AGENDA
KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber, 1401 Draper Street, Kingsburg, CA 93631 (559) 897-5821 www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov
Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 6pm
Invocation to be given by Pastor Alex Brumley, the Refinery Church, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Vince Palomar.
6 P.M. REGULAR SESSION MEETING:
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Approve Agenda: Action by the Council to approve the agenda or to make modifications. Items that can be added to the agenda is constrained by State law.
3. Presentations:
Police Lieutenant Kevin Pendley Retirement Presentation Sponsor: Police Department
4. Public Comments: This is the time for any citizen to come forward and address the City Council on any issue within its jurisdiction that is not listed on the Agenda. A maximum of five (5) minutes is allowed for each speaker.
5. Consent Calendar: Items considered routine in nature are to be placed on the Consent Calendar.
They will be considered as one item and voted upon in one vote unless individual consideration is requested. Each vote in favor of the Consent Calendar is considered and recorded as a separate affirmative vote in favor of each action listed. Approval of the Consent Calendar items include recitals reading ordinance(s) by titles(s) only and adoption of recommended action(s) contained in Staff Reports.
5.1 Approval of City Council Minutes: Approve the minutes from the February 7, 2024 Regular Council Meeting as prepared by City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard.
Sponsor: City Clerk’s Office
5.2 Check Register: Ratify/approve payment of bills listed on the check register for the period January 31, 2024 through February 12, 2024 as prepared by Accounts Payable Clerk Marsha Alves.
Sponsor: Finance Department
City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street, Kingsburg, CA 93631-1908
Phone (559)897-5821 Fax (559)897-5568
Mayor Brandon Pursell, Jr.
Mayor Pro Tem Vince Palomar
Council Member Laura North
Council Member Staci Smith
Council Member David M. Silva
City Manager Alexander J. Henderson
Kingsburg City Council Agenda
February 21, 2024
5.3 Waive the first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024-001, An Ordinance Of The City Of Kingsburg Approving And Adopting the Kingsburg Police Department Military Equipment Use Policy 708 and pass the Ordinance to a second reading and adoption at the City Council meeting on March 6, 2024 with the following recital constituting reading the title of the Ordinance:
“An Ordinance Of The City Of Kingsburg Approving And Adopting the Kingsburg Police Department Military Equipment Use Policy 708.”
– Staff report by Police Chief Neil Dadian
Sponsor: Police Department
5.4 Adopt resolution No. 2024-008 approving the final map for Tract 6421 accepting on behalf of the public the streets and easements as offered on the map in accordance with the terms of the dedications.- Staff report by City Engineer Dave Peters Sponsor: City Engineer’s Department
5.5 Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-002, An Ordinance Of The City Of Kingsburg Adding Chapter 52 Of Title 2 Of The Kingsburg Municipal Code (Finance Committee) with the following recital constituting reading the title of the Ordinance:
“An Ordinance Of The City Of Kingsburg Adding Chapter 52 Of Title 2 Of The Kingsburg Municipal Code (Finance Committee).”
-Staff Report by City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard
Sponsor: City Clerk’s Office
6. Regular Calendar
6.1 PUBLIC HEARING – Consideration of Annexation 2024-01, (Matoian Annexation), Pre-Zone 2024-01, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Matoian Annexation Project- Staff Report by Community Development Director Holly Owen Sponsor: Community Development Department
Possible Action(s):
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Presentation by Community Development Director Holly Owen c. Council Discussion
d. OpenPublicComment
e. ClosePublicComment
f. Continued Council Discussion
g. Close Public Hearing
h. Adopt Resolution 2024-009
Kingsburg City Council Agenda
February 21, 2024
6.2 Stone Plaza – Forgivable Loan and Upper Floor Rehab Program Discussion - Staff Report prepared by City Manager Alexander Henderson
Sponsor: City Manager’s Office
Possible Action(s):
a. Presentation by City Manager Alexander Henderson
b. Public Comment
c. Council Discussion
d. Action as Deemed Necessary
6.3 Building Division Report – Calendar Year 2023– Staff Report by Building Official AJ O’Connell
Sponsor: Community Development Department
Possible Action(s):
a. Presentation by Building Official AJ O’Connell
b. Public Comment
c. Council Discussion
d. Informational, No Action Needed
6.4 Kingsburg Tri-County Health Care District Grant Cycle– Staff Report by Community Services Director Adam Castaneda
Sponsor: Community Services Department
Possible Action(s):
a. Presentation by Community Services Director Adam
b. Public Comment
c. Council Discussion
d. Action as Deemed Necessary
6.5 Crime Statistics Report for October – December 2023 and General Police Department Update- Crime Statistics Report prepared by Kingsburg Police Department Records Supervisor Corina Padilla.
Sponsor: Police Department
Possible Action(s):
a. Presentation by Police Chief Neil Dadian
b. Public Comment
c. Council Discussion
d. Informational- No Action Needed
7. Council Reports and Staff Communications
7.1 Community Services Commission
7.2 Public Safety Committee
7.3 Chamber of Commerce
7.4 Economic Development
7.5 Finance Committee
7.6 Planning Commission
7.7 South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (SKGSA)
7.8 Downtown Business Improvement District
7.9 Council of Governments
7.10 Council Member Reports
7.11 City Manager’s Report
8. Future Agenda Items: None.
Kingsburg City Council Agenda
February 21, 2024
These items will be added to a future agenda with a motion from Council and majority voice vote.
9. Adjourn Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Governing Body regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at City Hall, in the City Clerk’s office, during normal business hours. In addition, such writings and documents may be posted on the City’s website at www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (559) 897-6520. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35 .102.35.104 ADA Title II].
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted at the front entrance of City Hall not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 16th day of February 2024.
____________________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
CITY OF KINGSBURG
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Police Lieutenant Kevin Pendley has retired from the City after 33 years of loyal service; and
WHEREAS, Kevin was a member of the US Army Military Police from 1986-1987; the US Army Reserve Military Police from 1987-1990 and the California Army National Guard Military Police from 1990-1993. He attended the State Center Police Academy Class 36 and graduated in 1988. He was a police officer for King City from 1988 to 1989; and
WHEREAS, Kevin joined the Kingsburg Police Department as Reserve Officer in 1990. He became a full-time officer in 1991, promoted to Sergeant in 2005 and promoted to Lieutenant in 2022.
In 2006 Kevin earned his bachelor’s degree in management with honors from Ashworth College. In 2018 Kevin graduated from the POST Sherman Block Supervisory Leadership Institute; and WHEREAS, over the years, Kevin has successfully completed many assignments including patrol, detectives, DARE officer, Field Training Officer, Evidence Custodian, Crime Prevention Officer, Liaison for Neighborhood Watch, and Explorer Post Advisor. Through these assignments Kevin has provided leadership for numerous youth and officers early in their career; and WHEREAS, the impact on many lives and the positive influence on the Kingsburg community is Lieutenant Pendley’s favorite part of being a police officer. Kevin has received numerous awards over his career. He is known for being steadfast, reliable, loyal, approachable, always helpful with a wealth of knowledge, always ready to assist and an institution at the police department; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to commend Kevin Pendley for the professionalism and effort for which he has completed his duties for the past 33 years; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City Council of the City of Kingsburg hereby expresses heartfelt appreciation and gratitude for KEVIN PENDLEY’s selfless commitment, example, and high standard of excellence for the betterment of the Kingsburg Community.
********************
Signed this 21st day of February, 2024
_______________________________
Brandon Pursell, Jr., Mayor
City of Kingsburg
KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
February 7, 2024
1401 Draper Street, Kingsburg, CA 93631
Invocation was given by John Palms, Kingsburg Task Force, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Vince Palomar.
Call to Order and Roll Call: Mayor Pro Tem Palomar called the regular meeting of the Kingsburg City Council to order at 6:03 PM.
Council Members Present: David Silva, Laura North, Staci Smith, and Mayor Pro Tem Vince Palomar.
Council Member Absent: Mayor Brandon Pursell Jr as previously approved by council on 11/15/2023.
Approve Agenda: A motion was made by Council Member Laura North seconded by Council Member Smith, to approve the agenda, as published. The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote of those present.
Presentations:
Karly Guerrero – Stanford LEAP Internship Program Participant, Kingsburg Weekend of Wellness Special Event Presentation. She presented that it will focus in health equity- focus on chronic diseases with an educational component goal of whole-body wellness.
Public Comments: None.
Consent Calendar: A motion was made by Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Silva, to approve the items appearing on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by an unanimous voice vote of Council Members Silva, Smith and Mayor Pro Tem Palomar. Council Member North had to step out of the chamber for a personal matter.
5.1 Approval of City Council Minutes: Approve the minutes from the January 17, 2024 Regular Council Meeting as prepared by City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard.
Sponsor: City Clerk’s Office
5.2 Check Register: Ratify/approve payment of bills listed on the check register for the period January 9, 2024 through January 30, 2024 as prepared by Accounts Payable Clerk Marsha Alves.
Sponsor: Finance Department
5.3 Accept the Treasurer’s Report from October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 pursuant to Government Code 4001.- Staff Report by Finance Director Alma Colado Sponsor: Finance Department
5.4 Community Services Commission Appointment- Accept Mayor Pursell, Jr.’s appointment of Diana Weston Johnson to the Community Services Commission to a term that is set to expire November 2027.
Sponsor: City Clerk’s Office
5.5 Adopt Resolution 2024-001 declaring the Property is exempt surplus land. - Staff Report prepared by Daniel Galvez – Public Works Director Sponsor: City Attorney’s Office
Kingsburg City Council Minutes
February 7, 2024
5.6 Approve The 2024-2025 City of Kingsburg Budget Schedule Sponsor: Finance Department
5.7 Approve the Requested Closure of Church Street for the Kingsburg Extravaganza Event on March 16, 2024- Staff Report prepared by Community Services Director Adam Castaneda.
Sponsor: Community Services Department
5.8 Adopt Resolutions 2024-002; 2024-003; 2024-004; 2024-005; 2024-006; 2024-007 - Approving the Budget Amendments As Presented And Recommended By The Finance Committee- Staff Report Prepared by Finance Director Alma Colado.
Sponsor: Finance Department
5.9 Reject all bids received for the FY 23-24 Water Main Project and authorize the City Engineer to readvertise the project for bids.- Staff report by City Engineer Dave Peters Sponsor: City Engineer’s Department
5.10 Accept the Police Facility Tenant Improvements Project and authorize the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion. - Staff report by City Engineer Dave Peters Sponsor: City Engineer’s Department
5.11 Approve the Agreement for Common Use of Easements and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Kingsburg.- Staff report by City Engineer Dave Peters
Sponsor: City Engineer’s Department
5.12. Adopt the proposed Minimum Qualifications for Police Sergeant and Police Lieutenant. – Staff report by Police Chief Neil Dadian
Sponsor: Police Department
Regular Calendar
Fiber Optic Broadband Update - Staff Report prepared by City Manager Alexander Henderson Sponsor: City Manager’s Office
Reggie Gierke, President, Kingsburg Media Foundation gave updates on the fiber project. All the underground construction is complete throughout Kingsburg. Mr. Gierke gave an update on customers and discussed client transition; the number is consistently changing month to month. Working on setting up customers, in 6-7 weeks most of the town will be covered. Working with Fresno Housing Authority for Marion and Linnaea Villas for a partnership, they can provide internet for $10/month for those residents.
Also started working with the Kingsburg Elementary School District.
Mr. Gierke went on to discuss the current promotions, upgrades to public Wi-Fi and city cameras.
Financials- collecting $3,000 for the portion that goes back to the city loan. Under budget by $200k.
Council Member Silva asked how the promotions work for the pay back the loan. Mr. Gierke explained they will take a financial hit initially, but the long-term benefits will pay off for the city.
Mayor Pro Tem Palomar asked about discounts for residents. Mr. Gierke detailed the current plans and will look into streamlining billing and maybe lowering rates to stay competitive. He also reminded that the Kingsburg City Council Minutes
February 7, 2024
ACP is ending tonight, by they will keep the $30 discount through the year. Council Member North asked about advertising on social media. Mr. Gierke doesn’t have a big following but has relied on what the city, chamber and BID have shared.
Growth Management Allocation – Consideration of 2nd Round of Allocations- Staff Report by Community Development Director Holly Owen
Sponsor: Community Development Department
Community Development Director Holly Owen is seeking to reopen the second round for 2024 allocations under Kingsburg’s growth management. Action is to open the second round, not to evaluate the proposed project.
Director Holly Owen, clarified that we currently have 105 units because they have accumulated, and that units were not a Housing Authority project as it would be privately owned. Owens has reached out to surrounding cities with similar projects and has received positive feedback.
Council Member Silva inquired about the rush to open in February rather than September. Owens explained that tax funded projects can be complex; they have their own timetable they need to follow.
This supports low income and very low-income housing.
Council Member Smith asked if there is a need for low-income senior housing. Director Owens clarified it will 100% tax credit affordable housing. Council Member Palomar asked how many units the builder will want, and Director Owen said they could request up to 105. It is still in development.
City Manager Alexander Henderson clarifies that if council decides to open it tonight, you will see an application in the future, if they apply in this phase.
A motion was made by Council Member Silva, seconded by Council Member North, to approve the second round of allocation applications for 2024. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote of those members present.
Fresno Council of Governments Notice of Transportation Related Funding Awards - Report by City Engineer Dave Peters
Sponsor: City Engineer’s Office
On July 12, 2023 the Fresno County Council of Governments (Fresno COG) solicited grant applications for the 2023-24 Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), and Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program. Grant applications were due September 15, 2023, September 17, 2023, and October 6, 2023, respectively.
City Engineer Dave Peters reviewed the 4 grants that were awarded. Roundabout at 18th and Gilroy, 18th street improvements, crosswalk improvements.
Council Member North inquired about potentially acquiring land for the roundabout at 18th and Gilroy.
Mr. Peters doesn’t think it is necessary.
Council Member Silva commented these were improvements that enhance life in a positive way.
Major Revenue Fund Update - Staff Report by City Manager Alexander Henderson.
Sponsor: City Manager & Finance Department
Kingsburg City Council Minutes
February 7, 2024
City Manager Alexander Henderson reviewed taxes and predicted that there will be a minor reduction from last year (about 4.8%). Measure E has modest growth, it is estimated to be more than last year but not as high as previously predicted. Mr. Henderson also reviewed Bradley Burns Tax, property taxes, motor vehicle license fee, transient occupancy tax, and licensing & permit revenue sources. Discussed where these sales taxes go.
Council Reports and Staff Communications
Community Services Commission – Reviewed grant opportunities, received dog park update, should be completed this year. Also received current project updates.
Public Safety Committee - Have not met.
Chamber of Commerce – Will meet February 13, 2024. Blossom Trail kicks off will be February 9, 2024 at Bermans Flower shop.
Economic Development – Meet tomorrow February 8, 2024.
Finance Committee - Met and reviewed the budget schedule, forgivable loan, and the midyear budget amendments we passed tonight.
Planning Commission – Will meet tomorrow, February 8, 2024.
South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Joint Powers Authority (SKGSA) – Have not met.
Reached out to meet he has items he would like to discuss.
Downtown Business Improvement District - Met yesterday February 6, 2024, and discussed the website, social media influencers, review of BID documents and Brown Act.
Council of Governments - Approved the grants Engineer Dave Peters presented. One voice- Pursell will represent us in DC for our needs. Safe routes to school. Highway 99 update - still not finished.
Council Member Reports- Council Member Silva attended San Joaquin Valley air board met with Council Member North and Council Member Smith attended the taskforce meeting, next one will be 3/7, it is a great resource for our community. Discussed Narcan needs for the community.
City Manager’s Report – the Sierra Street project will begin soon. Caltrans has a project on state route 201 but outside of the jurisdiction. Anticipating a Spring start but will be getting more information.
Discussed the Golden State and Railroad improvements.
Future Agenda Items: None.
Adjourn the Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting into Closed Session: 7:33pm
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
California Government Code Section 54957.6
City Designated Representative: Alexander Henderson
Employee Organization: Public Service Employees Association (KPSEA) Employee Organization: Kingsburg Police Officer Association (KPOA) Employee Organization: Kingsburg Professional Firefighters Association (KPFA)
Kingsburg City Council Minutes
February 7, 2024
Employee Organization: Non-represented Employees
City Council Adjourned out of Close Session into Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting and report out of Closed Session at 8:14pm.
City Attorney Mike Noland said there was no report.
Adjourn Regular Kingsburg City Council Meeting. At 8:15 P. M. Mayor Pro Tem Palomar adjourned the meeting.
Submitted by:
____________________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
Accounts Payable
User:
Printed:
marshaa
2/14/2024 4:10 PM
Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
ACH 4789 US BANKCORP SERVICE CENTER 02/02/2024
Beasly 1-19-24 Street Signs & Hardware for Madsen,Erling,Harold,Sophia,Lingonbe 850.48 Castnda 1-19-24 3 J's Comm Service Vehicle gas 50.05
Colado 1-19-24 Staples-Finance Supplies 89.35
Colado 1-19-24 Staples-Finance Supplies 227.18
Colado 1-19-24 Staples-Finance Supplies 89.34
Colado 1-19-24 Staples-Finance Supplies 227.18
Galvez 1-19-24 Credit: Master Lock Padlocks 10/27/23 -185.68 Herndez 1-19-24 Firenuggets- Fire Inspector 1B Loyd 1/22-24 200.00 Herndez 1-19-24 Toll system svs toll road fee 12/19 Owens 6.79 Herndez 1-19-24 Jones & Bartlett emergency care digital pkg - Woodley 376.51 Herndez 1-19-24 Jacked up fitness-split pyt replace broken equipment 1,656.39 Herndez 1-19-24 Firenuggets- Fire Inspector 1A Loyd 1/9-11 200.00 Herndez 1-19-24 Toll system svs toll road fee 12/17 Owens 6.79 Herndez 1-19-24 Tollhouse Leather Works- Helmet Shields- Smith/Anthony 265.84 Owen 1-19-24 Amazon-Ergonomic Keyboard 40.31
Owen 1-19-24 Amazon-Tape Dispenser 19.00
Perkins 1-19-24 Bookeo Subscription- CPR 39.95
Perkins 1-19-24 Adobe Subscription 19.99
Ploszaj 1-19-24 Sirchie- white sketch cards 53.68
Ploszaj 1-19-24 Hilton garden inn (Guzman) 1,316.50
Ploszaj 1-19-24 Embassy Suits -hotel checkout (Arevalo) 571.92 Ploszaj 1-19-24 CAPE 2024 annual training reg (Zimmerman) 400.00 Ploszaj 1-19-24 Grainger -heat sealer 313.77
Ploszaj 1-19-24 Digital buyer-office chairs 1,688.85
Ploszaj 1-19-24 Hilton garden inn (Gagnon) 1,177.75
Ploszaj 1-19-24 Embassy suits - check out Arevalo 45.00 Ploszaj 1-19-24 Holiday Express check out (Gonzales) 303.92 Ploszaj 1-19-24 Social media strategies summit (Ruiz) 349.00 Ploszaj 1-19-24 Chocolate bar fundraiser (Explorers 720.00 Plsgrd 1-19-24 2 Adobe Licenses-Police Department 475.08 Plsgrd 1-19-24 IIMC Building Professional Confidence 60.00 Plsgrd 1-19-24 Refund-Ordinance 2023-002 Notice of Adoption 1/4/2024 -475.13 Plsgrd 1-19-24 Refund-Ordinance 2023-002 Notice of Adoption 12/27/23 -475.13 Stephens1-19-24 Brownells Inc- Steel punch set/ballpeen hammer 362.42 Stephens1-19-24 Brownells Inc- Roll Pin Punch set 23.53 Stephens1-19-24 FOP for legal defence plan 324.00
Windovr 1-19-24 Constant Contact Membership Charge 628.60 Windovr 1-19-24 Port of Subs-Health & Wellness Meeting 10.35 Windovr 1-19-24 Port of Subs-Health & Wellness Meeting 167.98 Windovr 1-19-24 Grocery Outlet-Health & Wellness Meeting 19.98 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4789: 12,241.54
85014 4954 1-800-BOARDUP OF THE CENTRAL SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 02/02/2024 6083 Board up vacant building at southend of Indianola Ave 652.75 Total for Check Number 85014: 652.75
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 1 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
85015 3005 AFLAC 02/02/2024
456403 Additional Ins Acct V6412 985.90
Total for Check Number 85015: 985.90
85016 4917 AFTERMATH HOLDING CORPORATION02/02/2024
JC2024-1104 Bio-Hazard Cleaning 400.00
Total for Check Number 85016: 400.00
85017 3006 AIRGAS NCN 02/02/2024
9145662482 Oxygen 1/3/24 204.86
9145662483 Oxygen 1/4/24 210.81
9145800895 Oxygen 1/10/24 441.28
9146004573 Oxygen 1/17/24 152.25
Total for Check Number 85017: 1,009.20
85018 3565 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 02/02/2024
19WM-G716-DY1V FABIC NOTEBOOK COVER RTF TEAM 149.94
1HRY-9T7W-16KK WATERPROOF NOTEBOOKS RTF TEAM 42.48
1LXQ-4YF1-7MCP DEPT SUPPLIES 194.57
1W73-X7KC-J7QW LAPTOP BACKPACK/MOUSE - BAVERY 69.89
Total for Check Number 85018: 456.88
85019 4545 AMAZON.COM SALES, INC. 02/02/2024
1TCF-6NLC-CJ17 Flash Drives 16GB, 64 GB 128 GB 106.76
Total for Check Number 85019: 106.76
85020 4628 JOSEFINO AREVALO 02/02/2024
01222024 Per Diem -Firearms Sighting Instructor Course 51.00 Total for Check Number 85020: 51.00
85021 4307 AT & T MOBILITY 02/02/2024
287290402185x01 ME MDT/Body Cam 624.08
287290402185x01 GF MDT/Body Cam 1,257.83
287290402185x01 ACT MDT/Body Cam 78.01
287290402185x01 SRO HS MDT/Body Cam 78.01
287290402185x01 SRO ELEM MDT/Body Cam 70.81
287299577602x01 GF Cell 599.46
287299577602x01 SRO HS Cell 45.07
287299577602x01 SRO ELEM Cell 45.07
287299577602x01 ACT Cell 45.07
287299577602x01 ME Cell 403.21
Total for Check Number 85021: 3,246.62
85022 4225 BILL'S AUTO OF KINGSBURG, INC. 02/02/2024
60435 oil change,repair leakw/engine oil (Tahoe) 1,451.60 Total for Check Number 85022: 1,451.60
85023 3879 BLUE 360 MEDIA, LLC 02/02/2024
2311210227 CA penal code handbooks 2024 163.54
Total for Check Number 85023: 163.54
85024 4875 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 02/02/2024
85228340 Medical Supplies 1/24/2024 82.81
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 85024: 82.81
85025 4821 BRADY INDUSTRIES 02/02/2024
8602501 Heavy Duty Liner/duster feather/cottonblossom/polish (Janitorial 156.42 Total for Check Number 85025: 156.42
85026 3054 BSK ASSOCIATES 02/02/2024
AH01494 Well Testing-BacT 1/16/24 171.00
AH01505 Well Testing-BacT 1/16/24 114.00
AH02024 Well testing BacT 1/22/24 114.00
AH02639 Well Testing-TCP Well #12 1/16/24 130.50
Total for Check Number 85026: 529.50
85027 4952 CAL-OSHA PENALTIES 02/02/2024
March 1, 2024 City of Kingsburg Citation/Resolution Inspection #1647073 1,370.00 Total for Check Number 85027: 1,370.00
85028 4429 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC 02/02/2024
31911737 Senior Center Printer 463.46
31914928 Canon Copier fire admin svs 12/01/23-12/31/23 99.77 31960703 PW Copier 10/1/23 to 12/31/23 91.05
Total for Check Number 85028: 654.28
85029 3069 CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT 02/02/2024
6608 Repair - Fix zipper/added velcro(Fer) 53.55
Total for Check Number 85029: 53.55
85030 3831 ADAM CASTANEDA 02/02/2024
Feb 2024 Monthly Cell Phone Reimb Feb 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 85030: 75.00
85031 4892 CENTRAL VALLEY ASPHALT 02/02/2024
Payment #3 Retention 22-23 Streets Project 6/19/23-9/6/23 21,661.80 Payment #3 Retention 22-23 Streets Project 6/19/23-9/6/23 8,754.76 Payment #3 Retention 22-23 Streets Project 6/19/23-9/6/23 23,036.20 Total for Check Number 85031: 53,452.76
85032 4531 CENTRAL VALLEY GUNS 02/02/2024
13975 KPD Engraving to Sig P320 45.00
Total for Check Number 85032: 45.00
85033 3101 CITY OF SANGER FIRE 02/02/2024
IGT67-Kingsburg Annual HMA contract between 5 fire agencies 3,558.10 Total for Check Number 85033: 3,558.10
85034 3822 ALMA COLADO 02/02/2024
Feb 2024 Monthly Cell Phone Reimb Feb 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 85034: 75.00
85035 4448 CORE & MAIN 02/02/2024
T898809 Hydrant Spool 978.56
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 3 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 85035: 978.56
85036 3147 DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT 02/02/2024
786 Quarterly ADA Fees 10/2023-12/2023 114.00
Total for Check Number 85036: 114.00
85037 3148 DON BERRY CONSTRUCTION INC 02/02/2024
01/24/2024 Refund-Water Meter Deposit: Meter Not Used 2,000.00 Payment #2 Madsen Ave Rehabilitation Dates: 11/30/23-1/8/24 512,574.26 Payment #2 Retention Madsen Ave Rehabilitation Dates: 11/30/23-1/8/24 -25,628.71 Total for Check Number 85037: 488,945.55
85038 4615 EMERALD TEXTILES SERVICES 02/02/2024
EFRE-00093920 SVS 9/1-9/9/23 433.56
EFRE-00100270 SVS 10/1-10/7/23 195.06
EFRE-00116422 SVS 12/10-12/16/23 253.78
EFRE-00122954 SVS 1/07-1/13 202.06
EFRE-00124581 SVS 1/14-1/20 214.63
Total for Check Number 85038: 1,299.09
85039 3158 ENER POWER 02/02/2024
73065 Electic Energy Charges for: 11/28/23-12/26/23 SID: 7547167697 299.00 73066 Electic Energy Charges for: 11/28/23-12/26/23 SID: 7543447336 89.00 73067 Electic Energy Charges for: 11/28/23-12/26/23 SID: 7543447613 213.00 Total for Check Number 85039: 601.00
85040 4072 FAHRNEY FORD SALES 02/02/2024
85228340 Service on Ford F250/U142 187.67
Total for Check Number 85040: 187.67
85041 3199 FMAAA 02/02/2024
2669 Site Supplies 8/23/23 362.88
2675 Non Qual Meals 8/23/23 159.60
Total for Check Number 85041: 522.48
85042 3184 FRESNO CITY COLLEGE-Business Office 02/02/2024 18008497 Registration Fee Police Academy -Meza 33.00
Total for Check Number 85042: 33.00
85043 3188 FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF 02/02/2024
SO21301 Prisoner Processing Services 2nd Qtr 33.55
SO21333 Crime Scene Assist(Lauren Craig 2hr x 56.72) Cs# 24-418 113.44 Total for Check Number 85043: 146.99
85044 3193 FRESNO FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/02/2024
plans examiner 1B 2/5-2/8 Kopas 225.00
Total for Check Number 85044: 225.00
85045 4926 GALLAGHER BENEFIT SERVICES, INC. 02/02/2024
2024027998 50% Compensation Study 3,368.75
2024027998 50% Compensation Study 3,368.75
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 4 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 85045: 6,737.50
85046 4916 GOLDEN ADA LAW CORPORATION 02/02/2024
1251 Cal OSHA representation 683.07
1298 Cal OSHA representation 97.50
1311 Cal OSHA representation 163.60
Total for Check Number 85046: 944.17
85047 4569 JORDAN GONG 02/02/2024
01072024 Per Diem - Terrorism Liaison Officer Basic Course 2/6-2/7 129.50 Total for Check Number 85047: 129.50
85048 3211 GRAINGER 02/02/2024
9962903341 Bags, Belt, Vacuum 33.89
9962903358 Bags, Vacuum Unit 463.64
Total for Check Number 85048: 497.53
85049 3994 GUARDIAN 02/02/2024
2/1-2/29/2024 Monthly Ins Premium 2/2024 VSP Vision 1,032.54 2/1-2/29/2024 Monthly Ins Premium 2/2024 Vol Life Ins. 1,422.33 2/1-2/29/2024 Monthly Ins Premium 2/2024 Vol Ins. Plans 3,088.16 2/1-2/29/2024 Monthly Ins Premium 2/2024 Ameritas Dental 3,398.94 2/1-2/29/2024 Monthly Ins Premium 2/2024 Life Employee 213.90 Total for Check Number 85049: 9,155.87
85050 3222 HENRY SCHEIN, INC. 02/02/2024
67564307 Medical Supplies 01/02/2024 71.49
6762218 Medical Supplies 01/02/2024 32.74
Total for Check Number 85050: 104.23
85051 3225 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 02/02/2024
01/21/2024 Blinds for Council Chambers 40.11
Total for Check Number 85051: 40.11
85052 3999 IRON MOUNTAIN 02/02/2024
JDDK128 Shred Services 12/26-1/23/24 101.85
Total for Check Number 85052: 101.85
85053 4196 J.P. COOKE CO. 02/02/2024
817248 Dog License City of Kingsburg Tags 2024-2025 300 Count 116.75 Total for Check Number 85053: 116.75
85054 3329 JOLENE POLYACK MARKETING 02/02/2024
3261 Econ Dev. Jan 2024 3,300.00
Total for Check Number 85054: 3,300.00
85055 3244 JORGENSEN & CO. 02/02/2024
6098536 Fire Ext Service 569.84
6103902 Fire Ext semi-annual maintenance stn 1 255.45
6103902 Fire Ext semi-annual maintenance stn 235.83
Total for Check Number 85055: 1,061.12
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 5 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
85056 3887 KINGS INDUSTRIAL OCC. MED CTR., INC. 02/02/2024 218625 Pre Employment Physical Dustin Lamborn 642.52
Total for Check Number 85056: 642.52
85057 3253 KINGSBURG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE02/02/2024
Feb 2024 Monthly Budget Allowance Feb 2024 2,500.00
Total for Check Number 85057: 2,500.00
85058 3254 KINGSBURG CHEVRON 02/02/2024
9263 DEC 2023 GF car washes 85.00
9263 DEC 2023 ME car washes 90.00
9263 DEC 2023 SRO HS car washes 5.00
Total for Check Number 85058: 180.00
85059 3625 KINGSBURG MEDIA FOUNDATION 02/02/2024
CWM10591 LCD Monitor/Optiplex Micro I5 1,832.49
Total for Check Number 85059: 1,832.49
85060 4567 KOALA TREE SERVICE 02/02/2024
657 Hazard Tree Removal ( 4) Memorial Park - 4,500.00
657 INV#658- Hazard Tree Removal ( 1) 18th Ave - 2,800.00 Total for Check Number 85060: 7,300.00
85061 4081 L.N. CURTIS & SONS 02/02/2024
781611 Replacement- Rubber Firefighting Boots/Lugo 237.36 Total for Check Number 85061: 237.36
85062 3269 LAW & ASSOCIATES INVESTIGATION 02/02/2024
23-014 Backround Investigation- Ralls 700.00
Total for Check Number 85062: 700.00
85063 3275 LIEBERT, CASSIDY, WHITMORE 02/02/2024
257663 Client Matter: KI010-00001 Re: General Professional Services 364.00 Total for Check Number 85063: 364.00
85064 3276 LIFE ASSIST INC 02/02/2024
1396487 medical supplies 1/12/24 636.00
1397609 medical supplies 1/16/24 223.95
1399145 medical supplies 1/22/24 195.00
1399146 medical supplies 1/22/24 78.90
Total for Check Number 85064: 1,133.85
85065 3277 LINCOLN AQUATICS 02/02/2024
Q2025932 Chlorine Well #10 1/16/24 664.20
Q2025933 Chlorine Well #16 1/16/24 442.28
Total for Check Number 85065: 1,106.48
85066 4121 JEFFREY T. LOYD 02/02/2024
011824 Reimbursenment - fire inspection & code enforcement book 117.60 Total for Check Number 85066: 117.60
85067 4329 MCI COMM SERVICES 02/02/2024
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 6 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Jan 2023 Acct 7DL61514 Fax Long Distance Only 559-897-5568 35.46 Total for Check Number 85067: 35.46
85068 3518 METRO UNIFORM 02/02/2024
270515 Auto lock baton w/pwr tip (recruit- Meza) 233.17 273135 Polo shirt-Yang 70.13
Total for Check Number 85068: 303.30
85069 3997 MID VALLEY DISPOSAL RECYCLING & TRANSFER STATION 02/02/2024 2855990 Refuse FIN Charge 13.76
2856103 Tire FIN Charge 18.77
75320000 INV 12/29/23- SB 1383 Grant Compost 40 tons 2,440.00 Total for Check Number 85069: 2,472.53
85070 4230 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES INC. 02/02/2024 1989795 Parkas/Embroider badges-Safety Jackets for P/t staff x5 1,488.62 Total for Check Number 85070: 1,488.62
85071 4147 MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, INC. 02/02/2024
12212023 Senior Center Trip/transit rental. Senior Inc. Reimb. 80.00 Total for Check Number 85071: 80.00
85072 4849 NAPA AUTO PARTS 02/02/2024
1185-869175 Oil/Cabin filter 1/27 57.82
Total for Check Number 85072: 57.82
85073 3307 NELSON'S ACE HARDWARE-SELMA 02/02/2024
1/25/2024 PW Hardware Supplies Jan 2024 191.15
1/25/2024 PW Hardware Supplies Jan 2024 54.40
1/25/2024 PW Hardware Supplies Jan 2024 23.40
1/25/2024 PW Hardware Supplies Jan 2024 59.87
1/25/2024 PW Hardware Supplies Jan 2024 274.23
145121 Combo cable lock 4dgt 19.51
Total for Check Number 85073: 622.56
85074 3312 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 02/02/2024
4445-448776 Blower motor PW 41.54
Total for Check Number 85074: 41.54
85075 3611 HOLLY OWEN 02/02/2024
Feb 2024 Monthly Cell Phone Reimb Feb 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 85075: 75.00
85076 3315 P G & E 02/02/2024
01/16/2024 Electricity 12/15/23-1/16/24 Account#7502184272-1 5,648.78 01/16/2024 Electricity 12/15/23-1/16/24 Account#7502184272-1 5,648.78 01/16/2024 #2 Electricity 12/15/23-1/16/24 Account#2493668675-7 56.72 Total for Check Number 85076: 11,354.28
85077 3450 ABIGAIL PALSGAARD 02/02/2024
Feb 2024 Monthly Cell Phone Reimb Feb 2024 75.00
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 7 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 85077: 75.00
85078 3321 PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP 02/02/2024
11179 Golden State Corridors Review 240.00
11180 TTM 6167 Const 8,447.90
11181 Tract 6421 Plancheck 3,520.00
11182 Tract 6421 Con Phase 5,008.66
11183 Tract 6151 Construction 2,000.56
11184 Tract 6141 Plancheck 2,220.00
11185 Stone Hotel Grading Plan 2,047.64
11186 Sierra/RJD Gas Station SPR 3,900.00
11187 PUD 2020-01 SOHAL Apts 3,600.00
11188 Khalsa Trucking Dispatch Center 2,040.00
11189 Sierra/Simpson Gas Station 1,665.00
11190 PD Station Remodel 402.50
11191 Sierra St RRFB's 9,373.30
11192 Draper/10th Crosswalk Imp. 503.71
11193 Senior Center Kitchen Remodel 8,009.88
11194 KMF Fiber Optic Phase 1 1,132.62
11195 KMF Fiber Optic Phase 2 3,785.00
11196 KMF Fiber Optic Phase 3 2,367.88
11197 SPR 22-07 Westar 908.68
11198 Athwal Park Restroom Improvement 6,935.17
11199 Parking Lot Construction 544.85
11200 Misc Engineering Services 7,386.52
11201 Encroachment Permit Review 9,936.64
11202 Matoian Parcel Map 170.00
11203 SPR 23-05 El Portillo 1,020.00
11204 Fed Funding Applications 13,028.42
11204 Fed Funding Applications 13,028.42
11205 LLA 23-01 & 23-02 165.00
11206 Memorial Park Restroom Replacement 4,042.50
11207 Smith Street Parking Lot 120.00
11208 Kings Estates Phase V TTM 1,200.00
11209 Kwik Korner 300.00
11210 Starbucks SPR 23-12 240.00
11211 18th Ave Sidewalks 13,035.00
11212 18th Ave Sidewalks Stroud/Klepper 9,273.00
11213 12th Ave Sidewalks Stroud/Ashlan 4,447.50
11214 Madsen Ave Rehab Kamm to Stroud 19,674.00
11215 Mehlert/Warkentin Alley Paving 3,900.00
11216 20th/21st Alley Sierra to Mariposa 3,900.00
11217 Monthly Retainer Sept, Oct, & Nov. 1,500.00
11218 Laurel Dog Park 27,125.00
11219 Urban Water Management Plan 32,500.00
11220 FY 22-23 Streets Proj con phase 39,120.90
11221 Phase 1 TOD Improvements 6,027.00
11222 FY 22-23 Streets Project 26,420.50
11223 Water Systerm Improvement 19,360.00
Total for Check Number 85078: 325,573.75
85079 3327 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SVC'S. LLC 02/02/2024 102471824 Purchase Power 38.04
Total for Check Number 85079: 38.04
85080 4313 POLLARDWATER 02/02/2024
0251854 Discharge-Pump 495.48
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 8 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
