Agenda packet — Lemoore City Council, January 10, 2022

LEMOORE PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
AGENDA
Lemoore Council Chamber
429 ‘C’ Street
January 10, 2022
7:00 p.m.

Public in attendance are encouraged to wear a mask and maintain appropriate physical distancing.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENT – This time is reserved for members of the audience to comment on subject matters that are not on the Agenda, but are within the jurisdiction of the Lemoore Planning Commission. Speakers are asked to limit their comments to three (3) minutes per person. The Commission is prohibited by law from taking any action on matters that are not on the Agenda. Any handouts for the Commission shall be provided to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commission and appropriate staff.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Special Meeting, October 4, 2021

5. PUBLIC HEARING – General Plan Amendment No. 2021-03 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 2021-05: a request by Daley Homes to change a portion of the land use designation on the Lemoore General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map from Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential and a portion of the land use designation and Zoning Map from Low-Medium Density Residential (RLMD) to Low Density Residential (RLD) on the undeveloped site located at the northeast corner of State Route 198 and State Route 41, south of San Simeon Drive and west of Arcata Avenue (APN 023-320-005 remainder).

6. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

7. COMMISSION REPORTS / REQUESTS

8. ADJOURNMENT
Upcoming Meetings
Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, February 14, 2022 Agendas for all regular Planning Commission meetings are posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at the Council Chamber, 429 C Street and the Cinnamon Municipal Complex, 711 W. Cinnamon Drive. The City of Lemoore complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA of 1990). The Council Chamber is accessible to the physically disabled.

Should you need special assistance, please call (559) 924-6744 at least four (4) business days prior to the meeting.

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I, Kristie Baley, Planning Commission Secretary for the City of Lemoore, do hereby declare that I posted the above Planning Commission Agenda for the Special Meeting of Monday, January 10, 2022 at Council Chamber, 429 C Street and Cinnamon Municipal Complex, 711 W. Cinnamon Drive, Lemoore CA on January 7, 2022.
//s//
Kristie Baley, Commission Secretary
1 Minutes of the

LEMOORE PLANNING COMMISSION
Special Meeting
October 4, 2021
ITEM NO. 1 Pledge of Allegiance
ITEM NO. 2 Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.

Chair: Ron Meade
Vice-Chair: Michael Dey
Commissioners: Joey Brewer, Bob Clement, Ray Etchegoin

Absent: Greg Franklin
City Staff and Contract Employees Present: City Manager Nathan Olson, City Planner Steve Brandt (QK), City Attorney Wesley Carlson (Lozano Smith), Commission Secretary Kristie Baley
ITEM NO. 3 Public Comment
There was no comment.

ITEM NO. 4 Approval - Minutes – Regular Meeting, September 13, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Clement, seconded by Commissioner Etchegoin, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of September 13, 2021.

Ayes: Clement, Etchegoin, Brewer, Dey, Meade

Absent: Franklin
ITEM NO. 5 Public Hearing – Major Site Plan Review No. 2021-05: a request by Hold My Beer, LLC (Daniel Kinney) for approval of the construction of two industrial buildings. The first phase proposes approximately 26,000 sq. ft. dedicated to a bottling plant, office and storage space to develop, bottle, store and distribute a cannabis infused beverage. The second phase proposes approximately 23,300 sq. ft. for 6 tenant occupied suites, each with a storefront and adjoining storage areas. The 3.03 acre site, zoned for Light Industrial Use (ML), is located at 1156 Commerce Way on the northeast corner of Commerce Avenue and Enterprise Drive, (APN 024- 051-017).

City Planner Brandt presented the staff report and answered questions.

Commissioner Meade opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m.

Applicant Daniel Kinney, 111 E. Lincoln Road #6, WA spoke and answered questions. 2 Commissioner Meade Closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m.

There was no other comment received from the public.

Motion by Commissioner Etchegoin, seconded by Commissioner Dey, adopt Resolution No. 2021-18, approving Major Site Plan Review No. 2021-05 in accordance with the findings and conditions in the Resolution.

Ayes: Etchegoin, Dey, Brewer, Clement, Meade

Absent: Franklin
ITEM NO. 6 Discussion – Initial Discussion of New Planning and Housing Laws: SB 8, SB 9, SB 10
Steve Brandt provided information and answered questions.

ITEM NO. 7 Director’s Report
City Manager Nathan Olson provided the following information:

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is still in process for the Lacey Ranch project, which is proposed to be located east of 18th Avenue (Lemoore Avenue), between Lacey Blvd. and Glendale Avenue.

