000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3011 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e0041.3000e0041.7300e0031.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 6.5000e0041.7000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.4937 0.4937 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4978 Total 2.1000e0041.3000e0041.7300e0031.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 6.5000e0041.7000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.4937 0.4937 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4978 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Diversity
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1074 0.1193 0.7399 1.3500e0030.1424 1.1900e0030.1436 0.0379 1.1100e0030.0390 0.0000 130.5008 130.5008 0.0132 9.0100e003133.5146 Unmitigated 0.1245 0.2453 1.5626 4.5500e0030.5204 3.4600e0030.5238 0.1386 3.2200e0030.1419 0.0000 439.5997 439.5997 0.0268 0.0202 446.2933

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 485.76 485.76 485.76 1,390,366 380,455 Total 485.76 485.76 485.76 1,390,366 380,455
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 10.80 7.30 7.50 42.30 19.60 38.10 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.524400 0.212000 0.167700 0.056300 0.000800 0.000900 0.007600 0.021200 0.000000 0.004300 0.002500 0.000100 0.002200

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.4620 24.4620 3.9600e0034.8000e00424.7039 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.4620 24.4620 3.9600e0034.8000e00424.7039 NaturalGas
Mitigated

4.7100e0030.0403 0.0171 2.6000e0043.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0030.0000 46.6085 46.6085 8.9000e0048.5000e00446.8854 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

4.7100e0030.0403 0.0171 2.6000e0043.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0030.0000 46.6085 46.6085 8.9000e0048.5000e00446.8854

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
873409 4.7100e0030.0403 0.0171 2.6000e0043.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0030.0000 46.6085 46.6085 8.9000e0048.5000e00446.8854 Total 4.7100e0030.0403 0.0171 2.6000e0043.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0030.0000 46.6085 46.6085 8.9000e0048.5000e00446.8854 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
873409 4.7100e0030.0403 0.0171 2.6000e0043.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0030.0000 46.6085 46.6085 8.9000e0048.5000e00446.8854 Total 4.7100e0030.0403 0.0171 2.6000e0043.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0033.2500e0030.0000 46.6085 46.6085 8.9000e0048.5000e00446.8854 Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
264386 24.4620 3.9600e0034.8000e00424.7039
Total 24.4620 3.9600e0034.8000e00424.7039
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Use Electric Lawnmower
Use Electric Leafblower
Use Electric Chainsaw
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
264386 24.4620 3.9600e0034.8000e00424.7039
Total 24.4620 3.9600e0034.8000e00424.7039
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3241 5.4300e0030.4713 2.0000e0052.6100e0032.6100e0032.6100e0032.6100e0030.0000 0.7693 0.7693 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7876 Unmitigated 0.3271 0.0294 0.4849 1.8000e0044.5700e0034.5700e0034.5700e0034.5700e0030.0000 28.5015 28.5015 1.2700e0035.1000e00428.6849

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

0.0601 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 2.8000e0030.0239 0.0102 1.5000e0041.9400e0031.9400e0031.9400e0031.9400e0030.0000 27.7253 27.7253 5.3000e0045.1000e00427.8900 Landscaping 0.0143 5.4700e0030.4748 3.0000e0052.6300e0032.6300e0032.6300e0032.6300e0030.0000 0.7762 0.7762 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7948 Total 0.3271 0.0294 0.4850 1.8000e0044.5700e0034.5700e0034.5700e0034.5700e0030.0000 28.5015 28.5015 1.2700e0035.1000e00428.6849 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.0601 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0141 5.4300e0030.4713 2.0000e0052.6100e0032.6100e0032.6100e0032.6100e0030.0000 0.7693 0.7693 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7876 Total 0.3241 5.4300e0030.4713 2.0000e0052.6100e0032.6100e0032.6100e0032.6100e0030.0000 0.7693 0.7693 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7876 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 4.2618 0.1364 3.2700e0038.6438
Unmitigated 4.2618 0.1364 3.2700e0038.6438

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

4.16986 /

2.62882

4.2618 0.1364 3.2700e0038.6438
Total 4.2618 0.1364 3.2700e0038.6438
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

4.16986 /

2.62882

4.2618 0.1364 3.2700e0038.6438
Total 4.2618 0.1364 3.2700e0038.6438
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 5.9761 0.3532 0.0000 14.8054
Unmitigated 5.9761 0.3532 0.0000 14.8054
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

29.44 5.9761 0.3532 0.0000 14.8054
Total 5.9761 0.3532 0.0000 14.8054
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

29.44 5.9761 0.3532 0.0000 14.8054
Total 5.9761 0.3532 0.0000 14.8054
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 29 Date: 1/10/2024 10:41 AM Grangeville - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Grangeville Commercial
Kings County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Acreage adds to the commercial acreage fo the project Construction Phase -
Vehicle Trips - ADT adjusted to match traffic study
Fleet Mix - Adjusted fleet mix to account for actual HHDT trips Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 3.50 1000sqft 0.63 3,500.00 0 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 12.00 Pump 0.63 1,694.10 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 37

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/12/2026 9/14/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/14/2026 8/17/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/8/2025 11/10/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/28/2026 8/31/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/2/2025 11/4/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/29/2026 9/1/2026
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/9/2025 11/11/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/3/2025 11/5/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/15/2026 8/18/2026 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/29/2025 11/3/2025 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 3.2260e-004
tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 3.2600e-004
tblFleetMix LDA 0.51 0.55
tblFleetMix LDA 0.51 0.55
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.05 0.04
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.05 0.04
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.19
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.19
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.5080e-003 6.2820e-003
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.5080e-003 6.2820e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 4.7700e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 4.7700e-003
tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.16
tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.16
tblFleetMix MH 3.2530e-003 8.8600e-004
tblFleetMix MH 3.2530e-003 8.8600e-004
tblFleetMix MHD 8.2580e-003 0.02
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblFleetMix MHD 8.2580e-003 0.02
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.9100e-004 1.9710e-003
tblFleetMix OBUS 5.9100e-004 1.9710e-003
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.0940e-003 1.2510e-003
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.0940e-003 1.2510e-003
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8700e-004 1.4850e-003
tblFleetMix UBUS 1.8700e-004 1.4850e-003
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.08 0.63
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.04 0.63
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 322.50 229.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 616.12 467.43
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 322.50 229.17
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 472.58 467.43
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 322.50 229.17
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 470.95 467.43
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2025 0.0281 0.2290 0.2552 4.7000e0040.0211 8.6800e0030.0298 0.0100 8.3100e0030.0183 0.0000 39.4739 39.4739 7.1600e0036.0000e00539.6712 2026 0.1484 0.8849 1.0725 1.9100e0032.3700e0030.0335 0.0359 6.4000e0040.0323 0.0329 0.0000 158.0429 158.0429 0.0261 2.5000e004158.7724 Maximum 0.1484 0.8849 1.0725 1.9100e0030.0211 0.0335 0.0359 0.0100 0.0323 0.0329 0.0000 158.0429 158.0429 0.0261 2.5000e004158.7724 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2025 0.0281 0.2290 0.2552 4.7000e0048.6100e0038.6800e0030.0173 4.0200e0038.3100e0030.0123 0.0000 39.4739 39.4739 7.1600e0036.0000e00539.6711 2026 0.1484 0.8849 1.0725 1.9100e0032.3700e0030.0335 0.0359 6.4000e0040.0323 0.0329 0.0000 158.0427 158.0427 0.0261 2.5000e004158.7722 Maximum 0.1484 0.8849 1.0725 1.9100e0038.6100e0030.0335 0.0359 4.0200e0030.0323 0.0329 0.0000 158.0427 158.0427 0.0261 2.5000e004158.7722 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.18 0.00 19.00 56.33 0.00 11.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 11-3-2025 2-2-2026 0.3914 0.3914
2 2-3-2026 5-2-2026 0.3748 0.3748
3 5-3-2026 8-2-2026 0.3874 0.3874
4 8-3-2026 9-30-2026 0.1356 0.1356
Highest 0.3914 0.3914

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0239 0.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.8000e0042.8000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.9000e004 Energy 4.0600e0030.0369 0.0310 2.2000e0042.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0030.0000 50.5890 50.5890 2.4500e0039.4000e00450.9306 Mobile 0.9515 0.8519 6.0541 0.0110 1.1319 9.4800e0031.1414 0.3031 8.8200e0030.3119 0.0000 1,021.140 0 1,021.140
0 0.0950 0.0699 1,044.332
1 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.1846 0.0000 8.1846 0.4837 0.0000 20.2770 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3769 0.6416 1.0184 0.0388 9.3000e0042.2648 Total 0.9795 0.8888 6.0853 0.0113 1.1319 0.0123 1.1442 0.3031 0.0116 0.3147 8.5615 1,072.370 8 1,080.932
3 0.6199 0.0717 1,117.804
8 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0239 0.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7000e0042.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.9000e004 Energy 4.0600e0030.0369 0.0310 2.2000e0042.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0030.0000 50.5890 50.5890 2.4500e0039.4000e00450.9306 Mobile 0.8935 0.5204 4.2461 3.1500e0030.2450 4.2800e0030.2493 0.0656 3.9700e0030.0696 0.0000 290.9281 290.9281 0.0775 0.0451 306.3068 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.1846 0.0000 8.1846 0.4837 0.0000 20.2770 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3769 0.6416 1.0184 0.0388 9.3000e0042.2648 Total 0.9215 0.5573 4.2772 3.3700e0030.2450 7.0900e0030.2521 0.0656 6.7800e0030.0724 8.5615 342.1589 350.7203 0.6025 0.0470 379.7794 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/3/2025 11/4/2025 5 2 2 Grading Grading 11/5/2025 11/10/2025 5 4
3 Building Construction Building Construction 11/11/2025 8/17/2026 5 200 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