Total for Check Number 85080: 495.48
85081 3333 PRICE PAIGE&COMPANY, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT 02/02/2024 32386 Audit Work in Progress FY Ending June 30,2023 4,702.60 32386 Audit Work in Progress FY Ending June 30,2023 3,694.90 32386 Audit Work in Progress FY Ending June 30,2023 8,397.50 Total for Check Number 85081: 16,795.00
85082 3654 R. J. BERRY, JR.,INC 02/02/2024
EWO721 Street Restoration / Water Line Repair 14th and Sier 5,000.00 Total for Check Number 85082: 5,000.00
85083 4867 JOSE LUIS SALINAS 02/02/2024
01182024 January Contractor Hours 2,372.70
Total for Check Number 85083: 2,372.70
85084 3772 SIGN MAX 02/02/2024
0045737-IN Street Sign Brackets/Supplies 245.41
Total for Check Number 85084: 245.41
85085 3369 SILVAS OIL COMPANY, INC. 02/02/2024
189475CT Fuel - Measure E 660.24
189475CT Fuel - fire 660.24
189475CT Fuel - Ambulance 660.23
1894774CT SRO ELEM Fuels 106.37
1894774CT ME Fuels 1,178.96
1894774CT GF Fuels 1,589.50
1894774CT SRO HS Fuels 124.01
1894774CT ACT Fuels 229.31
Total for Check Number 85085: 5,208.86
85087 4142 SPARKLETTS 02/02/2024
19724793 Water delivery and rental stn 1 53.98
19724793 rental stn 2 27.47
Total for Check Number 85087: 81.45
85088 3380 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-D O J 02/02/2024
710517 Blood Alcohol Analysis (DEC/23) 70.00
Total for Check Number 85088: 70.00
85089 3381 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-D O T 02/02/2024
SL240414 Signals & Lighting Oct. 2023-Dec. 2023 3,501.83 Total for Check Number 85089: 3,501.83
85090 4028 SUPERIOR POOL CARE 02/02/2024
4905 Owner-Eddie C. Reed Pool Services Dec Invoice 4905 2,600.00 4908 Owner-Eddie C. Reed Pool Cover Protection Invoice 4905 544.88 4910 Owner-Eddie C. Reed Pool Services Jan Invoice 4910 2,600.00 Total for Check Number 85090: 5,744.88
85091 3746 SWANSON-FAHRNEY FORD 02/02/2024
239894 Transmission replacement on PD #1631 invoice #239894 7,253.77 AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 9 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
240371 Module replacement on PW #612 Invoice #240371 1,842.93 240405 Leaking filter repair on PD #2216 invoice #240405 281.71 Total for Check Number 85091: 9,378.41
85092 3389 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SWRCB - DWOCP 02/02/2024 LW-1043049 Water system annual fees 7/1/23 to 6/30/2024 28,360.27 Total for Check Number 85092: 28,360.27
85093 4334 TELSTAR 02/02/2024
119695 Kepware Renewal 806.00
Total for Check Number 85093: 806.00
85094 4953 THE GLASS SHOP 02/02/2024
I-23-1977 PW Yard Bathroom Window 583.00
Total for Check Number 85094: 583.00
85095 3416 VERIZONWIRELESS 02/02/2024
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 25.28
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 29.80
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 20.42
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 78.37
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 20.78
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 86.48
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 95.30
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 104.65
9954300641 Cellular Svc. 12/16/-01/15/2024 52.14
9954300642 Wireless Bill for fire/ambulance 12/16-1/15 1,072.21 Total for Check Number 85095: 1,585.43
85096 3419 VIKING CLEANING SERVICE 02/02/2024
Feb 2024 Janitorial Services Feb 2024 3,641.40
Total for Check Number 85096: 3,641.40
85097 3493 VILLAGE TIRE SALES INC 02/02/2024
19426 4 tires on PD #1736. 820.44
Total for Check Number 85097: 820.44
85098 3448 CHRISTINA WINDOVER 02/02/2024
Feb 2024 Monthly Cell Phone Reimb Feb 2024 75.00
Total for Check Number 85098: 75.00
85099 3430 BETTY WONG, 02/02/2024
Feb 2024 Wong Building Leases Feb 2024 2,600.00
Total for Check Number 85099: 2,600.00
Total for 2/2/2024: 1,041,757.94
ACH 3231 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP - WIRE 457 02/09/2024
PR Batch 00001.02.2024 457 Mission Square PR Batch 00001.02.2024 457 Mission Square 1,178.85 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3231: 1,178.85
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 10 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
ACH 3470 Internal Revenue Service - ACH 02/09/2024
PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Federal Income Tax PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Federal Income Tax 34,579.61 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Medicare Employer Portion PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Medicare Employer Portion 5,224.76 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Medicare Employee Portion PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Medicare Employee Portion 5,224.76 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 FICA Employer Portion PR Batch 00001.02.2024 FICA Employer Portion 22,340.27 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 FICA Employee Portion PR Batch 00001.02.2024 FICA Employee Portion 22,340.27 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3470: 89,709.67
ACH 3471 Employment Development Department - ACH02/09/2024 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 CA SDI PR Batch 00001.02.2024 CA SDI 3,604.65 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 State Income Tax PR Batch 00001.02.2024 State Income Tax 14,081.68 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3471: 17,686.33
ACH 3472 CalPERS - ACH 02/09/2024
PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire- Classic Ex. PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire- Classic Ex. 360.00 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRAPR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA 5,819.89 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRPR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPR A ER A ER 8,240.03 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA ER PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA ER 4,419.68 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. Classic PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. Classic 2,738.96 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. Classic Exempt PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. Classic Exempt 70.00 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. PEPRA 4,459.98 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police 1,702.67 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire ER PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire ER 3,704.69 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police ER PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police ER 5,074.26 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police Exempt PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police Exempt 270.00 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRAPR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Police PEPRA 8,788.25 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 ZZZ PR Batch 00001.02.2024 ZZZ 20.64 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA ER PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire PEPRA ER 6,145.02 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire -ClassicPR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Safety Fire -Classic 1,168.30 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. Classic ER PR Batch 00001.02.2024 PERS Misc. Classic ER 4,814.93 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3472: 57,797.30
ACH 3475 Empower 02/09/2024
PR Batch 00001.02.2024 457 Plan-Empower PR Batch 00001.02.2024 457 Plan-Empower 3,463.07 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 457 Percent-Empower PR Batch 00001.02.2024 457 Percent-Empower 64.37 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3475: 3,527.44
ACH 3476 CHILD SUPPORT STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - ACH 02/09/2024 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Child Support PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Child Support 240.46 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3476: 240.46
ACH 3526 Public Employees Retirement System 457 Plan-Deferred Comp - ACH 02/09/2024 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 CalPERS 457 Plan PR Batch 00001.02.2024 CalPERS 457 Plan 50.00 PR Batch 00001.02.2024 CalPERS 457 Percent PR Batch 00001.02.2024 CalPERS 457 Percent 327.55 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3526: 377.55
ACH 4707 ICMA-WIRE 401(A) 02/09/2024
PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Def Comp 401(a) ICMAPR Batch 00001.02.2024 Def Comp 401(a) ICMA 250.00 Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4707: 250.00
85100 3660 KPFA 02/09/2024
PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Professional Firefighters Asc. PR Batch 00001.02.2024 Professional Firefighters Asc. 680.00 Total for Check Number 85100: 680.00
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 11 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Check Amount
Invoice No Description Reference
85101 3525 Kingsburg Police KPOA 02/09/2024
PR Batch 00001.02.2024 KPOA Union Dues PR Batch 00001.02.2024 KPOA Union Dues 1,160.00 Total for Check Number 85101: 1,160.00
Total for 2/9/2024: 172,607.60
Report Total (96 checks): 1,214,365.54
AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/14/2024 4:10 PM) Page 12
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell, Jr. & City Council
REPORT FROM: Neil G. Dadian, Chief of Police REVIEWED BY: MN AGENDA ITEM: Introduction of an ordinance to approve the Kingsburg Police Department Military Equipment Use Policy 708
ACTION REQUESTED: __√_Ordinance ___Resolution ____Motion ____Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assembly Bill 481 (Exhibit A), codified at Government Code sections 7070 through 7075 requires all law enforcement agencies (LEA) in the State of California to obtain approval from the applicable governing body, for the adoption of a “Military Equipment” use policy by ordinance (Exhibit B), prior to the LEA funding, acquiring, or using military equipment. The purpose of this item is for the Kingsburg Police Department is for the City Council adoption of the Military Equipment Use Policy – Kingsburg Police Department/Lexipol Policy 708 (Exhibit C), in order to allow the Kingsburg Police Department, or assisting allied LEA, to use the military equipment if necessary for emergency police operations.
Although extremely rare, the use of military equipment may be necessary to protect the safety and welfare of residents and peace officers within the City of Kingsburg. The term “military equipment”, as used in AB 481, does not necessarily mean the equipment has been used by the military. Pursuant to AB 481, items deemed to be “military equipment” include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial or ground vehicles, armored vehicles, command and control vehicles, long range acoustic devices, and diversionary devices.
The Kingsburg Police Department is committed to using the most up to date tools and equipment to safeguard the residents of Kingsburg. Many local, state and federal LEA’s could be called upon by the Kingsburg Police Department to assist and provide resources during critical incidents. Assisting LEA’s may deploy these items, which are deemed to be “military equipment” by AB 481, in order to help resolve an emergency and protect the public and peace officers. These items provide peace officers in rare and extreme circumstances with the ability to safely resolve volatile situations which otherwise might rise to the level of a lethal force encounter.
There is significant interest in ensuring that law enforcement continues to have access to equipment that will provide peace officers as many options as possible to safeguard lives, ensure safety, and protect civil liberties. The proposed ordinance seeks to approve the KPD/Lexipol Policy 708, which constitutes Kingsburg Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy.
The proposed KPD/Lexipol Policy 708 safeguards the public’s welfare, safety and civil rights, and civil liberties.
KPD/Lexipol Policy 708 ensures that there are safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place. An example, KPD/Lexipol Policy 708.3 requires that Kingsburg Police Department Equipment Coordinator will ensure that the Kingsburg Police Department complies with KPD/Lexipol Policy 708 and will conduct an annual audit of military equipment. Members of the public are provided guidance and a process per the policy on how to register complaints for violations. All items which result in a use of force will be investigated, as is already required by existing Kingsburg Police Department policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL
Meeting Date: 02/16/2024
Agenda Item: 5.3
1. Staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading of Ordinance 2024-01 attached to this staff report and pass the ordinance to a second reading.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Council could choose not to approve the ordinance. This action is not recommended by staff because there are no reasonable alternatives to the items listed above.
STRATEGIC GOAL(S) MET:
1. Improve Public Safety
2. Improve Community Communication
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
For transparency purposes, AB 481requires that the proposed policy (to be submitted to the governing body for approval), be made available “on the law enforcement agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any City Council meeting concerning the military equipment at issue.” § 7071(b). Moreover, the governing body (City Council) is required to consider the proposed policy, “as an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting and allow for public comment in accordance with” the Brown Act. § 7071(c).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On September 30, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a series of eight (8) pieces of policing reform legislation aimed at increasing transparency around policing. AB 481 was one of those pieces of legislation. AB 481, which became effective on January 1, 2022, was created to address transparency issues in the funding, acquisition, and use of law enforcement equipment that lawmakers have deemed to be “military equipment.” AB 481, codified at California Government Code Section(s) 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to “commence a governing body approval process,” for the adoption of a military equipment use policy by ordinance, at a regular meeting of the Kingsburg City Council in order to continue the use of previously acquired “military equipment.” The bill also requires such approval (of the policy by ordinance), by the governing body in a public forum, before a law enforcement agency may fund, acquire, or use new “military equipment.” Moreover, the bill requires further public review and approval actions by the governing body, annually, to continue the use of “military equipment,” and requires the City to host annual community meetings regarding the continued use of “military equipment” by the Kingsburg Police Department.
These requirements are more specifically outlined below. The term “military equipment,” as used in the legislation, does not necessarily indicate equipment used by the military. Items deemed to be “military equipment,” include, but are not limited to equipment such as unmanned vehicles, command and control vehicles, armored vehicles, pepper balls, and long-range acoustic devices.
These types of equipment, as well as others considered “military equipment” under AB 481, are commonly used and employed by law enforcement agencies across the country to enhance resident and officer safety.
AB 481 “Military Equipment”: The following law enforcement equipment is now deemed to be “military equipment” for purposes of adhering to AB 481 under §7070(c):
1. Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles.
2. Mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles or armored personnel carriers.
3. Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? No
2. Is it Currently Budgeted? No
3. If Budgeted, Which Line? N/A
4. Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
5. Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.
6. Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.
7. Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature.
8. Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. Standard issue shotguns excluded.
9. Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. Standard issue shotgun ammunition is excluded.
10. Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.
11. Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.
12. “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls.”
13. Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).
14. The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
15. Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
16. Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.
ATTACHED INFORMATION
1. Assembly Bill 481
2. Proposed Ordinance
3. Kingsburg Police Department/Lexipol Policy 708
Assembly Bill No. 481
An act to add Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to military equipment.
AB 481, Chiu. Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use.
Existing law designates the Department of General Services as the agency for the State of California responsible for distribution of federal surplus personal property, excepting food commodities, and requires the department to, among other things, do all things necessary to the execution of its powers and duties as the state agency for the distribution of federal personal surplus property, excepting food commodities, in accordance with specified federal law. Existing law, the Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law of 1945, authorizes a local agency, as defined, to acquire surplus federal property without regard to any law which requires posting of notices or advertising for bids, inviting or receiving bids, or delivery of purchases before payment, or which prevents the local agency from bidding on federal surplus property. Existing federal law authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer surplus personal property, including arms and ammunition, to federal or state agencies for use in law enforcement activities, subject to specified conditions, at no cost to the acquiring agency.
This bill would require a law enforcement agency, defined to include specified entities, to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by adoption of a military equipment use policy, as specified, by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to specified open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, as defined. The bill would also require similar approval for the continued use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022. The bill would allow the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards. The bill would require the governing body to annually review the ordinance and to either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type, as defined, of military equipment or amend the military equipment use policy if it determines, based on an annual military equipment report prepared by the law enforcement agency, as provided, that the military equipment does not comply with the above-described standards for approval.
The bill would specify these provisions do not preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.
This bill would also require a state agency, as defined, to create a military equipment use policy before engaging in certain activities, publish the policy on the agency’s internet website, and provide a copy of the policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee, as specified. The bill would also require a state agency that seeks to continue use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to create a military equipment use policy.
This bill would also include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and inurement of significant financial costs. Military equipment is more frequently deployed in low-income Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities. (b) The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment.
(c) Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input.
(d) Legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.
(e) The lack of a public forum to discuss the acquisition of military equipment jeopardizes the relationship police have with the community, which can be undermined when law enforcement is seen as an occupying force rather than a public safety service.
SEC. 2.
Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:
CHAPTER 12.8. Funding, Acquisition, and Use of Military Equipment 7070.
For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Governing body” means the elected body that oversees a law enforcement agency or, if there is no elected body that directly oversees the law enforcement agency, the appointed body that oversees a law enforcement agency. In the case of a law enforcement agency of a county, including a sheriff’s department or a district attorney’s office, “governing body” means the board of supervisors of the county. (b) “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
(1) A police department, including the police department of a transit agency, school district, or any campus of the University of California, the California State University, or California Community Colleges. (2) A sheriff’s department.
(3) A district attorney’s office.
(4) A county probation department.
(c) “Military equipment” means the following:
(1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2) Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached.
However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
(5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.
(6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(8) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(9) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.
(11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. (12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). (14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons. (15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
(16) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency. (d) “Military equipment use policy” means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment. (2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment. (4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use. (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.
(6) The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy. (7) For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.
(e) “State agency” means the law enforcement division of every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV (except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution. (f) “Type” means each item that shares the same manufacturer model number. 7071.
(a) (1) A law enforcement agency shall obtain approval of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a regular meeting of the governing body held pursuant to the BagleyKeene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable, prior to engaging in any of the following:
(A) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(B) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (C) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing. (D) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body. (E) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter. (F) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (G) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this paragraph. (2) No later than May 1, 2022, a law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall commence a governing body approval process in accordance with this section. If the governing body does not approve the continuing use of military equipment, including by adoption pursuant to this subdivision of a military equipment use policy submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), within 180 days of submission of the proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body, the law enforcement agency shall cease its use of the military equipment until it receives the approval of the governing body in accordance with this section. (b) In seeking the approval of the governing body pursuant to subdivision (a), a law enforcement agency shall submit a proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body and make those documents available on the law enforcement agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue.
(c) The governing body shall consider a proposed military equipment use policy as an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting and provide for public comment in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(d) (1) The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance. (2) In order to facilitate public participation, any proposed or final military equipment use policy shall be made publicly available on the internet website of the relevant law enforcement agency for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
(e) (1) The governing body shall review any ordinance that it has adopted pursuant to this section approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and, subject to paragraph (2), vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(2) The governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d). If the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d), the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance. (f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, if a city contracts with another entity for law enforcement services, the city shall have the authority to adopt a military equipment use policy based on local community needs.
7072.
(a) A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report required by this section publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment. (3) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.
(4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
(b) Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report pursuant to this section, the law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
7073.
(a) A state agency shall create a military equipment use policy prior to engaging in any of the following:
(1) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(2) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (3) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing. (4) Collaborating with a law enforcement agency or another state agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body. (5) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter. (6) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, or to apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (7) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this subdivision. (b) No later than May 1, 2022, a state agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall create a military equipment use policy. (c) A state agency that is required to create a military equipment use policy pursuant to this section shall do both of the following within 180 days of completing the policy:
(1) Publish the military equipment use policy on the agency’s internet website. (2) Provide a copy of the military equipment use policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee. 7074.
The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring adequate oversight of the acquisition and use of military equipment is a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities and shall supersede any inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city, county, or city and county. 7075.
Nothing in this chapter shall preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.
SEC. 3.
The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:
Requiring local agencies to hold public meetings prior to the acquisition of military equipment further exposes that activity to public scrutiny and enhances public access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.
SEC. 4.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
2024-02-03
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG
APPROVING AND ADOPTING
KINGSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY 708 The City Council of the City of Kingsburg does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Purpose:
A. On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 regarding the funding, acquisition and use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies.
B. Assembly Bill 481, codified in California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval by the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a regular meeting of the governing body prior to the law enforcement agency taking specific actions identified in California Government Code Section 7071 relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The term "military equipment" is defined in California Government Code section 7070.
C. Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if adopts, by ordinance, a military equipment use policy in accordance with provisions of California Government Code Sections 7070 through 7075.
D. Kingsburg Police Department Policy 708 establishes a Military Equipment Use Policy for the Kingsburg Police Department. Policy 708 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part of this ordinance.
E. Kingsburg Police Department Policy No. 708 was published on the City of Kingsburg’s Police Department internet website on January 8, 2024.
SECTION 2. Findings: Based upon the statements set forth above and the staff report and testimony presented to the City Council at its regular meeting held on February 21, 2024, the Kingsburg City Council makes the following findings in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 7071(2)(d)(1):
1. The military equipment identified in Kingsburg Police Department Policy 708 is necessary, because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.
2. Kingsburg Police Department Policy No. 708 will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
3. If purchasing the military equipment identified in Kingsburg Police Department Policy No. 708, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
4. Prior military equipment use complied with Kingsburg Police Department Policy 708 or if prior uses did not comply with Kingsburg Police Department Policy 708, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
NOW THEREFORE, Kingsburg Police Department Policy 708 regarding the use of Military Equipment by the Kingsburg Policy Department is hereby approved and adopted by the Kingsburg City Council.
SECTION 3. Validity: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, word, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the remainder of this ordinance. The Kingsburg City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, word or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, word, or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. Enactment: This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and shall be published in the Kingsburg Recorder within fifteen (15) days after its passage.
Passed and adopted by a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kingsburg, duly called and held on the ____ day of _________, 2024, by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Member(s):
Noes: Council Member(s):
Absent: Council Member(s):
Abstain: Council Member(s):
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Brandon Pursell, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST: _____________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss
CITY OF KINGSBURG )
I, Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2024-0__ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kingsburg on the _____ day of ________, 2024, and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the _____ day of _______, 2024.
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
Dated: _______, 2024
____________________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
Policy
706
Kingsburg Police Department
Kingsburg Police Department Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/12/29, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Kingsburg Police Department Military Equipment - 1
Military Equipment
706.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
State
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
706.1.1 DEFINITIONS
State
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.
Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
Kingsburg Police Department
Kingsburg Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/12/29, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Kingsburg Police Department Military Equipment - 2
706.2 POLICY
State
It is the policy of the Kingsburg Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 706.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
Best Practice
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Kingsburg Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
706.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
State MODIFIED
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:
None.
706.5 APPROVAL
State
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior Kingsburg Police Department
Kingsburg Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/12/29, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Kingsburg Police Department Military Equipment - 3
to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 706.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
State
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 706.7 ANNUAL REPORT
State
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 706.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
State
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
Kingsburg Police Department
Kingsburg Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/12/29, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Kingsburg Police Department Military Equipment - 4
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell Jr. & City Council
REPORT FROM: David Peters, City Engineer REVIEWED BY: CW AGENDA ITEM: Final Tract Map 6421
ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ___Resolution ____Motion ____Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant, West Star Construction, a California Corporation, is proposing to develop a 56-lot residential subdivision on the east side of 18th Avenue, north of Kamm Avenue. Prior to beginning the construction of the project, the City Council must approve the final subdivision map and authorize the City Manager to enter into the subdivision agreement.
A tentative subdivision map was approved by the City of Kingsburg for this project in 2017. The applicant has complied with the conditions of approval of the tentative tract map and has paid development fees in accordance with City fee resolutions.
The subdivision is zoned residential and complies with the North Kingsburg Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL
1. Adopt resolution No. 2024-008 approving the final map for Tract 6421 accepting on behalf of the public the streets and easements as offered on the map in accordance with the terms of the dedications.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Council could choose to deny approval of the final map if findings could be made that the map is not in substantial conformance with the tentative map or the conditions of approval of the tentative map.
STRATEGIC GOAL(S) MET:
1. Preserve the Kingsburg Experience
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Meeting Date: 02/21/2024
Agenda Item: 5.4
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? No
2. Is it Currently Budgeted? N/A
3. If Budgeted, Which Line? N/A
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
Tentative Tract Map 6421 was previously approved by the City Council.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, West Star Construction, a California Corporation, is proposing to develop a 56-lot residential subdivision the east side of 18th Avenue, north of Kamm Avenue. Prior to beginning the construction of the project, the City Council must approve the final subdivision map and authorize the City Manager to enter into the subdivision agreement.
A tentative subdivision map was approved by the City of Kingsburg for this project in 2017. The applicant has complied with the conditions of approval of the approved tentative map. A subdivision agreement has been prepared for the development because the off-site improvements have not yet been constructed. The subdivision agreement requires that the applicant post bonds or instruments of security with the City in order to guarantee the construction of the improvements, which they have done. The subdivision agreement also sets forth the development fees that the applicant must pay the City prior to the delivery of the final map to the County Recorder.