Olson provided staff change information that affects the Commission.

ITEM NO. 10 Commissioner’s Reports and Requests for Information There were no reports or requests.

ITEM NO. 11 Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:34 P.M.

Approved the __th day of ___________ 2022.

APPROVED:

Ron Meade, Chairperson
ATTEST:

Kristie Baley, Commission Secretary

City of

LEMOORE

CALIFORNIA
711 W. Cinnamon Drive  Lemoore, California 93245  (559) 924-6744 Staff Report

To: Lemoore Planning Commission Item No. 5
From: Steve Brandt, City Planner
Date: December 6, 2021 Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
Subject: General Plan Amendment No. 2021-03 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 2021-05: a request by Daley Homes to change a portion of the land use designation on the Lemoore General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map from Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential and a portion of the land use designation and Zoning Map from Low-Medium Density Residential (RLMD) to Low Density Residential (RLD) on the undeveloped site located at the northeast corner of State Route 198 and State Route 41, south of San Simeon Drive and west of Arcata Avenue (APN 023-320-005 remainder).

Proposed Motion:

Move to adopt Resolution No. 2022-01, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-03 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 2021-05 in accordance with the findings and conditions in the resolution.

Project Proposal:

This proposal is a request for General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for an undeveloped 7.09 acre site. Roughly three-quarters of the site currently designated and zoned Low Density Residential (RLD) would be designated and zoned Low-Medium Density Residential (RLMD) and likely consist of fourplex housing units similar to the units Daley Homes has constructed along Sonoma Avenue, northwest of the site. The remaining future lots to the north (approximately one-quarter of the site) would be designated and zoned Low Density Residential (RLD) and would consist of single-family homes similar to the units Daley Homes has constructed in the north of the site. See the attached map for the portion of the site that would be changed to Low-Medium Density Residential.

The new general plan designation and zoning can accommodate up to approximately 53 residential units; the original general plan designation and zoning could accommodate up to approximately 23 residential units, resulting in a net increase of 30 residential units on the site. At this time, no site plan or tentative subdivision map are being proposed. They will be proposed at a later date for review by the Planning Commission.

Applicant Daley Homes
Location Northeast corner of State Route 198 and State Route 41, south of San Simeon Drive and west of Arcata Avenue
Existing Land Use Vacant
APN(s) 023-320-005 remainder
Total Building Size N/A
Lot Size 7.09 acres
Zoning Low Density Residential and Low-Medium Density Residential General Plan Low Density Residential and Low-Medium Density Residential Adjacent Land Use, Zone, and General Plan Designation
Direction Current Use Zone General Plan
North Single-family and
Multi-family homes
RLD (Low Density
Residential) and RLMD
(Low-Medium Density
Residential)
Low Density
Residential and
Low-Medium
Density
Residential
South State Route 198 N/A N/A
East Single-family homes RLD (Low Density
Residential)
Low Density
Residential
West State Route 41 N/A N/A
Previous Relevant Actions:

Prior to the 2008 comprehensive General Plan Update, the site was zoned similar to the applicant’s proposal. The land was owned by Daley Homes at that time. As part of the General Plan Update process, Caltrans determined that the property would be needed in the future to improve the movements from westbound SR 198 to southbound SR 41, and westbound SR 198 to northbound SR 41. The preliminary design at the time called for a flyover structure for traffic moving from westbound SR 198 to southbound SR 41. Because of Caltrans’ stated need the site was not given a land use designation in the 2008 General Plan Update and was not zoned in the 2012 Zoning Ordinance.

In 2016, Daley Homes requested the re-establishment of the Low Density Residential and Low-Medium Density Residential land use designations on the proposed undeveloped site.

The Planning Commission recommended and the City Council approved a modified version of the request and designated the entire site Low Density Residential (RLD).

Evaluation:

General plan amendments and zone changes do not typically include conditions of approval.

Those conditions would occur with the site plan and tentative subdivision map are approved.

When this occurs, there will be conditions for a block sound wall to be constructed similar to the existing walls north and east of the project. There will likely be other conditions as well that will be proposed by Staff and reviewed by the Commission when the subdivision and site plan are proposed.

During the 2016 land use designation and zone assignment process, adjacent property owners to the north expressed concerns about the multi-family land use designation proposed on the north portion of the site. The current request would not change the portion of the Low Density Residential designation and zoning that is adjacent to those property owners. It would remain Low Density Residential.