5.92 37.30 29.71 70.04 78.35 42.31 77.97 78.35 41.70 77.00 0.00 68.09 67.55 2.81 34.52 66.02 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4 Paving Paving 8/18/2026 8/31/2026 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/1/2026 9/14/2026 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 7,791; Non-Residential Outdoor: 2,597; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.88
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 6.2700e0030.0000 6.2700e0033.0000e0030.0000 3.0000e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0100e0030.0106 6.4500e0032.0000e0054.2000e0044.2000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0040.0000 1.5113 1.5113 4.9000e0040.0000 1.5235 Total 1.0100e0030.0106 6.4500e0032.0000e0056.2700e0034.2000e0046.6900e0033.0000e0033.9000e0043.3900e0030.0000 1.5113 1.5113 4.9000e0040.0000 1.5235 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 2.00 1.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.0000e0051.0000e0051.7000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0473 0.0473 0.0000 0.0000 0.0477 Total 2.0000e0051.0000e0051.7000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0473 0.0473 0.0000 0.0000 0.0477 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.4400e0030.0000 2.4400e0031.1700e0030.0000 1.1700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0100e0030.0106 6.4500e0032.0000e0054.2000e0044.2000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0040.0000 1.5113 1.5113 4.9000e0040.0000 1.5235 Total 1.0100e0030.0106 6.4500e0032.0000e0052.4400e0034.2000e0042.8600e0031.1700e0033.9000e0041.5600e0030.0000 1.5113 1.5113 4.9000e0040.0000 1.5235 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.0000e0051.0000e0051.7000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0473 0.0473 0.0000 0.0000 0.0477 Total 2.0000e0051.0000e0051.7000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0473 0.0473 0.0000 0.0000 0.0477 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0142 0.0000 0.0142 6.8500e0030.0000 6.8500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3800e0030.0249 0.0170 4.0000e0059.9000e0049.9000e0049.1000e0049.1000e0040.0000 3.6211 3.6211 1.1700e0030.0000 3.6504 Total 2.3800e0030.0249 0.0170 4.0000e0050.0142 9.9000e0040.0152 6.8500e0039.1000e0047.7600e0030.0000 3.6211 3.6211 1.1700e0030.0000 3.6504 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e0053.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0044.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 0.1183 0.1183 0.0000 0.0000 0.1193 Total 5.0000e0053.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0044.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 0.1183 0.1183 0.0000 0.0000 0.1193 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 5.5200e0030.0000 5.5200e0032.6700e0030.0000 2.6700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3800e0030.0249 0.0170 4.0000e0059.9000e0049.9000e0049.1000e0049.1000e0040.0000 3.6211 3.6211 1.1700e0030.0000 3.6504 Total 2.3800e0030.0249 0.0170 4.0000e0055.5200e0039.9000e0046.5100e0032.6700e0039.1000e0043.5800e0030.0000 3.6211 3.6211 1.1700e0030.0000 3.6504 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e0053.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0044.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 0.1183 0.1183 0.0000 0.0000 0.1193 Total 5.0000e0053.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0044.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 0.1183 0.1183 0.0000 0.0000 0.1193 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0245 0.1926 0.2301 4.1000e0047.2600e0037.2600e0037.0000e0037.0000e0030.0000 33.6020 33.6020 5.4900e0030.0000 33.7391 Total 0.0245 0.1926 0.2301 4.1000e0047.2600e0037.2600e0037.0000e0037.0000e0030.0000 33.6020 33.6020 5.4900e0030.0000 33.7391 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e0058.2000e0042.6000e0040.0000 1.2000e0041.0000e0051.3000e0044.0000e0051.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.3552 0.3552 0.0000 5.0000e0050.3705 Worker 1.0000e0046.0000e0057.8000e0040.0000 3.0000e0040.0000 3.0000e0048.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2188 0.2188 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2207 Total 1.2000e0048.8000e0041.0400e0030.0000 4.2000e0041.0000e0054.3000e0041.2000e0041.0000e0051.2000e0040.0000 0.5740 0.5740 1.0000e0056.0000e0050.5912 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0245 0.1926 0.2301 4.1000e0047.2600e0037.2600e0037.0000e0037.0000e0030.0000 33.6019 33.6019 5.4900e0030.0000 33.7391 Total 0.0245 0.1926 0.2301 4.1000e0047.2600e0037.2600e0037.0000e0037.0000e0030.0000 33.6019 33.6019 5.4900e0030.0000 33.7391 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e0058.2000e0042.6000e0040.0000 1.2000e0041.0000e0051.3000e0044.0000e0051.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.3552 0.3552 0.0000 5.0000e0050.3705 Worker 1.0000e0046.0000e0057.8000e0040.0000 3.0000e0040.0000 3.0000e0048.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2188 0.2188 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2207 Total 1.2000e0048.8000e0041.0400e0030.0000 4.2000e0041.0000e0054.3000e0041.2000e0041.0000e0051.2000e0040.0000 0.5740 0.5740 1.0000e0056.0000e0050.5912 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1080 0.8486 1.0138 1.8000e0030.0320 0.0320 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 148.0303 148.0303 0.0242 0.0000 148.6345 Total 0.1080 0.8486 1.0138 1.8000e0030.0320 0.0320 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 148.0303 148.0303 0.0242 0.0000 148.6345 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.0000e0053.6100e0031.1200e0032.0000e0055.4000e0042.0000e0055.7000e0041.6000e0042.0000e0051.8000e0040.0000 1.5383 1.5383 1.0000e0052.2000e0041.6041 Worker 4.0000e0042.4000e0043.2700e0031.0000e0051.3100e0031.0000e0051.3200e0033.5000e0041.0000e0053.5000e0040.0000 0.9373 0.9373 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9451 Total 4.9000e0043.8500e0034.3900e0033.0000e0051.8500e0033.0000e0051.8900e0035.1000e0043.0000e0055.3000e0040.0000 2.4755 2.4755 3.0000e0052.4000e0042.5492 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1080 0.8486 1.0138 1.8000e0030.0320 0.0320 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 148.0301 148.0301 0.0242 0.0000 148.6343 Total 0.1080 0.8486 1.0138 1.8000e0030.0320 0.0320 0.0309 0.0309 0.0000 148.0301 148.0301 0.0242 0.0000 148.6343 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 9.0000e0053.6100e0031.1200e0032.0000e0055.4000e0042.0000e0055.7000e0041.6000e0042.0000e0051.8000e0040.0000 1.5383 1.5383 1.0000e0052.2000e0041.6041 Worker 4.0000e0042.4000e0043.2700e0031.0000e0051.3100e0031.0000e0051.3200e0033.5000e0041.0000e0053.5000e0040.0000 0.9373 0.9373 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9451 Total 4.9000e0043.8500e0034.3900e0033.0000e0051.8500e0033.0000e0051.8900e0035.1000e0043.0000e0055.3000e0040.0000 2.4755 2.4755 3.0000e0052.4000e0042.5492 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 2.8700e0030.0266 0.0440 7.0000e0051.2300e0031.2300e0031.1400e0031.1400e0030.0000 5.8868 5.8868 1.8700e0030.0000 5.9334 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.8700e0030.0266 0.0440 7.0000e0051.2300e0031.2300e0031.1400e0031.1400e0030.0000 5.8868 5.8868 1.8700e0030.0000 5.9334 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6000e0041.0000e0041.3000e0030.0000 5.2000e0040.0000 5.2000e0041.4000e0040.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.3738 0.3738 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3769 Total 1.6000e0041.0000e0041.3000e0030.0000 5.2000e0040.0000 5.2000e0041.4000e0040.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.3738 0.3738 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3769 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 2.8700e0030.0266 0.0440 7.0000e0051.2300e0031.2300e0031.1400e0031.1400e0030.0000 5.8868 5.8868 1.8700e0030.0000 5.9334 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.8700e0030.0266 0.0440 7.0000e0051.2300e0031.2300e0031.1400e0031.1400e0030.0000 5.8868 5.8868 1.8700e0030.0000 5.9334 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6000e0041.0000e0041.3000e0030.0000 5.2000e0040.0000 5.2000e0041.4000e0040.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.3738 0.3738 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3769 Total 1.6000e0041.0000e0041.3000e0030.0000 5.2000e0040.0000 5.2000e0041.4000e0040.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.3738 0.3738 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3769 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0361 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.5000e0045.7300e0039.0500e0031.0000e0052.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e0050.0000 1.2784 Total 0.0370 5.7300e0039.0500e0031.0000e0052.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e0050.0000 1.2784 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0361 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.5000e0045.7300e0039.0500e0031.0000e0052.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e0050.0000 1.2784 Total 0.0370 5.7300e0039.0500e0031.0000e0052.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0042.6000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e0050.0000 1.2784 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Diversity
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.8935 0.5204 4.2461 3.1500e0030.2450 4.2800e0030.2493 0.0656 3.9700e0030.0696 0.0000 290.9281 290.9281 0.0775 0.0451 306.3068 Unmitigated 0.9515 0.8519 6.0541 0.0110 1.1319 9.4800e0031.1414 0.3031 8.8200e0030.3119 0.0000 1,021.140 0 1,021.140
0 0.0950 0.0699 1,044.332
1 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 2,750.04 2,750.04 2750.04 1,475,133 319,321 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 1,636.01 1,636.01 1636.01 1,528,560 330,887 Total 4,386.05 4,386.05 4,386.05 3,003,694 650,208
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps

9.50 7.30 7.30 0.80 80.20 19.00 14 21 65
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru

9.50 7.30 7.30 2.20 78.80 19.00 29 21 50

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps

0.549225 0.037453 0.185501 0.161666 0.026396 0.006282 0.022787 0.000323 0.001971 0.001485 0.004770 0.001251 0.000886 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru

0.549225 0.037453 0.185501 0.161666 0.026396 0.006282 0.022787 0.000326 0.001971 0.001485 0.004770 0.001251 0.000886 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.3962 10.3962 1.6800e0032.0000e00410.4990 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.3962 10.3962 1.6800e0032.0000e00410.4990 NaturalGas
Mitigated

4.0600e0030.0369 0.0310 2.2000e0042.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0030.0000 40.1928 40.1928 7.7000e0047.4000e00440.4316 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

4.0600e0030.0369 0.0310 2.2000e0042.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0030.0000 40.1928 40.1928 7.7000e0047.4000e00440.4316

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
17974.4 1.0000e0048.8000e0047.4000e0041.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 0.9592 0.9592 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9649 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
735210 3.9600e0030.0360 0.0303 2.2000e0042.7400e0032.7400e0032.7400e0032.7400e0030.0000 39.2336 39.2336 7.5000e0047.2000e00439.4668 Total 4.0600e0030.0369 0.0310 2.3000e0042.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0030.0000 40.1928 40.1928 7.7000e0047.4000e00440.4316 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
17974.4 1.0000e0048.8000e0047.4000e0041.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0000 0.9592 0.9592 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9649 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
735210 3.9600e0030.0360 0.0303 2.2000e0042.7400e0032.7400e0032.7400e0032.7400e0030.0000 39.2336 39.2336 7.5000e0047.2000e00439.4668 Total 4.0600e0030.0369 0.0310 2.3000e0042.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0032.8100e0030.0000 40.1928 40.1928 7.7000e0047.4000e00440.4316 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
13417.3 1.2414 2.0000e0042.0000e0051.2537
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
98945 9.1548 1.4800e0031.8000e0049.2453
Total 10.3962 1.6800e0032.0000e00410.4990
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
13417.3 1.2414 2.0000e0042.0000e0051.2537
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
98945 9.1548 1.4800e0031.8000e0049.2453
Total 10.3962 1.6800e0032.0000e00410.4990
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Use Electric Lawnmower
Use Electric Leafblower
Use Electric Chainsaw
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0239 0.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7000e0042.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.9000e004 Unmitigated 0.0239 0.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.8000e0042.8000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.9000e004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

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

3.6100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0203 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e0050.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.8000e0042.8000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.9000e004 Total 0.0239 0.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.8000e0042.8000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.9000e004 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

3.6100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0203 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e0050.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7000e0042.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.9000e004 Total 0.0239 0.0000 1.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7000e0042.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.9000e004 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.0184 0.0388 9.3000e0042.2648
Unmitigated 1.0184 0.0388 9.3000e0042.2648

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps

0.125486 /

0.0769109

0.1275 4.1000e0031.0000e0040.2594
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

1.06237 /

0.0678107

0.8909 0.0347 8.3000e0042.0054
Total 1.0184 0.0388 9.3000e0042.2648
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps

0.125486 /

0.0769109

0.1275 4.1000e0031.0000e0040.2594
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

1.06237 /

0.0678107

0.8909 0.0347 8.3000e0042.0054
Total 1.0184 0.0388 9.3000e0042.2648
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 8.1846 0.4837 0.0000 20.2770
Unmitigated 8.1846 0.4837 0.0000 20.2770
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

40.32 8.1846 0.4837 0.0000 20.2770
Total 8.1846 0.4837 0.0000 20.2770
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

40.32 8.1846 0.4837 0.0000 20.2770
Total 8.1846 0.4837 0.0000 20.2770
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 31 Date: 1/16/2024 7:09 PM Grangeville Commercial - Kings County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants C-1
APPENDIX C. CARB 2020 AND 2025 ESTIMATED EMISSION

INVENTORIES










!

!"#$$%#
&$%'()
!
*
+
,-
!%#
&$%'()
!

'./ 
/ 012&
32$/ 4252$
#
$6.7 &$*$
$
89:;<=>?=@<A8BCDDCEF9GEHIJKCEFLMKM
;<;<8NOPQROSTUUVRWXSYRZS8QPNNP[UN
\]^_
(&2222$`a2b6`. $$&2$
c$`$ ``$(d,

#`$`.&$

#$$1ec6

]f_f8 ^ f^ gg 9:9:=<9:;@hiA
jk7l'+m,k#a"+0

)

!
!

)

!

!

!

!

5(#a7b"#*+#(l 
)!

n
'l7(0"0/(0b#kdj('7'+(a"0/#

o

   

 *7ad+l7km*d+bk'a"+0(0b
m(dp7a"0/

n

 "0bk#ad"(l*d+'7##7#





!



!

qr]f_f8sh@tA@A=@=<@><@==@A <@h<@;<@A
f8u]L8f8 ^ f^ gg 9:9:=<9:;@hiA
#+l370a73(*+d(a"+0 n

v    v
o
m"#'7ll(07+k#*d+'7##7# v

!


o



nv

!

!n

!)

qrf8u]L8f8tw@A=A@;x@s<@h<@<At@;=w@=A@;;s@s :y]r8f8 ^ f^ gg 9:9:=<9:;@hiA
+0d+(bm+a+d37z"'l7# !

)o


n

n

n
+az7dm+,"l7#+kd'7# 



v
)v
o

!!
v !
v!
o

qr:y]r8f8s@<h@wAx@x==@s<@=;@< ;@<=@w<@A
^fLr{f\]^_=h<@=;;@Ax<@==;@><@Ax<@h;<@sh@;;t@; #$$1ec6

(''7##","l"a|
*d"3('|*+l"'| '+0b"a"+0#+jk#7
l+'(l("db"#ad"'a#
d7/"#a7da+3+a7
   
(c$+c5}d2c
2# 
2dc&}
0127ec$6











































!"

#


$
%


%$

&'()*+



!# 
%
,# ,
+ -!..+










!

!"#$$%#
&$%'()
!
*
+
,-
!%#
&$%'()
!

'./ 
/ 012&
32$/ 4252$
#
$6.7 &$*$
$
89:;<=>?=@<A8BCDDCEF9GEHIJKCEFLMKM
;<;N8OPQRSPTUVVWSXYTZS[T8RQOOQ\VO
]^_`
(&2222$ab2c6a. $$&2$
d$a$ aa$(e,

#a$a.&$

#$$1fd6

^g`g8 _ g_ hh 9:9:=<9:;@NiA
jk7l'+m,k#b"+0

)

!

!

!

!

!

5(#b7c"#*+#(l n
!!

o
'l7(0"0/(0c#kej('7'+(b"0/#

p

p   

 *7be+l7km*e+ck'b"+0(0c
m(eq7b"0/

)

o

 "0ck#be"(l*e+'7##7#

p

p

!
o



!

rs^g`g8tu@=A@v=@=<@u<@==@v <@t<@;<@A
g8w^L8g8 _ g_ hh 9:9:=<9:;@NiA
#+l370b73(*+e(b"+0 o

n    n
!
m"#'7ll(07+k#*e+'7##7# n
!!






o
!n

o

!

)
rsg8w^L8g8xu@==A@=v@v<@v<@<AN@v=x@;A@<;t@= :y^s8g8 _ g_ hh 9:9:=<9:;@NiA
+0e+(cm+b+e37z"'l7#

n

n
)

n

o

o

!

o
+bz7em+,"l7#+ke'7# 


n

op

!!
n !
p!
p

rs:y^s8g8N@tN@vAA@;>@N<@=;@< =@>=@x<@A
_gLs{g]^_`=N=@x;=@uAu@x=<@x<@AAu@u=>@xN@<;t@x #$$1fd6

(''7##","l"b|
*e"3('|*+l"'| '+0c"b"+0#+jk#7
l+'(l("ec"#be"'b#
e7/"#b7eb+3+b7
   
(d$+d5}e2d
2# 
2ed&}
0127fd$6











































!"

#


$
%


%$

&'()*+



!# 
%
,# ,
+ -!..+

Grangeville Multi-Use Development Project / Air Quality Impact Analysis Trinity Consultants D-1
APPENDIX D. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT MODELING FILES
(Electric Files)

1) With ISR Reduction Included
Tons/Year Lbs/Year
2023 0.022024 0.05
Tons/Year Lbs/Year
2024 0.012025 0.03
Construction HHD Emissions
DPM Emissions1

0.02 46.398
Year Exhaust PM10 (tpy)

0.04 DPM Emissions1 Year Exhaust PM10 (tpy)

80.3 ResidentialCommercial

Description HHD Trips per Week On-site Distance (meters) Miles Traveled per year Annual Emissions1 (lb/year) Gas Station Loop 5 52.90 9 1.29E-04
Fast Food Loop 5 50.50 8 1.23E-04

1. Assume PM10 emissions equal DPM emissions.

Operation Year Emission Factor1 (g/mile) Emission Factor (lb/mile) 2025 6.86E-03 1.51E-05

1. EMFAC2021 PM10 RUNEX EF for Kings County T7 Single Other Class 8 at 10mph.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Description HHD Trips per Week Idle minutes/truck Idle hours/year Idle days/year Annual Emissions1 (lb/year) Gas Station 5 15 65 3 9.94E-05
Fast Food 5 15 65 3 9.94E-05

1. Assume PM10 emissions equal DPM emissions.

Operation Year Emission Factor1 (g/veh/day) Emission Factor (lb/veh/day) 2025 1.66E-02 3.67E-05