The applicant has submitted the public improvement plans and the final map to the City, which have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The Council must accept the final map unless they can site deficiencies in the final documents.
The applicant has paid development fees as described above and in accordance with City fee resolutions. These fees will provide for review costs by the City and other capital improvement requirements.
ATTACHED INFORMATION
1. Resolution No. 2024-008
2. Final Map 6421
3. Subdivision Agreement
Recording Requested by: )
)
City of Kingsburg )
)
and When Recorded, Mail to: )
)
City of Kingsburg )
1401 Draper Street )
Kingsburg, CA 93631 )
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG
APPROVING TRACT 6421
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 6421, has been approved and executed by the developer, West Star Construction., a California Corporation and WHEREAS, all required City fees have been paid and bonds furnished to guarantee the construction and warranty of the required subdivision improvements; and WHEREAS, the presence of the City Engineer’s and Planning Commission Secretary’s signatures on the final tract map indicates that the final map substantially conforms to the tentative tract map previously approved by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the City Council of the City of Kingsburg hereby approves the Final Map for Tract 6421, subject to final approval by the City Engineer, with any and all conditions which were imposed at the time of approval of the tentative map and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the City Council of the City of Kingsburg hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Agreement for Tract 6421, on behalf of the City, subject to review as to form by the City Attorney, and review as to content by the City Engineer. ******
I, Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Kingsburg City Council held on the 21st day of February, 2024, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers:
Noes: Councilmembers:
Absent: Councilmembers:
Abstain: Councilmembers:
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
City of Kingsburg
TRACT NO.6421
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell, Jr. & City Council
REPORT FROM: Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: CW AGENDA ITEM: Finance Committee Ordinance
ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ___Resolution _ Motion ___Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 6, 2023 City Council waived the first reading and introduced Ordinance 2023-002. On December 20, 2023 City Council waived the second reading and adopted the ordinance, but the Kingsburg Recorder had an error and did not publish the notice within the 15 day time period. Council again waived the second reading and adopted the ordinance on 1/17/2024 and again the Kingsburg Recorder failed to publish the notice as requested. Staff will publish the notice of adoption now in the Business Journal.
RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL
1. Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-002, An Ordinance Of The City Of Kingsburg Adding Chapter 52 Of Title 2 Of The Kingsburg Municipal Code (Finance Committee) with the following recital constituting reading the title of the Ordinance:
“An Ordinance Of The City Of Kingsburg Adding Chapter 52 Of Title 2 Of The Kingsburg Municipal Code (Finance Committee).”
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Council could choose to not waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-002.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/KEY METRIC
1. Financial Stability
2. Community Communication
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ATTACHED INFORMATION
1. Ordinance 2023-002
Meeting Date: 02/21/2024
Agenda Item: 5.5
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? No
2. Is it Currently Budgeted? No
3. If Budgeted, Which Line? No
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ORDINANCE NO. 2023-002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG
ADDING CHAPTER 52 OF
TITLE 2 OF THE KINGSBURG MUNICIPAL CODE
(FINANCE COMMITTEE)
The City Council of the City of Kingsburg does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 2.52 (Finance Committee) is hereby added to Title 2 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code to read as follows:
2.52.010 Committee established.
On April 19, 2006 the Kingsburg Finance Committee (“Committee”) was established by Resolution 2006-31 adopted by the Kingsburg City Council.
2.52.020 Composition—Appointment.
The committee shall consist of two City Council members selected by the Mayor and approved by the City Council, the City Manager, the Finance Director and the Assistant City Manager or Director of Administrative Services.
2.52.030 Terms.
The members of the Finance Committee shall serve at the will of the City Council and may be removed and replaced at any time by a majority vote of the City Council.
2.52.040 Compensation.
The members of the committee shall not receive compensation for their services.
2.52.050 Chairperson.
The Chairperson shall be one of the Council members of the Finance Committee.
2.52.060 Records.
The committee shall keep a proper record of its proceedings. The City Clerk shall retain all records of the proceedings of the committee.
2.52.070 Meetings—Quorum.
A. The committee shall meet on such date and at such time and place as it may be fixed by the committee. Notice of such meetings shall be posted as required by law. The committee shall meet at least quarterly.
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 B. Special meetings of the committee may be called at any time by the chairperson or by three members of the committee by written notice served upon each member of the committee at least seventy-two (72) hours before the time specified in the notice for the special meeting . The notice shall be posted as required by law.
C. Three (3) members of the committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, (except in such cases, if any, where applicable law requires a two-thirds (⅔) majority vote). A number of members of the committee less than a quorum may adjourn a meeting from time to time to a certain date and time.
D. All decisions of the committee shall be by a majority vote of the members present.
2.52.080 Powers and duties.
A. The committee shall have the following powers and duties:
1. To provide analysis, input and when necessary, recommendations to the City Council on budget policy, financial statements, long-term debt, investment policy, overall financial policies, and general purpose budget review and/or adjustments.
2. Any other powers, duties and responsibilities that may be assigned to the committee by the City Council from time to time.
B. Should a matter within the jurisdiction of the finance committee require a recommendation to the City Council and action by the City Council, and it is determined by the City Manager that there is insufficient time in which to call a meeting of the finance committee, or should the City Manager be unable to convene a majority of finance committee members within the time period required, the City Manager or the City Finance Director may make such recommendation to the City Council without the vote of a majority of the members of the finance committee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kingsburg duly called and held on the 17th day of January, 2024, by the following vote:
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 AYES: Council Member David Silva
Vince Palomar
Laura North
Staci Smith
Brandon Pursell, Jr.
NOES: Council Member None
ABSTAIN: Council Member None
ABSENT: Council Member None
APPROVED
___________________________
Mayor Brandon Pursell, Jr.
ATTEST: _________________________
City Clerk Abigail Palsgaard
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO )ss
CITY OF KINGSBURG )
I, ABIGAIL PALSGAARD, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify the foregoing ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kingsburg on the 6th day of December, 2023, and it was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of January, 2024.
Dated: January 18, 2024 _________________________________ Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell, Jr. & City Council
REPORT FROM: Holly Owen, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: CW AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Annexation 2024-01, (Matoian Annexation), Pre-Zone 2024-01, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Matoian Annexation ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ___Resolution ____Motion ____Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This reorganization is a City-sponsored annexation of 13.18 acres of property into the City of Kingsburg. The property is contiguous to the City limits, north of the Kingsburg Business Park (Avenue B and Ventura Court) and southwest of Highway 99. The reorganization will require several actions to annex the property into the City of Kingsburg:
1. Annexation into the City of Kingsburg of 13.18 acres of property and known as the Matoian Reorganization;
2. Pre-Zone the property from Fresno County’s AE-20 zone district to Kingsburg’s highway commercial (CH) zone district, and
3. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the reorganization, and acceptance of the Mitigated Monitoring Program.
The 13.18 acre annexation site is contiguous to the City limits, north of the Kingsburg Business Park (Avenue 13 and Ventura Court) and Southwest of Highway 99. There are several Kingsburg Business Park lots and a ponding basin to the south of the property.
The Kingsburg General Plan designation for the property is Highway Commercial, and the subject property is in the Kingsburg Sphere of Influence (SOI). This reorganization is consistent with the Kingsburg General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the Kingsburg Municipal Code. It is also consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Fresno and the City of Kingsburg. The Memorandum of Understanding addresses the annexation of property out of the County of Fresno and into the City of Kingsburg and real property tax sharing issues related to the annexation of property into the City of Kingsburg. Staff performed an Initial Environmental Study (Attachment A) and determined a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a Mitigation Monitoring Program as Attachment B for reference which addresses the mitigations required to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 2021, the property owner and the City began discussions about the potential annexation of the property into the City and prezoning the property to Highway Commercial. A potential ‘project’ was needed as part of the annexation application with Fresno LAFCo as the County, as part of the Memorandum of Understanding with Kingsburg, requires a potential use/project to be represented as 25% of the property under consideration. The City and the property owner agreed that there were mutual benefits in working together to facilitate the annexation. At the Council meeting of August 8, 2022, a staff report addressing an Agreement to Develop Vacant Land was presented to Council for their review, and the following benefits for the landowner and the City were identified:
Property Owner Benefits:
Meeting Date: 02/21/2024
Agenda Item: 6.1
1. Extension of road right-of-way, sewer, water, and ancillary utilities from Avenue B. The costs for this infrastructure would be borne by the City.
2. Annexation of the property into the City and prezoning the property to highway commercial. The annexation process would be initiated by the City.
3. Tax benefit of donation of a three (3) acre portion of the property to the City.
City Benefits:
1. Landowner donates three (3) acres of the property to the City for future use, including the potential construction of a new City Hall/Council Chamber facility.
2. Ten (10) acres of commercial property with highway frontage available for development, with the potential property tax/sales tax benefits for the City. The ten (10) acres will remain owned by the landowner.
3. Use of a Restrictive Covenant to control future use and development of the remaining ten (10) acres.
After approval and execution of the Agreement to Develop Vacant Land and related documents, Staff was directed to initiate the annexation process. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment A) was prepared and was circulated and released for the required public comment period. The review period (From November 15 to December 14, 2023) is now completed, and the City has received one comment letter on the project, from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Attachment C). This comment letter would not necessitate revisions to the Initial Study, and the Initial Study addresses areawide analysis of air quality issues. Any future project proposed for the property will be subject to further environmental assessment, including air quality impacts during and after construction.
At the Planning Commission hearing of January 11, 2024 and after a duly noticed public hearing on the project, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the approval of Annexation 2024-01, the Pre-Zone 2024- 01 and recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 2023 prepared for the annexation and pre-zone.
DISCUSSION
Reorganization
This City-sponsored action is proposing to annex the subject property from the County of Fresno into the City of Kingsburg. The site contains 13.18 acres and the reorganization will be known as the Matoian Reorganization.
Because the property is located within Kingsburg’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and there is a proposal to convert an agricultural use to other uses, the City will seek approval (a finding) from Fresno County that the proposed reorganization is consistent with the City of Kingsburg/Fresno County Memorandum of Understanding.
The reorganization also includes the detachment of the property from the Fresno County Fire Protection District, Consolidated Irrigation District, and the Kings River Conservation District.
The property is contiguous to the City limits on the east and south side of the parcel, hence no “county island” will be created by the annexation.
The approval of the reorganization by Fresno LAFCo must be consistent with the City’s General Plan, ordinances and policies, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Kingsburg and the County of Fresno and other relevant documents and Fresno LAFCo policies and procedures. This reorganization meets all the requirements of the City and of Fresno LAFCo. A pre-application meeting was held with Fresno LAFCo Staff to discuss the reorganization and Fresno LAFCo Staff found that all initial reorganization requirements have been met.
Pre-Zone 2024-01 (AE-20 to Highway Commercial)
The property must be rezoned consistent with the land use designation as consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The property is currently in the County, with an AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural) Designation. The Kingsburg SOI and the City’s General Plan gives the property a zoning designation of Highway Commercial.
The City of Kingsburg Municipal Code Section 17.88.070 requires that the Planning Commission make findings as to whether the Pre-Zoning of the property will achieve the objectives set forth in Section 17.04.020, Purposes and Objectives of the Code. The objectives in Section 17.04.020 are the following:
A. To provide a zone plan to guide the physical development of the City in such a manner as to achieve progressively the general arrangement of land uses described and depicted in the general plan.
B. To foster a wholesome, serviceable and attractive living environment, the beneficial development of areas which exhibit conflicting patterns of use, and the stability of existing land uses which conform with objectives, policies, principles and standards of the general plan.
C. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of land with structures.
D. To promote a safe, effective traffic circulation system, the provision of adequate off-street parking and truck loading facilities, and the appropriate location of community facilities.
E. To protect and promote appropriately located commercial and industrial activities in order to preserve and strengthen the City's economic base.
F. To protect and enhance property values and the City's natural assets.
G. To ensure unimpeded development of such new urban expansion that is logical, desirable and in conformance with objectives and policies of the general plan.
H. To provide and protect open space in accordance with policies of the open space element of the general plan, including avoiding the premature development of prime agricultural lands.
At the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on January 11, 2024, the Planning Commission found that the proposed Pre-Zoning of the territory to Highway Commercial (CH) satisfied all the objectives identified in Section 17.04.020 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code (Attachment D). The proposed Pre-Zoning is also consistent with the City of Kingsburg General Plan.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City hired a CEQA consultant for this reorganization. The consultant prepared an Initial Study which recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Potential impacts identified by the Initial Study included biological resources, geology/soils, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. The Initial Study determined that the reorganization, with incorporation of mitigation measures, would have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural tribal resources from the implementation of the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures1.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in The Business Journal on November 15, 2023, inviting the public to review and/or comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The comment period closed on December 14, 2023. One comment was received during the comment period (Attachment C).
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, Attachment B) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City of Kingsburg’s Matoian Reorganization. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements as well as conditions recommended by responsible agencies who commented on the project2.
1 Initial Study, Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project, p.4-54 2 Initial Study, Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project, p. 5-1, Table 5-1
Site Plan
Although the City Council does not review site plan because under the Zoning Ordinance these types of applications are processed administratively, staff is providing the Council with the parcel map/site plan as background information (Attachment F). This parcel map is conceptual at this point, and any future proposed development may involve revisions to the proposed parcel map. Any proposal will have to be reviewed and will require a corresponding environmental assessment for any proposed development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL
1. That the City Council adopt Resolution 2024-009.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Council could choose to provide alternative direction to staff or to not approve moving forward with this proposal.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/KEY METRIC
1. Preserve the Kingsburg Experience.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ATTACHED INFORMATION
1. Attachment A – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Attachment B- Mitigation Monitoring Program
3. Attachment C-Comment Letter from SYVAPCD December 14, 2023
4. Attachment D-Planning Commission Resolution 2024-01
5. Attachment E-Location Map
6. Attachment F-Draft Parcel Map for Project
7. Resolution 2024-009
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? Yes
2. Is it Currently Budgeted? No
3. If Budgeted, Which Line? N/A
KINGSBURG 13-ACRE PARCEL
ANNEXATION
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
NOVEMBER 2023
PREPARED FOR:
City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA, 93631
PREPARED BY:
Table of Contents
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Regulatory Information ....................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Document Format ............................................................................................................................1-1 Chapter 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Background ..........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Project Title..............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address..............................................................................2-1
2.1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number.........................................................................2-1
2.1.4 Project Location .......................................................................................................2-1
2.1.5 General Plan Designation and Zoning ......................................................................2-1
2.1.6 Description of Project ..............................................................................................2-1
2.1.7 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting............................................................2-2
2.1.8 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required.......................................2-2
2.1.9 Consultation with California Native American Tribes...............................................2-2 Chapter 3 Determination ...........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts.....................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Determination ..................................................................................................................................3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis..................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................4-2
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................4-4
4.2.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-4
4.2.2 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................4-6
4.3 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................................4-8
4.3.1 Baseline Conditions..................................................................................................4-8
4.3.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-12
4.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................................4-14
4.4.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-14
4.4.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-15
4.4.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................4-16
4.5 Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................................4-17 Table of Contents
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 ii
4.5.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-17
4.5.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-17
4.5.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................4-18
4.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................................4-19
4.6.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-19
4.6.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-19
4.7 Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................................................4-21
4.7.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-21
4.7.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-22
4.7.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................4-24
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................................4-25
4.8.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-25
4.8.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-26
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................................4-28
4.9.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-28
4.9.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-29
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................................4-31
4.10.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-31
4.10.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-34
4.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................4-36
4.11.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-36
4.11.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-36
4.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................4-37
4.12.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-37
4.12.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-37
4.13 Noise ............................................................................................................................................4-39
4.13.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-39
4.13.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-39
4.14 Population and Housing ...............................................................................................................4-41
4.14.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-41
4.14.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-41
4.15 Public Services..............................................................................................................................4-42
4.15.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-42
4.15.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-43
4.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................4-45 Table of Contents
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 iii
4.16.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-45
4.16.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-45
4.17 Transportation..............................................................................................................................4-46
4.17.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-46
4.17.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-46
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................4-48
4.18.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-48
4.18.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................4-49
4.18.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................4-49
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................................4-50
4.19.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-50
4.19.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-50
4.20 Wildfire.........................................................................................................................................4-52
4.20.1 Baseline Conditions................................................................................................4-52
4.20.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................4-52
4.21 CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................4-54
4.21.1 Statement of Findings............................................................................................4-54 Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program .......................................................................5-1 Chapter 6 References.................................................................................................................................6-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files..............................................................................................................1 Appendix B: Biological Resources..................................................................................................................1 Appendix C: Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................1 Appendix D: Natural Resources Conservation Service...................................................................................1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map...............................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2: Aerial Map................................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3: Topo Quad................................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map .................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-5: Existing Zoning Map .................................................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-6: Prezone Map............................................................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-7: Parcel Map .............................................................................................................................2-10 Figure 2-8: Site Plan..................................................................................................................................2-11 Figure 4-1: Farmland Designation Map ......................................................................................................4-5 Table of Contents
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 iv
Figure 4-2: FEMA Flood Zone Map...........................................................................................................4-33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties ............2-2 Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts.....................................................................................................................4-1 Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts .................................................................................................4-4 Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts....................................................................................................................4-8 Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation ..............................4-10 Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance......................................................4-11 Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants..........4-12 Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants.............4-12 Table 4-8: Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants................................................................4-12 Table 4-9: Biological Resources Impacts...................................................................................................4-14 Table 4-10: Cultural Resources Impacts...................................................................................................4-17 Table 4-11: Energy Impacts......................................................................................................................4-19 Table 4-12: Geology and Soils Impacts.....................................................................................................4-21 Table 4-13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts......................................................................................4-25 Table 4-14: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions.................................................................4-27 Table 4-15: Long Term Operational Related GHG Emissions....................................................................4-27 Table 4-16: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts............................................................................4-28 Table 4-17: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts...................................................................................4-31 Table 4-18: Land Use and Planning Impacts.............................................................................................4-36 Table 4-19: Mineral Resources Impacts ...................................................................................................4-37 Table 4-20: Noise Impacts........................................................................................................................4-39 Table 4-21: Population and Housing Impacts...........................................................................................4-41 Table 4-22: Public Services.......................................................................................................................4-42 Table 4-23: Recreation Impacts................................................................................................................4-45 Table 4-24: Transportation Impacts.........................................................................................................4-46 Table 4-25: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts .........................................................................................4-48 Table 4-26: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts....................................................................................4-50 Table 4-27: Wildfire Impacts ....................................................................................................................4-52 Table 4-28: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance.............................................................................4-54 Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program.......................................................................5-2 Table of Contents
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 i
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB ........................................................................................................................................... Assembly Bill APN .......................................................................................................................Assessor’s Parcel Number BPS .................................................................................................................. Best Performance Standards BMP ................................................................................................................... Best Management Practices CalEEMod ...................................................................... California Emissions Estimator Modeling (software) CARB................................................................................................................California Air Resources Board CALFIRE...................................................................... California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCAA........................................................................................................................... California Clean Air Act CEQA .....................................................................................................California Environmental Quality Act CFCs ...............................................................................................................................Cholorfluorocarbons City ..................................................................................................................................... City of Kingsburg CGS ....................................................................................................................California Geological Survey CH4 ................................................................................................................................................. Methane CHRIS.............................................................................. California Historical Resources Information System CO ................................................................................................................................. Carbone Monoxide CO2 ........................................................................................................................................Carbon dioxide CO2e.................................................................................................................... Carbon Dioxide Equivelents County ......................................................................................................................................Fresno County DOC .................................................................................................................. Department of Conservation DTSC ............................................................................................... Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR .................................................................................................................Environmental Impact Report FEMA............................................................................................. Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG ......................................................................................................................................Greenhouse Gas GSA ........................................................................................................Groundwater Sustainability Agency GWP .......................................................................................................................Global Warming Potential HFCs ................................................................................................................................Hydrofluorocarbons IS ............................................................................................................................................. Initial Study IS/MND......................................................................................Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration km ............................................................................................................................................... kilometers MMRP.................................................................................... Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND..............................................................................................................Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 ii
MRZ ......................................................................................................................... Mineral Resource Zones MT CO2e.......................................................................................... Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivelents N2O ..........................................................................................................................................Nitrous Oxide NAHC................................................................................................. Native American Heritage Commission ND ...............................................................................................................................Negative Declaration NO2 .....................................................................................................................................Nitrogen Dioxide NOx ...................................................................................................................................... Nitrogen Oxides NRHP ....................................................................................................... National Register of Historic Places O3 ......................................................................................................................................................Ozone Pb ........................................................................................................................................................ Lead PFCs .................................................................................................................................... Perfluorocarbons PG&E ..............................................................................................................Pacific Gas & Electric Company PM10 ..................................................................................................... particulate matter 10 microns in size PM2.5 ................................................................................................... particulate matter 2.5 microns in size ppb .......................................................................................................................................parts per billion ppm ......................................................................................................................................parts per million Project......................................................................................Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project QSD ................................................................................................................Qualified Sediment Developer QSP ................................................................................................................Qualified Sediment Practioner ROG ...........................................................................................................................Reactive Organic Gases SHPO.......................................................................................................State Office of Historic Preservation SJVAB...................................................................................................................San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD ...............................................................................San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SKFCSD ............................................................................ Selma Kingsburg Fowler County Sanitation District SO2 ..........................................................................................................................................Sulfur Dioxide SSJVIC ................................................................................. Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center SRA ........................................................................................................................ State Responsibility Area CARB................................................................................................................California Air Resources Board SWPPP............................................................................................... Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB................................................................................................. State Water Resources Control Board USEPA..................................................................................United States Environmental Protection Agency UST .....................................................................................................................Underground Storage Tank VMT ............................................................................................................................ Vehicle Miles Traveled μg/m3.................................................................................................................micrograms per cubic meter Chapter 1: Introduction
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 1-1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on behalf of The City of Kingsburg (City) to address the environmental effects of the Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The City is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.
The site and the Project are described in detail in Chapter 2 Project Description.
1.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION
An Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.)-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines--Section 15064 (a)(1) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A negative declaration (ND) may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed Project, not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a ND or mitigated ND shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a. The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b. The IS identified potentially significant effects, but:
1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed MND and IS is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and
2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed Project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND contains six chapters. Chapter 1 Introduction, provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process. Chapter 2 Project Description, provides a detailed description of proposed Project components and objectives. Chapter 3 Determination, the Lead Agency’s determination based upon this initial evaluation. Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. If the Project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the Project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 5 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), provides the Chapter 1: Introduction
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 1-2
proposed mitigation measures, implementation timelines, and the entity/agency responsible for ensuring implementation. Chapter 6 References details the documents and reports this document relies upon to provide its analysis.
The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model, Biological Resources Information, Cultural Resources Information, and Soils Information are provided as technical Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D respectively, at the end of this document.
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-1
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1.1 Project Title
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
2.1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Kingsburg
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA, 93631
2.1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact
Holly Owen
Community Development Director
(559) 897-5328
CEQA Consultant
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Wyatt Czeshinski, Project Manager
(559) 449-2700
2.1.4 Project Location
The Project is located in Fresno County, California, approximately 176 miles southeast of Sacramento and 85 miles northwest of Bakersfield (see Figure 2-1). The Project site is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 394-042-04. The centroid of the Project site is 36° 31’ 22” N, 119° 34’ 9” W.
2.1.5 General Plan Designation and Zoning
The Project site is designated Highway Commercial by the City’s General Plan and is currently zoned Exclusive Agriculture (20 acres) by the County of Fresno (County). 1 2
2.1.6 Description of Project
The City of Kingsburg has proposed the construction of an approximately 18,500 square foot (sqft) office building on APN 394-042-04 (Project Site). APN 394-042-04 is approximately 13.18 acres in size and is generally located north of the intersection of Avenue B and Ventura Court in the County of Fresno. The 1 (City of Kingsburg 2014)
2 (County of Fresno 2023)
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-2
Project site is designated as Highway Commercial under the City’s General Plan. In order for the proposed building to be constructed on this site, the City of Kingsburg has proposed the annexation and prezoning of APN 394-042-04. In accordance with the site’s General Plan Land Use designation, the entire site would be prezoned to the Highway Commercial zone district. Additionally, the City has proposed a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the Project site into four smaller parcels. Parcel 1 would be 0.65 acres in size, Parcel 2 would be 2.13 acres in size, Parcel 3 would be 10.3 acres in size, and Parcel 4 would be 0.11 acres in size (total acreages may differ due to rounding). The proposed public facilities office building would be constructed on Parcel 2. Public facilities are an allowed use within the Highway Commercial zone district.
Construction activities proposed on the site would be subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review. No development is proposed on Parcel 1, 3, or 4 at this time. Any future development of these parcels would require separate, future environmental analysis. Construction of the Project would involve grading, paving, building construction, and painting. As a part of the Project, Avenue B would be extended, providing access to the Project site. Principal deliveries to the Project site would include construction equipment, concrete and asphalt materials, building materials, and any additional hardware required to construct the Project.
2.1.7 Site and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Table 2-1: Existing Uses, General Plan Designation, & Zone Districts of Surrounding Properties3 4 5 Direction from Project
Site
Existing Use General Plan Designation Zone District
NORTH State Route 99 - -
EAST Vacant Highway Commercial Highway Commercial
SOUTH Commercial Businesses Highway Commercial Highway Commercial WEST Agriculture Agriculture/Open Space
(County)
Exclusive Agriculture
(County)
2.1.8 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required • County of Fresno
• Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
2.1.9 Consultation with California Native American Tribes Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. ((codification of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, 2013-14)) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made. 3 (City of Kingsburg 2014)
4 (County of Fresno 2023)
5 (City of Kingsburg 2018)
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-3
The City of Kingsburg has not received any written correspondence from a Tribe pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requesting notification of proposed projects.
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-4
Figure 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-5
Figure 2-2: Aerial Map
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-6
Figure 2-3: Topo Quad
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-7
Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use Designation Map
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-8
Figure 2-5: Existing Zoning Map
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-9
Figure 2-6: Prezone Map
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-10
Figure 2-7: Parcel Map
Chapter 2: Project Description
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 2-11
Figure 2-8: Site Plan
Chapter 3: Determination
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 3-1
CHAPTER 3 DETERMINATION
3.1 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As indicated by the discussions of existing and baseline conditions, and impact analyses that follow in this Chapter, environmental factors not checked below would have no impacts or less than significant impacts resulting from the project. Environmental factors that are. checked below would have potentially significant impacts resulting from the project. Mitigation measures are recommended for each of the potentially significant impacts that would reduce the impact to less than significant.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
The analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4 Impact Analysis result in an impact statement, which shall have the following meanings.
Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).
Less than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed Project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required.
No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. “No Impact” answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
Chapter 3: Determination
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation (to be completed by the Lead Agency) X
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
lfind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NE VE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated antto that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures are i osed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date
ly Owe mmunity Development Director
Printed Name/Position
p
I I
re
November 2023 3-2
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-1
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS
4.1 AESTHETICS
Table 4-1: Aesthetics Impacts
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
4.1.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located adjacent to the City of Kingsburg within Fresno County. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the south, agricultural land to the west, State Route (SR) 99 to the north, and vacant land to the east. The Kingsburg General Plan does not list any specific scenic vistas, nor does the Fresno County General Plan Background Report identify one within the vicinity of the Project site.6 Agriculture and views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are generally regarded as a scenic resource within Fresno County.
Additionally, within Fresno County the SR 99 corridor is an area in which aesthetically pleasing development is emphasized through the Highway 99 Beautification Master Plan.7 This document encourages the development of areas along SR 99 to be held to a higher standard in terms of image and consistency with the existing themes of each city in Fresno County (Kingsburg Swedish style architecture). Development standards for new development within Kingsburg is regulated by the City’s zoning ordinance. The City has also adopted a Highway Beautification Overlay District within its zoning ordinance, providing for additional 6 (County of Fresno 2000)
7 (Association for the Beautification of Highway 99 2016) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-2
development standards for projects within the overlay district boundaries. The Project site is located within this overlay district.
4.1.2 Impact Analysis
a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of a new office building on an undeveloped and vacant parcel. As mentioned above, the City and County have not designated any scenic vistas on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Agriculture and views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are generally regarded as resources of aesthetic value within the County. While the Project site has historically been used for agriculture, it is currently vacant and is not currently in use for agricultural purposes. Additionally, while a new building could obstruct views in the immediate area, there are no homes or businesses whose viewshed would be impacted by the proposed building. The Project would also result in a permitted use to be constructed on land planned for commercial development. As a result, development of the parcel has previously been contemplated within the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The Project would not be located on or in the vicinity of a State scenic highway. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is SR 180, located approximately 15.7 miles to the northeast of the Project site. The Project would be located within the Highway 99 Beautification Area, where City development standards more strictly enforce building and landscaping character.8 The Project would be required to comply with all development standards of the Highway 99 Beautification Area. Therefore, there would be no impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Impact. The Project would result in the annexation and prezoning of a parcel for the City of Kingsburg.
Subsequent to these actions, construction of the proposed office building would be required to meet all applicable City development standards, including those of the Highway 99 Beautification Area. The Project is required to meet all local regulations governing scenic resources. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of an approximately 18,500 sqft office building which would introduce new sources of light and glare to the undeveloped site. The Project would result in the construction of this building in an area planned for commercial development. The Project would be constructed in an existing commercial area with other existing sources of light and glare.
While the Project would add to lighting and glare within the area, a review and approval of a lighting plan 8 (City of Kingsburg 2018)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-3
by the City Engineer and Community Development Director would be required prior to construction of the Project. This would ensure that any potential lighting and glare impacts would be minimized.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-4
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Table 4-2: Agriculture and Forest Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
4.2.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is currently located in Fresno County, northwest of the City of Kingsburg. Fresno County and the larger San Joaquin Valley as a whole is one of the largest producers of agricultural products in the world and relies on its agricultural industry to support the regional economy. The Project site has historically been used for agricultural production however is currently vacant. While in production, temporary, nonpermanent buildings supported the agricultural use on site, however these have since been removed.
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) identifies the entire site as land that is Prime Farmland.9 No Williamson Act exists on the site.