State Housing Law Assessment:

Pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act (Government Code section 66300), affected cities may not take any actions, such as general plan designation and zoning of a site, that would result in “a less intensive use or reduc[e] the intensity of land use.” Essentially, a site cannot be “downzoned” to “reduce the site’s residential development capacity.” However, a site may be “downzoned” if the city concurrently “upzones” other parcels “to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.” If requested by an applicant, the city has 180 days to “upzone” another parcel(s).

The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment primarily result in increasing the residential capacity on the site, from approximately 23 residential units to approximately 53 residential units, resulting in a net increase of 30 residential units on the site. As such, the City has complied with Government Code section 66300. Further, the increased residential capacity may be available to offset any decrease in residential capacity resulting from future projects. City staff recommend that the City make findings to that effect.

Environmental Assessment:

As Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City staff reviewed the project to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment because of its development. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, “[s]ignificant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared in May 2017 at the time the site was originally designated. The Initial Study found 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 in the form of mitigations have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the City, and is attached for review.

City staff have evaluated the proposed land use and zoning designations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and in light of the adopted IS/MND. Staff have determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with the adopted 2017 IS/MND. Further, staff have determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment will not involve new significant environmental effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA.

Recommended Approval Findings:

Staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings and recommend approval of the project to the City Council:

1. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest and the General Plan, as amended, will remain internally consistent.

2. The Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.

3. The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with the adopted 2017 IS/MND will not have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA.

4. The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment comply with Government Code section 66300 by increasing residential capacity by up to 30 residential units and the City may rely on this increased capacity for future projects to ensure no net loss in residential capacity.

Attachments:

Project Site
Map of Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Draft Resolution
Conceptual Site Plan
Proposed Zoning on Conceptual Site Plan
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Adopted in 2017
Draft Notice of Exemption
Project Site
Map of Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations To Low-Medium
Density Residential
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LEMOORE APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2021-03
AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENT NO. 2021-05
At a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Lemoore duly called and held on January 10, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. on said day, it was moved by Commissioner ______________, seconded by Commissioner ____________ and carried that the following Resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS, Daley Homes has requested approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for the parcel located at the site that is located at the northeast corner of State Route 198 and State Route 41, south of San Simeon Drive and west of Arcata Avenue (APN 023-320-005 remainder); and
WHEREAS, the proposed undeveloped site is 7.09 acres in size, and is currently designated and zoned Low Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for a portion of the site to a land use designation and zone of Low-Medium Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared in May 2017 at the time the site was originally designated, and staff have determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with the adopted 2017 IS/MND, will not involve new significant environmental effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects, and therefore, will not have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA.; and
WHEREAS, the Lemoore Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at its January 10, 2022, meeting.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Lemoore hereby makes the following findings, based on facts detailed in the January 10, 2022, staff report and other documents found in the administrative record, which is hereby incorporated by reference, as well as the evidence and comments presented during the Public Hearing:

1. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest and the General Plan, as amended, will remain internally consistent.

2. The Zone Map Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.

3. The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with the adopted 2017 IS/MND will not have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Lemoore recommends approval to the Lemoore City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2021-03 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 2021-05.

Passed and adopted at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Lemoore held on January 10, 2022 by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINING:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Ron Meade, Chairperson
ATTEST:

Kristie Baley, Planning Commission Secretary
561 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 13 9 10 11 12 42 41 40 39 15 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 789 ARCATA AVE. 134.41' 141.51' 115.98' 104.24' 103.10' 97.73' 97.67' 118.84' 127.14' 127.14' 133.21' 133.21'

80.23' 91.53' 72.59' 72.59' 72.59' 72.21' 72.20' 65.30' 70.64'

74.80' 80.86' 80.90' 30' 30' 21 S A V A N N A H 1,581 AUBURN 1,581 S A V A N N A H PHOENIX AUBURN AUBURN S A V A N N A H 1,581 PHOENIX 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 22 2 2 33 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 14 15 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 SONOMA AVE.