1. EMFAC2021 PM10 IDLEX EF for T7 Single Other Class 8.

On-Site Truck Travel - Line Sources
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Operational HHD Emissions
PM10 Idling Emission FactorPM10 RUNEx Emission FactorOn-Site Truck Idling - Point Sources

Gasoline Dispensing
Gasoline Throughput1
1000-gal/yr
Emissio
n
Sources
VOC Emissions1
(lb/1000-gal)
Pollutant Name
(LS) CAS# Emission Factor2,3
(lb/lb-VOC)
Annual Emissions
(lb-LS/yr)
Hourly Emissions
(lb-LS/hr)
Benzene 71432 3.00E-03 0.62 7.05E-05
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.60E-02 3.29 3.76E-04
Toluene 108883 8.00E-02 16.46 1.88E-03
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 2.40E-02 4.94 5.64E-04
Benzene 71432 3.00E-03 0.18 2.10E-05
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.60E-02 0.98 1.12E-04
Toluene 108883 8.00E-02 4.90 5.59E-04
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 2.40E-02 1.47 1.68E-04
Benzene 71432 3.00E-03 2.72 3.10E-04
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.60E-02 14.50 1.66E-03
Toluene 108883 8.00E-02 72.52 8.28E-03
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 2.40E-02 21.76 2.48E-03
Benzene 71432 1.00E-02 5.15 5.87E-04
Ethyl benzene 100414 1.60E-02 8.23 9.40E-04
Toluene 108883 8.00E-02 41.16 4.70E-03
Xylenes (mixed) 1330207 2.40E-02 12.35 1.41E-03

1. Average gallons/year throughput per station for gasoline and diesel in Kings County per returned surveys (CA Energy Commission Annual Reporting Results for CA Retail Fuel Outlets 2022)

2. VOC emission rates provided in SJVAPCD's Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling (Draft) 08/06 Rev 1.2.

3. Loading, Breathing, and Refueling emission factors based on SJVAPCD Toxic Profile 128; Z1 SU Gasoline Dispensing Op VOC Vapor Speciation

4. Spillage emission factors based on SJVAPCD Toxic Profile 261; Z1 SU Gasoline Dispensing Op VOC Liquid Speciation Operational Gasoline Dispensin
g Emissions
2,450
Loading
(Tank) 0.084
Breathing
(Tank) 0.025
Refueling
1 0.74
Spillage
1 0.42

Process Rates Avg.1
lb/week
Avg.

Ton/hr
AVG.

Ton /yr
CC - Hamburger & Steak 800 2.38E-03 20.80
CC - Poultry & Pork 265 7.89E-04 6.89
Conveyorized Charbroiler - Totals
Substances CAS# LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 1.49E-06 1.30E-02
Acenaphthylene 208968 2.65E-05 2.32E-01
Acetaldehyde 75070 4.45E-04 3.89E+00
Acetophenone 98862 3.83E-06 3.35E-02
Anthracene 120127 5.72E-06 5.00E-02
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 1.58E-06 1.38E-02
Benzene 71432 7.97E-04 6.96E+00
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 9.67E-07 8.45E-03
Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene 191242 9.04E-07 7.90E-03
Biphenyl 92524 1.30E-05 1.14E-01
Cresol 1319773 5.41E-06 4.73E-02
Dibutyl Phthalate 84742 3.03E-06 2.65E-02
Ethyl Benzene 100414 6.31E-05 5.51E-01
Ethylene Dichloride 107062 2.21E-05 1.93E-01
Fluoranthene 206440 6.21E-06 5.42E-02
Fluorene 86737 6.33E-06 5.53E-02
Formaldehyde 50000 6.20E-04 5.42E+00
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene 193395 5.71E-07 4.99E-03
Naphthalene 91203 1.23E-04 1.08E+00
Phenanthrene 85018 2.87E-05 2.51E-01
Phenol 108952 3.63E-05 3.17E-01
Propionaldehyde 123386 1.20E-04 1.05E+00
Pyrene 129000 8.32E-06 7.26E-02
Styrene 100425 3.00E-04 2.62E+00
Toluene 108883 3.15E-04 2.76E+00
Total PAH 1150 4.90E-05 4.28E-01
Xylene 1330207 4.42E-05 3.86E-01
Conveyorized Charbroiler - Hamburger & Steak

LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 5.60E-04 1.33E-06 1.16E-02
Acenaphthylene 208968 9.78E-03 2.33E-05 2.03E-01
Anthracene 120127 1.82E-03 4.33E-06 3.79E-02
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 4.40E-04 1.05E-06 9.15E-03
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 3.40E-04 8.10E-07 7.07E-03
Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene 191242 3.20E-04 7.62E-07 6.66E-03 Biphenyl 92524 4.86E-03 1.16E-05 1.01E-01
Fluoranthene 206440 1.76E-03 4.19E-06 3.66E-02
Fluorene 86737 2.18E-03 5.19E-06 4.53E-02
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene 193395 2.00E-04 4.76E-07 4.16E-03 Naphthalene 91203 4.60E-02 1.10E-04 9.57E-01
Phenanthrene 85018 9.76E-03 2.32E-05 2.03E-01
Pyrene 129000 2.30E-03 5.48E-06 4.78E-02
Total PAH 1150 7.24E-04 1.72E-06 1.51E-02
Conveyorized Charbroiler - Poultry & Pork

LB/HR LB/YR
Acenaphthene 83329 2.00E-04 1.58E-07 1.38E-03
Acenaphthylene 208968 4.12E-03 3.25E-06 2.84E-02
Acetaldehyde 75070 5.64E-01 4.45E-04 3.89E+00
Acetophenone 98862 4.86E-03 3.83E-06 3.35E-02
Anthracene 120127 1.76E-03 1.39E-06 1.21E-02
Benz[a]Anthracene 56553 6.80E-04 5.36E-07 4.69E-03
Benzene 71432 1.01E+00 7.97E-04 6.96E+00
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50328 2.00E-04 1.58E-07 1.38E-03
Benzo[g,h,i,]Perylene 191242 1.80E-04 1.42E-07 1.24E-03 Biphenyl 92524 1.82E-03 1.44E-06 1.25E-02
Cresol 1319773 6.86E-03 5.41E-06 4.73E-02
Dibutyl Phthalate 84742 3.84E-03 3.03E-06 2.65E-02
Ethyl Benzene 100414 8.00E-02 6.31E-05 5.51E-01
Ethylene Dichloride 107062 2.80E-02 2.21E-05 1.93E-01
Fluoranthene 206440 2.56E-03 2.02E-06 1.76E-02
Fluorene 86737 1.44E-03 1.14E-06 9.92E-03
Formaldehyde 50000 7.86E-01 6.20E-04 5.42E+00
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]Pyrene 193395 1.20E-04 9.46E-08 8.27E-04 Naphthalene 91203 1.75E-02 1.38E-05 1.21E-01
Phenanthrene 85018 6.92E-03 5.46E-06 4.77E-02
Phenol 108952 4.60E-02 3.63E-05 3.17E-01
Propionaldehyde 123386 1.52E-01 1.20E-04 1.05E+00
Pyrene 129000 3.60E-03 2.84E-06 2.48E-02
Styrene 100425 3.80E-01 3.00E-04 2.62E+00
Toluene 108883 4.00E-01 3.15E-04 2.76E+00
Total PAH 1150 6.00E-02 4.73E-05 4.13E-01
Xylene 1330207 5.60E-02 4.42E-05 3.86E-01
References (Beef):

Emission factors are derived from District adjustments of Charbroiler emission factors in EPA's 2002 NEI database (Appendix C1).

Hamburger is used as a surrogate for steak.

Pollutants required for toxic reporting: TACs w/o Risk Factor. Current as of update date.

References (P&P):

Emission factors are derived from District adjustments of Charbroiler emission factors in EPA's 2002 NEI database (Appendix C1).

Poultry (chicken) is used as a surrogate for pork.

Pollutants required for toxic reporting: TACs w/o Risk Factor. Current as of update date.

1. SJVAPCD Modeling Guidance Ref - Pechan (2005). Appendix A - Documentation for the draft 2002 non-point source national emission inventory for criteria and hazardous air pollutants (march 2005 version). Emissions Inventory Group, U.S.

EPA. Pages A28 – A34
Substances CAS# EF Lb/Ton Uncontrolled
Substances CAS# EF Lb/Ton Uncontrolled

APPENDIX C

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION

CITY OF HANFORD

GRANGEVILLE MIXED-USE

PROJECT
NOVEMBER 2023

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION

GRANGEVILLE MIXED-USE PROJECT
Prepared for:

City of Hanford - Community Development Department
317 N. Douty Street
Hanford, CA 93230
Contact Person: Gabrielle de Silva Myers
Phone: (559) 585-2500
Consultant:
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Contact: Jaymie Brauer
Phone: (661) 616-2600
November 2023
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.

Unauthorized use prohibited.