9 (California Department of Conservation 2022)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-5
Figure 4-1: Farmland Designation Map
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-6
4.2.2 Impact Analysis
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the DOC, the Project site is designated as Prime Farmland (see Figure 4-1). The Project would result in the conversion of this land to a non-agricultural use which would constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. While the Project would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, the City of Kingsburg General Plan and EIR acknowledges that significant environmental impacts would result from the buildout of the General Plan and the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Within this acknowledgement, the General Plan and EIR states that if approved, the approving body would be required to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.10 The General Plan and EIR was adopted in July of 1992, at which time a Statement of Overriding Considerations would have been adopted, identifying that buildout of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources due to future development under the General Plan, but that the benefits of the future buildout of the site outweigh the impacts to agricultural resources on-site. Additionally, the Project site was included in a General Plan Amendment in 1996 for which an EIR was prepared.11 The General Plan Amendment redesignated the site’s land use from Highway Commercial Reserve to Highway Commercial. This EIR recognized that future development of the land being redesignated would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources. The Kingsburg City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this action on December 11th, 1996, again recognizing that the future buildout of the site would provide a benefit to the City that would outweigh the impacts on agricultural resources that would result. For this reason, conversion and the ultimate development of the Project site to a non-agricultural use would not be considered a significant impact for this Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is zoned Exclusive Agriculture by the County of Fresno. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. While the Project would result in the conversion of land zoned for agriculture to a commercial zone district, the prezoning of the site to Highway Commercial promotes consistency with the site’s General Plan designation. As a result, the City’s previously conducted analysis has already contemplated the conversion of the site from an agricultural use within the County to a commercial use within the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The site is currently zoned Exclusive Agriculture by the County and would be prezoned Highway Commercial as a part of the Project. Additionally, the site 10 (City of Kingsburg 1992)
11 Information derived from City of Kingsburg Resolution 96-52 and correspondence with City staff.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-7
is currently vacant and undeveloped. No forest or timberland exists on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. The site is a vacant and undeveloped property, adjacent to urban uses. The site is planned for commercial use by the Kingsburg General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and does not currently contain agriculture or forest lands. As discussed above, the Project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland and the conversion of the site from a County agricultural zoning designation to a City commercial zoning designation. Due to its consistency with the adopted General Plan and EIR, these would not be considered significant for this Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-8
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Table 4-3: Air Quality Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
4.3.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is positioned within the San Joaquin Valley of California. The San Joaquin Valley is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east and the Coastal Mountain Range to the west. Wind within the SJVAB typically channels south-southwest during the summer months, while wind flows to the north-northwest during the winter months. Wind velocity for the region is considered low for an area of such size.12 Due to a lack of strong wind and the natural confinement of the mountain ranges surrounding the SJVAB, the region experiences some of the worst air quality in the world.
Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For 12 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2012) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-9
SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The USEPA uses the same subcategories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
According to the USEPA Fresno County was not in non-attainment for two pollutant concentrations, with PM-2.5 (2012) being classified as in serious non-attainment, and 8-hour Ozone (2015) classified as being in extreme non-attainment as of October 20th, 2023.
13 13 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2023) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-10
Table 4-4: Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designation Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards* National Standards*
Concentration*
Attainment
Status
Primary
Attainment
Status
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm Nonattainment/
Severe
– No Federal
Standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment 0.075 ppm Nonattainment
(Extreme)**
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 Nonattainment – Attainment
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment 12 μg/m3 Nonattainment
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm Attainment/
Unclassified
35 ppm Attainment/
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm Unclassified
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm Attainment 53 ppb Attainment/
1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – Attainment -- Attainment/
24-hour 0.04 ppm -- Unclassified
3-hour – 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead (Pb) 30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment – No
Designation/
Classification
Calendar Quarter –
--
Rolling 3-Month
Average
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No Federal Standards Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S)
1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride
(C2H3Cl)
24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Attainment
VisibilityReducing
Particle Matter
8-hour Extinction coefficient:
0.23/km-visibility of
10 miles or more due
to particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%.
Unclassified
* For more information on standards visit: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ** No Federal 1-hour standard. Reclassified extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour standard 10/20/23. ***Secondary Standard
Source: (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2012) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-11
Construction-Generated Emissions
Construction of the Project is assumed to be completed over approximately twelve months. Emissions associated with the Project were calculated using CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model) Air Quality Model, Version 2020.4.0. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on anticipated construction schedules and the default parameters contained in the model. Localized air quality impacts associated with the Project would be minor and were qualitatively assessed. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.
Thresholds of Significance
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for shortterm construction activities and long-term operation of the Project. Localized emissions from Project construction and operation are also assessed using concentration-based thresholds that determine if the Project would result in a localized exceedance of any ambient air quality standards or would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing exceedance.
The primary pollutants of concern during Project construction and operation are ROG (reactive organic gases), NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, adopted in 2015, contains thresholds for ROG and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX); Sulfur Oxides (SOX), CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles away from the source of emissions through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOx are termed ozone precursors. The SJVAB often exceeds the state and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the Project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the Project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The SJVAB also exceeds air quality standards for PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, substantial Project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.
The SJVAPCD adopted significance thresholds for construction-related and operational ROG, NOX, PM, CO, and SOX, these thresholds are included in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5: Project-Level Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance Pollutant
Significance Threshold
Construction Emissions (tons/year) Operational Emissions (tons/year) CO 100 100
NOx 10 10
ROG 10 10
SOx 27 27
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
Source: SJVAPCD. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Website:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed October 20, 2023.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-12
4.3.2 Impact Analysis
Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions
Estimated construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6: Unmitigated Short-Term Construction Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Annual Project
Construction Emissions
0.3089 1.2978 1.5415 3.1000e0030.0887 0.0575
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Long-Term Operational-Generated Emissions
Estimated operational-generated emissions are summarized in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7: Unmitigated Long-Term Operational Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Total Annual Project Operational
Emissions
0.2068 0.1711 0.9026 1.9900e0030.1944 0.0538
SJVAPCD Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants
Daily construction and operational emissions generated by the Project are summarized in Table 4-7.
Table 4-8: Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Source
Daily Emissions Maximum (in pounds)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction – Summer 29.0236 13.8343 15.2163 0.0307 7.7373 3.9733 Construction – Winter 29.0213 13.8372 15.0929 0.0304 7.7373 3.9733 Operational – Summer 1.6050 1.2210 7.2162 0.0161 1.5337 0.4214 Operational – Winter 1.3194 1.3562 7.3478 0.0148 1.5337 0.4214 SJVAPCD Threshold 100 100 100 100 100 100
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. The proposed Project would not exceed any threshold for air quality emissions that has been set by the SJVAPCD. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment. As shown in Table 4-6, Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-13
Table 4-7, and Table 4-8, the Project would not exceed an emissions threshold which has been set by the SJVAPCD for construction or operational related emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in significant long-term operational emissions. Constructed related emissions, shown in Table 4-6 and Table 4-8, would be temporary in nature and would cease upon Project construction. Short-term construction activities, however, could result in temporary increases in pollutant concentrations that could impact nearby sensitive receptors. Sensitive Receptors are groups that would be more affected by air, noise, and light pollution, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals than others. This includes infants, children under 16, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. High concentrations of these groups would include daycares, residential areas, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools and parks. While the Project would be located in an area near sensitive receptors, such as the residential homes to the north and west and the hotel to the southeast, the Project would not exceed the daily emission thresholds set by the SJVAPCD. Additionally, the HARP2 air dispersion model was run for the Project site to show the health risk the Project would have on sensitive receptors in the area. The model run, which can be viewed in Appendix A, indicates that the Project would result in a cancer risk of
0.0001297 in one million, which is less than the SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million. The Project would also present a chronic risk of 0.00000014586 in one million and an acute risk of 0 in one million, which would be less than the SJVAPCD’s threshold of one in one million for both chronic and acute.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt, structural coating and other construction applications would temporarily emit odors. Construction would be completed within the City of Kingsburg (subsequent to annexation), and could have an effect on some residences that would be located near the construction area of the Project.
Construction of the Project would be temporary, and odors would not remain after Project completion.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-14
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4-9: Biological Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
4.4.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located on a vacant and undeveloped site within Fresno County that has previously been used for agricultural production. The site abuts both the City of Kingsburg city limits and SR 99. While the site was previously used for agriculture, no vegetation currently exists on-site, outside of naturally occurring weeds. The site is regularly tilled in order to ensure that naturally occurring weeds do not become a blight.
No surface water or canal is located on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. The site is also not located on or near a wetland, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.14 According to the 14 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-15
City’s General Plan and EIR the City’s planning area has not been identified to contain any special status species.15
4.4.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is located in an area adjacent to urban uses and has experienced activities that would discourage the occurrence of special status species on-site, such as the use of farming equipment and machinery on-site, and the traffic of SR 99 adjacent to the site. Despite the unlikelihood of special status species occurring on-site, database searches for the Project site indicated that the Fresno Kangaroo Rat, San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Tiger Salamander, Monarch Butterfly, and Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp have the potential to be observed on-site (see Appendix B). The City’s General Plan and EIR indicated that no special status species have been observed within the Planning Area. Additionally, the Project site is a vacant field without naturally occurring vegetation (outside of weeds), reducing the likelihood that special status species would be located on-site. Out of an abundance of caution, mitigation measure BIO-1 would be implemented in order to ensure that none of these special status species, and nesting or migratory birds, are located onsite prior to construction activities. This would diminish any potential impacts to a less than significant level.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The Project site has not been identified as containing riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or within local or regional plans policies and regulations.16 17 The site is a vacant and undeveloped parcel which has previously been utilized for agriculture. The site contains a dirt field with naturally occurring weeds as the only vegetation present.
The site is routinely tilled in order to control the growth of naturally occurring weeds. Therefore, there would be no impact.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Project site would not be located on or in the immediate vicinity of a federally protected wetland.18 As a result, the Project does not have the potential to impact any federally protected wetlands. Therefore, there would be no impact. 15 (City of Kingsburg 1992)
16 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2023)
17 (City of Kingsburg 1992)
18 (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-16
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located adjacent to the City of Kingsburg city limits, abutting an existing commercial area. As a part of the Project the site would be annexed into the City.
While the site is vacant and previously undeveloped, it has experienced prior disturbances that would have discouraged the movement of wildlife through the Project site. Such disturbances include the use of the farm equipment and machinery on the site, proximity to urban uses located immediately south of the Project site, and the location of the Project site in proximity to SR 99. SR 99 provides a barrier for movement from the west to the east of this roadway. Additionally, this roadway produces traffic that generates relatively high levels of noise, making it unlikely that a natural wildlife movement corridor would exist in proximity to SR 99. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The City does not have a tree preservation ordinance and no trees would be removed as part of the Project. The Project would be required to comply with all local policies and regulations protecting biological resources. Therefore, there would be no impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The Project site is located adjacent to the City of Kingsburg and would be annexed to the City as a part of the Project. The site is not currently located within a habitat conservation plan or other type of conservation area. Therefore, there would be no impact.
4.4.3 Mitigation
BIO-1 Prior to issuing a grading permit, the developer shall conduct a pre-construction biological survey prepared by a qualified biologist, acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The survey will be focused on the Fresno Kangaroo Rat, San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Tiger Salamander, Monarch Butterfly, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and nesting raptors, and migratory birds. The applicant shall follow any recommendations contained in the survey.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-17
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-10: Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
4.5.1 Baseline Conditions
Records Search
A records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in October of 2023. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced development site and an additional ¼-mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (Appendix C). Additional sources included the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
4.5.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the records search performed by CHRIS staff at California State University Bakersfield, received October 9, 2023, there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the Project area. There have been seven previous cultural resource studies completed within a one half-mile radius: FR-00135, 00669, 00670, 00671, 01940, 02287, & 02452.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-18
There are no recorded resources within the Project area, and it is not known if any exist there. There are three recorded resources within the one-half mile radius: P-10-002966, 003930, & 005812. These resources consist of historic era ditches, and a railroad. Project activities would not have any impacts on these resources.
Resources: P-10-003930, & P-10-005812 have been given California Historical Resource Status codes of 6Y, indicating Determined ineligible for National Register by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for California Register or local listing. There are no other recorded cultural resources within the Project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.
While there are no known cultural or archeological resources known to exist on the site, a resource could be uncovered during construction activities. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-1 as outlined below, impacts to archaeological resources that may potentially exist on site would be less than significant.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no evidence or record that the Project has the potential to be an unknown burial site or the site of buried human remains. In the unlikely event of such a discovery, incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-2, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the development site would be less than significant.
4.5.3 Mitigation
CUL-1 Should archaeological remains or artifacts be unearthed during any stage of Project activities, work in the area of discovery shall cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If mitigation is warranted, the Project proponent shall abide by recommendations of the archaeologist.
CUL-2 In the event that any human remains are discovered on the development site, the Fresno County Coroner must be notified of the discovery (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5) and all activities in the immediate area of the find or in any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains must cease until appropriate and lawful measures have been implemented. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, but rather of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours to permit the NAHC to determine the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-19
4.6 ENERGY
Table 4-11: Energy Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
4.6.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located within Fresno County, adjacent to the City of Kingsburg. The Project area is served by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for its natural gas and electricity needs.
4.6.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of Project construction. For heavy-duty construction equipment, horsepower and load factor were assumed using default data from the CalEEMod model. Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the Project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul trucks trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the Project was based on (1) the projected number of trips the Project would generate (CalEEMod default values), (2) default average trip distance by land use in CalEEMod, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB 2017 Emissions Factors model (EMFAC2017) mobile source emission model.
Construction is estimated to consume a total of 35,656.17 gallons of diesel fuel and 3,415.59 gallons of gasoline fuel (See Appendix A). California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel because of unproductive idling of construction equipment. In addition, the energy consumption for construction activities would not be ongoing as they would be limited to the duration of Project construction.
The development’s anticipated annual energy consumption is approximately 183,359.8 kilowatt-hours and 2,390.2 therms of natural gas (see Appendix A). Energy consumption of non-residential uses is currently governed by the 2022 California Building Code, Part 6 for structures, and Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for appliances. Energy consumption is anticipated to decrease over time Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-20
as more energy efficient standards take effect and energy-consuming equipment reaches its end-of-life and necessitates replacement. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. State and local authorities regulate energy use and consumption. These regulations at the State level are intended to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include, among others, AB 1493 – Light-Duty Vehicle Standards; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Standards; and California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 – California Energy Code and Green Building Standards. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-21
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 4-12: Geology and Soils Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994) creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
4.7.1 Baseline Conditions
Geology and Soils
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, the Project site is comprised of one soil: the Delhi loamy sand 0-3 percent slope (see Appendix D).
Faults and Seismicity
Like most of California, the Project site experiences seismic activity to a varying degree. The Project area is not located on any known fault or fault zone, but it could experience seismic activity as a result of fault Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-22
activity in other parts of the state. The nearest active fault is the Kern Canyon Fault, approximately 55 miles to the east of the Project site. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 85 miles to the west of the Project site.19
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated granular and non-plastic, fine-grained soils lose their structure or strength when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and buildings with shallow foundations. Liquefaction more commonly occurs in loose, saturated materials. The Project is not known to be an area that experiences liquefaction.
Soil Subsidence
Subsidence occurs below the surface when subsurface pressure is reduced by the withdrawal of fluids (e.g., groundwater, natural gas, oil) resulting in sinking of the ground. While the Central Valley of California is known as an area that has experienced soil subsidence due to groundwater overdraft, the Project is not located in the immediate vicinity of an area that has been subject to subsidence. 20 Dam and Levee Failure
According to the California Department of Water Resources Dam Breach Inundation Map, the Project is not in an area that would be susceptible to flooding as a result of dam or levee failure.21
4.7.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. Ground shaking intensity is a function of distance from an earthquake’s epicenter and underlying geology. The most common impact associated with ground shaking is damage to structures. The Project would result in the construction of a new office building that would meet California Building Code requirements governing potential structural damage due to earthquakes. The Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death as a result in a rupture of a known earthquake fault, nor would it result in strong seismic activity from Project inundations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 19 (California Department of Conservation 2015)
20 (United States Geological Survey 2023)
21 (California Department of Water Resources 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-23
No Impact. The Project would not be located in an area that is known to experience liquefaction. The Project would result in the construction of a new office building. The new building would not increase the likelihood for liquefaction to occur within the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The Project is located in a relatively flat area with little to no potential for landslides to occur.
Construction of the Project would not increase the likelihood for landslides to occur at the Project site.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of a new office building on an approximately 2.13-acre site (Parcel 2). Developers whose projects disturb one (1) or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, and construction of linear underground or overhead facilities associated with trail construction but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original lines, grade, or capacity of the overhead or underground facilities. The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. Project construction activities may result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, including the buildup of soil in runoff areas. Through the use of a SWPPP and industry Best Management Practices (BMPs), impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact. Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project and greater surrounding area and distance from active faults, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse are not considered a potentially significant geologic hazard. The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable during seismic activity. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to property or life. The Project site is comprised of loamy sand that is not expansive in nature. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Project would not result in the use of septic tanks or any alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-24
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known unique paleontological resources or geological features on the Project; however, during construction unique paleontological or geological resources could be unearthed. In this event all construction would stop, the City would be notified, and a qualified geologist and/or paleontologist would be consulted. Employment of mitigation measure GEO-1 any potential significant impacts would be lowered to a less than significant level.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4.7.3 Mitigation
GEO-1 Should a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geological feature be unearthed during any stage of Project activities, work in the area of discovery will cease until the area is evaluated by a qualified geologist and/or paleontologist. If discoveries are uncovered, the Project proponent will abide by recommendations of the geologist or paleontologist.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-25
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Table 4-13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
4.8.1 Baseline Conditions
Commonly identified GHG emissions and sources include the following:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless natural greenhouse gas. CO2 is emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic out gassing. Anthropogenic sources include the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
Methane (CH4) is a flammable greenhouse gas. A natural source of methane is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and ruminants such as cattle.
Nitrous oxide (N2O), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.
Water vapor is the most abundant, and variable greenhouse gas. It is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere, it maintains a climate necessary for life.
Ozone (O3) is known as a photochemical pollutant and is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and, therefore, is not global in nature. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight.
Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-26
refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. CFCs destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol in 1987.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Of all the greenhouse gases, HFCs are one of three groups (the other two are perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are human-made for applications such as air conditioners and refrigerants.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere; therefore, PFCs have long atmospheric lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture.
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in various local areas of the earth, and what the effects of clouds will be in determining the rate at which the mean temperature will increase.
There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are largely attributable to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.
About three-quarters of human emissions of CO2 to the global atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased by at least 40 percent, 150 percent, and 20 percent respectively since the year 1750. GHG emissions are typically expressed in carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2e), based on the GHG’s Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP is dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, one ton of CH4 has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of CO2.
Therefore, CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2. In accordance with SJVAPCD’s CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects22, proposed projects complying with Best Performance Standards (BPS) would be determined to have a less-thansignificant impact. Projects not complying with BPS would be considered less than significant if operational GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by a minimum of 29 percent, in comparison to business-asusual (year 2004) conditions. In addition, project-generated emissions complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would also be determined to have a less-than-significant impact.
4.8.2 Impact Analysis
Project Related Emissions
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The emissions modeling includes emissions generated by off-road equipment, haul trucks, and 22 (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2009) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-27
worker commute trips. Emissions were quantified based on an anticipated construction schedule of approximately twelve months. Remaining assumptions were based on the default parameters contained in the model. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A. Estimated constructiongenerated and operational related emissions are summarized in Table 4-14 and Table 4-15. GHGs impact the environment over time as they increase and contribute to climate change.
Table 4-14: Short Term Construction Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons per
Year
Maximum Annual Construction CO2e Emissions 265.5290
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,100 AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Stationary Source Projects* 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? No
* As published in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Accessed 10/19/2023.
Table 4-15: Long Term Operational Related GHG Emissions Emissions (MT CO2e) in Tons per
Year
Annual Operational CO2e Emissions 227.2875
AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Land-Use Development Projects* 1,100 AB 32 Consistency Threshold for Stationary Source Projects* 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? No
* As published in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Accessed 10/19/2023.
Construction related generation of GHGs would be a maximum of 265.5290 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT CO2e) per year, while operational emissions are expected to be 227.2875 MTCO2e per year. The Project would not exceed the AB 32 consistency threshold for land use projects for both short term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions as a result. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. As shown in Table 4-14 and Table 4-15, the Project is not expected to result in the generation of GHG emissions that would exceed the AB 32 consistency threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e annually during both construction and operational activities.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Project would be in compliance with all SJVAPCD policies and regulations and would not exceed an applicable threshold for GHG emissions. Therefore, there would be no impacts.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-28
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Table 4-16: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
4.9.1 Baseline Conditions
Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. DTSC’s EnviroStor database provides DTSC’s component of Cortese Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-29
List data (DTSC, 2010). In addition to the EnviroStor database, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker database provides information on regulated hazardous waste facilities in California, including underground storage tank (UST) cases and non-UST cleanup programs, including Spills-LeaksInvestigations-Cleanups sites, Department of Defense sites, and Land Disposal program. A search of the DTSC EnviroStor database and the SWRCB Geotracker performed on October 18, 2023 determined that there are no known active hazardous waste generators or hazardous material spill sites within the Project site or immediate surrounding vicinity.23 24
Airports
The Project is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The nearest airport or air strip to the Project is the Selma Airport located approximately six miles to the northwest.
Emergency Response Plan
The City of Kingsburg has an Emergency Services Plan that was adopted in 2010. 25 The Plan addresses risks
to the community such as fire, law enforcement, public health threats, and other risks. An update to the plan is currently underway and should be complete in early 2024.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive Receptors are groups that would be more affected by air, noise, and light pollution, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals than others. This includes infants, children under 16, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. High concentrations of these groups would include, daycares, residential areas, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools and parks. The nearest sensitive receptor to the area in which the construction is proposed is a rural residence approximately 900 feet to the northwest.
4.9.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would result in the construction of a new office building on land that would be annexed into the City of Kingsburg. During construction, equipment would be used that could result in the spill of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, lubricants, and solvents. However, the contractor would comply with all California Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations regarding regular maintenance and inspection of equipment, spill prevention, and spill remediation in order to reduce the potential for incidental release of pollutants or hazardous substances onsite. Furthermore, any potential 23 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2023) 24 (State Water Resources Control Board 2023)
25 (City of Kingsburg 2010)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-30
accidental hazardous materials spills during construction are the responsibility of the contractor to remediate in accordance with industry BMPs and State and local regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed School. No school, public or private, exists within one quarter mile of the Project site, nor is one currently proposed within one quarter mile of the site. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As discussed above, a search of the EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases was conducted and the Project area has not been identified to contain a known hazardous material spill. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or private airport where such a plan has not been adopted. The Project is located approximately six miles southeast of the nearest airport, the Selma Airport, and is not located within an adopted airport land use compatibility plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project, during construction, would result in truck deliveries, however, no detours or road closures are expected to occur as a result of construction activities. In addition, any potential work within existing roadways would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Therefore, there would be no impact. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The Project is located adjacent to the City of Kingsburg and would be annexed to the City as a result of the Project. This area is characterized by urban development, where wildland fires are unlikely to occur. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity zone (see Section 4.20, Wildfire). Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-31
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Table 4-17: Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
4.10.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Basin and the Kings Subbasin. The site is also located within the boundaries of the of the Central Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA).26 The City of Kingsburg is, for the most part, located within the boundaries of the South Kings GSA. While the Project site is not located in the vicinity of a surface body of water, the site is located within the boundaries of the Fresno County Sole Source Aquifer.27 This aquifer provides for the majority of drinking water for the area, 26 (California Department of Water Resources 2023)
27 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2023) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-32
making water quality protection increasingly important in the Project area. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the nearest flood zone (see Figure 4-2).
28 28 (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-33
Figure 4-2: FEMA Flood Zone Map
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-34
4.10.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Construction activities could result in a potential impact through the erosion of soils and the build-up of silt and debris in runoff areas, however under California General Construction Permit 2009-0009-DWQ guidelines implementing a SWPPP, performed and approved by a qualified sediment practitioner (QSP) or a qualified sediment developer (QSD), would be required prior to construction, handling, and transportation of hazardous materials within the Project. In addition, construction activities could result in accidental spills of fuels, paints, and other hazardous materials entering runoff areas. Through a SWPPP carried out by the contractor and a QSP/QSD, the Project would design and utilize BMPs in order to stabilize any sedimentation and erosion from leaving the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of an 18,500 sqft office building on land planned for commercial use by the City’s General Plan. While water would be used by the office building for services such as plumbing, the demand for water is not expected to be substantial. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, which was completed taking into account planned land uses of the General Plan, the City is expected to be in water balance through the year 2040. 29 Because the Project would result in a use that aligns with the site’s General Plan land use designation, the Project would be in line with the analysis provided within the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
i-iv) Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of an office building and associated pavement, resulting in the introduction of impervious surfaces to the Project site. The Project would construct storm drainage infrastructure which would connect to the existing City storm basin 29 (City of Kingsburg 2017)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-35
abutting the Project site to the southwest. The Project site does not contain, nor is it in the immediate vicinity of any naturally occurring surface waters or canals. While construction activities and the introduction of impervious surfaces would result in changes in drainage, connection of the site to the City’s drainage basin would ensure that significant impacts do not occur. Any potential erosion and siltation from construction activities would be controlled on-site by the contractor through the implementation of a SWPPP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundations?
No Impact. The Project would not in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundations. The Project is not located within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project would be located within the boundaries of the Central Kings GSA. The City of Kingsburg is primarily located within the South Kings GSA. Subsequent to annexation of the Project site to the City, the California Department of Water Resources and the two aforementioned GSA’s could agree upon a boundary realignment which would result in the Project site being moved into the South Kings GSA. Both of the two GSA’s have completed their Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The Project would not be in conflict with either plan. Position of the Project site in one GSA or the other could result in a difference in fees due, but would not have a physical impact on the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-36
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Table 4-18: Land Use and Planning Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
4.11.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located within the County, adjacent to the City of Kingsburg. The site is within the City’s sphere of influence and is designated Highway Commercial by the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the site is zoned Exclusive Agriculture by the County. As a part of the Project, the site would be annexed into the City and prezoned Highway Commercial consistent with the site’s existing Highway Commercial land use designation.
4.11.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project would not physically divide and existing community. As mentioned above, the subject parcel would be annexed to the City from the County. As the Project site is located adjacent to the current city limits, annexation of this parcel would be done in a contiguous manner. In order for the Project to be approved, the Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission would be required to approve an application regarding the Project. Furthermore, development proposed as a part of this Project would be completed on a vacant and undeveloped parcel. The City would connect the site to development south of the Project via extension of Avenue B through City owned property. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Project would result in the construction of an office building in an area planned for commercial uses. To facilitate the Project, the site would be annexed to the City of Kingsburg and prezoned Highway Commercial to be consistent with the site’s existing Highway Commercial land use designation. These actions further the objectives of the City’s General Plan by providing development in the areas in the City where they are planned for. The Project would be required to meet all applicable City of Kingsburg land use policies and regulations. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-37
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Table 4-19: Mineral Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
4.12.1 Baseline Conditions
The California Geological Survey (CGS) is responsible for the classification and designation of areas within California containing or potentially containing significant mineral resources. The CGS classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geologic Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. These MRZs identify whether known or inferred significant mineral resources are presented in areas. Lead agencies are required to incorporate identified MRZs resource areas delineated by the state into their general plans.30 According to the CGS Mineral Land Classification map, the Fresno County area, including the Project site, is known to produce aggregate materials.31 The Kingsburg General Plan and the Fresno County General Plan Background Report have not identified the Project site or land in its vicinity as containing mineral resources.32 33 The nearest known mineral producing site (sand and gravel) is along the Kings River, approximately 10.5 miles to the northeast.
4.12.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site is not known to contain any mineral deposits that would be of value to the region and the State. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource which would be of value to the region or the State. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 30 Public Resources Code, Section 2762(a)(1).
31 (California Geological Survey 2022)
32 (City of Kingsburg 1992)
33 (County of Fresno 2000)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-38
No Impact. The Project site has not been identified as containing a locally important mineral resource by the Kingsburg General Plan, a specific plan, or any other land use plan. The Project would not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-39
4.13 NOISE
Table 4-20: Noise Impacts
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
4.13.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located within the County of Fresno and would be annexed into the City as a part of the Project. The City of Kingsburg requires that daytime noise sources within commercial areas remain below 65 decibels during the day.
34 The site is located adjacent to an existing commercial area, an agricultural field that is accustomed to heavy machinery use, and SR 99 which produces high levels of noise due to traffic.
4.13.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. During construction, the Project would temporarily utilize equipment that would exceed 65 decibels. While noise levels may temporarily be exceeded during such activities, construction noise would diminish with distance from the source. As a result, construction noise is not anticipated to be significant. Construction noise would also be temporary and cease upon completion. The newly constructed office building would not exceed acceptable noise levels during operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 34 (City of Kingsburg 1992)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-40
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Like ordinary noise levels, ground borne noise levels diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels.
Given the type of improvements, it is not anticipated the Project would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. The Project would be required to adhere to all applicable City policies and regulations governing ground borne vibration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public or private airport where such a plan has not been adopted. The Project is located approximately six miles southeast of the nearest airport, the Selma Airport, and is not located within an adopted airport land use compatibility plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-41
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4-21: Population and Housing Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
4.14.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site is located within Fresno County and would be annexed into the City of Kingsburg. According to the United States Census Bureau, the County of Fresno had an estimated population of 1,015,190 in 2022, while the City of Kingsburg had an estimated population of 12,613 people in 2022.35
4.14.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The Project would not result in substantial direct or indirect population growth. The Project would result in the annexation of an approximately 13.18-acre parcel to the City of Kingsburg and the construction of an 18,500 sqft office building. The land annexed as a part of the Project is planned for commercial use and would be prezoned accordingly. The newly constructed office building would provide the City with additional space for administrative purposes. As a result, the Project does not have the potential to result in substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project would not displace any existing residents, necessitating them to find shelter elsewhere. The Project site is a vacant and undeveloped parcel without any existing structures. Therefore, there would be no impact.
35 (United States Census Bureau 2023)
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-42
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Table 4-22: Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
4.15.1 Baseline Conditions
Fire Protection:
The Project would be served by the Kingsburg Fire Department station located approximately 2,100 feet to the southwest of the Project.
Police Protection:
The Project would be served by the Kingsburg Police Department, located approximately 1.1 miles to the southeast of the Project site.
Schools:
Kingsburg Unified School District operates several schools within the City. The nearest public schools to the site are Reagan Elementary School, approximately 3,400 feet to the south, and Rafer Johnson Junior High School, approximately 3,400 feet to the east of the site. The nearest private school facilities to the Project site are Central Valley Home School and Island Community Day School, located approximately 2,800 feet to the southeast of the site.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-43
Parks:
The City of Kingsburg provides parks and open space for the residents of the City. The nearest City owned and operated parks are Athwal Park, approximately 2,800 feet to the south of the Project site, and Kingsburg Dog Park, approximately 2,300 feet to the southeast.