STATE HIGHWAY 41
STATE HIGHWAY 198 2 2 2 2 2 2 10' MIN. 24.0' TYP. 5.0' TYP. 5.0' TYP. 15.0' TYP. 10.0' TYP. 5.0' TYP. 5.0' TYP. SEPTEMBER 2021 SILVA ESTATES 11 PHASE 3 SITE PLAN PREPARED BY: FAX: 559.802.3215 TEL: 559.802.3052 VISALIA, CA 93292 324 S. SANTA FE, STE. A P.O. BOX 7593 VICINITY MAP STATE HWY 41 APN: 023-320-02 TRACT: 793 ZONE: R-1-7 TOTAL SITE AREA: 7.09 AC EXISTING USE VACANT PROPOSED USE: MULTI-FAMILY & SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION WATER SEWER: CITY OF LEMOORE STORM DRAIN: CITY OF LEMOORE SOLID WASTE: CITY OF LEMOORE GAS: THE GAS COMPANY POWER: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. MULTI FAMILY LOTS: 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS: 8 UNITS: 53 TOTAL, 8 SF, 45 MF TOTAL NO. OF LOTS: 23 SILVA 11 LANDSCAPING LOTS: 23 TOTAL SITE AREA 308,840 SQ FT. MULTI FAMILY TOTAL SITE AREA 229,184 SQ FT. SITE COVERAGE: BUILDINGS 69,161 SQ FT. HARDSCAPE 8,558 SQ FT. TOTAL OPEN AREA 139,268 SQ F. LANDSCAPE AREA 130,710 SQ FT. LANDSCAPE % OF OPEN AREA 94 % LANDSCAPE OF SITE AREA 57 % LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, T. 19 S., R 20 E., M.D.B. & M., IN THE CITY OF LEMOORE, COUNTY OF KINGS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

NORTH 40' 0' 40' 1" = 2 MILES STATE HWY 198
SILVA ESTATE UNIT 9 SILVA ESTATE 11 SILVA ESTATE UNIT 4 SILVA ESTATE UNIT 11 PHASE 2 SILVA ESTATE UNIT 7 SILVA ESTATE UNIT 1

SILVA ESTATE
UNIT 2
SILVA ESTATE UNIT 3

SILVA ESTATE
UNIT 5

SILVA ESTATE
UNIT 6
19TH AVE. SILVERADO DRIVE SILVA ESTATE UNIT 11 PHASE 1 PHASE 3 EXTENT OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT (TYP. PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP.) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PREVIOUS CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY, NOT BEING PROPOSED ANY LONGER BLOCK WALL STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT 6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 42 13 16 17 18 19 20 22 2360 15 21 23 24 9 8
5 6
7 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT 6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 42 4125 13 16 17 18 19 20 22 236160 15 21 23 24 9 8
5 6
7 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HYDRANT 324 S.SANTA FE, STE.A
VISALIA, CA 93292
(559) 802-3052

ZONE CHANGE TRACT- XXX
07/09/2021 SILVA ESTATES-11-PH-3
NORTH
150' 0' 150' LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY

CURRENT PROPOSED

LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY

LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF LEMOORE
Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
May 2017
Contact:

Judy Holwell
(559) 924-6740
[email protected]
711 W. Cinnamon Drive
Lemoore, CA 93245
Comments must be received by: June 12, 2017 (20 days after notice)

ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Lemoore
Prepared for:

City of Lemoore
711 W Cinnamon Drive
Lemoore, CA 93245
Contact Person: Judy Holwell, Development Services Director Phone: 559) 924-6740
Consultant:
901 East Main Street
Visalia, CA 93292
Contact: Steve Brandt, City Planner
Phone: (559) 733-0440
Fax: (559) 733-7821
December 2021
© Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc.

Unauthorized use prohibited.

Project #L16002.02
i
Table of Contents
Mitigated Negative Declaration ........................................................................................................................ 1 Project Name...........................................................................................................................................................1 Project Location.....................................................................................................................................................1 Project Description...............................................................................................................................................1 Mailing Address and Phone Number of Contact Person........................................................................1 Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................1 Mitigation Measures Included in the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Effects...............2 SECTION 1 - Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 - Overview ........................................................................................................................................................9

1.2 - CEQA Requirements...................................................................................................................................9

1.3 - Impact Terminology...................................................................................................................................9

1.4 - Document Organization and Contents............................................................................................. 10 SECTION 2 - Project Description ................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 - Project Location........................................................................................................................................ 11

2.3 - Surrounding Land Uses ......................................................................................................................... 11

2.4 - Proposed Project...................................................................................................................................... 11 SECTION 3 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................... 16

3.1 - Environmental Checklist and Discussion ....................................................................................... 16

3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:................................................................................ 18

3.3 - Determination ........................................................................................................................................... 18

3.4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 20

3.5 - Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.6 - Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................................. 24

3.7 - Air Quality................................................................................................................................................... 25