Project #230244

Grangeville Mixed-Use Project November 2023
City of Hanford Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 - Project Location.......................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 - Project Description.................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 - Purpose, Goals, and Objectives for this Report............................................................................1-2 SECTION 2 - Methods ................................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.1 - Definition of Biological Study Area ..................................................................................................2-3

2.2 - Literature Review and Database Analysis.....................................................................................2-3

2.3 - Reconnaissance-Level Field Surveys...............................................................................................2-5 SECTION 3 - Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 3-6

3.1 - Topography ...............................................................................................................................................3-6

3.2 - Climate.........................................................................................................................................................3-6

3.3 - Land Use .....................................................................................................................................................3-6

3.4 - Soils ..............................................................................................................................................................3-7

3.5 - Hydrology...................................................................................................................................................3-7

3.6 - General Biological Conditions ............................................................................................................3-9 SECTION 4 - Findings ................................................................................................................................ 4-9

4.1 - Sensitive Natural Communities .........................................................................................................4-9

4.1.1 - Results of Literature Review and Database Searches.............................................4-9

4.1.2 - Presence of Sensitive Natural Communities...............................................................4-9

4.2 - Special-Status Plants...........................................................................................................................4-10

4.2.1 - Results of Literature Review and Database Searches..........................................4-10

4.2.2 - Presence of Special-Status Plants ................................................................................4-10

4.3 - Special-Status Wildlife .......................................................................................................................4-11

4.3.1 - Results of Literature Review and Database Searches..........................................4-11

4.3.2 - Presence of Special-Status Wildlife.............................................................................4-12

4.3.3 - Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors ........................................................................4-13

4.4 - Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors, and Linkages .............................................................4-14

4.4.1 - Presence of Critical Habitat............................................................................................4-14

4.4.2 - Presence of Movement Corridors and Linkages ....................................................4-14

4.5 - Wetlands and Other Waters.............................................................................................................4-14 SECTION 5 - Potential Project Impacts .............................................................................................. 5-16

5.1 - Potential Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities......................................................5-16

Grangeville Mixed-Use Project November 2023
City of Hanford Page ii

5.2 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species...................................................................5-16

5.3 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species .............................................................5-16

5.4 - Potential Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors......................................................................5-16

5.5 - Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors and Linkages ....................5-16

5.5.1 - Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat ..........................................................................5-16

5.5.2 - Potential Impacts to Movement Corridors and Linkages ...................................5-17

5.6 - Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Waters ...............................................................................5-17 SECTION 6 - Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 6-18 SECTION 7 - Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 7-19 SECTION 8 - References ......................................................................................................................... 8-20 Appendices
Appendix A CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC Database Results
Appendix B Representative Photographs
Appendix C Plants and Wildlife Species Observed On-Site List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Map ................................................................................................................................1-1 Figure 1-2 Project Location Map.................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 2-1 Biological Study Area.................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 4-1 Mapped Critical Habitat in the Project Vicinity............................................................4-15

List of Tables
Table 3-1 Field Survey Personnel and Timing.......................................................................................3-6 Table 4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA ...........................4-10 Table 4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA (Source: CNDDB 2023, and USFWS 2023) .............................................................................................................................4-11

Biological Resource Evaluation Executive Summary

Grangeville Multi Use Project August 2023
City of Hanford Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) report provides the results of a biological survey conducted by QK for the Grangeville Mixed-Use Project (Project). In order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a biological evaluation was conducted to identify the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on or near the Project site.

The Project site is located northwest of the intersection of Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive in the City of Hanford, Kings County, CA. The proposed project consists of a new mixed-use development, including multifamily housing development and commercial development.

A review of available literature and agency databases was conducted to obtain information of the occurrences of natural communities, special-status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site. QK conducted a biological reconnaissance survey on October 30, 2023, to determine the locations and extent of land use, natural vegetation communities, determine the potential for occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species, and verify the presence of wetlands and State and or federal jurisdictional waters.

No special-status plant species or special-status wildlife species, or diagnostic sign thereof, were observed, and no wetlands or other sensitive biological resources were observed on or near the Project site.

Based on the literature and database search and the results of the survey, there is a potential for one special-status wildlife species to be impacted by construction site activities. While the Project site lacks suitable nesting or foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), nesting Swainson’s hawk may use potential nesting resources (trees, power poles, etc.) near the Project site (within 0.5 miles). Nesting Swainson’s hawk behavior may be impacted during construction activities if nesting occurs near the Project site. Potential foraging habitat is present in the vicinity and there is potential for the species to occur near the Project site as a transient. There is potential for nesting migratory birds and other raptors species, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Species Act, to occur on or near the Project site and surrounding areas. With the implementation of Best Management Practices and recommended avoidance measures, the Project will likely have limited impacts to Swainson’s hawk and migratory birds and raptors. There is expected to be no impact to special-status plant species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands or water features, or any other sensitive biological resources.

Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 1-1
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
Rupinder (Shah) Nahal (the Applicant) proposes to develop a mixed-use development with a 64-unit multifamily housing complex and a 1.25-acre commercial component on a five-acre site within the City of Hanford, CA. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a biological evaluation was conducted to identify the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur on or near the Project site. This Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) provides the basic biological information needed for the permitting process.

1.1 - Project Location
The Project site is located northwest of the intersection of Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive in the City of Hanford, Kings County, CA. The Project site is identified by Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 090-030-142, within Section 18S, Township 22, Range 21E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M).

1.2 - Project Description
The proposed Project consists of a new mixed-use development, including multifamily housing and commercial development. The residential development will be located on the northern 3.75-acre of the Project site, while the commercial development will be on the southern 1.25-acre portion of the site (Project). The commercial portion of the Project would be developed in a separate phase and is anticipated to include a gas station and a fast-food restaurant.

The Project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from the Neighborhood Commercial zone to the Neighborhood Mixed Use zone to allow for multifamily housing and commercial development. The project also requires approval of a Planned Unit Development permit and a variance to allow parking within the rear yard setback.

The Project’s residential component includes eight buildings, three open space areas, nine carports, four trash enclosures, and other associated amenities throughout the site. The open spaces areas would include landscaping and walkways. The central open space area would feature a community pool, shade structures, picnic tables, and walkways. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and landscaping would be provided throughout the residential t site. The residential development would be gated and would feature masonry fencing along the site boundaries.

Construction equipment will vary over the course of development and would include the following:
• Excavators / earth moving equipment
• All terrain forklifts

Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 1-2
• A man/material hoist
• Truck cranes
• Concrete trucks
• Dump trucks
• Street sweepers / water trucks for dust control
• Construction delivery trucks
• Small tools (generators, light plants, compactors, air compressors) Construction of the Project is anticipated to begin in Q4 2024 and is expected to take a maximum of 24 months.

1.3 - Purpose, Goals, and Objectives for this Report
This BRE report includes the results of a biological survey and available biological and natural resource database search conducted by QK biologists at the Project site. This report is consistent with the requirements for an analysis of impacts to biological resources needed of an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration following guidelines established by CEQA.

The primary focus of this report is to provide information about the presence of sensitive biological resources on the Project and develop measures to avoid and minimize impacts of the Project on those resources. To accomplish that goal, this BRE provides information on the condition and sensitivity of the sensitive biological resources present and potentially present on and adjacent to the Project site and evaluates Project impacts to those resources.

This BRE focuses on providing information and sensitive natural communities, special-status species, wildlife movement corridors, and wetlands and waters by conducting a desktop analysis of site conditions and verifying those findings with an on-site biological survey.

Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 1-1
Figure 1-1
Regional Map
Grangeville Mixed-Use Project,
Kings County, California

Biological Resource Evaluation Introduction

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 1-2
Figure 1-2
Project Location Map
Grangeville Mixed -Use Project,
Kings County, California

Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 2-3
SECTION 2 - METHODS

2.1 - Definition of Biological Study Area
The Biological Study Area (BSA) includes the Project site and a 250-foot survey buffer surrounding the Project disturbance footprint (Figure 2-1).

2.2 - Literature Review and Database Analysis
The following online resources were reviewed for information on special-status biological resources in the Project vicinity:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2023a).
• CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS; CDFW 2023b). • CDFW’s Special Animals List (CDFW 2023c).
• CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2023).
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC; USFWS 2023a).
• USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2023b).
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2023c). • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD; USGS 2023).
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone maps (FEMA 2023). • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2023)
• Current and historical aerial imagery (Google LLC 2023; Netronline 2023).

The CNDDB and CNPS queries focused on the Hanford USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle in which the Project is located, plus the surrounding eight quadrangles: Remnoy, Guernsey, Waukena, Burris Park, Lemoore, Riverdale, Laton, Stratford. To satisfy other standard search criteria, CNDDB records within a 10-mile radius of the Project site were queried separately from the broader database search.

Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 2-4

Figure 2-1
Biological Study Area
Grangeville Mixed -Use Project, Kings County, California

Biological Resource Evaluation Methods

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 2-5
The CNDDB provides element-specific spatial information on individual documented occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural vegetation communities. The CNPS database provides similar information, but at a much lower spatial resolution, for additional sensitive plant species tracked by the CNPS. The CDFW Special Animals List and USFWS IPaC provide no spatial data on wildlife occurrences and provide only lists of species potentially present. Wildlife species designated as “Fully Protected” by California Fish and Game Code Sections 5050 (Fully Protected reptiles and amphibians), 3511 (Fully Protected birds), and 4700 (Fully Protected mammals) are also included on the final list of evaluated species. The database search results can be found in Appendix A.

A review of the NWI was completed to identify whether wetlands have previously been documented on or adjacent to the Project site. The NWI, which is operated by the USFWS, is a collection of wetland and riparian maps that depicts graphic representations of the type, size, and location of wetland, deep water, and riparian habitats in the United States. In addition to the NWI, regional hydrologic information from the NHD was obtained from the USGS to evaluate the potential occurrence of blueline streams within or near the Project site.

Soils data were obtained from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, climate information was obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center, and land use information was obtained from available aerial imagery (NRCS 2023; WRCC 2023; Google LLC 2023). Information about flood zones was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security (FEMA 2023).

The results of the database inquiries were reviewed to extract pertinent information on site conditions and evaluate the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur within or near the proposed Project site. Only those resources with the potential to be present and affected by the Project were included and considered in this document. The potential presence of natural communities and special-status species was based on distributional ranges overlapping the Project site and the presence of habitat and/or primary constituent habitat elements.