Landfills:
The City of Kingsburg contracts with Mid Valley Disposal for its trash and recycling services.
4.15.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection:
No Impact. The Project site is located approximately 2,100 from the nearest City of Kingsburg Fire Department station. The service area of this station would remain unchanged with approval of the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
ii. Police Protection:
No Impact. The Kingsburg Police Department would provide police protection for the Project once it is annexed to the City. While the site would have been under County jurisdiction prior to annexation, the Kingsburg Police Department would have already responded to calls to the site, as it is the nearest police entity. As a result, the Kingsburg Police Department’s service area would remain unchanged due to the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
iii. Schools:
No Impact. The Project would result in the construction of an office building. Substantial population growth which would necessitate new school facilities or increases in school staff is not anticipated as a result of the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. iv. Parks:
No Impact. The Project does not propose a use that would result in substantial induced population growth. As a result, the usage of existing parks and the demand for new parks is expected to remain unchanged. No additional City staff would be required to maintain parks as a result of this Project.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
v. Other public facilities:
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the generation of solid waste during construction and operational activities. During construction, waste produced would be the responsibility of the contractor to dispose of. Subsequent to the construction of the 18,500 sqft office building, operations would result in the generation of solid waste, recyclables, and organics. The Project would be required Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-44
to construct a trash enclosure to City standards, allowing for pickup by Mid Valley Disposal. Review by the City Engineer and ultimate approval of the Project during the entitlement process would ensure that generation of waste at the site does not constitute a significant impact. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-45
4.16 RECREATION
Table 4-23: Recreation Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
4.16.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site would be annexed into the City of Kingsburg as a result of the Project. The City of Kingsburg provides parks and open space for the residents of the City. The nearest City owned and operated parks are Athwal Park, approximately 2,800 feet to the south of the Project site, and Kingsburg Dog Park, approximately 2,300 feet to the southeast.
4.16.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The Project would not result in increased usage of existing parks and recreational facilities in a manner such that substantial physical deterioration of such resources would occur. The Project would result in the annexation of a commercially planned parcel of approximately 13.18 acres. The Project would also result in the construction of an 18,500 sqft office building and would not result in substantial population growth that would increase use of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project would not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The Project proposes the construction of an 18,500 sqft office building. No other construction is currently proposed on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-46
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Table 4-24: Transportation Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
4.17.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project would result in the annexation of the Project site to the City of Kingsburg. Major transportation routes within the City include SR 99 and SR 201. The Project site is abutted by SR99 to its northeast.
4.17.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. While the Project would result in the extension of Avenue B, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable laws, policies, and plans regarding circulation and transit facilities within the City of Kingsburg. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the construction of a new City of Kingsburg office building on land that would be annexed into the City and prezoned Highway Commercial in accordance with the City’s General Plan. This analysis relies on a qualitative analysis as permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3), as models for such land uses are not available. The city facility portion of the Project would have a less than significant impact to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as, in accordance with the Fresno Council of Governments VMT Guidelines:
The development of institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety and welfare may also be screened from subsequent CEQA VMT analysis. These facilities (e.g. police stations, fire stations, community centers, refuse stations) are already part of the community and, as a public service, the VMT is accounted for in the existing regional average.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-47
Many of these facilities generate fewer than 500 ADT and/or use vehicles other than passenger cars or light‐duty trucks. These other vehicle fleets are subject to regulation outside of CEQA, such as CARB and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The local jurisdiction will have the discretion to determine whether such facilities, that provide safety, security, and serve the local communities, can be screened out from the VMT analysis.
The remaining 10.3-acre portion of the site (Parcel 3) has no specific identified use and may not be developed as public facilities in the future. This area is designated by the Kingsburg General Plan as Highway Commercial, which is “limited to business or services that rely on visibility from highways and/or serve the needs of the traveling public and residents of the surrounding agricultural area.” Highway Commercial allows for a site coverage percentage of 60%, or approximately 269,200 square feet of floor area. Commercial land uses in this area as specified rely on visibility from the highway, and thus it is presumed that a significant portion of traffic to these businesses would be “pass-by” trips, where visiting the business is not the primary traveler’s goal. Typical uses, as specified by the General Plan, include motels, restaurants, service stations, regional auto malls, factory outlet shopping centers, RV, boat and mobile home sales, transportation services, and governmental and agricultural services relying on highway access. Furthermore, these uses generally do not encourage additional trips, and therefore VMT, simply because they have been constructed. For example, households do not frequent motels more because more motels exist. These uses simply capture a trip when the highway driver finds it most convenient—at the next highway exit. Therefore, it can be presumed that there would no additional increase in VMT from these highway-visible, pass-by trip generating commercial uses. Additionally, future development of the overall Project site, outside of what is proposed under this Project, would be subject to separate environmental review. Impacts would thus be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. The Project would result in the construction of a new office building on a vacant and undeveloped site. The Project does not propose the construction of a hazardous geometric design feature, nor does it propose an incompatible use for the site. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The Project would result in the extension of Avenue B to serve the Project site. No complete road closures would be necessary in order for the Project to be developed. The Project would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval, ensuring that access would be maintained. In addition, construction of the Project would be located in an area away from major roadways that would serve as emergency routes.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-48
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Table 4-25: Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in the local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
4.18.1 Baseline Conditions
Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (codification of AB 52, 2013-14) requires that a lead agency, within 14 days of determining that it will undertake a project, must notify in writing any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if that Tribe has previously requested notification about projects in that geographic area. The notice must briefly describe the project and inquire whether the Tribe wishes to initiate request formal consultation. Tribes have 30 days from receipt of notification to request formal consultation. The lead agency then has 30 days to initiate the consultation, which then continues until the parties come to an agreement regarding necessary mitigation or agree that no mitigation is needed, or one or both parties determine that negotiation occurred in good faith, but no agreement will be made. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3, the City of Kingsburg has not received letters from any tribe requesting notification.
Records Search
A records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS, located at California State University, Bakersfield was conducted in October of 2023. The SSJVIC records search includes a review of all recorded archaeological Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-49
and built-environment resources as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the NRHP, and the California State Built Environment Resources Directory listings were reviewed for the above referenced development site and an additional ¼-mile radius. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations are not released. (Appendix C).
Additional sources included the SHPO Historic Properties Directory, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources.
4.18.2 Impact Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in the local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Kingsburg, as the lead agency, has not received a letter any tribal letters pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, et seq. (AB 52) officially requesting notification of any projects. Additionally, a records search of the Project site indicated that there were no known tribal cultural resources on-site. In the unlikely event of a discovery, mitigation will be implemented. With incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 described above in Section 4.5, impacts resulting from the discovery of remains interred on the Project site or the discovery of another tribal cultural resource would be less than significant.
4.18.3 Mitigation
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-50
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4-26: Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
4.19.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site would be annexed to the City of Kingsburg as a part of the Project. The City of Kingsburg is the water and storm drainage provider for residents of the City. The City also contracts with Mid Valley Disposal for solid waste pickup services. The Selma Kingsburg Fowler County Sanitation District (SKFCSD) is the sewer facilities provider for the City of Kingsburg. PG&E is the natural gas and electricity provider for the area. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, devoid of existing utility services.
4.19.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Subsequent to annexation to the City of Kingsburg the Project would connect to City infrastructure for water and storm drainage services. The Project would connect to City water services existing in the commercial development to the south. Additionally, the Project would connect to the existing City storm drain basin abutting the Project site to the southwest. For sewer Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-51
services the Project would connect to existing SKFCSD infrastructure located in the commercial development to the south of the Project site. Likewise, the Project would connect to existing PG&E and telecommunications facilities existing in the development immediately south of the site. Utility connections are available within the vicinity of the Project site and no substantial extension of any utility service would be required of the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City is expected to be in balance of its water budget through the year 2040. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan was developed taking into account planned land uses contained in the City’s General Plan. Due to the fact that the Project would result in a use that aligns with the site’s existing General Plan land use designation, the Project would align with the 2015 Water Urban Management Plan. Additionally, the operation of an 18,500 sqft office building is not expected to result in substantial demand for water supplies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to connect to existing SKFCSD facilities. While the Project would include a new sewer connection to serve the proposed office building, the added usage as a result of the Project is not anticipated to be substantial. Review by SKFCSD staff during the entitlement process would ensure that significant environmental impacts do not occur as a result of any new sewer connections. The Project would also be required to file all necessary applications and pay fees to the SKFCSD. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the generation of solid waste during construction and operational activities. During construction, waste produced would be the responsibility of the contractor to dispose of. Subsequent to the construction of the 18,500 sqft office building, operations would result in the generation of solid waste, recyclables, and organics. The Project would be required to construct a trash enclosure to City standards, allowing for pickup by Mid Valley Disposal. Review by the City Engineer and ultimate approval of the Project during the entitlement process would ensure that generation of waste at the site does not constitute a significant impact. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-52
4.20 WILDFIRE
Table 4-27: Wildfire Impacts
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrollable spread of wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
4.20.1 Baseline Conditions
The Project site would be annexed into the City of Kingsburg as a part of the Project. The City of Kingsburg is served by the Kingsburg Fire Department for fire protection services. The nearest Kingsburg Fire Department station to the Project site is located approximately 2,100 feet to the southwest. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) SRA viewer, the nearest SRA to the Project site is located approximately 17 miles to the northeast.36 Additionally, according to the CALFIRE fire hazard severity map, the Project site is located approximately 22 miles to the southwest of the nearest very high fire hazard severity zone.37
4.20.2 Impact Analysis
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby 36 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2023) 37 (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2023) Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-53
expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a-d) No Impact. The Project site is located approximately 17 miles from the nearest SRA and 22 miles from the nearest very high fire hazard severity zone. The site is located on a relatively flat, vacant, and undeveloped site that is surrounded by urban uses, making wildfire unlikely to occur at the site. The Project would be served by the Kingsburg Fire Department station located approximately 2,100 feet to the southwest of the site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-54
4.21 CEQA MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Table 4-28: CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
4.21.1 Statement of Findings
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, would have a less than significant effect on the environment. The potential for impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources from the implementation of the Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this analysis. Accordingly, the Project would involve no potential for significant impacts through the degradation of the quality of the environment, the reduction in the habitat or population of fish or wildlife, including endangered plants or animals, the elimination of a plant or animal community or example of a major period of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Chapter 4: Environmental Impact Analysis
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 4-55
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i) States that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. The Project involves the annexation of 13.18 acres into the City and the construction and operation of a new City office building, the effects of which would not result in significant cumulatively considerable impacts. Implementation of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts and all potential impacts would be less than significant through the implementation of basic regulatory requirements and Project design. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the Project, would have a less than significant effect on the environment.
All potential impacts to human beings have found to be unsubstantial and would be considered less than significant.
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 5-1
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION,
MONITORING, AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
This MMRP has been formulated based upon the findings of the IS/MND for the Project in the City of Kingsburg. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.
The first column of Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled “When Monitoring is to Occur,” identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, “Frequency of Monitoring,” identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fourth column, “Agency Responsible for Monitoring,” names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 5-2
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Prior to issuing a grading permit, the developer
shall conduct a pre-construction biological survey
prepared by a qualified biologist, acceptable to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
survey will be focused on the Fresno Kangaroo Rat,
San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Tiger Salamander,
Monarch Butterfly, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and
nesting raptors, and migratory birds. The applicant
shall follow any recommendations contained in the
survey.
Prior to construction
activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Should archaeological remains or artifacts be
unearthed during any stage of Project activities,
work in the area of discovery shall cease until the
area is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If
mitigation is warranted, the Project proponent shall
abide by recommendations of the archaeologist.
During construction
activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
archaeologist
CUL-2 In the event that any human remains are
discovered on the development site, the Fresno
County Coroner must be notified of the discovery
(California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5)
and all activities in the immediate area of the find
or in any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent human remains must cease until
appropriate and lawful measures have been
implemented. If the Coroner determines that the
remains are not recent, but rather of Native
American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in
Sacramento within 24 hours to permit the NAHC to
determine the Most Likely Descendent of the
deceased Native American.
During construction
activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
County
Coroner
Geology and Soils
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 5-3
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Item Mitigation Measure When Monitoring is
to Occur
Frequency of
Monitoring
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Method to
Verify
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
GEO-1 Should a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geological feature be unearthed during any
stage of Project activities, work in the area of
discovery will cease until the area is evaluated by a
qualified geologist and/or paleontologist. If
discoveries are uncovered, the Project proponent
will abide by recommendations of the geologist or
paleontologist.
During construction
activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
geologist
and/or
paleontologist
References
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 6-1
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
Association for the Beautification of Highway 99. 2016. Highway 99 Beautification Master Plan. Accessed October 16, 2023. https://fresnocog.wpenginepowered.com/wpcontent/uploads/publications/99/Master_Plan_2016_Update/Hwy_99_Assoc_MasterPlan_Sept._ 2016_.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed October 18, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
—. 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. Accessed October 19, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Accessed October 16, 2023. https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693 d008.
—. 2023. State Responsibility Area (SRA) Viewer. Accessed October 16, 2023. https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad8686163876 5ce1.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2023. EnviroStor. Accessed October 18, 2023. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=37750009.
California Department of Water Resources. 2023. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Accessed October 19, 2023. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2. —. 2023. GSA Map Viewer. Accessed October 18, 2023.
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/index.jsp?appid=gasmaster&rz=true.
California Geological Survey. 2022. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineal Land Classification. Accessed October 16, 2023.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
City of Kingsburg. 2017. "2015 Urban Water Management Plan." City of Kingsburg. 2010. "City of Kingsburg Emergency Operations Plan." —. 1992. Comprehensive General Plan & Environmental Impact Report for the Swedish Village of Kingsburg.
Accessed October 16, 2023. http://www.cityofkingsburgca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1815/City-of-Kingsburg-General-Plan. —. 2014. Kingsburg General Plan Land Use Designations. Accessed October 16, 2023. http://www.cityofkingsburg-ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/185/Kingsburg-Official-General-PlanMap-PDF. —. 2018. Kingsburg Zone Map. Accessed October 16, 2023. https://www.cityofkingsburgca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/275/Kingsburg-Official-Zone-Map.
References
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 6-2
County of Fresno. 2023. County of Fresno Zoing. Accessed October 16, 2023. https://gisportal.co.fresno.ca.us/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b921843d343d4df99 8b5b3c6a301756a.
County of Fresno. 2000. "General Plan Background Report." Fresno.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2023. FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer.
Accessed October 18, 2023. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9 cd.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2012. Air Quality Attainment Plans. Accessed October 20, 2023. http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/air-quality-plans.htm.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2009. "Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA."
State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. GeoTracker. Accessed October 18, 2023. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento.
United States Census Bureau. 2023. Quickfacts - Kingsburg city, California; Fresno County, California.
Accessed Ocotber 16, 2023.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kingsburgcitycalifornia,fresnocountycalifornia/PST 045222.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. Accessed October 20, 2023. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html. —. 2023. Map of Sole Source Aquifer Locations. Accessed October 18, 2023. https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877155fe 31356b.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed October 20, 2023. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/.
United States Geological Survey. 2023. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Accessed October 19, 2023. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html.
Appendices
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 A-1
Appendix A: CalEEMod Output Files
Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project
Fresno County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government Office Building 18.50 1000sqft 0.42 18,500.00 0 Parking Lot 1.30 Acre 1.30 56,628.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.41 Acre 0.41 17,859.60 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
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
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/27/2025 10/30/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2025 10/2/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/26/2024 11/28/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/13/2025 10/16/2025 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/18/2024 11/20/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/14/2025 10/17/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/27/2024 11/29/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/19/2024 11/21/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2025 10/3/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/14/2024 11/18/2024 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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
2024 0.0257 0.2170 0.2150 4.5000e0040.0285 8.7200e0030.0372 0.0119 8.2500e0030.0201 0.0000 38.6517 38.6517 7.3500e0035.7000e00439.0051 2025 0.3089 1.2978 1.5415 3.1000e0030.0398 0.0489 0.0887 0.0108 0.0467 0.0575 0.0000 263.1055 263.1055 0.0408 4.7100e003265.5290 Maximum 0.3089 1.2978 1.5415 3.1000e0030.0398 0.0489 0.0887 0.0119 0.0467 0.0575 0.0000 263.1055 263.1055 0.0408 4.7100e003265.5290 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 0.0257 0.2170 0.2150 4.5000e0040.0141 8.7200e0030.0228 5.4300e0038.2500e0030.0137 0.0000 38.6516 38.6516 7.3500e0035.7000e00439.0051 2025 0.3089 1.2978 1.5415 3.1000e0030.0398 0.0489 0.0887 0.0108 0.0467 0.0575 0.0000 263.1052 263.1052 0.0408 4.7100e003265.5288 Maximum 0.3089 1.2978 1.5415 3.1000e0030.0398 0.0489 0.0887 0.0108 0.0467 0.0575 0.0000 263.1052 263.1052 0.0408 4.7100e003265.5288 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 21.10 0.00 11.45 28.36 0.00 8.28 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 11-18-2024 2-17-2025 0.4852 0.4852
2 2-18-2025 5-17-2025 0.4559 0.4559
3 5-18-2025 8-17-2025 0.4707 0.4707
4 8-18-2025 9-30-2025 0.2251 0.2251
Highest 0.4852 0.4852
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 0.0915 0.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6000e0043.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.8000e004 Energy 1.2900e0030.0117 9.8400e0037.0000e0058.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0040.0000 29.7202 29.7202 2.9900e0035.7000e00429.9637 Mobile 0.1140 0.1594 0.8926 1.9200e0030.1919 1.6200e0030.1935 0.0513 1.5200e0030.0529 0.0000 177.5586 177.5586 0.0114 0.0108 181.0711 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.4935 0.0000 3.4935 0.2065 0.0000 8.6549 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1660 2.5694 3.7354 0.1202 2.8800e0037.5974 Total 0.2068 0.1711 0.9026 1.9900e0030.1919 2.5100e0030.1944 0.0513 2.4100e0030.0538 4.6594 209.8485 214.5080 0.3410 0.0143 227.2875 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 0.0915 0.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6000e0043.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.8000e004 Energy 1.2900e0030.0117 9.8400e0037.0000e0058.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0040.0000 29.7202 29.7202 2.9900e0035.7000e00429.9637 Mobile 0.1140 0.1594 0.8926 1.9200e0030.1919 1.6200e0030.1935 0.0513 1.5200e0030.0529 0.0000 177.5586 177.5586 0.0114 0.0108 181.0711 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.4935 0.0000 3.4935 0.2065 0.0000 8.6549 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1660 2.5694 3.7354 0.1202 2.8800e0037.5974 Total 0.2068 0.1711 0.9026 1.9900e0030.1919 2.5100e0030.1944 0.0513 2.4100e0030.0538 4.6594 209.8485 214.5080 0.3410 0.0143 227.2875 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 11/18/2024 11/20/2024 5 3 2 Grading Grading 11/21/2024 11/28/2024 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 11/29/2024 10/2/2025 5 220 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 Paving Paving 10/3/2025 10/16/2025 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/17/2025 10/30/2025 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 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 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 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
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 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 27,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 9,250; Striped Parking Area: 4,469 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 1.71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 - 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 2.3900e0030.0000 2.3900e0032.6000e0040.0000 2.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8600e0030.0197 0.0144 4.0000e0057.5000e0047.5000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 3.2300 3.2300 1.0400e0030.0000 3.2561 Total 1.8600e0030.0197 0.0144 4.0000e0052.3900e0037.5000e0043.1400e0032.6000e0046.9000e0049.5000e0040.0000 3.2300 3.2300 1.0400e0030.0000 3.2561 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
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 8 37.00 15.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 7.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 - 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 3.0000e0052.0000e0052.6000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0043.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0730 0.0730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0736 Total 3.0000e0052.0000e0052.6000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0043.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0730 0.0730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0736 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 9.3000e0040.0000 9.3000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8600e0030.0197 0.0144 4.0000e0057.5000e0047.5000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 3.2300 3.2300 1.0400e0030.0000 3.2561 Total 1.8600e0030.0197 0.0144 4.0000e0059.3000e0047.5000e0041.6800e0031.0000e0046.9000e0047.9000e0040.0000 3.2300 3.2300 1.0400e0030.0000 3.2561 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 - 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 3.0000e0052.0000e0052.6000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0043.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0730 0.0730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0736 Total 3.0000e0052.0000e0052.6000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0043.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0730 0.0730 0.0000 0.0000 0.0736 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 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0103 0.0000 0.0103 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.9000e0030.0415 0.0261 6.0000e0051.7200e0031.7200e0031.5800e0031.5800e0030.0000 5.4311 5.4311 1.7600e0030.0000 5.4750 Total 3.9000e0030.0415 0.0261 6.0000e0050.0213 1.7200e0030.0230 0.0103 1.5800e0030.0119 0.0000 5.4311 5.4311 1.7600e0030.0000 5.4750 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 9.0000e0055.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 2.4000e0040.0000 2.4000e0046.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 0.1824 0.1824 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.1840 Total 9.0000e0055.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 2.4000e0040.0000 2.4000e0046.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 0.1824 0.1824 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.1840 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 8.2900e0030.0000 8.2900e0034.0100e0030.0000 4.0100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.9000e0030.0415 0.0261 6.0000e0051.7200e0031.7200e0031.5800e0031.5800e0030.0000 5.4311 5.4311 1.7600e0030.0000 5.4750 Total 3.9000e0030.0415 0.0261 6.0000e0058.2900e0031.7200e0030.0100 4.0100e0031.5800e0035.5900e0030.0000 5.4311 5.4311 1.7600e0030.0000 5.4750 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 9.0000e0055.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 2.4000e0040.0000 2.4000e0046.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 0.1824 0.1824 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.1840 Total 9.0000e0055.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 2.4000e0040.0000 2.4000e0046.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 0.1824 0.1824 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.1840 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 0.0184 0.1475 0.1622 2.9000e0046.1900e0036.1900e0035.9300e0035.9300e0030.0000 23.8871 23.8871 4.4500e0030.0000 23.9983 Total 0.0184 0.1475 0.1622 2.9000e0046.1900e0036.1900e0035.9300e0035.9300e0030.0000 23.8871 23.8871 4.4500e0030.0000 23.9983 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 - 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 1.8000e0047.5800e0032.2200e0033.0000e0051.1400e0035.0000e0051.1900e0033.3000e0045.0000e0053.8000e0040.0000 3.2610 3.2610 2.0000e0054.9000e0043.4077 Worker 1.2200e0037.5000e0049.2500e0033.0000e0053.4000e0032.0000e0053.4200e0039.0000e0041.0000e0059.2000e0040.0000 2.5871 2.5871 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.6103 Total 1.4000e0038.3300e0030.0115 6.0000e0054.5400e0037.0000e0054.6100e0031.2300e0036.0000e0051.3000e0030.0000 5.8481 5.8481 9.0000e0055.6000e0046.0180 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 0.0184 0.1475 0.1622 2.9000e0046.1900e0036.1900e0035.9300e0035.9300e0030.0000 23.8871 23.8871 4.4500e0030.0000 23.9983 Total 0.0184 0.1475 0.1622 2.9000e0046.1900e0036.1900e0035.9300e0035.9300e0030.0000 23.8871 23.8871 4.4500e0030.0000 23.9983 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 - 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 1.8000e0047.5800e0032.2200e0033.0000e0051.1400e0035.0000e0051.1900e0033.3000e0045.0000e0053.8000e0040.0000 3.2610 3.2610 2.0000e0054.9000e0043.4077 Worker 1.2200e0037.5000e0049.2500e0033.0000e0053.4000e0032.0000e0053.4200e0039.0000e0041.0000e0059.2000e0040.0000 2.5871 2.5871 7.0000e0057.0000e0052.6103 Total 1.4000e0038.3300e0030.0115 6.0000e0054.5400e0037.0000e0054.6100e0031.2300e0036.0000e0051.3000e0030.0000 5.8481 5.8481 9.0000e0055.6000e0046.0180 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 0.1467 1.1843 1.3797 2.4700e0030.0463 0.0463 0.0443 0.0443 0.0000 204.6193 204.6193 0.0375 0.0000 205.5574 Total 0.1467 1.1843 1.3797 2.4700e0030.0463 0.0463 0.0443 0.0443 0.0000 204.6193 204.6193 0.0375 0.0000 205.5574 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 1.5100e0030.0647 0.0186 2.9000e0049.8000e0034.2000e0040.0102 2.8300e0034.0000e0043.2300e0030.0000 27.3943 27.3943 1.4000e0044.1200e00328.6263 Worker 9.6900e0035.7300e0030.0735 2.3000e0040.0291 1.3000e0040.0293 7.7400e0031.2000e0047.8600e0030.0000 21.4126 21.4126 5.7000e0045.7000e00421.5972 Total 0.0112 0.0704 0.0922 5.2000e0040.0389 5.5000e0040.0395 0.0106 5.2000e0040.0111 0.0000 48.8069 48.8069 7.1000e0044.6900e00350.2235 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 0.1467 1.1843 1.3797 2.4700e0030.0463 0.0463 0.0443 0.0443 0.0000 204.6190 204.6190 0.0375 0.0000 205.5572 Total 0.1467 1.1843 1.3797 2.4700e0030.0463 0.0463 0.0443 0.0443 0.0000 204.6190 204.6190 0.0375 0.0000 205.5572 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 1.5100e0030.0647 0.0186 2.9000e0049.8000e0034.2000e0040.0102 2.8300e0034.0000e0043.2300e0030.0000 27.3943 27.3943 1.4000e0044.1200e00328.6263 Worker 9.6900e0035.7300e0030.0735 2.3000e0040.0291 1.3000e0040.0293 7.7400e0031.2000e0047.8600e0030.0000 21.4126 21.4126 5.7000e0045.7000e00421.5972 Total 0.0112 0.0704 0.0922 5.2000e0040.0389 5.5000e0040.0395 0.0106 5.2000e0040.0111 0.0000 48.8069 48.8069 7.1000e0044.6900e00350.2235 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 3.9300e0030.0372 0.0584 9.0000e0051.7500e0031.7500e0031.6200e0031.6200e0030.0000 7.7565 7.7565 2.4600e0030.0000 7.8179 Paving 1.7000e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.6300e0030.0372 0.0584 9.0000e0051.7500e0031.7500e0031.6200e0031.6200e0030.0000 7.7565 7.7565 2.4600e0030.0000 7.8179 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 2.0000e0041.2000e0041.5100e0030.0000 6.0000e0040.0000 6.0000e0041.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.4407 0.4407 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4445 Total 2.0000e0041.2000e0041.5100e0030.0000 6.0000e0040.0000 6.0000e0041.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.4407 0.4407 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4445 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 3.9300e0030.0372 0.0584 9.0000e0051.7500e0031.7500e0031.6200e0031.6200e0030.0000 7.7565 7.7565 2.4600e0030.0000 7.8179 Paving 1.7000e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.6300e0030.0372 0.0584 9.0000e0051.7500e0031.7500e0031.6200e0031.6200e0030.0000 7.7565 7.7565 2.4600e0030.0000 7.8179 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 2.0000e0041.2000e0041.5100e0030.0000 6.0000e0040.0000 6.0000e0041.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.4407 0.4407 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4445 Total 2.0000e0041.2000e0041.5100e0030.0000 6.0000e0040.0000 6.0000e0041.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.4407 0.4407 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4445 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 0.1442 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 0.1450 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 17 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 - 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 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.1000e0040.0000 2.8000e0040.0000 2.8000e0047.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2056 0.2056 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2074 Total 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.1000e0040.0000 2.8000e0040.0000 2.8000e0047.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2056 0.2056 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2074 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 0.1442 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 0.1450 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 18 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 - 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 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.1000e0040.0000 2.8000e0040.0000 2.8000e0047.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2056 0.2056 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2074 Total 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.1000e0040.0000 2.8000e0040.0000 2.8000e0047.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 0.2056 0.2056 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2074 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 0.1140 0.1594 0.8926 1.9200e0030.1919 1.6200e0030.1935 0.0513 1.5200e0030.0529 0.0000 177.5586 177.5586 0.0114 0.0108 181.0711 Unmitigated 0.1140 0.1594 0.8926 1.9200e0030.1919 1.6200e0030.1935 0.0513 1.5200e0030.0529 0.0000 177.5586 177.5586 0.0114 0.0108 181.0711
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
Government Office Building 417.92 0.00 0.00 511,910 511,910 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 417.92 0.00 0.00 511,910 511,910
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 Government Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 62.00 5.00 50 34 16 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Government Office Building 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Parking Lot 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865
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 16.9651 16.9651 2.7400e0033.3000e00417.1329 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 16.9651 16.9651 2.7400e0033.3000e00417.1329 NaturalGas
Mitigated
1.2900e0030.0117 9.8400e0037.0000e0058.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0040.0000 12.7550 12.7550 2.4000e0042.3000e00412.8308 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
1.2900e0030.0117 9.8400e0037.0000e0058.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0040.0000 12.7550 12.7550 2.4000e0042.3000e00412.8308
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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
Government
Office Building
239020 1.2900e0030.0117 9.8400e0037.0000e0058.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0040.0000 12.7550 12.7550 2.4000e0042.3000e00412.8308 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 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 1.2900e0030.0117 9.8400e0037.0000e0058.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0040.0000 12.7550 12.7550 2.4000e0042.3000e00412.8308 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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