2.3 - Reconnaissance-Level Field Surveys
A biological reconnaissance survey of the BSA was conducted by QK Environmental Scientists Eric Madueno and William Ryan on October 30, 2023. The survey consisted of meandering pedestrian transects spaced 50 to 100 feet apart throughout the BSA, where accessible. Areas with suitable habitat that could not be accessed, such as private residences or currently in active agricultural crops, were surveyed by use of high-power binoculars.

Tasks completed during the survey included determining and documenting current land use, developing an inventory of plant species, wildlife species, and wildlife sign (e.g., scat, burrows, nests, feathers, tracks, etc.), characterizing vegetation associations and habitat conditions within the BSA, assessing the potential for federal, State-listed and other specialstatus plant and wildlife species that may occur on and near the Project site based on existing conditions, and assessing the potential for migratory birds and raptors to nest on and near the Project site. In addition, all historical wetland and water features documented by NWI

Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-6
and NHD were field verified. All spatial data were recorded using Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Field Maps for ArcGIS software installed on an iPad. Site conditions were documented with representative photographs (Appendix B).

SECTION 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section identifies the regional and local environmental setting of the Project and describes existing baseline conditions. The environmental setting of the BSA was obtained from various sources of literature, databases, and aerial photographs. Site conditions were verified and updated during the site reconnaissance survey conducted by QK Environmental Scientists (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1
Field Survey Personnel and Timing
Date Personnel Time Weather Conditions Temperature
10/30/2023
Eric Madueno,
William Ryan 0930 - 1015 Sunny 53 - 55F

3.1 - Topography
The BSA is on the floor of the Central Valley in the northeastern portion of Kings County. The BSA is relatively flat with little variation in topography and an elevation of about 233 feet above mean sea level.

3.2 - Climate
The BSA is within an area that has a Mediterranean climate of hot summers and mild, wet winters. Average high temperatures range from 54.7°F in January to 97.8°F in July, with daily temperatures often exceeding 100°F several days in the summer (WRCC 2023). Average low temperatures range from 34.6°F in December to 62.5°F in July. Precipitation occurs primarily as rain, most of which falls from November to April, with an average of 8.38 inches of rainfall per year. Precipitation may also occur as a dense fog during the winter known as Tule fog. Rain rarely falls during the summer months.

3.3 - Land Use
Currently, the Project site is an undeveloped vacant lot that has been recently disked. Based on historical imagery, this vacant lot was previously an agriculture field that was cleared sometime after 1984 (Google Earth 2023). The Project site is situated among urban development. It is bounded by Grangeville Boulevard to the south and Centennial Drive to the east. Surrounding land uses consist of multifamily housing to the north, single-family residential developments to the east and south, and a water storage facility and retention basin to the west.

Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-7

3.4 - Soils
The Project site is underlain by a single soil type, Nord complex (NRCS 2023). This soil series is described by the NRCS and is listed below.

The Nord soil series is characterized by very deep and well drained soils (NRCS 2023). This soil series has a negligible to low rate of runoff and moderate permeability; however, in saline-sodic phases the permeability is moderate. They are formed of mixed alluvium from granitic and sedimentary rock. Nord can be found in alluvial fans and flood plains areas.

Slopes range between 0 to 2 percent. This soil series can be used for irrigated crops including wheat (Triticum sp.), sugar beets (Beta vulgaris), corn (Zea mays), cotton (Gossypium sp.), alfalfa, walnuts (Juglans sp.), peaches and other fruit or nut trees. Natural vegetation that can grow on this soil type includes annual grasses and forbs and valley oak (Quercus lobata).

Nord soil types that are found in Kings County include Nord complex and Nord fine sandy loam. Nord complex is not a hydric soil (NRCS 2023).

3.5 - Hydrology
There are no wetlands or non-wetland waters within the BSA, as defined by the NHD and NWI and none were present during the survey (USGS 2023; USFWS 2023c). According to FEMA, the BSA is within an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Figure 3-1).

Biological Resource Evaluation Environmental Setting

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 3-8

Figure 3-1
FEMA Flood Zone Map
Grangeville Mixed -Use Project, Kings County, California

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 4-9

3.6 - General Biological Conditions
The Project site is located on the northwest corner of Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive intersection in the City of Hanford. It is situated on a 5-acre vacant lot that has been recently disked and primarily devoid of vegetation.

No natural plant communities occur within the BSA. The Project site consists of a maintained vacant lot that has minimal growth of ruderal species, mainly Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and prostrate pigweed (Amaranthus blitoides), along field margins. The urban development surrounding the Project site contains various ornamental shrubs and trees including pines (Pinus sp.), sycamore (Platanus sp.) and olive (Olea sp.) located outside of the Project site but within the BSA.

There are several large trees that could support nesting birds and/or raptors, but there were no nests present within the BSA. . Smaller ornamental trees associated with the private residences surrounding the Project site could support nesting passerine bird species.

Common migratory bird species observed during the survey included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and common raven (Corvus corax). A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was observed soaring over the Grangeville Boulevard briefly before flying out of sight.

No small mammal burrows or dens suitable for special-status species were present within the BSA. There was sign (weathered soil mounding) created by pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) present within the margins of the Project site. Sign (scat, tracks, etc.) of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) was observed along portions of the Project site.

A complete list of plant and wildlife species observed within the BSA during the biological reconnaissance survey is included in Appendix C.

SECTION 4 - FINDINGS

4.1 - Sensitive Natural Communities

4.1.1 - RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATABASE SEARCHES Literature results from the surrounding nine-quadrangle queries for the Project site revealed two sensitive natural vegetation communities: Valley Sacaton Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub.

4.1.2 - PRESENCE OF SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Valley Sacaton Grassland and Valley Sink Scrub communities were not present within the BSA during the survey. In addition, the BSA does not provide habitat that would support these communities.

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 4-10

4.2 - Special-Status Plants

4.2.1 - RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATABASE SEARCHES There were eleven special-status plant species identified in the literature and database review that are known or have the potential to occur within the surrounding ninequadrangles centered on the Project site (Table 4-1). None of the special-status plant species have historical records occurring on or overlapping the BSA.

Table 4-1
Special-Status Plant Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA (Source: CNDDB 2023, CNPS 2023, and USFWS 2023)
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale 1B.2
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis Earlimart orache 1B.2 Atriplex depressa brittlescale 1B.2
Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale 1B.1
Atriplex subtilis subtle orache 1B.2
Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspur 1B.2
Lasthenia chrysantha alkali-sink goldfields 1B.1
Lepidium jaredii ssp. album Panoche pepper grass 1B.2
Nama stenocarpa mud nama 2B.2
Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass 1B.2
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead 1B.2
CRPR (California Rare Plant Rank):
1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

CRPR Threat Code Extension:
.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)

4.2.2 - PRESENCE OF SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
No special-status plant species were present within the BSA. The survey coincided with some, but not all of the plant species’ optimal blooming periods; but none of the species identified in the CNDDB or Ipac database queries are expected to occur on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat conditions (disked lot) and/or because the BSA is located outside of the species’ known range. The Project site is degraded from historical land use, mainly for agricultural purposes, and the adjacent lands have been equally disturbed for residential and transportation corridors.

A complete list of plant species observed during the biological reconnaissance survey is included in Appendix C.

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 4-11

4.3 - Special-Status Wildlife

4.3.1 - RESULTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATABASE SEARCHES There were 22 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature and database review that are known or have the potential to occur within the surrounding nine-quad search area centered on the Project (Table 4-2). There are no historical records from the CNDDB or Ipac of any special-status wildlife species within the BSA.

Table 4-2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring in the Region of the BSA (Source: CNDDB 2023, and USFWS 2023)
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT, -
Cicindela tranquebarica joaquinensis San Joaquin tiger beetle - , - Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly FC, -
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT , - Gonidea angulate western ridged mussel - , -
Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE, -
Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella - , -
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense pop 1 California tiger salamander central California DPS
FT, ST
Spea hammondii western spadefoot - , SSC
Reptiles
Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake - , SSC Emys marmorata western pond turtle - , SSC
Gambelia sila blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE, -
Birds SE/SFP
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird - , ST/SSC
Athene cunicularia western burrowing owl - , SSC
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk - , ST
Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover FT, SSC Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird - , SSC Mammals
Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Fresno kangaroo rat FE, SE Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat FE, SE Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat - , -
Sorex ornatus relictus Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew FE, SSC Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE, ST
Abbreviations:

FC Federal Candidate

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 4-12
FE Federal Endangered Species
FT Federal Threatened Species
SFP Fully Protected Animal, CDFW
SE California Endangered Species
ST California Threatened Species
SSC California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern

4.3.2 - PRESENCE OF SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE
There is no roosting habitat for monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) present within the BSA, although it may travel through the BSA as a transient. Additionally, no milkweed (Asclepias sp.) was observed within the BSA, which is a required food source for larval monarch butterflies. The BSA lacks suitable sandy open habitat for the San Joaquin tiger beetle (Cicindela tranquebarica joaquinensis) and does not contain any elderberry shrubs to support the elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus).

There are no pooled water features within the BSA capable of supporting crustaceans such as vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), or California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis).

There are no creeks, streams, ponds, or wetland features within the BSA capable of supporting several species including: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), western rigid mussel (Gonidea angulate), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). Additionally, no wetland, marsh, or riparian habitat exists within the BSA to support nesting or foraging tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) or the Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus).

There are no grasslands or native shrub habitats within the BSA that would support bluntnosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), or California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis). There were no suitable small mammal burrows, which blunt-nosed leopard lizards require for shelter, present within the BSA. There are no rocky outcroppings, mines or caves, cliff faces, tree hollows, high buildings, or bridges within the BSA that would support the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus).