Government
Office Building
239020 1.2900e0030.0117 9.8400e0037.0000e0058.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0040.0000 12.7550 12.7550 2.4000e0042.3000e00412.8308 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 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 1.2900e0030.0117 9.8400e0037.0000e0058.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0048.9000e0040.0000 12.7550 12.7550 2.4000e0042.3000e00412.8308 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Government
Office Building
163540 15.1313 2.4500e0033.0000e00415.2810
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 19819.8 1.8338 3.0000e0044.0000e0051.8519 Total 16.9651 2.7500e0033.4000e00417.1329
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
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
Government
Office Building
163540 15.1313 2.4500e0033.0000e00415.2810
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 19819.8 1.8338 3.0000e0044.0000e0051.8519 Total 16.9651 2.7500e0033.4000e00417.1329
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 0.0915 0.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6000e0043.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.8000e004 Unmitigated 0.0915 0.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6000e0043.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.8000e004
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
0.0144 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.0771 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.0000e0050.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6000e0043.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.8000e004 Total 0.0915 0.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6000e0043.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.8000e004 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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
0.0144 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.0771 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.0000e0050.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6000e0043.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.8000e004 Total 0.0915 0.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.6000e0043.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.8000e004 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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 3.7354 0.1202 2.8800e0037.5974
Unmitigated 3.7354 0.1202 2.8800e0037.5974
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Government
Office Building
3.6752 /
2.25254
3.7354 0.1202 2.8800e0037.5974
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.7354 0.1202 2.8800e0037.5974
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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
Government
Office Building
3.6752 /
2.25254
3.7354 0.1202 2.8800e0037.5974
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.7354 0.1202 2.8800e0037.5974
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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
MT/yr
Mitigated 3.4935 0.2065 0.0000 8.6549
Unmitigated 3.4935 0.2065 0.0000 8.6549
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Government
Office Building
17.21 3.4935 0.2065 0.0000 8.6549
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.4935 0.2065 0.0000 8.6549
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno 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
Government
Office Building
17.21 3.4935 0.2065 0.0000 8.6549
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.4935 0.2065 0.0000 8.6549
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 32 Date: 10/20/2023 8:25 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project
Fresno County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government Office Building 18.50 1000sqft 0.42 18,500.00 0 Parking Lot 1.30 Acre 1.30 56,628.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.41 Acre 0.41 17,859.60 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
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
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/27/2025 10/30/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2025 10/2/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/26/2024 11/28/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/13/2025 10/16/2025 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/18/2024 11/20/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/14/2025 10/17/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/27/2024 11/29/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/19/2024 11/21/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2025 10/3/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/14/2024 11/18/2024 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 1.7355 13.8343 15.2163 0.0307 7.1647 0.5726 7.7373 3.4465 0.5268 3.9733 0.0000 2,871.569 8 2,871.569
8 0.7691 0.0536 2,898.404
5 2025 29.0236 12.7058 15.0512 0.0305 0.4056 0.4755 0.8811 0.1099 0.4551 0.5650 0.0000 2,856.655 9 2,856.655
9 0.5444 0.0522 2,882.902
5 Maximum 29.0236 13.8343 15.2163 0.0307 7.1647 0.5726 7.7373 3.4465 0.5268 3.9733 0.0000 2,871.569 8 2,871.569
8 0.7691 0.0536 2,898.404
5 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 1.7355 13.8343 15.2163 0.0307 2.8444 0.5726 3.4170 1.3574 0.5268 1.8842 0.0000 2,871.569 8 2,871.569
8 0.7691 0.0536 2,898.404
5 2025 29.0236 12.7058 15.0512 0.0305 0.4056 0.4755 0.8811 0.1099 0.4551 0.5650 0.0000 2,856.655 9 2,856.655
9 0.5444 0.0522 2,882.902
5 Maximum 29.0236 13.8343 15.2163 0.0307 2.8444 0.5726 3.4170 1.3574 0.5268 1.8842 0.0000 2,871.569 8 2,871.569
8 0.7691 0.0536 2,898.404
5 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer 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 57.07 0.00 50.13 58.74 0.00 46.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer 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 lb/day lb/day
Area 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Energy 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Mobile 1.0965 1.1568 7.1602 0.0157 1.5164 0.0125 1.5288 0.4048 0.0117 0.4165 1,598.545 7 1,598.545
7 0.0901 0.0894 1,627.451
5 Total 1.6050 1.2210 7.2162 0.0161 1.5164 0.0174 1.5337 0.4048 0.0166 0.4214 1,675.591 2 1,675.591
2 0.0916 0.0909 1,704.955
1 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Energy 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Mobile 1.0965 1.1568 7.1602 0.0157 1.5164 0.0125 1.5288 0.4048 0.0117 0.4165 1,598.545 7 1,598.545
7 0.0901 0.0894 1,627.451
5 Total 1.6050 1.2210 7.2162 0.0161 1.5164 0.0174 1.5337 0.4048 0.0166 0.4214 1,675.591 2 1,675.591
2 0.0916 0.0909 1,704.955
1 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/18/2024 11/20/2024 5 3 2 Grading Grading 11/21/2024 11/28/2024 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 11/29/2024 10/2/2025 5 220 4 Paving Paving 10/3/2025 10/16/2025 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/17/2025 10/30/2025 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 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 27,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 9,250; Striped Parking Area: 4,469 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 1.71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
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 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
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 8 37.00 15.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 7.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2406 13.1186 9.5796 0.0245 0.4971 0.4971 0.4573 0.4573 2,373.651 4 2,373.651
4 0.7677 2,392.843
5 Total 1.2406 13.1186 9.5796 0.0245 1.5908 0.4971 2.0878 0.1718 0.4573 0.6291 2,373.651 4 2,373.651
4 0.7677 2,392.843
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0264 0.0132 0.2003 5.8000e0040.0657 2.9000e0040.0660 0.0174 2.7000e0040.0177 58.2900 58.2900 1.4500e0031.4200e00358.7501 Total 0.0264 0.0132 0.2003 5.8000e0040.0657 2.9000e0040.0660 0.0174 2.7000e0040.0177 58.2900 58.2900 1.4500e0031.4200e00358.7501 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.6204 0.0000 0.6204 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2406 13.1186 9.5796 0.0245 0.4971 0.4971 0.4573 0.4573 0.0000 2,373.651 4 2,373.651
4 0.7677 2,392.843
5 Total 1.2406 13.1186 9.5796 0.0245 0.6204 0.4971 1.1175 0.0670 0.4573 0.5243 0.0000 2,373.651 4 2,373.651
4 0.7677 2,392.843
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0264 0.0132 0.2003 5.8000e0040.0657 2.9000e0040.0660 0.0174 2.7000e0040.0177 58.2900 58.2900 1.4500e0031.4200e00358.7501 Total 0.0264 0.0132 0.2003 5.8000e0040.0657 2.9000e0040.0660 0.0174 2.7000e0040.0177 58.2900 58.2900 1.4500e0031.4200e00358.7501 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3015 13.8178 8.6998 0.0206 0.5722 0.5722 0.5265 0.5265 1,995.580 3 1,995.580
3 0.6454 2,011.715
5 Total 1.3015 13.8178 8.6998 0.0206 7.0826 0.5722 7.6548 3.4247 0.5265 3.9512 1,995.580 3 1,995.580
3 0.6454 2,011.715
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0330 0.0165 0.2503 7.2000e0040.0822 3.6000e0040.0825 0.0218 3.4000e0040.0221 72.8625 72.8625 1.8100e0031.7800e00373.4377 Total 0.0330 0.0165 0.2503 7.2000e0040.0822 3.6000e0040.0825 0.0218 3.4000e0040.0221 72.8625 72.8625 1.8100e0031.7800e00373.4377 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.7622 0.0000 2.7622 1.3357 0.0000 1.3357 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3015 13.8178 8.6998 0.0206 0.5722 0.5722 0.5265 0.5265 0.0000 1,995.580 3 1,995.580
3 0.6454 2,011.715
5 Total 1.3015 13.8178 8.6998 0.0206 2.7622 0.5722 3.3345 1.3357 0.5265 1.8621 0.0000 1,995.580 3 1,995.580
3 0.6454 2,011.715
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0330 0.0165 0.2503 7.2000e0040.0822 3.6000e0040.0825 0.0218 3.4000e0040.0221 72.8625 72.8625 1.8100e0031.7800e00373.4377 Total 0.0330 0.0165 0.2503 7.2000e0040.0822 3.6000e0040.0825 0.0218 3.4000e0040.0221 72.8625 72.8625 1.8100e0031.7800e00373.4377 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5971 12.8235 14.1002 0.0250 0.5381 0.5381 0.5153 0.5153 2,289.654 1 2,289.654
1 0.4265 2,300.315
4 Total 1.5971 12.8235 14.1002 0.0250 0.5381 0.5381 0.5153 0.5153 2,289.654 1 2,289.654
1 0.4265 2,300.315
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0162 0.6306 0.1900 2.9500e0030.1017 4.2500e0030.1059 0.0293 4.0700e0030.0334 312.3245 312.3245 1.6500e0030.0470 326.3698 Worker 0.1222 0.0611 0.9262 2.6700e0030.3040 1.3500e0030.3053 0.0806 1.2400e0030.0819 269.5912 269.5912 6.6900e0036.5800e003271.7193 Total 0.1384 0.6917 1.1162 5.6200e0030.4056 5.6000e0030.4112 0.1099 5.3100e0030.1152 581.9157 581.9157 8.3400e0030.0536 598.0891 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5971 12.8235 14.1002 0.0250 0.5381 0.5381 0.5153 0.5153 0.0000 2,289.654 1 2,289.654
1 0.4265 2,300.315
4 Total 1.5971 12.8235 14.1002 0.0250 0.5381 0.5381 0.5153 0.5153 0.0000 2,289.654 1 2,289.654
1 0.4265 2,300.315
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0162 0.6306 0.1900 2.9500e0030.1017 4.2500e0030.1059 0.0293 4.0700e0030.0334 312.3245 312.3245 1.6500e0030.0470 326.3698 Worker 0.1222 0.0611 0.9262 2.6700e0030.3040 1.3500e0030.3053 0.0806 1.2400e0030.0819 269.5912 269.5912 6.6900e0036.5800e003271.7193 Total 0.1384 0.6917 1.1162 5.6200e0030.4056 5.6000e0030.4112 0.1099 5.3100e0030.1152 581.9157 581.9157 8.3400e0030.0536 598.0891 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4897 12.0233 14.0072 0.0250 0.4700 0.4700 0.4498 0.4498 2,289.889 8 2,289.889
8 0.4200 2,300.388
7 Total 1.4897 12.0233 14.0072 0.0250 0.4700 0.4700 0.4498 0.4498 2,289.889 8 2,289.889
8 0.4200 2,300.388
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0158 0.6281 0.1861 2.9000e0030.1017 4.2500e0030.1059 0.0293 4.0600e0030.0333 306.3193 306.3193 1.5600e0030.0461 320.0910 Worker 0.1134 0.0544 0.8579 2.5800e0030.3040 1.2800e0030.3052 0.0806 1.1800e0030.0818 260.4468 260.4468 6.0200e0036.1300e003262.4228 Total 0.1292 0.6825 1.0440 5.4800e0030.4056 5.5300e0030.4112 0.1099 5.2400e0030.1151 566.7661 566.7661 7.5800e0030.0522 582.5139 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4897 12.0233 14.0072 0.0250 0.4700 0.4700 0.4498 0.4498 0.0000 2,289.889 8 2,289.889
8 0.4200 2,300.388
7 Total 1.4897 12.0233 14.0072 0.0250 0.4700 0.4700 0.4498 0.4498 0.0000 2,289.889 8 2,289.889
8 0.4200 2,300.388
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0158 0.6281 0.1861 2.9000e0030.1017 4.2500e0030.1059 0.0293 4.0600e0030.0333 306.3193 306.3193 1.5600e0030.0461 320.0910 Worker 0.1134 0.0544 0.8579 2.5800e0030.3040 1.2800e0030.3052 0.0806 1.1800e0030.0818 260.4468 260.4468 6.0200e0036.1300e003262.4228 Total 0.1292 0.6825 1.0440 5.4800e0030.4056 5.5300e0030.4112 0.1099 5.2400e0030.1151 566.7661 566.7661 7.5800e0030.0522 582.5139 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7854 7.4371 11.6737 0.0179 0.3503 0.3503 0.3234 0.3234 1,710.006 7 1,710.006
7 0.5420 1,723.555
6 Paving 0.3406 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1260 7.4371 11.6737 0.0179 0.3503 0.3503 0.3234 0.3234 1,710.006 7 1,710.006
7 0.5420 1,723.555
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0460 0.0220 0.3478 1.0400e0030.1232 5.2000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.8000e0040.0332 105.5866 105.5866 2.4400e0032.4800e003106.3876 Total 0.0460 0.0220 0.3478 1.0400e0030.1232 5.2000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.8000e0040.0332 105.5866 105.5866 2.4400e0032.4800e003106.3876 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7854 7.4371 11.6737 0.0179 0.3503 0.3503 0.3234 0.3234 0.0000 1,710.006 7 1,710.006
7 0.5420 1,723.555
6 Paving 0.3406 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1260 7.4371 11.6737 0.0179 0.3503 0.3503 0.3234 0.3234 0.0000 1,710.006 7 1,710.006
7 0.5420 1,723.555
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0460 0.0220 0.3478 1.0400e0030.1232 5.2000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.8000e0040.0332 105.5866 105.5866 2.4400e0032.4800e003106.3876 Total 0.0460 0.0220 0.3478 1.0400e0030.1232 5.2000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.8000e0040.0332 105.5866 105.5866 2.4400e0032.4800e003106.3876 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.8313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 29.0022 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0215 0.0103 0.1623 4.9000e0040.0575 2.4000e0040.0578 0.0153 2.2000e0040.0155 49.2737 49.2737 1.1400e0031.1600e00349.6476 Total 0.0215 0.0103 0.1623 4.9000e0040.0575 2.4000e0040.0578 0.0153 2.2000e0040.0155 49.2737 49.2737 1.1400e0031.1600e00349.6476 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.8313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 29.0022 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0215 0.0103 0.1623 4.9000e0040.0575 2.4000e0040.0578 0.0153 2.2000e0040.0155 49.2737 49.2737 1.1400e0031.1600e00349.6476 Total 0.0215 0.0103 0.1623 4.9000e0040.0575 2.4000e0040.0578 0.0153 2.2000e0040.0155 49.2737 49.2737 1.1400e0031.1600e00349.6476 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.0965 1.1568 7.1602 0.0157 1.5164 0.0125 1.5288 0.4048 0.0117 0.4165 1,598.545 7 1,598.545
7 0.0901 0.0894 1,627.451
5 Unmitigated 1.0965 1.1568 7.1602 0.0157 1.5164 0.0125 1.5288 0.4048 0.0117 0.4165 1,598.545 7 1,598.545
7 0.0901 0.0894 1,627.451
5 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Government Office Building 417.92 0.00 0.00 511,910 511,910 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 417.92 0.00 0.00 511,910 511,910
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 Government Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 62.00 5.00 50 34 16 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Government Office Building 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865 Parking Lot 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer 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 lb/day lb/day
Government
Office Building
654.849 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 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 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Government
Office Building
0.654849 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 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 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer 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 lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Unmitigated 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0790 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.9000e0042.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Total 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0790 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.9000e0042.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Total 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.0 Vegetation
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:27 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project
Fresno County, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government Office Building 18.50 1000sqft 0.42 18,500.00 0 Parking Lot 1.30 Acre 1.30 56,628.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.41 Acre 0.41 17,859.60 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2025
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
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/27/2025 10/30/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2025 10/2/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/26/2024 11/28/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/13/2025 10/16/2025 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/18/2024 11/20/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/14/2025 10/17/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/27/2024 11/29/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/19/2024 11/21/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2025 10/3/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/14/2024 11/18/2024 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 1.7210 13.8372 15.0929 0.0304 7.1647 0.5726 7.7373 3.4465 0.5268 3.9733 0.0000 2,841.961 0 2,841.961
0 0.7693 0.0544 2,869.073
4 2025 29.0213 12.7589 14.9403 0.0302 0.4056 0.4755 0.8811 0.1099 0.4551 0.5650 0.0000 2,828.140 2 2,828.140
2 0.5447 0.0530 2,854.645
8 Maximum 29.0213 13.8372 15.0929 0.0304 7.1647 0.5726 7.7373 3.4465 0.5268 3.9733 0.0000 2,841.961 0 2,841.961
0 0.7693 0.0544 2,869.073
4 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 1.7210 13.8372 15.0929 0.0304 2.8444 0.5726 3.4170 1.3574 0.5268 1.8842 0.0000 2,841.961 0 2,841.961
0 0.7693 0.0544 2,869.073
4 2025 29.0213 12.7589 14.9403 0.0302 0.4056 0.4755 0.8811 0.1099 0.4551 0.5650 0.0000 2,828.140 2 2,828.140
2 0.5447 0.0530 2,854.645
8 Maximum 29.0213 13.8372 15.0929 0.0304 2.8444 0.5726 3.4170 1.3574 0.5268 1.8842 0.0000 2,841.961 0 2,841.961
0 0.7693 0.0544 2,869.073
4 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter 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 57.07 0.00 50.13 58.74 0.00 46.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter 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 lb/day lb/day
Area 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Energy 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Mobile 0.8109 1.2920 7.2919 0.0144 1.5164 0.0125 1.5288 0.4048 0.0117 0.4165 1,472.017 2 1,472.017
2 0.1050 0.0952 1,503.020
4 Total 1.3194 1.3562 7.3478 0.0148 1.5164 0.0174 1.5337 0.4048 0.0166 0.4214 1,549.062 7 1,549.062
7 0.1065 0.0966 1,580.524
0 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Energy 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Mobile 0.8109 1.2920 7.2919 0.0144 1.5164 0.0125 1.5288 0.4048 0.0117 0.4165 1,472.017 2 1,472.017
2 0.1050 0.0952 1,503.020
4 Total 1.3194 1.3562 7.3478 0.0148 1.5164 0.0174 1.5337 0.4048 0.0166 0.4214 1,549.062 7 1,549.062
7 0.1065 0.0966 1,580.524
0 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/18/2024 11/20/2024 5 3 2 Grading Grading 11/21/2024 11/28/2024 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 11/29/2024 10/2/2025 5 220 4 Paving Paving 10/3/2025 10/16/2025 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/17/2025 10/30/2025 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 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 27,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 9,250; Striped Parking Area: 4,469 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 1.71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
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 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
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 8 37.00 15.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 7.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2406 13.1186 9.5796 0.0245 0.4971 0.4971 0.4573 0.4573 2,373.651 4 2,373.651
4 0.7677 2,392.843
5 Total 1.2406 13.1186 9.5796 0.0245 1.5908 0.4971 2.0878 0.1718 0.4573 0.6291 2,373.651 4 2,373.651
4 0.7677 2,392.843
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0235 0.0155 0.1722 5.1000e0040.0657 2.9000e0040.0660 0.0174 2.7000e0040.0177 51.7577 51.7577 1.6400e0031.5800e00352.2700 Total 0.0235 0.0155 0.1722 5.1000e0040.0657 2.9000e0040.0660 0.0174 2.7000e0040.0177 51.7577 51.7577 1.6400e0031.5800e00352.2700 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.6204 0.0000 0.6204 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2406 13.1186 9.5796 0.0245 0.4971 0.4971 0.4573 0.4573 0.0000 2,373.651 4 2,373.651
4 0.7677 2,392.843
5 Total 1.2406 13.1186 9.5796 0.0245 0.6204 0.4971 1.1175 0.0670 0.4573 0.5243 0.0000 2,373.651 4 2,373.651
4 0.7677 2,392.843
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0235 0.0155 0.1722 5.1000e0040.0657 2.9000e0040.0660 0.0174 2.7000e0040.0177 51.7577 51.7577 1.6400e0031.5800e00352.2700 Total 0.0235 0.0155 0.1722 5.1000e0040.0657 2.9000e0040.0660 0.0174 2.7000e0040.0177 51.7577 51.7577 1.6400e0031.5800e00352.2700 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3015 13.8178 8.6998 0.0206 0.5722 0.5722 0.5265 0.5265 1,995.580 3 1,995.580
3 0.6454 2,011.715
5 Total 1.3015 13.8178 8.6998 0.0206 7.0826 0.5722 7.6548 3.4247 0.5265 3.9512 1,995.580 3 1,995.580
3 0.6454 2,011.715
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0294 0.0194 0.2152 6.4000e0040.0822 3.6000e0040.0825 0.0218 3.4000e0040.0221 64.6972 64.6972 2.0500e0031.9800e00365.3374 Total 0.0294 0.0194 0.2152 6.4000e0040.0822 3.6000e0040.0825 0.0218 3.4000e0040.0221 64.6972 64.6972 2.0500e0031.9800e00365.3374 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.7622 0.0000 2.7622 1.3357 0.0000 1.3357 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3015 13.8178 8.6998 0.0206 0.5722 0.5722 0.5265 0.5265 0.0000 1,995.580 3 1,995.580
3 0.6454 2,011.715
5 Total 1.3015 13.8178 8.6998 0.0206 2.7622 0.5722 3.3345 1.3357 0.5265 1.8621 0.0000 1,995.580 3 1,995.580
3 0.6454 2,011.715
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0294 0.0194 0.2152 6.4000e0040.0822 3.6000e0040.0825 0.0218 3.4000e0040.0221 64.6972 64.6972 2.0500e0031.9800e00365.3374 Total 0.0294 0.0194 0.2152 6.4000e0040.0822 3.6000e0040.0825 0.0218 3.4000e0040.0221 64.6972 64.6972 2.0500e0031.9800e00365.3374 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5971 12.8235 14.1002 0.0250 0.5381 0.5381 0.5153 0.5153 2,289.654 1 2,289.654
1 0.4265 2,300.315
4 Total 1.5971 12.8235 14.1002 0.0250 0.5381 0.5381 0.5153 0.5153 2,289.654 1 2,289.654
1 0.4265 2,300.315
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0152 0.6746 0.1965 2.9600e0030.1017 4.2600e0030.1060 0.0293 4.0800e0030.0334 312.9274 312.9274 1.6000e0030.0471 327.0095 Worker 0.1087 0.0717 0.7963 2.3700e0030.3040 1.3500e0030.3053 0.0806 1.2400e0030.0819 239.3795 239.3795 7.5700e0037.3100e003241.7485 Total 0.1239 0.7463 0.9928 5.3300e0030.4056 5.6100e0030.4113 0.1099 5.3200e0030.1152 552.3069 552.3069 9.1700e0030.0544 568.7580 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5971 12.8235 14.1002 0.0250 0.5381 0.5381 0.5153 0.5153 0.0000 2,289.654 1 2,289.654
1 0.4265 2,300.315
4 Total 1.5971 12.8235 14.1002 0.0250 0.5381 0.5381 0.5153 0.5153 0.0000 2,289.654 1 2,289.654
1 0.4265 2,300.315
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0152 0.6746 0.1965 2.9600e0030.1017 4.2600e0030.1060 0.0293 4.0800e0030.0334 312.9274 312.9274 1.6000e0030.0471 327.0095 Worker 0.1087 0.0717 0.7963 2.3700e0030.3040 1.3500e0030.3053 0.0806 1.2400e0030.0819 239.3795 239.3795 7.5700e0037.3100e003241.7485 Total 0.1239 0.7463 0.9928 5.3300e0030.4056 5.6100e0030.4113 0.1099 5.3200e0030.1152 552.3069 552.3069 9.1700e0030.0544 568.7580 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4897 12.0233 14.0072 0.0250 0.4700 0.4700 0.4498 0.4498 2,289.889 8 2,289.889
8 0.4200 2,300.388
7 Total 1.4897 12.0233 14.0072 0.0250 0.4700 0.4700 0.4498 0.4498 2,289.889 8 2,289.889
8 0.4200 2,300.388
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0148 0.6719 0.1925 2.9000e0030.1017 4.2600e0030.1059 0.0293 4.0800e0030.0334 306.9140 306.9140 1.5200e0030.0462 320.7213 Worker 0.1012 0.0637 0.7405 2.2900e0030.3040 1.2800e0030.3052 0.0806 1.1800e0030.0818 231.3364 231.3364 6.8500e0036.8100e003233.5358 Total 0.1160 0.7356 0.9331 5.1900e0030.4056 5.5400e0030.4112 0.1099 5.2600e0030.1152 538.2504 538.2504 8.3700e0030.0530 554.2571 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4897 12.0233 14.0072 0.0250 0.4700 0.4700 0.4498 0.4498 0.0000 2,289.889 8 2,289.889
8 0.4200 2,300.388
7 Total 1.4897 12.0233 14.0072 0.0250 0.4700 0.4700 0.4498 0.4498 0.0000 2,289.889 8 2,289.889
8 0.4200 2,300.388
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0148 0.6719 0.1925 2.9000e0030.1017 4.2600e0030.1059 0.0293 4.0800e0030.0334 306.9140 306.9140 1.5200e0030.0462 320.7213 Worker 0.1012 0.0637 0.7405 2.2900e0030.3040 1.2800e0030.3052 0.0806 1.1800e0030.0818 231.3364 231.3364 6.8500e0036.8100e003233.5358 Total 0.1160 0.7356 0.9331 5.1900e0030.4056 5.5400e0030.4112 0.1099 5.2600e0030.1152 538.2504 538.2504 8.3700e0030.0530 554.2571 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7854 7.4371 11.6737 0.0179 0.3503 0.3503 0.3234 0.3234 1,710.006 7 1,710.006
7 0.5420 1,723.555
6 Paving 0.3406 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1260 7.4371 11.6737 0.0179 0.3503 0.3503 0.3234 0.3234 1,710.006 7 1,710.006
7 0.5420 1,723.555
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0410 0.0258 0.3002 9.3000e0040.1232 5.2000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.8000e0040.0332 93.7850 93.7850 2.7800e0032.7600e00394.6767 Total 0.0410 0.0258 0.3002 9.3000e0040.1232 5.2000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.8000e0040.0332 93.7850 93.7850 2.7800e0032.7600e00394.6767 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7854 7.4371 11.6737 0.0179 0.3503 0.3503 0.3234 0.3234 0.0000 1,710.006 7 1,710.006
7 0.5420 1,723.555
6 Paving 0.3406 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1260 7.4371 11.6737 0.0179 0.3503 0.3503 0.3234 0.3234 0.0000 1,710.006 7 1,710.006
7 0.5420 1,723.555
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0410 0.0258 0.3002 9.3000e0040.1232 5.2000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.8000e0040.0332 93.7850 93.7850 2.7800e0032.7600e00394.6767 Total 0.0410 0.0258 0.3002 9.3000e0040.1232 5.2000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.8000e0040.0332 93.7850 93.7850 2.7800e0032.7600e00394.6767 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.8313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 29.0022 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0192 0.0121 0.1401 4.3000e0040.0575 2.4000e0040.0578 0.0153 2.2000e0040.0155 43.7663 43.7663 1.3000e0031.2900e00344.1825 Total 0.0192 0.0121 0.1401 4.3000e0040.0575 2.4000e0040.0578 0.0153 2.2000e0040.0155 43.7663 43.7663 1.3000e0031.2900e00344.1825 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.8313 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 29.0022 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0192 0.0121 0.1401 4.3000e0040.0575 2.4000e0040.0578 0.0153 2.2000e0040.0155 43.7663 43.7663 1.3000e0031.2900e00344.1825 Total 0.0192 0.0121 0.1401 4.3000e0040.0575 2.4000e0040.0578 0.0153 2.2000e0040.0155 43.7663 43.7663 1.3000e0031.2900e00344.1825 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.8109 1.2920 7.2919 0.0144 1.5164 0.0125 1.5288 0.4048 0.0117 0.4165 1,472.017 2 1,472.017
2 0.1050 0.0952 1,503.020
4 Unmitigated 0.8109 1.2920 7.2919 0.0144 1.5164 0.0125 1.5288 0.4048 0.0117 0.4165 1,472.017 2 1,472.017
2 0.1050 0.0952 1,503.020
4 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Government Office Building 417.92 0.00 0.00 511,910 511,910 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 417.92 0.00 0.00 511,910 511,910
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 Government Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 62.00 5.00 50 34 16 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Government Office Building 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865 Parking Lot 0.521458 0.053308 0.175656 0.151963 0.025001 0.006656 0.014407 0.022718 0.000702 0.000287 0.023515 0.001463 0.002865
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter 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 lb/day lb/day
Government
Office Building
654.849 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 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 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Government
Office Building
0.654849 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 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 7.0600e0030.0642 0.0539 3.9000e0044.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e0034.8800e00377.0411 77.0411 1.4800e0031.4100e00377.4989 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter 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 lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Unmitigated 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0790 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.9000e0042.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Total 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter 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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0790 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.9000e0042.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Total 0.5015 2.0000e0052.0600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0054.4200e0034.4200e0031.0000e0054.7100e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.0 Vegetation
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 26 Date: 10/20/2023 8:28 AM Kingsburg 13 ACre Parcel Annexation Project - Fresno County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied HARP Project Summary Report 10/24/2023 10:06:40 AM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 22118
Project Name: KINGSBURG_ANX
Project Output Directory: G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134523002-Parcel Annexation\200 Technical\215 Environmental Planning\Appendices\App A - Air Quality\KINGSBURG_ANX HARP Database: NA
***FACILITY INFORMATION***
Origin
X (m):269936
Y (m):4044897
Zone:11
No. of Sources:1
No. of Buildings:0
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:1
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID StkID ProID PolID PolAbbrev Multi Annual Ems MaxHr Ems MWAF (lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
_____________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ PJT_AREA 0 0 9901 DieselExhPM 1 115.24 0.071575 1
Background
PolID PolAbbrev Conc (ug/m^3) MWAF
________________________________________________________________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH17320.mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH22013
Official: True
PolID PolAbbrev InhCancer OralCancer AcuteREL InhChronicREL OralChronicREL InhChronic8HRREL
_____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
9901 DieselExhPM 1.1 5
***AIR DISPERSION MODELING INFORMATION*** Versions used in HARP. All executables were obtained from USEPA's Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling website (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/) AERMOD: 18081 AERMAP: 18081
BPIPPRM: 04274
AERPLOT: 13329
***METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION***
Version: 18081
Surface File: G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134523002-Parcel Annexation\200 Technical\215 Environmental Planning\Appendices\App A - Air Quality\ KINGSBURG_ANX\Visalia_2007-2010.SFC Profile File: G:\Kingsburg_City of - 1345\134523002-Parcel Annexation\200 Technical\215 Environmental Planning\ Appendices\App A - Air Quality\KINGSBURG_ANX\Visalia_2007-2010.PFL Surface Station: 93144
Upper Station: 23230
On-Site Station: 0
Start Date & Time: 7 1 1 1
End Date & Time: 10 12 31 24
Hours Processed: 35064
Calm Hours: 9717
Missing Hours: 1213
***LIST OF AIR DISPERSION FILES***
AERMOD Input File: \KINGSBURG_ANX_AERMOD.inp
AERMOD Output File: \KINGSBURG_ANX_AERMOD.out
AERMOD Error File: \KINGSBURG_ANX_AERMOD.ERR
Plotfile list _____________
MAX1HRPJT_AREA.PLT
PERIODPJT_AREA.PLT
***LIST OF RISK ASSESSMENT FILES***
Health risk analysis files (\hra\)
_________
Con_CancerRisk.csv
Con_CancerRiskSumByRec.csv
Con_GLCList.csv
Con_HRAInput.hra
Con_NCAcuteRisk.csv
Con_NCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
Con_NCChronicRisk.csv
Con_NCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
Con_Output.txt
Con_PathwayRec.csv
Con_PolDB.csv
Spatial averaging files (\sa\)
_______________________
**HA
RP -
Air
Disp
ersio
n
Mod
eling
and
Risk
Tool
v221
18 **10/
24/
2023
**Ex
port
ed
Risk
Res
ults
REC GRP NET
ID
X Y RIS
K_S
UM
SCE
NAR
IO
INH
AL_
RIS
K
SOI
L_RI
SK
DER
MAL
_RIS
K
MMI
LK_
RIS
K
WAT
ER_
RIS
K
FIS
H_R
ISK
CRO
P_RI
SK
BEE
F_RI
SK
DAI
RY_
RIS
K
PIG
_RIS
K
CHI
CKE
N_R
ISK
EGG
_RIS
K
4 SEN
SITI
V
2694
46 4044
913
2.65 31E11
1Yr
Can
cerD
erive
d_In
hSoil
Der
mM
Milk
_FA
H16t
o70
2.65 31E11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 SEN
SITI
V
2696
26 4045
220
1.12 02E10
1Yr
Can
cerD
erive
d_In
hSoil
Der
mM
Milk
_FA
H16t
o70
1.12 02E10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 SEN
SITI V
2702
53 4044
772
1.29 7E10
1Yr
Can
cerD
erive
d_In
hSoil
Der
mM
Milk
_FA
H16t
o70
1.29 7E10
00000000000
**H
AR
P -
Air
Disp
ersi
on
Mod
elin
g
and
Risk
Tool
v22
118
**10
/24/
202
3 **Ex
port
ed
Risk
Res
ults
RE
C
GR
P
NET
ID
X Y SC
EN
ARI
O
CV CN
S
IMM
UN
KID
NE
Y
GIL
V
RE
PR
O/
DE
VEL
RE
SP
SKI
N
EYE BO
NE/
TEE
TH
EN
DO
BLO
OD
OD
OR
GE
NE
RAL
MA
XHI
4 SE
NSI
TIV
269
446
404
491
3 Non
Can
cer
Chr
onic
Deri
ved
_Inh
Soil
Der
mM
Milk
0 0 0 0 0 0 2.98
35E
-08
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.98
35E
-08
2 SE
NSI
TIV
269
626
404
522
0 Non
Can
cer
Chr
onic
Deri
ved
_Inh
Soil
Der
mM
Milk
0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25
97E
-07
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25
97E
-07
3 SE
NSI
TIV
270
253
404
477 2
Non
Can
cer
Chr
onic
Deri
ved
_Inh
Soil
Der
mM
Milk
000000 1.45
86E
-07
0000000 1.45
86E
-07
**H
AR
P -
Air
Disp
ersi
on
Mod
elin
g
and
Risk
Tool
v22
118
**10
/24/
202
3 **Ex
port
ed
Risk
Res
ults
RE
C
GR
P
NET
ID
X Y SC
EN
ARI
O
CV CN
S
IMM
UN
KID
NE
Y
GIL
V
RE
PR
O/
DE
VEL
RE
SP
SKI
N
EYE BO
NE/
TEE
TH
EN
DO
BLO
OD
OD
OR
GE
NE
RAL
MA
XHI
1 SE
NSI
TIV
269
754
404
523
9 Non
Can
cer
Acut
e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 SE
NSI
TIV
269
626
404
522
0 Non
Can
cer
Acut
e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 SE
NSI
TIV
270
253
404
477
2 Non
Can
cer
Acut
e
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendices
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 B-1
Appendix B: Biological Resources
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
PDAST5L030 None None G2 S2 1B.1
American bumble bee
Bombus pensylvanicus
IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
Antioch efferian robberfly
Efferia antiochi
IIDIP07010 None None G1G2 S1S2
bristly sedge
Carex comosa
PMCYP032Y0 None None G5 S2 2B.1
brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S2 SSC
California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
PMPOA53110 None None G2 S2 1B.2
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
ARADB01017 None None G5T2 S2 SSC
California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
PDBRA31010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
PMPOA3D020 None None G3 S3 2B.1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
ARACF12100 None None G4 S4 SSC
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
IIHYM24480 None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
Earlimart orache
Atriplex cordulata var. erecticaulis
PDCHE042V0 None None G3T1 S1 1B.2
foothill yellow-legged frog - south Sierra DPS
Rana boylii pop. 5
AAABH01055 Proposed
Endangered
Endangered G3T2 S2
Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
CTT61420CA None None G2 S2.2
Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
PMPOA6N010 Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Selma (3611955)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Malaga (3611966)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Sanger (3611965)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Wahtoke (3611964)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Reedley (3611954)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Conejo (3611956)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Laton (3611946)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Burris Park (3611945)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Traver (3611944)) Report Printed on Friday, September 29, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 3/1/2024
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Hurd's metapogon robberfly
Metapogon hurdi
IIDIP08010 None None G1G2 S1S2
lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1
loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
ABPBR01030 None None G4 S4 SSC
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
PDPLM09130 None None G3 S3 1B.2
molestan blister beetle
Lytta molesta
IICOL4C030 None None G2 S2
Morrison bumble bee
Bombus morrisoni
IIHYM24460 None None G3 S1S2
Northern California legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA None None G1 S1.1
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii
PDAST7P030 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
PMPOA4G060 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
PMALI040Q0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
PDAPI0Z0Y0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S4
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
IICOL48011 Threatened None G3T3 S3
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA None None G1 S1.1
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
ICBRA03030 Threatened None G3 S3
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
ICBRA10010 Endangered None G3 S3
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
Report Printed on Friday, September 29, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 3/1/2024
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
AAABF02020 None None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
Winter's sunflower
Helianthus winteri
PDAST4N260 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
Record Count: 43
Report Printed on Friday, September 29, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated September, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 3/1/2024
Selected Elements by Common Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
September 29, 2023
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2023-0135623
Project Name: City of Kingsburg 13 Acre Parcel Annexation CEQA Document Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 09/29/2023 2
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultationhandbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/whatwe-do.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
09/29/2023 3
▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
09/29/2023 4
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0135623
Project Name: City of Kingsburg 13 Acre Parcel Annexation CEQA Document Project Type: New Constr - Above Ground
Project Description: The City of Kingsburg has proposed the annexation and prezoning of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 394-042-04. Additionally, the City has proposed a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the APN into four smaller parcels. Parcel 1 would be 0.65 acres in size, Parcel 2 would be 2.13 acres in size, Parcel 3 would be 10.3 acres in size, and Parcel 4 would be 0.11 acres in size. The City of Kingsburg has proposed the construction of an approximately 18,500 square foot office building on Parcel 2 (project site). The project site is approximately 13.18 acres in size and is generally located north of the intersection of Avenue B and Ventura Court in the County of Fresno. No development is proposed on Parcel 1, 3, or 4 at this time. Any future development of these parcels would require separate, future environmental analysis. Construction of the project would involve grading, paving, building construction, and painting. As a part of the project, Avenue B would be extended, providing access to the project site.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.52363975,-119.56975194735551,14z Counties: Fresno County, California
09/29/2023 5
1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Fresno Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5150
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
AMPHIBIANS
NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
1 09/29/2023 6
CRUSTACEANS
NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
09/29/2023 7
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Provost & Pritchard Consulting
Name: Shaylea Stark
Address: 455 W Fir Ave
City: Clovis
State: CA
Zip: 93612
Email [email protected]
Phone: 5594492700
Appendices
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 C-1
Appendix C: Cultural Resources
To: Wyatt Czeshinski Record Search 23-414
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Ave.
Clovis, CA 93611
Date: October 9, 2023
Re: City of Kingsburg Parcel Annexation CEQA Project
County: Fresno
Map(s): Selma 7.5’
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
The following are the results of a search of the cultural resource files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, California State Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the OHP are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.
PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS
According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies completed within the project area. There have been seven previous cultural resource studies completed within the one half-mile radius: FR-00135, 00669, 00670, 00671, 01940, 02287, & 02452.
Record Search 23-414
KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADIUS According to the information in our files, there are no recorded resources within the project area, and it is unknown if any exist there. There are three recorded resources within the one-half mile radius: P-10-002966, 003930, & 005812. These resources consist of historic era ditches, and a railroad.
Resources: P-10-003930, & P-10-005812 have been given California Historical Resource Status codes of 6Y, indicating Determined ineligible for National Register by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for California Register or local listing. There are no other recorded cultural resources within the project area or radius that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, for the California State Historic Landmarks.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand the project consists of the construction of a 18,500 square foot building, the annexation and prezoning of APN 394-042-04. At present time, this project area has not been previously studied for cultural resources, and it is unknown if any exist there. As such, prior to ground disturbance activities, we recommend a qualified, professional consultant conduct a field survey to determine if cultural resources are present. A list of qualified consultants can be found at www.chrisinfo.org.
We also recommend that you contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. They will provide you with a current list of Native American individuals/organizations that can assist you with information regarding cultural resources that may not be included in the CHRIS Inventory and that may be of concern to the Native groups in the area. The Commission can consult their "Sacred Lands Inventory" file to determine what sacred resources, if any, exist within this project area and the way in which these resources might be managed. Finally, please consult with the lead agency on this project to determine if any other cultural resource investigation is required. If you need any additional information or have any questions or concerns, please contact our office at (661) 654-2289.
By:
Jeremy E David, Assistant Coordinator Date: October 9, 2023 Please note that invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
Appendices
Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation Project
November 2023 D-1
Appendix D: Natural Resources Conservation Service
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Eastern Fresno
Area, California Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
October 17, 2023
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Eastern Fresno Area, California......................................................................13 DhA—Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17..........................13 References............................................................................................................15 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4044850 4044900 4044950 4045000 4045050 4045100 4045150 4045200 4045250 4044850 4044900 4044950 4045000 4045050 4045100 4045150 4045200 4045250 269790 269840 269890 269940 269990 270040 270090
269790 269840 269890 269940 269990 270040 270090
36° 31' 30'' N
119° 34' 16'' W
36° 31' 30'' N
119° 34' 3'' W
36° 31' 16'' N
119° 34' 16'' W
36° 31' 16'' N N 119° 34' 3'' W
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
0 30 60 120 180
Meters
Map Scale: 1:2,180 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Eastern Fresno Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Aug 31, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2022—May 30, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI DhA Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes, MLRA 17
13.2 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 13.2 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11 An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Eastern Fresno Area, California
DhA—Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 17
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2ss8r
Elevation: 30 to 430 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 225 to 310 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Delhi and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Delhi
Setting
Landform: Dunes on fan remnants
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Eolian deposits derived from sandy alluvium derived from granite Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: loamy sand
C1 - 7 to 25 inches: loamy sand
C2 - 25 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Landform: Depressions on fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: No
Dello
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Depressions on fan remnants
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Grangeville
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Hilmar
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Dinuba
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 15 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
16 Chapter 5-Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting
Program Kin_gsburg 13-Acre Parcel
Annexation Project
CHAPTER 5 MITIGATION,
MONITORING, AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
This MMRP has been formulated based upon the findings of the IS/MND for the Project in the City of Kingsburg. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements.
Table 5-1: )![it;uatim, 011ilori11g. Ill}{/ R11p,1rti11lT Program presents the mitigation measures identified for the Project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND.
The first column of Table -I: Mitigalim, Mo11itori111-: mu/ R ,porting Program identifies the mitigation Measure. The second column, entitled "When Monitoring is to Occur," identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, 'Frequency of Monitoring," identifies the frequency of the monitoring of the mitigation measure. The fourth column, 'Agency Responsible for Monitoring," names
the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The last columns will be used by the Lead and Responsible Agencies to ensure that individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored.
November 2023 5-1
ATTACHMENT B
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Ti""#ffi
Table 5-1: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting
Program
Bto-1 Prior to issuing a grading permit, the developer
shall conduct a pre-construction biological survey
prepared by a qualified biologist, acceptable to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thesurvey will be focused on the Fresno Kangaroo Rat,San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Tiger Salamander, Monarch Butterfly, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp andnesting raptors, and migratory birds. The applicant shallfollow any recommendations contained in the
Prior to construction
activities
Cultural Resources
Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
biologist
M.'thocl tt'r
Vcrity
Cort rpliarrcrr
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reportirrg Program
Itt'tll i\4 itili.rt iort Mr,'LlSur t'
l\lortitor i
Vcr ilic.rtion oi
Cortr prli,t ttct'
i:rt.t1Lr,'tti:y crI
l\l\lt)itorirlil
Wlrt'n fulortrtor irt;1 i:
to C)a( r.rl
;\gt'rtcy
Rt'spr:rr:iblt'lor
cut- Should archaeological remains or artifacts be
unearthed during any stage of Project activities,
work in the area of discovery shall cease until thearea is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. lf mitigation is warranted, the Project proponent shall
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
with
assistance of
a qualified
During construction
activities Daily
cut-2
abide recommendations of the archaeo
ln the event that any human remains are
I discovered on the development site, the Fresno' County Coroner must be notified of the discovery j (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5)i and all activities in the immediate area of the findi or in any nearby area reasonably suspected to i overlie adjacent human remains must cease untili appropriate and lawful measures have been implemented. lf the Coroner determines that the
remains are not recent, but rather of Native
American origin, the Coroner shall notifythe NativeAmerican Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours to permit the NAHC to
determine the Most Likely Descendent of thedeceased Native American, During construction
activities Daily
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg
' with
assistance of
County
Coroner
November 2023
Geology
5-2
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting
Program
GEO-1 Should a unique paleontological resource, site, or , unique geological feature be unearthed during anyi stage of Project activities, work in the area of discoveryl will cease untilthe area is evaluated by a qualifiedgeologist and/or paleontologist. lf discoveries are I uncovered, the Project proponent will abide by
recommendations of the geologist orpaleontologist.
City of Kingsburg
and/or construction
contractor
City of
Kingsburg with
assistance of a
qualified
geologist
and/or
paleontologist
During construction
activities Daily
Agency
Rr)iportsibll' tot'
Monitorirrtl
Nlt:thod tir
Vi.tit\
Corrtplrr rti:e
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
tvl i t itl,.tt ir)rr M t,'its Lt r t,
Veritic,rtiorr ot
aon)pli(lrrr e
I r rrqrti'rtc.y rrt
N'lorrrtorirr1l
\ryh..rr [\1or)rtorirr;q r:' Irr
0ct Lrr
November 2023 5-3
Chapter 5- Mitigation, Monitoring,* TIJ;|ffi
EXIIIBIT 1
November 2023 5-4
December 14, 2023
Holly Owen
City of Kingsburg
Community Development Department
1401 Draper Street
Kingsburg, CA 93631
Project: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Kingsburg 13-Acre Parcel Annexation
District CEQA Reference No: 20231135
Dear Ms. Owen:
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) from the City of Kingsburg (City) for the Kingsburg 13-acre Parcel Annexation project. Per the IS/MND, the project consists of the annexation of a 13.18 acre parcel, pre-zoning that parcel to Highway Commercial to make way for a 18,500 square foot office building, and subdividing the parcel to into four smaller parcels (Project). The Project is located on the west side of State Route 99, south of E. Stroud Avenue in Kingsburg, CA (APN: 394-042-04).
The District offers the following comments at this time regarding the Project:
Project Related Emissions
Based on information provided to the District, Project specific annual criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation are not expected to exceed any of the significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI):
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf.
Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, the Project should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 6 District Reference No: 20231135
December 14, 2023
Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
There are residential units located west and south of the Project. The District suggests the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units).
While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.
Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project consists of commercial development, gas-powered lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/clean-green-yardmachines-residential/ and https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/zero-emission-landscaping-equipment-voucherprogram/.
On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the Project.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 6 District Reference No: 20231135
December 14, 2023
Electric Infrastructure
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.
Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.
District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.
District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 6 District Reference No: 20231135
December 14, 2023
permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.
District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receive a projectlevel discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 10,000 square feet of government space.
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The ISR Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.
Per Section 5.0 of the ISR Rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. As of the date of this letter, the District has not received an AIA application for this Project. Please immediately submit an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510 so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the Project’s design. One AIA application should be submitted for the entire Project.
Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview The AIA application form can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview/formsand-applications/ District staff is available to provide assistance with determining if the Project or future development projects will be subject to Rule 9510, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].
District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 6 District Reference No: 20231135
December 14, 2023
Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.
Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/rule-9410-employer-based-trip-reduction/.
For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs.
The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings.
In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/tkgjeusd/rule-4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.
Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 6 District Reference No: 20231135
December 14, 2023
The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at: https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/fm3jrbsq/dcp-form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/dustcontrol
Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/g4nl3p0g/gamaqi.pdf
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Matt Crow by email at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5931.
Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
RESOLUTION 2024 _ 01
A RESOLUTION OF THE KINGSBURG PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/IUITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ACCEPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ANNEXATION
APPLICATION 2024-01(MATOIAN ANNEXATION), RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PRE-ZONE 2024-OI, AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZETIilE SUBMITTAL OF A CITY ANNEXATION APPLICATION
TO THE FRESNO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City of Kingsburg is initiating an Annexation to the City and a Pre-Zone for APN 394-042-04, a 13.18-acre parcel generally located north of Avenue B and Ventura Court in the County of Fresno, and
WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed to be annexed into the City of Kingsburg and upon annexation designated to the highway commercial land use designation and rezoned to Kingsburg's Highway Commercial (CH) district, and
WHEREAS, the proposed actions have been processed consistent with the Kingsburg Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed Pre-Zone satisfies all the objectives identified in Section
17.04.020 of the Kingsburg Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, The Kingsburg Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11, 2024 and accepted public testimony and reviewed the staff report for the annexation and prezoning and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the annexation, and
WHEREAS, the Kingsburg Planning Commission has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment subject due to the implementation of Mitigation Monitoring Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, after considering all the evidence presented, made the following findings regarding the project:
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project.
Implementation of the mitigation measures (biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources) through the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment A) will reduce the project's impact on the environment to a less than significant level.
2. The prezoning of the subject property will be consistent with the Kingsburg General Plan, Land Use Element, and the Kingsburg Zoning Ordinance.
3. The project will not have an adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the community or immediate neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT D
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1lth day of January 2024,at aregular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Kingsburg by the following vote:
AYES: Blayney, Ekizian, Brock, Taylor and Ruch
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Gorrzalez
Karyl Bartel, Planning Commission Secretary
City of Kingsburg
ATTACHMENT E
LOCATION MAP
Attachment F
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KINGSBURG
REQUESTING THE FRESNO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF 13.18 ACRES TO
THE CITY OF KINGSBURG
(MATOIAN REORGANZATION)
WHEREAS, the City of Kingsburg desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the CorteseKnox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3, commencing with Government Code Section 56000 for the proposed annexation of 13.18 acres generally located north of Avenue B and Ventura Court in the County of Fresno; and WHEREAS, the reorganization consists of detachment from the Kings River Conservation District, Fresno County Fire Protection District and Consolidated Irrigation District and annexation to the City of Kingsburg and Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler Sanitation District; and WHEREAS, the Fresno County Fire Protection District and the City of Kingsburg have a transition agreement in full force and effect that applies to fire protection services within the proposed annexed territory on file with Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission (“Fresno LAFCo”); and WHEREAS, the reorganization is consistent with the Fresno County Master Tax Sharing Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the territory consists of vacant land, is therefore uninhabited and contains no registered voters; and
WHEREAS, an illustration of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit “A” hereto, and map and written description accurately depicting said territory shall be forwarded to the Fresno LAFCo upon application; and
WHEREAS, the reorganization is consistent with the City of Kingsburg sphere of influence (“SOI”); and
WHEREAS, the reasons supporting this proposed reorganization are as follows:
(a) The territory is within the SOI of the City of Kingsburg. (b) The territory is bounded on two sides by urban development that is within the Kingsburg city limits and one side is adjacent to State Highway 99. (c) Sewer, water, and storm drainage infrastructure is available to the territory. (d) The territory is within the service area of Kingsburg police and fire services. (e) The territory is within the Kingsburg General Plan area. 2 (f) The territory will be developed consistent with the land use designations outlines in the City of Kingsburg General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the City of Kingsburg Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, territory will be designated to the highway commercial land use designation and upon annexation rezoned into the City of Kingsburg Highway Commercial (CH) zone district. The prezoning of the territory Highway Commercial (CH) satisfies the applicable provisions of the City of Kingsburg General Plan Land Use Element and City of Kingsburg Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the City of Kingsburg Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that any environmental impacts associated with the reorganization have been appropriately analyzed in the environmental document prepared for the reorganization and as a result it has been determined that the reorganization will not have an adverse impact on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed reorganization is consistent with the applicable policies, standards and procedures of Fresno LAFCo and WHEREAS, At its meeting on January 11, 2024, Kingsburg Planning Commission after conducting a duly noticed public hearing for the Matoian Reorganization, recommended to the Kingsburg City Council that the reorganization be initiated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE KINGSBURG CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY:
1 Adopts and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the reorganization and implementation of the mitigation measures through the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
2. Adopts this Resolution and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Fresno County is hereby requested to initiate proceedings for the Matoian Reorganization in the manner prescribed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.
3. Approve the Prezoning of the territory to Highway Commercial (CH) in preparation for annexation consistent with the Kingsburg General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the Kingsburg Municipal Code.
* * * * * * *
3 I, Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk of the City of Kingsburg, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Kingsburg at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of February, 2024, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers:
Noes: Councilmembers:
Absent: Councilmembers:
Abstain: Councilmembers:
_______________________________
Abigail Palsgaard, City Clerk
City of Kingsburg
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell, Jr. & City Council
REPORT FROM: Alexander J. Henderson, City Manager; ICMA-CM REVIEWED BY: CW AGENDA ITEM: Stone Plaza – Forgivable Loan and Upper Floor Rehab Program Discussion ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ____Resolution _√__Motion ____Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is regarding the development of the property located at the corner of Draper St. and California St (former site of old Stone Hotel and commercial properties). The former building housed tenants on the ground floor which included office, retail, and service commercial uses. The upper floor was once a hotel but had been vacant and unutilized for several years. On October 16, 2016, the building was lost due to a fire that is believed to have started due to faulty wiring on the second level.
Subsequently, the City Council entered into a development agreement that identified terms for a new, mixeduse building that would include:
• 18,604 sq. ft. two-story building
• ~8,700 sq. ft. of commercial space on the ground level • Market rate apartments on the second floor (10 units, 1 ADA unit on the ground floor) • Open courtyard area
• Parking provided on the adjacent lot to the south (owned by the applicant) • Enhanced Swedish Design
The provisions of the development agreement did not preclude the property owner from seeking additional financial assistance from eligible incentive programs. The City has been consistently aggressive with publicprivate partnerships that help spur economic development and provide opportunities for long-term investment and improvement. The efforts have included the development of key incentive programs.
Council has encouraged new development and has sought new ways to help provide incentives that will create new investment, additional jobs and promote the vibrancy of the businesses and community.
Forgivable Loan Program
In early 2019, the council approved the creation of a new incentive fund, which utilized the residual property taxes that once went to the Kingsburg Redevelopment Agency. The Council designated these residual payments for the specific purpose of partnering with eligible businesses/property owners on projects that have a long-term benefit to the community. This fund is intended to provide flexibility based upon the individual needs of new/expanding business. In early 2020, council approved a forgivable loan program that would help to provide a consistent method of evaluation for determining which projects should be considered by council. The reason for this is to ensure all projects are evaluated equitably, and to provide a level of accountability as it relates to the utilization of taxpayer monies. The guidelines of the program offer up to Meeting Date: 02/21/2024
Agenda Item: 6.2
$75,000 per eligible project, unless higher amounts are sought, requiring Council consideration and approval.
Currently, the incentive fund has a fund balance of $563,780, although $300,000 was earmarked in 2020 for the former Bank of America Building (GSM). However, no agreement has been formalized with that applicant.
The council may wish to reconsider that amount, but barring any changes, that leaves $263,780 available for consideration of future projects. During the Finance Committee meeting on January 22, 2024, the Committee recommended the Council approve up to $250,000 for Stone Plaza, pending all final appraisals and that all requirements of the program were satisfied, as determined by the City Attorney and City Manager.
Upper Floor Rehabilitation Loan Program
In 2017, the City Council approved the Upper Floor Rehabilitation Loan program, intended to spur residential improvement in the downtown. The residential component in Downtowns can be significant to the vibrancy of a downtown quality, including:
• Contributing to the property value in and around downtown • Higher density contributes to the local base for local merchants (residents within walking distance are projected to spend up to three times as much at those merchants – study by the International Council of Shopping Centers)
• Adds to the character of downtown and reenergizes once vacant spaces It was the belief that without public incentives, the costs associated with building new, or rehabbing century old buildings often prove prohibitive. With incentives, the projects become more feasible, and they also offer a way of protecting and enhancing historic buildings while complimenting the significant public and private investments that have already been made in our downtown.
Approved guidelines limit the financial contributions at $20,000 per unit ($100,000 per project max), depending upon annual allocations. $100,000 was approved as part of the city’s FY2024 annual budget. The Stone Plaza project has 10 market-rate apartments that qualify for the program.
The builder of Stone Plaza has worked closely with the staff during the development and construction of Stone Plaza in order to qualify Stone Plaza for the two programs. Because both programs require real property collateral in order to secure repayment of the loans in case of default, any collateral used must have a loan to value ratio of at least 80%. As such, the developer is getting an updated appraisal on property that would secure the loan(s), giving the city first position.
Along with financial limits, each incentive program lays out specific guidelines for eligibility, as well as protective language that requires the site to remain in either commercial (Forgivable Loan) or residential (Upper Floor) use for at least ten (10) years. If certain conditions are not met, the developer is required to repay the loan to the City. This is secured through a promissory note and deed of trust prepared by the City.
The Promissory Note shall identify a 0% interest deferred payment loan with a ten (10) year term and secured by the Deed of Trust recorded against title to the property. Ten percent of the principal loan balance will be forgiven each year the property remains in compliance. Failure to maintain compliance for the full ten (10) year term of the Promissory Note will result in the repayment of the entire principal balance of the Promissory Note to the City.
Scoring criteria is used to determine project eligibility and to help score multiple applications. Applicants must also be in good standing with regards to all obligations to the City and in compliance with any outstanding code enforcement items.
RECOMMENDED ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL
1. Staff recommends approval of $250,000 for the forgivable loan program, conditioned upon all eligibility requirements met to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Manager.
2. Staff recommends approval of $100,000 for the Upper Floor Rehabilitation Loan, conditioned upon all eligibility requirements met to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Manager.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S)
1. Council could amend recommended amounts of each loan.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/STRATEGIC GOAL
1. Preserve the Kingsburg Experience
2. Support Businesses
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Background
The repurposing of existing downtown space has been discussed for several years. While vacancy rates on the ground level of Draper St. have been historically low, there are/were second story vacancies. Apotek Lofts was the first participant in the Upper Floor Rehabilitation Loan program.
Beginning with the development and implementation of the Form Based Code, which focused entirely on the Central Commercial Corridor, an emphasis was placed on mixed use. Foot traffic, and permanent residents would do more than any other type of use to add life to the street and create a well-connected, active environment that drives a thriving downtown. This program requires the ground level to remain of a retail or commercial use.
ATTACHED INFORMATION
1. Forgivable Loan Program Guidelines
2. Stone Plaza Application – Forgivable Loan Program
3. Upper Floor Rehab Program Guidelines
4. Stone Plaza Application – Upper Floor Rehab Program
5. Forgivable Loan Fund Accounting
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. Is There A Fiscal Impact? Yes
2. Is it Currently Budgeted? Yes
3. If Budgeted, Which Line? Varies – 505 & 001
DEVELOPMENT BASED FORGIVABLE LOAN
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
CITY OF KINGSBURG
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE
1 PROGRAM PROPOSAL:
DEVELOPMENT BASED FORGIVABLE LOAN PROGRAM
Overview
This program is designed to assist property owners with gap financing alternatives that promote the longterm economic sustainability for the City of Kingsburg. The Kingsburg City Council has designated “residual property tax funding,” to be used for new development and/or rehab projects that would otherwise not occur without such funding. Prior to 2011, California law allowed local governments to create redevelopment agencies (“RDAs”) that assisted in the economic redevelopment of various areas. RDAs provided a form of tax increment financing. Cities could use the funds to help attract businesses to depressed areas, cleanup contamination, and make improvements to public areas to promote quality of life. In 2011, the California legislature passed AB 26, which essentially eliminated these agencies throughout the state.
Limited RDA powers were transferred to successor agencies, which were required to fulfill all outstanding obligations of the RDA.
After the elimination of RDAs, the property taxes that once went to the Kingsburg RDA are now placed in a county-wide Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”). The state recognized that RDA successor agencies are still required to fulfill financial obligations that were entered into prior to the elimination of RDAs. The City has an approved “Last and Final Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS)” by the California Department of Finance. As such, the City receives an apportionment from the RPTTF to fulfill the ROPS obligations. If funds remain in the RPTTF after payments are made for the ROPS obligations for each successor agency, the remaining funds are considered residual RPTTF funds and are distributed proportionally to the taxing entities that would have received tax revenues from the former RDA project areas. The City’s share of RPTTF funds will be used to fund this loan program. The program will operate as follows:
• City Assistance – City will provide a 50/50 match for qualified improvements up to $75,000. Amounts requested over $75,000 will be considered by the City Council. Matching funds can be from private investment. • Example: A building owner is spending $200,000 on fire sprinkler and additional structural building repairs.
They can request funding for eligible ADA improvements, fire sprinklers and other necessary life safety items.
For determining the 50/50 match, all building improvements will be considered as a whole as opposed to per improvement.
• Per Property Limit - Up to $75,000 per property (unless council approves a larger amount). • Program Budget – The RPTTF residual amount is dependent upon property tax collection. Currently, approximately $150,000 is collected annually. Council can discontinue this program at any time. • Property owner must be willing to keep the space for commercial use for a minimum of ten years after loan approval. The loan will be forgiven on a pro-rata percentage each year the space is kept in compliance.
Location
The property must be located within an eligible commercial district within the city limits. 2 Approved Projects
It is the desire of the City Council to maintain flexibility when considering potential improvement projects and their long-term benefit to a viable, diverse local economy. In order to streamline the application process and to provide clarity with regards to ‘pre-approved’ improvements, the following shall be considered permitted improvements, with application approval made by staff.