Due to the historic and ongoing disturbance and absence of suitable small mammal burrows, the BSA does not support the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) or Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). There is no connectivity between the BSA and habitat that would be considered suitable for kangaroo rat species.

The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is unlikely to be present within the BSA.

The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 69953) is mapped generally 0.96 miles east of the BSA.

This record is from 2006 when a kit fox was observed within an undeveloped 15-acre lot.

The Project site lacks suitable habitat for the species due to the past and current level of disturbance and the surrounding BSA has been similarly degraded. The BSA is situated among intensive urban development with no connectivity to natural habitat for the species.

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 4-13
No San Joaquin kit fox or diagnostic sign of the species (e.g., tracks, dens, scat, prey remains) were observed during the field survey, and the lack of small mammal burrows observed indicates the site does not support an adequate prey base. Surrounding land use and habitat conditions make it unlikely that the San Joaquin kit fox would be present.

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) inhabit grassland, open bare ground, and utilize existing small mammal burrows, typically created by California ground squirrel, for breeding and shelter. There were no burrows or diagnostic sign (e.g., whitewash, tracks, prey remains) of burrowing owl observed within the BSA. The BSA is continually subjected to disturbance through maintenance activities, and it is unlikely to support nesting burrowing owls as they typically prefer isolation from people and loud noises. Burrowing owl may be present as transient foragers, though this is unlikely given the scarcity of prey items at the site. The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 44978) of the species is located 9.9 miles northeast of the BSA where one adult burrowing owl was observed in 2016 and four active burrow sites were observed in 2017 in non-native grassland habitat. There is no connectivity between the BSA and the natural habitat of the CNDDB observation.

The BSA provides little suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). There are a few large trees located within the southern boundary of the BSA that could potentially support nesting raptors including Swainson’s hawk. These trees were examined for nests during the site survey, and none were present. The Project site provides limited prey base due to the periodic disking of the Project site and absence of active small mammal burrows, but a few inactive gopher burrows were present indicating the potential for prey in the area. Agriculture within the BSA consists of a citrus orchard that is not considered foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. The nearest CNDDB record (EONDX 91345) for Swainson’s hawk is located approximately 4.7 miles southeast the BSA where an active nest was observed in one of the eucalyptus trees along Lacey Boulevard in 2012 and an adult was observed sitting on the same nest in 2016. Based on historic aerial imagery the eucalyptus tree where the nesting Swainson’s hawk was observed was removed sometime between 2016 and 2017. The Project site lacks suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the species, but they are known to occur in the area and may be present as transients.

4.3.3 - NESTING MIGRATORY BIRDS AND RAPTORS
There were no nests (active or inactive) present within the BSA during the survey. Habitat within the Project site with potential to support nesting birds is limited to ornamental trees located within the surrounding urban development, which may support passerine nests or larger raptor nests. Due to the periodic disking, it is unlikely ground nesting species would nest within the Project site. Additionally, there are a variety of man-made structures (utility poles, transmission towers, agricultural residences, etc.) and trees within the BSA and in the vicinity of the Project which could support a variety of nesting bird species, including larger species such as raptors and common raven.

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 4-14

4.4 - Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors, and Linkages

4.4.1 - PRESENCE OF CRITICAL HABITAT
The BSA is not within any USFWS designated critical habitat. The closest critical habitat is located approximately 8.5 miles northeast of the BSA and is designated for vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and California tiger salamander (Figure 4-1).

4.4.2 - PRESENCE OF MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND LINKAGES
The BSA is not within any designated wildlife linkage or movement corridors. The nearest wildlife movement corridor is located approximately 7.5 miles east of the BSA and the nearest wildlife linkage area approximately 22.3 miles to the southeast. The Project is situated within an area developed for urban and agricultural use and does not provide a linkage between suitable natural habitats for most wildlife species. Due to the disturbed condition of the Project and surrounding area, there is no substantial movement of wildlife onto or off the BSA.

4.5 - Wetlands and Other Waters
No wetland or non-wetland water features are known to exist at the Project site. The NHD and NWI did not identify any water features that intersect the BSA, and the site survey confirmed no such features are present within the BSA.

Biological Resource Evaluation Findings

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 4-15

Figure 4-1
Mapped Critical Habitat in the Project Vicinity
Grangeville Mixed -Use Project, Kings County, California

Biological Resource Evaluation Potential Project Impacts

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 5-16
SECTION 5 - POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS
The purpose of this section is to present an evaluation of the potential for Project-related impacts to sensitive biological resources to occur resulting from Project construction activities. Although the potential for impacts of the Project is anticipated to be minor because the Project will be constructed on a disked vacant lot, there are some risks of Project impacts.

These are discussed below.

5.1 - Potential Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities No sensitive vegetation communities occur within the BSA. The Project would not impact sensitive natural communities.

5.2 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species No special-status plant species occur within the BSA and there is no suitable habitat for any special-status plant species on or near the BSA. The Project would not impact any specialstatus plant species.

5.3 - Potential Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species One special-status wildlife species, Swainson’s hawk, was determined to have limited potential to occur within the BSA as a transient. Available habitat within the BSA fulfilling the foraging and nesting requirements of this species is limited, therefore the presence of the species within the BSA is unlikely.

Any special-status species that use the Project as a movement corridor could be indirectly impacted by Project activities, though little wildlife was observed in or near BSA during the reconnaissance survey conducted for the Project.

5.4 - Potential Impacts to Nesting Birds and Raptors
No nests were present within the BSA during the survey. There is potential for passerine bird species to nest near the Project site in the ornamental trees associated with the urban development. There is also potential for birds to nest outside of the Project site but within the BSA in existing structures and trees, and in trees and utility poles in the surrounding urban areas. Few large trees are located within the BSA that may potentially support nesting raptor species. If there are active nests present during Project activities, nests could be impacted by Project activities that interfere with normal breeding behaviors, which could discourage breeding or lead to nest abandonment or failure.

5.5 - Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat, Movement Corridors and Linkages

5.5.1 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CRITICAL HABITAT
The Project would not impact any designated critical habitat.

Biological Resource Evaluation Potential Project Impacts

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 5-17

5.5.2 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MOVEMENT CORRIDORS AND LINKAGES Project activities would not impact any movement corridors or habitat linkages.

5.6 - Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Waters
No wetland features exist within the BSA, and there would be no impacts to wetland resources.

Biological Resource Evaluation Recommendations

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 6-18
SECTION 6 - RECOMMENDATIONS
The Project is anticipated to have no impacts on sensitive natural communities, specialstatus plants, wetlands and non-wetland water features, Critical Habitat, or migratory corridors. There is potential for Project activities to result in impacts to one of the specialstatus wildlife species listed in Sections 4 and 5. While the potential for impacts to Swainson’s hawk is low, to avoid this species and other wildlife species, we recommend that the following measures be implemented as Best Management Practices (BMPs) during Project activities:
• A pre-construction clearance survey of the Project footprint should be conducted for special-status wildlife species and nesting migratory birds and raptors. The survey should occur no less than 14-30 days prior to the start of construction activities. If construction is delayed beyond 30 days from the time of the survey, then another survey would need to be conducted. The survey should be conducted by a biologist with adequate training and prior experience conducting surveys for special-status wildlife species. If no special-status species are observed, no further action is warranted. If dens or burrows that could support special-status species and/or nesting birds are discovered during the pre-construction survey, appropriate avoidance buffers should be established.
• If construction is planned during the nesting season for migratory birds (February 15 to August 31) and nesting birds are identified during the survey, active Swainson’s hawk nest shall be avoided by 0.5 miles, other raptor nests shall be avoided by 500 feet and all other migratory bird nests shall be avoided by 250 feet. Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified biological monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affecting the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Because nesting birds can establish new nests or produce a second or even third clutch at any time during the nesting season, nesting bird surveys shall be repeated every 30 days as construction activities are occurring throughout the nesting season. • A Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program should be prepared and presented to all workers that will be on-site during construction activities. • Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all Project areas, except on county roads and state and federal highways. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited.
• All trash and food items should be discarded into closed containers and properly disposed of at the end of each workday.
• To prevent harassment or mortality of listed species, no pets should be permitted on the Project site.

Biological Resource Evaluation Summary and Conclusions

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 7-19
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Land within the Project site is highly disturbed and contains no habitat that would support special-status plant species or sensitive natural communities. There are no designated Critical Habitats, movement corridors, wetlands, or non-wetland water features that would be impacted by the Project.

Based on the literature and database searches and results of the site survey, there is potential for one special-status species to occur on the site, Swainson’s hawk. The Project site lacks suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the species, but there is potentially suitable nesting habitat, in the form of a few large trees within private residences, and foraging habitat within the vacant lot and surrounding agriculture. If Swainson’s hawk were to nest in the vicinity of the Project, impacts to the species could occur. The Project and surrounding areas provide suitable nesting habitat for other nesting migratory birds as well and impacts to these species may also occur. Implementation of the recommended BMPs and avoidance measures outlined in Section 6 would minimize any Project impacts to these species.

This Biological Resource Evaluation report has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from specified historical and literary sources and a biological survey of the Project site and surrounding area. The biological investigation was limited by the scope of work performed. The biological survey may not have been performed during blooming periods or periods of seasonal or daily wildlife activity that would provide positive identification if resources were present, and therefore the findings of this report might not be definitive. The biological survey was also limited by the environmental conditions present at the time of the survey. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and would not be discovered in the future within the site. Mobile animal species could occupy the site on a transient basis or re-establish populations in the future. No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided.

Biological Resource Evaluation References

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Page 8-20
SECTION 8 - REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Accessed via: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Accessed via: www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023c. CDFW’s Special Animals List California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.

Accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2023. On-line Map Service Center.

Google LLC. 2023. Google Earth Pro.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. State of California. Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 166 pp.

Accessed via: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Wildlife-Habitats.

Netronline. 2023. Historic Aerials Viewer. Accessed via: www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Web Soil Survey. Accessed via:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online project planning tool. Accessed via:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023b. Critical Habitat Portal. Accessed via:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023c. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (NWI). U.S. Geological Survey.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD).

Accessed via: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/nationalhydrography.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2023. Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries, NOAA Cooperative Station Hanford, California (043747). Accessed via:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca9367.

APPENDIX A

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS

GRANGEVILLE MIXED-USE PROJECT

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 1

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 2

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 3

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 4

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 5

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 6

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 7

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 8

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 9

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 10

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 11

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix A - 12

APPENDIX B

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

GRANGEVILLE MIXED-USE PROJECT

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix B - 1
Photograph 1: View of BSA from the southeast corner facing northwest.

GPS Coordinates: 36.342861, -119.682244.

Photograph taken by Eric Madueno on October 30, 2023.

Photograph 2: View of BSA from the southwest corner facing northeast.

GPS Coordinates: 36.342253, -119.683274.

Photograph taken by Eric Madueno on October 30, 2023.

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix B - 2

Photograph 3: View of BSA from the northeast corner facing southwest.

GPS Coordinates: 36.344334, -119.682121.

Photograph taken by Eric Madueno on October 30, 2023.

Photograph 4. View of BSA from the northwest corner facing south.

GPS Coordinates: 36.344231, -119.683451.

Photograph taken by Eric Madueno on October 30, 2023

Grangeville Mixed -Use Project February 2024
City of Hanford Appendix B - 3
Photograph 5. View of BSA from southwestern corner facing south and showing large trees within private residence.

GPS Coordinates: 36.342253, -119.683274.

Photograph taken by Eric Madueno on October 30, 2023
Photograph 6: View of BSA from southwestern corner facing north and showing large pine tree in adjacent water tank facility.

GPS Coordinates: 36.342253, -119.683274.

Photograph taken by Eric Madueno on October 30, 2023

APPENDIX C

PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED

GRANGEVILLE MIXED-USE PROJECT

Grangeville Multi-Use Project November 2023
City of Hanford Appendix C - 1
Table C - 1
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed within the BSA
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Plants
Ambrosia bursage annual bursage None
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome None
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome None
Chenopodium album lamb's quarters None
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass None
Datura wrightii Jimsonweed None
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce None
Malva neglecta common mallow None
Olea europaea olive
Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass None
Pinus sp. Pine None
Platanus racemosa western sycamore None
Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed None
Salsola tragus Russian thistle None
Tribulus terrestris puncture vine None
Ornamental shrubs/trees
Birds
Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay None
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird None
Zenaida macroura mourning dove None
Mammals
Canis familiaris* domestic dog None
* Indicates that only sign (e.g., tracks, scat, burrows, dens, vocalizations) of the species was observed.

APPENDIX D

CULTURAL TECHNICAL MEMO

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: December 5, 2023
Project: Cultural resources records search- Grangeville Multi-Use Project, Hanford, Kings County, CA
To: Jaymie Brauer, Principal Planner
From: Robert Parr, MS, RPA, Senior Archaeologist
Subject: Cultural Resources Records Search Results (#23-475) Background
A cultural resources records search (#23-475) was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield for the Grangeville Multi-Use Project (Project).

Location
The Project site is located northwest of the intersection of Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive in the City of Hanford, Kings County, CA. The Project site is bounded by the Berkshire Crossing Apartments to the north, vacant land and a water distribution facility to the west, Grangeville Boulevard to the south, and Centennial Drive to the east. The Project site is identified by Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 090-030-142, within Section 22, Township 18S, Range 21E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M).

Project Description
The Applicant proposes to develop a new mixed-use development consisting of a 64-unit multifamily housing complex, a commercial component, internal roads, three open space areas, carports, surface parking lots, and other associated amenities on an approximately five-acre site. Access to the Project site will be from two new driveways along Centennial Drive and one driveway along Grangeville Boulevard.

The commercial component of the Project would be developed in a future phase and is anticipated to include a gas station and fast food restaurants. The project site is currently vacant and has been previously disturbed and graded.

Results
The records search covered an area within one-half mile of the Project and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places, California Points of Historical Interest, California

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Registry of Historic Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California State Historic Resources Inventory, and a review of cultural resource reports on file.

The records search indicated that an approximately 200-foot (60 m.) wide strip along the southern boundary of the subject property adjacent to Grangeville Blvd. had been surveyed for cultural resources as part of a larger project with negative results (Beck 1979). The remainder of the property has never been surveyed for cultural resources and it is not known if any exist on it. Four additional cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the project (Wren 2001; Allan et al. 2009; Arrigoni et al. 2009; Arrigoni et al. 2009a: DeGeorgey 2013; Peak 2019).

Seven cultural resources, six historical and one prehistoric, have been recorded within a half mile of the project. The historic resources include a segment of the Last Chance Ditch (primary no. P16-000128) and five residential buildings dating between the 1940s and 1960. (P-16-000234, - 000235, -000236, -000237, -000238). The prehistoric site (P-16-000004) is a habitation mound with burials that has been extensively damaged by past agricultural and construction activities over the past century. The Project will not affect the identified resources. No further resources, either historical or prehistoric, have been identified or recorded within one half mile of the proposed project.

A Sacred Lands File request was also submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission. A response dated December 5, 2023, indicates negative results (see Attachment B).

Conclusions
The Project will not impact the identified resources within a half mile radius. Based on the results of cultural records search findings, the potential to encounter subsurface cultural resources is minimal. Additionally, the Project construction would occur on a previously disturbed and graded parcel. The potential to uncover subsurface historical or archaeological deposits would be considered unlikely.

However, there is still a possibility that historical or archaeological materials may be exposed during construction. Grading and trenching, as well as other ground-disturbing actions have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the project area, including historical or archaeological resources. Disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact. To reduce the potential impacts of the Project on cultural resources, the following measures are recommended to be included on the final site plans and all construction plans and specs. With implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CUL-1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would ensure that the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

CUL-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide the potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

Robert E. Parr, MS, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Attachment A- Figures
Attachment B- Sacred Lands File Response by the Native American Heritage Commission

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
References
(all reports on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield)
Allan, James M., Aimee Arrigoni, Angela Cook and Allen Estes 2009 Historic Property Survey Report, 12th Avenue. Widening Project, Hanford, Kings County, California. (KI-00194)
Arrigoni, Aimee, Angela Cook, and Allen Estes
2009 Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the 12th Avenue Widening Project, Hanford, Kings County, California. (KI-00194A)
Arrigoni, Aimee, Angela Cook, Allen Estes, and Jeffrey Schaeffer 2009 Archaeological Survey Report for the 12th Avenue Widening Project, Hanford – Kings County, California. (KI-00194B)
Beck, Allen
1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Grangeville Boulevard Reconstruction Environmental Impact Report. (KI-00004)
DeGeorgey, Alex
2013 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for CA-KIN-4, City of Hanford, Kings County, California. (KI00227) Peak, Melinda A.
2019 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Duyst and McCutcheon Property Project, City of Hanford, Kings County, California. (KI-00331)
Wren, Donald G.
2001 A Cultural Resource Study, New Hanford High School Hanford Learning Center Project, Hanford, California. (KI-00105)

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Attachment A
Figures

Figure 1
Regional Location

Figure 2
Project Area

Figure 3
PLSS

Figure 4
Topo

Quad-Knopf, Inc.

Project No. 230224
Grangeville Multi-Use Project
Hanford, Kings County
11/14/23
USGS Topo: Hanford, CA
area previously surveyed

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Attachment B
Sacred Lands File Response by the
Native American Heritage Commission

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

December 5, 2023
Jaymie Brauer
City of Hanford Planning Division
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, Grangeville Multi-Use Project, Kings County Dear Mr. Brauer:

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.

3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

APPENDIX E
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL

SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
For
Property
NW of Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive
Hanford, Kings County, California
APNs: 009-030-142
Prepared For:

QK Inc.
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Attn: Ms. Jaymie Brauer
File No. 23-19311
Prepared By:

Soils Engineering, Inc.
4400 Yeager Way
Bakersfield, CA 93313
November 2023

November 16, 2023 File No. 23-19311
QK Inc.
5080 California Avenue, Suite 220
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Attn: Ms. Jaymie Brauer
Subject: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
For: Property
Location: NW of Grangeville Boulevard and Centennial Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309
APNs: 009-030-142
Dear Ms. Jaymie Brauer:

In accordance with your request and authorization, Soils Engineering, Inc. (SEI) has performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard practice E 1527-21 for the above-described subject property in Bakersfield, California.

The site is currently vacant tilled land with sparse seasonal vegetation. Historically, the site was vacant land prior to 1934, agricultural land from at least 1934 to 1994, and vacant land from 2003 to the present.

The main environmental concerns observed at this site include:
 The review of Kings County Environmental Health Services and the State GeoTracker records indicate that no off-site properties within a one-mile radius of the site boundaries are of environmental concern and are not currently a threat to the subject property.
 Agricultural activities occurred at this site from at least 1934 to at least 1994. No indications of mixing areas, or storage areas were observed in the historical aerial photos available for review. Based on this information the former agricultural use on this site is considered a de-minimis condition and not a REC.  No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical RECs, nor Controlled RECs were identified at this site.