1. ADA Improvements (e.g. path of travel and restroom)
2. Life Safety Improvements (e.g. Seismic and Fire suppression); these improvements must be approved by the City.
3. Utility improvements required in order to accommodate a business that provides increased sales and/or property tax. Applicant must show deficiency exists and is required (for example: power upgrades required by PG&E).
Procedures
• Applicants must apply before Project construction begins (demolition may begin earlier) and will have twelve months to complete the Project after the application approval date. • Projects must score a minimum of 10 points out of 17 to be eligible for consideration for the program.
• Property owners must submit an application and supporting documentation as required by the City. • On a monthly basis, applications will be reviewed and evaluated based on the attached scoring criteria as may be amended from time to time by the City. If multiple Projects are submitted in one month, Projects will be ranked in scoring order from highest to lowest score. Projects that receive the most points will be approved for funding. Once the annual fund balance for the program is exhausted, funding will be unavailable until the next annual budget. If funds are budgeted for the next budget year, any approved but unfunded applications will be funded first to extent budget funds are available for the program If two applications are received in the same month and receive the same amount of points and there is limited funding, funds will be awarded to the applicant that is first to have its application approved by theCity.
Property Owner Qualifications
• Applicants and affiliated persons and/or entities for this program must not be delinquent in obligations to pay loans, fines, liens, or other obligations to the City of Kingsburg, as determined by the City.
• All other properties owned by applicant in Kingsburg must be in good standing and must be in compliance with all applicable Laws, as determined by the City.
Property Qualifications
• Eligible properties are properties used solely for retail or commercial uses. Owner will be required to maintain retail or commercial uses for a minimum of 10 years after completion of all improvements to the property.
• New construction is eligible if all other program requirements are met. 3 • Only owners of properties may apply under the program. Owners may make an application for more than one property.
• The property must be an eligible commercial zone.
• Facades visible from the public right of way must be an improved condition and comply with all applicable Laws. City funding under this program may not be used to improve facades, unless specifically approved by the City Council. Facades must be in a condition that does not detract from or change the architectural character of the building. When feasible, the original design of the facade should be restored so that it is contextually appropriate with the age and character of the building. Applicants may also participate in the City’s Façade/Alley improvement program, if eligible funding exists.
• The property must comply with all applicable Laws on the completion of the rehabilitation. The City will inspect the property to ensure compliance. The City will evaluate on a case-by-case basis an application for rehabilitating only a portion of the building as part of the submitted project. The use of green construction methods and energy efficient design is encouraged. • The property must be in compliance with applicable City zoning regulations. • The City has the right to inspect the property annually for a period of ten (10) years after completion to confirm appropriate uses and the building complies with all applicable Laws.
Rehabilitation Process
• Certified architectural drawings must be provided to the Building/Planning Department as part of the application process. When applicable, the Project should submit for Site Plan Review to ensure compliance with city standards (per municipal code).
• All applicable state and local permits must be acquired, and associated documentation must be supplied to the Building/Planning Department.
• Funding is provided on a reimbursement basis, contingent upon receipt of required documentation.
Progress draws are allowed once a month for no less than 10% of the total amount of the program loan. A 10% retainage on all draws will be paid at the completion of the Project after the project receives an unconditional Certificate of Occupancy.
• All work must be completed by contractors licensed by the State of California. Contractors and subcontractors must also hold a City of Kingsburg business license and be in good standing under such license prior to the commencement of work.
Funding Terms/Scope of Work
• The City will fund up to 50% of the total cost to finance City approved improvements based on funding availability (not to exceed $75,000) for eligible expenses). • Loans will be documented as follows:
o The Loan will be evidenced by a secured promissory note (“Promissory Note”) and a first deed of trust (“Deed of Trust”) prepared by the City. If the Deed of Trust will not be 4 a first Deed of Trust recorded against title to the property, eligibility to participate in the program will be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis. Annual Promissory Note payments will be forgiven so long as the property owner complies with all provisions of the Development Agreement, Promissory Note and Deed of Trust and the property continues to be used solely for retail/commercial uses for a period of ten (10) years.
The loan to value ratio for all debt secured by the property on the date of recordation of the Deed of Trust shall be no greater than 80%, which must be supported by an appraisal approved by the City prior to funding. If a loan to value ratio greater than 80% is proposed, outside collateral sufficient to provide 80% loan to value ratio will be required. Personal guarantees may be required for additional collateral and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis Proposed improvement costs will be evaluated based upon submitted quotes for work, as well as City staff estimates and comparisons to construction costs of similar projects.
The applicant and applicant’s construction and development team must have capacity to complete the project as demonstrated by past projects. A title company is selected by the City shall issue a lender’s policy of title insurance to the City insuring the Deed of Trust as a first Deed of Trust recorded against title to the Property (or a junior lien approved by the City). The applicant shall pay all escrow fees, cost of the lender’s policy of title insurance, recording fees and associated fees and costs.
• Non-compliance with program requirements includes but is not limited to, failing to comply with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, City property maintenance requirements, failure to acquire and maintain annual business licenses, failing to timely pay all real property taxes and assessments; default under any lien, encumbrance or deed of trust recorded against title to the property; failing to complete the project within the timeline approved by the City and failure to maintain the space for commercial purposes.
• The City and the property owner will execute a development agreement (“Development Agreement”) that will outline the requirements and conditions of program performance, including timelines and scope of work. A property owner’s breach of any provision of the Development Agreement shall constitute a breach under the Promissory Note and Deed ofTrust. • The City will inspect the property and identify all Law violations. All violations must be corrected new development or Rehab specifications and plans will be reviewed and approved by the City. All work must be performed in accordance with all applicable Laws. • The Promissory Note and Deed of Trust will contain a due on sale provision requiring the payment of the remaining principal balance of the Promissory Note if the property is sold prior to the expiration of the ten (10) year term of the Promissory Note. However, the City will consider waiving enforcement of the due on sale provision and transferring the loan to a new owner if the prospective new owner and the property after sale, satisfies the program requirements outlined in this document. Any request by the property owner for the City’s waiver of the due on sale provision must be made in writing and delivered to the City at least forty-five (45) days prior to 5 close of escrow along with a copy of any Purchase Agreement, Escrow Instructions and related documents and any other documents requested by the City. The new owner must agree to allow the City to continue inspections throughout the entire ten (10) year term of the Promissory Note, and must executed an Program Assumption Agreement in a form acceptable to the City, specially assuming all obligations of the prior owner of the property under this Program, the Development Agreement, the Promissory Note and the Deed of Trust.
Eligibility
• All property owners in a designated commercial zone are eligible to apply. A conflict of interest may exist if an applicant or the applicant’s immediate family is an employee, agent, consultant, officer or elected or appointed official to the City of Kingsburg, or if the applicant is an entity and its owners, shareholders, members or partners are any of the above-identified persons:
• If a conflict of interest exists, as determined by the City, the applicant must identify the potential conflict and, if applicable, recuse themselves from any vote or consideration of a proposed loan application.
6 SCORING CRITERIA
City funds as percentage of
total improvement costs
50% 1
>25% to 49.9% 2
25% or less 3
Scale of renovation
Improvements will benefit a building that has 80-100%
occupancy/lease but promotes new potential diversified
commercial uses. 1
Improvements will benefit a building that has 50%-80%
currently leased/occupied commercial tenants. 2
Improvements will benefit a building that has less than 50% currently leased/occupied commercial tenants. 3
Contributing building
The façade of the building needs restoration but will not be restored as part of the project 0
The building façade is currently being restored or will be restored as part of the overall improvements. 2
Conversion
After renovation, non-intensive commercial activity, i.e. storage space, will remain inactive on the retail level 0 Loan funds will be used to finance improvements related to the conversion to active commercial space. 2
Proposed Use
Improvements will upgrade existing commercial use of
office/professional occupancy 1
Improvements will upgrade existing commercial use of
retail/restaurant occupancy 2
Improvements will upgrade or convert existing
commercial use to a retail/restaurant occupancy 3
Quality of Life Components Project does not include any quality of life components. 0 Project incorporates shared space or outdoor use (outdoor dining, etc.) that promotes activity. 2
Life Safety Improvements Loan request is not for life safety related improvements. 0 Loan request is for life safety related improvements. 2 7 APPENDIX “A”
PROGRAM UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES
Feasibility Analysis:
Project Viability
• Documentation of sufficient funding, including City funds, to cover all costs identified in the project’s sources and uses form
• Information on past projects of similar scope to demonstrate applicant has ability to complete the project
Project Readiness
• Other funds are committed or will be committed within a reasonable period after application for rehab funds.
• Site control
Fee simple title at time of application and all timesthereafter. If not owned, must have enforceable right or option to purchase at time of application. • Financial Analysis
o Development Feasibility
Project development costs as provided by applicant reviewed by City staff to determine if reasonably based on similar projects and City staff estimates of cost o Operational Feasibility
Project cash flow from operations or renovations of the building Project must show positive retail/commercial net cash flow for a period of 10 years operating costs must be reasonable
o Underwriting - Project falls within the underwriting criteria established by the City in this Appendix “A” as amended from time to time
8 SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY GUIDELINES
Criteria Ranges-Limits
Maximum City Assistance Up to 50% of total development cost. Maximum total loan is $75,000.
Collateral Requirements
Loan to value ratio no more than 80%
If greater than 80% outside collateral to provide 80%
loan to value ratio may be required
Construction Hard Costs Minimum 75%
Developer fee (percent of Total Development Cost, not
including developer fee) Maximum 15%
Klngsburg Gity Hall
'1401 Drapor Street
Kingsbury, CA 93631
Phone 55$897-5821
Fax 559897-5568
Forgivable LoanlUpper Floor Rehab Program Application
Applicant lnformation Permit#
For Offim Uee Onty
ZLl.
-
Name orAppticanr EFfaifa, VA neU
Yanez /roreTf Business Name: i e9
ProjectAddress: ij OO 5bu c/4 9363 t
Phone: €,fr -
q- Fax; gfr- 6S
Applicant Signature:
Proparty OwnerName (if
Address: OwnerApproval:
Phone: g Email: gF1.ar
fl City of Kingsburg Business License
n Valid lnsurance Policy {naming City as additional insured} fJ lmprovement in City right-of-way
I Two qualified construction estimates subrnitted
fl Project meets eligibility requiremants
n Permit Fee {$25.00 processing fee)
n Detailed Project Description $ubmitted {budget, construction timeline, etc.} f Drawings and color samples provided
f]Amount of reimbursement requEsted $
TO BE CO{\'IPLETED BY APPLICANT
The fnllowing items are required to procese an Application. fO BE COIVIPLETED
BY CITY SI'AFF
YES NO N/A
r^0 Tr,r.- {,1^u
A-5.u "btc t
.- 910a,,
()4n fr2s6,"to
I will defend, indemnily and save harmless the City of Kingsburg and its oflicers and employees fiom any and all loss, liability, damages, or judgments resulting from any claims made against any of them for injury to person{s) or property by reason of or in connestion with, the improvernents made in conjunction with this public/private partnership grant.
Applicant Signature: Date: L*/Y - eLl
Approved: Yes No
Staff Review Date L-t.l-2\
\
""n'
5 o A
Ldlt
6.'<t.rokj\g Loo'^'
SCORING CRITERIA
4z
/s
l^
,/,
s/s
,/,
fz
0%
funds as percentage of
improvement costs
25Toto 49.9%
5olo or less
L
z)
a
J
will benefit a building that has 80-l
ccupancy/lease but promotes new potential diversified
uses.
ofrenovation will benefit a building that has 50%-80%
I commercial tenants.
will benefit a building that has less than
0% leased/o ed commercial tenants.
I
z
I
faEade of the building needs restoration but will not
building e restored as of the ect
building faEade is currently being restored or will be
AS of the overall
0 T
renovation, non-intensive commercial activity, i.e
will remain inactive on the retail level
on
funds will be used to finance improvements related
the conversion to active commercial n
will upgrade existing commercial use of
onal
Use will upgrade existing commercial use of
will upgrade or convert existing
use to a retail/restaurant
I
z
)
of Life Components ect does not include of life
ect incorporates shared space or outdoor use (outdoor
etc that acti
D
z
Safety Improvements uest is not for life related
is for life safety related
a.
2)
6 t+
Date: 11/16/2022
42931 Road 52 Job Name Stone Plaza
Reedley, CA 93654
Phone (559)638-6644 Fax (559)638-8752
Customer Info: Phone : 559-897-5821
City of Kingsburg Contact Name:Alex J. Henderson
1401 Draper Street Kingsburg, CA 93631 Email:
Job Address:
1300 Draper St. Kingsburg, CA 93631
AMOUNT
$ 74,500.00
$ 175,000.00
$ 64,000.00
$ 24,500.00
$ 172,500.00
$ 135,000.00
$ 230,000.00
$ 65,000.00
$ 940,500.00
DESCRIPTION
Water upgrades cancel existing lines extend new line from California, for the building back flow device with P.I.V. see attached plans
Grease trap install new 2,000 grease trap to accommodate to (3) commercial spaces.
Sewer upgrades cancel two existing lines, bring one 6" sewer line from the alley to accommodate to (3) commercial spaces, pay extra $52,046 plus labor see attached payment receipt.
PGE power supply 1,000 amp to support (3) new commercials spaces, Fees for PGE, Transformer, new main switch board. See plans attached.
ADA Improvements for Commercial, restrooms, parking, signing railings and ramps.
Exterior Façade upgrade with, stone, lighting, brick, window encasements, towers, shutters, custom signs and architectural details (this item is the difference in cost between a standard façade and the custom façade that will be installed) Fire suppression system and hoods for two restaurants
Fire sprinklers for all (3) commercial units with fire alarm for each unit.
Forgivable Loan
Economic Development
Incentive
Total cost
ahenderson@cityofkingsburgca.gov
DRAFT 050817
UPPER FLOOR RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION LOAN
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
CITY OF KINGSBURG
DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE
1 PROGRAM PROPOSAL: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
UPPER FLOOR RESIDENTIAL REHAB LOAN PROGRAM
Overview
The Upper Floor Residential Rehab Loan Program will assist owners of buildings located in the Central Commercial Zone District with the rehabilitation of upper floor space into high-quality rental housing (“Project”). The building must have retail uses on the ground floor and the space and/or residential units on the upper floors. The upper floors must be vacant and not in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Federal, State of California and City of Kingsburg laws, regulations, rules, standards and specifications (collectively “Laws”). Under the program, owners may request funds from the City to pay for costs associated with the rehabilitation of the residential space to comply with the Laws. • Maximum City Assistance - Up to 50% of total rehabilitation cost of the upper floor residential area of the building, including any interior improvements exclusive to residential areas including common areas. $100,000 is the maximum City assistance per building. • Per Unit Limit - Up to $20,000 per unit
• Program Budget – Current funding is $100,000 per year. The program is dependent upon annual funding through the budget.
Location
The property must be located within the Central Commercial District Corridor as identified on the attached map (“Corridor Map”).
Procedures
• Applicants must apply before Project construction begins (demolition may begin earlier) and will have twelve months to complete the Project after the application approval date. • Projects must score a minimum of 10 points out of 18 to be eligible for consideration for the program.
• Property owners must submit an Upper Floor Residential Rehab application and supporting documentation as required by the City.
• On a monthly basis, applications will be reviewed and evaluated based on the scoring criteria created by the City. If multiple Projects are submitted in one month, Projects will be ranked in scoring order from highest to lowest score. Projects that receive the most points will be approved for funding. Once the annual fund balance for the program is exhausted, funding will be unavailable until the next annual budget. If funds are budgeted for the next budget year, any approved but unfunded applications will be funded first to extent budget funds available for the program If two applications are received in the same month that receive the same amount of points and there is limited funding, funds will be awarded to the applicant that is first to have its application approved by the City.
2 Property Owner Qualifications
• Applicants and affiliated persons and/or entities for this program must not be delinquent in obligations to pay loans, fines, liens, or other obligations to the City of Kingsburg. • All other properties owned by applicant in Kingsburg must be in good standing and must be in compliance with all applicable Laws.
Property Qualifications
• Eligible properties are properties with retail or commercial leases on the ground floor with the upper floor residential units. The residential units must have been vacant for a minimum period of 90 days prior to submitting an application or be considered not in compliance with the applicable Laws.
• New construction is eligible if all other requirements are met. • Buildings with residential units under construction at the time of application will not be eligible. • Only owners of properties may apply for the program. Owners may make an application for one property per program year.
• The property must be located in area identified on the Corridor Map. • Facades visible from the public right of way must be an improved condition and comply with all applicable Laws. City funding under this program may not be used to improve facades. Facades must be in a condition that does not detract from or change the architectural character of the building. When feasible, the original design should be restored or restored so that it is contextually appropriate with the age and character of the building. Applicants may also participate in the City’s Façade/Alley improvement program, if eligible funding exists. • The property must comply with all applicable Laws on the completion of the rehabilitation. The City will inspect the property to ensure compliance in these standards. The City will evaluate on a case-by-case basis when owners propose rehabilitating only a portion of the building as part of the submitted project. The use of green construction methods and energy efficient design is encouraged.
• The property must be in compliance with applicable City zoning regulations. • The City has the right to inspect the units annually for a period of ten (10) years after completion to confirm the upper floors are being used for residential uses and the building complies with all applicable Laws.
Rehabilitation Process
• Certified architectural drawings must be provided to the Building/Planning Department as part of the application process.
• All applicable state and local permits must be acquired and associated documentation must be supplied to the Building/Planning Department.
3 • Funding is provided on a reimbursement basis, contingent upon receipt of required documentation. Progress draws are allowed once a month for no less than 10% of the total amount of the program loan. A 10% retainage on all draws will be paid at the completion of the Project after the project receives an unconditional Certificate of Occupancy. • All work must be completed by contractors licensed by the State of California. Contractors and subcontractors must also hold a City of Kingsburg business license and be in good standing under such license prior to the commencement of work.
Funding Terms/Scope of Work
• The City will fund up to 50% of the total cost to rehabilitate the upper floor residential units based on funding availability (not to exceed $20,000) per unit for eligible rehab expenses).
Maximum total City assistance is $100,000 per project.
• Rehab loans shall be evaluated based on:
o The Rehab loan will be evidenced by a secured promissory note (“Promissory Note”) and deed of trust (“Deed of Trust”) prepared by the City. ▪ The loan to value ratio for all debt secured by the property on the date of recordation of the Deed of Trust shall be no greater than 80%, which must be supported by an appraisal approved by the City prior to funding. If a loan to value ratio greater than 80% is proposed, outside collateral sufficient to provide 80% loan to value ratio will be required. Personal guarantees may be required for additional collateral and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ▪ The rehab construction costs will be evaluated based on City staff estimates and comparisons to rehab construction costs of similar projects. ▪ The applicant and applicant’s construction and development team must have capacity to complete the project as demonstrated by past projects. • Non-compliance includes but is not limited to: failing to comply with all applicable Laws, including, without limitation, City property maintenance requirements, failing to timely pay all real property taxes and assessments; default under any lien, encumbrance or deed of trust recorded against title to the property; failing to complete the project within the timeline approved by the City and failure to maintain the upper floors of the property rented for residential use.
• The City will execute a development agreement with property owners that will outline the requirements and conditions of program performance, including timelines and scope of work. • The City will inspect the property and identify all Law violations. All violations must be corrected. Rehab specs will be reviewed by the City. All work must be performed in accordance with all applicable Laws.
• The Promissory Note and Deed of Trust will contain a due on sale provision requiring the payment of the remaining principal balance of the Promissory Note if the property is sold prior to 4 the expiration of the ten (10) year term of the Promissory Note. However, the City will consider waiving enforcement of the due on sale provision and transferring the loan to a new owner if the prospective new owner and the property after sale, satisfies the funding requirements outlined in this document. Any request by the property owner for the City’s waiver of the due on sale provision must be made in writing and delivered to the City at least forty-five (45) days prior to close of escrow along with a copy of any Purchase Agreement, Escrow Instructions and related documents and any other documents requested by the City. The new owner must agree to allow the City to continue inspections throughout the entire ten (10) year term of the Promissory Note.
Conflict of Interest
• A conflict of interest exists if an applicant or the applicant’s immediate family is an employee, agent, consultant, officer or elected or appointed official to the City of Kingsburg, or if the applicant is an entity and its owners, shareholders, members or partners are any of the aboveidentified persons:
• If a conflict of interest exists, the applicant may not obtain assistance under this program. 5 SCORING CRITERIA
City funds as percentage of
total project cost
50% 0
>25% to 49.9% 1
25% or less 3
Scale of renovation
Portion of residential units will not be rehabbed 0
All residential units rehabbed as part of proposal;
commercial space not renovated and unfinished 1
All residential units rehabbed as part of proposal;
commercial space already complete or currently
undergoing renovation 2
Contributing building
The façade of the building needs restoration but will not be restored as part of the project 0
The building façade is currently being restored or after renovation will be restored 2
Conversion
After renovation, non-intensive commercial activity, i.e. storage space, will remain inactive on the retail level 0 Non-intensive commercial activity, i.e. storage space, is converted active commercial space as part of the project on the retail level 2
Amenities (Points given for
all that apply)
New stove, refrigerator, dishwasher provided 1
Security system installed in each unit 1
Washer/dryer provided on site 1
Washer/dryer provided in unit 2
Designated off-street parking for tenant provided 1
Quality of Life Components Project does not include any quality of life components. 0 Project incorporates shared space or outdoor living
amenities. 1
Energy Efficiency Design
(Points given for all that
apply)
Project does not propose any energy efficient design 0
Use of energy star appliances 1
Units equipped with programmable thermostats 1
Other energy efficient design (please explain) 1
6 HISTORIC STOREFRONT
FACADE IMPROVED CONDITIONS CHECKLIST
-Decorative Concrete
Window Hoods
■ Masonry Wall
Regular Spaced Windows
????
Masonry Pier
Display Window
Bulkhead
1. In general the proportions of the building should reflect a historic storefront with 75% of the first floor storefront being glass. Please see above for what a typical storefront should look like.
2. There is no peeling paint on the front façade.
3. There is no spalling bricks or major tuckpointing work that needs to be performed.
4. All signs must in compliance with the current Kingsburg guidelines and the Zoning Standards.
5. Windows are not to be boarded or bricked up. All windows are free of cracks and not blacked out with either paper or tint.
6. Cornice elements are in good repair, are all in place, and are free of rot or missing elements.
7. Any metal on the storefront is free of rust, corroded parts or missing elements.
8. Doors are historic in nature and appropriate to the architecture of the building. In general, storefront doors shall be either a half or full light. Doors to 2nd floor units can be solid, but should be paneled (typically a 6-panel door). Doors shall fill the entire original opening.
9. All upper floor windows on the front façade shall be in compliance with Kingsburg Design Guidelines. They shall be wood or aluminum clad wood windows that fill the entire original opening.
If the windows were originally metal windows, they can be either metal or aluminum clad wood windows.
10. There shall be no vinyl, aluminum, cedar shake, or other artificial siding on a storefront façade. 7 APPENDIX “A”
UPPER FLOOR RESIDENTIAL REHAB
PROGRAM UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES
Feasibility Analysis:
Project Viability
• Documentation of sufficient funding, including City funds, to cover all costs identified in the project’s sources and uses form
• Information on past projects of similar scope to demonstrate applicant has ability to complete the project
Project Readiness
• Other funds are committed or will be committed within a reasonable period of time after application for rehab funds.
• Site control
▪ Fee simple title at time of application and all times thereafter. ▪ If not owned, must have enforceable right or option to purchase at time of application. • Financial Analysis
o Development Feasibility
▪ Project development costs as provided by applicant reviewed by City staff to determine if reasonably based on similar projects and City staff estimates of cost o Operational Feasibility
▪ Project cash flow should only show the residential part of the project, separate from cash flow from non-residential operations or renovations of the building ▪ Project must show positive residential net cash flow for a period of 5 years Operating costs must be reasonable
o Underwriting - Project falls within the underwriting criteria established by the City in this Appendix “A” as amended from time to time
8 SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY GUIDELINES
DEVELOPMENT
Criteria Ranges-Limits
Maximum City Assistance Up to 50% of total development cost. Maximum total loan is $100,000.
Per Unit Limit Up to $20,000 per unit
Collateral Requirements
Loan to value ratio no more than 80%
If greater than 80% outside collateral to provide 80%
loan to value ratio may be required
Construction Hard Costs Minimum 75%
Developer fee (percent of Total Development Cost, not
including developer fee) Maximum 15%
Klngsburg Gity Hall
'1401 Drapor Street
Kingsbury, CA 93631
Phone 55$897-5821
Fax 559897-5568
Forgivable LoanlUpper Floor Rehab Program Application
Applicant lnformation Permit#
For Offim Uee Onty
ZLl.
-
Name orAppticanr EFfaifa, VA neU
Yanez /roreTf Business Name: i e9
ProjectAddress: ij OO 5bu c/4 9363 t
Phone: €,fr -
q- Fax; gfr- 6S
Applicant Signature:
Proparty OwnerName (if
Address: OwnerApproval:
Phone: g Email: gF1.ar
fl City of Kingsburg Business License
n Valid lnsurance Policy {naming City as additional insured} fJ lmprovement in City right-of-way
I Two qualified construction estimates subrnitted
fl Project meets eligibility requiremants
n Permit Fee {$25.00 processing fee)
n Detailed Project Description $ubmitted {budget, construction timeline, etc.} f Drawings and color samples provided
f]Amount of reimbursement requEsted $
TO BE CO{\'IPLETED BY APPLICANT
The fnllowing items are required to procese an Application. fO BE COIVIPLETED
BY CITY SI'AFF
YES NO N/A
r^0 Tr,r.- {,1^u
A-5.u "btc t
.- 910a,,
()4n fr2s6,"to
I will defend, indemnily and save harmless the City of Kingsburg and its oflicers and employees fiom any and all loss, liability, damages, or judgments resulting from any claims made against any of them for injury to person{s) or property by reason of or in connestion with, the improvernents made in conjunction with this public/private partnership grant.
Applicant Signature: Date: L*/Y - eLl
Approved: Yes No
Staff Review Date L-t.l-2\
\
""n'
5 o A
Ldlt
UQatz €L*L ?*n'b
SCORING CRITERIA
I
sl s
/z
/-
tlr
4s
,1,
0 D
I
t
5 funds as percentage
project cost
25o/oto 49.9%
o% or less
0 I
T)
of residential units will not be rehabbed
residential units rehabbed as part of
ofrenovation not renovated and unfinished
residential units rehabbed as part of
ercial space already complete or
renovation
0 I
il
fagade of the building needs restoration but will
building restored as of the
building fagade is cunently being restored or
on will be restored
0 )
renovation, non-intensive commercial activity, i
will remain inactive on the retail level
on-intensive commercial activity, i.e. storage space,
active commercial space as part of the
the retail level
0 \
ew dishwasher ided
(Points given installed in each unit
that apply) on site
in unit
off-street for tenant
il
i)
ity of Life Components ect does not include of life
ect incorporates shared space or outdoor liv
0 Efficiency ect does not efficient
given for all se of star
v) nits with thermostats
efficient
0 1)
1)
I
Forgivable Loan Fund Activity (As of 1‐18‐2024)
Residual Tax Payments Collected
Total RTTP
2018/2019 145,439.88 $
2019/2020 139,846.37 $
2020/2021 98,941.81 $
2021/2022 119,351.40 $
2022/2023 139,965.32 $
2023/2024 70,236.00 $
Funds Collected 713,780.78 $
Proposed/Completed ProjectsProject Location Project Description Year Amount1480 & 1490 Draper; Former BofA Fire Sprinklers, ADA 2020/2021 (300,000.00) $ Original Request in 2020; no further activity 1491 Draper & 1515 Smith Fire Sprinklers 2021/2022 (75,000.00) $ Project Completed 1300 Draper St.; Stone Plaza Fire Sprinklers, ADA; Façade enhancements 2022/2023 Project Under Review Magosh 2022/2023 (75,000.00) $ Project Completed
Total (450,000.00) $
Net Available Funds $ 263,780.78
CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT
REPORT TO: Mayor Pursell, Jr. & City Council
REPORT FROM: AJ O'Connell, MCP, CBO, CCEA – Building Official REVIEWED BY: CW AGENDA ITEM: 2023 Building Division Report
ACTION REQUESTED: ___Ordinance ___Resolution ____Motion ____Receive/File
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Kingsburg Building Division is tasked with the administration, implementation, and enforcement of the adopted Codes of the City of Kingsburg. These include the 2022 California Building Standards Code, the 2021 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code, and the provisions of the Kingsburg Municipal Code. The Division accomplishes these tasks by providing three basic services to the public: permit issuance, plans examination, and inspections.
The report is primarily broken down into Residential and Commercial categories. Residential represents any construction project in a 1- or 2-family dwelling unit or an associated accessory structure. Commercial categories represent both commercial and industrial development, as well as any multi-family project of 3 or more dwellings on a single property.
While certain effects of the pandemic from 2020 through 2022 are starting to subside, 2023 saw construction face several issues including higher interest rates, inflation, material shortages, and a lack of qualified labor. Despite this, construction in 2023 within the City of Kingsburg has shown remarkable resiliency. Certain sectors of construction have rebounded to almost pre-pandemic levels of activity and are primed for a robust year ahead.
In the calendar year 2023, the Building Division enjoyed a vigorous and active year of activity. The attached report details the metrics and accomplishments for the calendar year, and outlines objectives for the upcoming year.
A summary of the report is as follows:
• Permits issued in 2023 – 590 (530 residential, 60 commercial) • Total fees collected - $1,339,505 ($954,643 residential, $384,862 commercial) • Total valuation of projects - $41,613,511 ($25,486,499 residential, $16,127,012 commercial) • 38 permits issued for new single-family dwellings, 214 permits issued for residential solar. • New ground-up development was the largest generator of fees for commercial accounting for more than $263,000 in fees collected.
• 328 projects were plan checked in-house by the Building Official. • 2198 inspections were performed with the Building Official performing almost 80% of that total. • Permits were issued for more than 20,000 square feet of new office space at the Kingsburg Business Park, the tenant improvement for Grace Church and Police Station, and the rooftop solar project for T-Mobile.
Projects were finaled for Valley Health Center, Print Theory Industrial Complex, and the residential occupancies for Stone Plaza.
• Accomplishments in 2023 included the implementation of the California Building Standards Code, receiving a $40,000 grant for the online permitting software for residential solar, enactment of the Drone Inspection Program, launch of SolarAPP+, and comprehensive staff training.
Meeting Date: 02/21/2024
Agenda Item: 6.3