3.8 - Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................... 28

3.9 - Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................... 42

3.10 - Geology and Soils................................................................................................................................... 45

3.11 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................................ 48

3.12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................................. 49

3.13 - Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................................................... 52

3.14 - Land Use and Planning........................................................................................................................ 57

3.15 - Mineral Resources................................................................................................................................. 58

3.16 - Noise........................................................................................................................................................... 59

3.17 - Population and Housing...................................................................................................................... 61

3.18 - Public Services........................................................................................................................................ 62 ii

3.19 - Recreation ................................................................................................................................................ 65

3.20 - Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................................ 66

3.21 - Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................................... 69

3.22 - Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................ 70

3.23 - Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................................... 72 SECTION 4 - References.................................................................................................................................... 75 List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Site...................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-2 Regional Location ........................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 2-3 Project Location in City.............................................................................................................. 14 Figure 2-4 Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 3-1 CNDDB Special-Status Birds .................................................................................................... 36 Figure 3-2 CNDDB Special-Status Invertebrates, Fish, Amphibians and Reptiles.................... 37 Figure 3-3 CNDDB Special-Status Mammals ........................................................................................... 38 Figure 3-4 CNDDB Sensitive Natural Communities and Special-Status Plant Species............ 39 Figure 3-5 USFWS Critical Habitat.............................................................................................................. 40 Figure 3-6 National Wetland Inventory and Hydrologic Information .......................................... 41 Figure 3-1 Soil Map ........................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 3-8 FEMA Map....................................................................................................................................... 56 List of Tables
Table 3-1 SPAL Thresholds – Single Family ........................................................................................... 26

List of Appendices
Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix B CalEEMod Results

Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 1

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Lemoore reviewed the Project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment because of its development. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, “[s]ignificant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

Project Name
Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Project Location
The Project site is located at the northeast corner of State Route 198 and State Route 41, south of San Simeon Drive and west of Arcata Avenue (APN 023-320-005).

Project Description
A request by Daley Homes to reestablish the Low Density Residential and Low Medium Density Residential land use designation on the proposed undesignated site, and reestablish the Low-Medium Density Residential (RLMD) and the Low Density Residential (RLD) zones on the proposed unzone site. The reestablishment of the general plan designation and zoning would accommodate up to approximately 134 residential units.

Mailing Address and Phone Number of Contact Person
Scott Daley
Vice President
Daley Homes
1356 E. Tulare Ave.

Tulare, CA 93274
(559) 686-1761
Findings
As Lead Agency, the City of Lemoore finds that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section 3 - Environmental Checklist) identified one or more potentially significant effects on the environment, but revisions to the Project have been made before the release of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or mitigation measures would be implemented that reduce all potentially significant impacts less-than-significant levels. The Lead Agency further finds that there is no substantial evidence that this Project would have a significant effect on the environment.

Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 2
Mitigation Measures Included in the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Effects
MM 3.8.1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey on the Project site and within 500 feet of its perimeter within 14 days of and no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction activities.

If any evidence of occupation of the Project site by listed or other special-status species is subsequently observed, a buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist that results in sufficient avoidance to comply with applicable regulations. If sufficient avoidance cannot be established, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted for further guidance and consultation on additional measures.

The Project proponent shall obtain any required permits from the appropriate wildlife agency. Copies of all permits and evidence of compliance with applicable regulations shall be submitted to the lead agency.

The following buffer distances shall be established prior to construction activities:
• San Joaquin kit fox or American badger potential den: 50 feet; • San Joaquin kit fox known den: 100 feet;
• San Joaquin kit fox or American badger pupping den: contact the California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service; • Burrowing owl burrow outside of breeding season: 160 feet; • Burrowing owl burrow during breeding season: 250 feet; • Swainson’s hawk nest during breeding season: ½ mile;
• Other protected raptor nests during the breeding season: 300 feet; • Other protected nesting migratory bird nests during the breeding season: 50 feet; and • Other special-status wildlife species: as recommended by qualified biologist.

MM 3.8.2: If initial grading activities are planned during the potential nesting season for migratory birds/raptors that may nest on or near the Project site, the preconstruction survey shall evaluate the sites and accessible lands within an adequate buffer for active nests of migratory birds/raptors. If any nesting birds/raptors are observed, a qualified biologist shall determine buffer distances and/or the timing of Project activities so that the proposed Project does not cause nest abandonment or destruction of eggs or young. This measure shall be implemented so that the proposed Project remains in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and applicable state regulations.

Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 3
If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, active raptor nests should be avoided by 500 feet and all other migratory bird nests should be avoided by 250 feet. Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified and approved on-site monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affect the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Avoidance buffers can also be reduced through consultation with the CDFW and USFWS. If Swainson's hawks are found to nest within the survey area, active Swainson’s hawk nests shall be avoided by 0.5 mile unless this avoidance buffer is reduced through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS.

No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within a non-disturbance buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction areas. This typically occurs by early July, but September 1st is considered the end of the nesting period unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. Once raptors have completed nesting and young have fledged, disturbance buffers will no longer be needed and can be removed, and monitoring can be terminated.

MM 3.8.3: If any burrowing owl burrows are observed during the preconstruction survey, avoidance measures shall be consistent and in accordance with protocols outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) and the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Active burrows shall be avoided, but if avoidance is not possible then compensation shall be provided for the active or passive displacement of western burrowing owls, and habitat acquisition and the creation of artificial dens for any western burrowing owls shall be provided for any owls relocated from construction areas. These measures are outlined as follows:

1. A pre-construction survey of construction area, including a 150-meter buffer (500 feet), shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities. If more than 30 days lapse between the time of the pre-construction survey and the start of ground-disturbing activities, another pre-construction survey shall be completed. The second survey (or other subsequent surveys if necessary) shall be conducted and timed to occur sometime between 30 days and 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.

2. If western burrowing owls are present on the construction site (or within 500 feet of the construction site), exclusion fencing shall be installed between the nest site or active burrow and any earth-moving activity or other disturbance. Exclusion areas shall extend 160 feet around occupied burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) and extend 250 feet around occupied burrows during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) as described in The California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993).

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 4
qualified biologist or ornithologist and with approval by CDFW. After passive relocation, the area where owls occurred and its immediate vicinity shall be monitored by a qualified biologist daily for one week and once per week for an additional two weeks to document that owls are not reoccupying the site.

4. If permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows, or burrowing owl habitat occur, compensation shall be based upon the number of owls or pairs of owls relocated from the construction area. Compensation acreage shall be determined as described in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).

MM 3.8.4: The measures listed below shall be implemented during construction:

1. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no fewer than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities. If any San Joaquin kit fox dens are found during preconstruction surveys, exclusion zones shall be placed in accordance with USFWS Recommendations using the following:

San Joaquin kit fox USFWS Exclusion Zone Recommendations Den Type Recommendation
Potential Den 50-foot radius
Known Den 100-foot radius
Natal/Pupping Den
(Occupied and Unoccupied)
Contact U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for guidance
Atypical Den 50-foot radius

2. If any den must be removed, it must be appropriately monitored and excavated by a trained wildlife biologist. Destruction of natal dens and other “known” kit fox dens must not occur until authorized by USFWS. Replacement dens will be required if such dens are removed. Potential dens that are removed do not need to be replaced if they are determined to be inactive by using standard monitoring techniques (e.g., applying tracking medium around the den opening and monitoring for San Joaquin kit fox tracks for three consecutive nights).

3. Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all Project areas, except on County roads and State and federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes and badgers are most active. Night-time construction shall be minimized to the extent possible. However, if construction at night does occur, then the speed limit shall be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated Project areas shall be prohibited.

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 5
wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS and the CDFW shall be contacted at the addresses provided below.

5. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

6. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or Project sites.

7. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.

8. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in Project areas shall be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional Project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.

9. A representative shall be appointed by the Project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the USFWS.

10. An employee education program shall be conducted. The program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in San Joaquin kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the Project. The program shall include: a description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the Project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during Project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying Administrative Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 6
this information shall be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the Project sites.

11. Upon completion of the Project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. shall be recontoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-Project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the Project, but after Project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the USFWS, CDFW, and revegetation experts.

12. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the USFWS shall be contacted for guidance.

13. Any contractor, employee, or military or agency personnel who are responsible for inadvertently killing or injuring a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFW immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The CDFW contact for immediate assistance is State Dispatch at (916)445-0045. They will contact the local warden or CDFW representative, the wildlife biologist, at (530)934-9309. The USFWS shall be contacted at the numbers below.

14. The Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office of USFWS and CDFW shall be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during Project-related activities. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information.

The USFWS contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below. The CDFW contact can be reached at 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, (530) 934-9309.

15. All sightings of the San Joaquin kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to the Service at the address below.

Any Project-related information required by the USFWS or questions concerning the above conditions or their implementation may be directed in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at: Endangered Species Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 2605, Sacramento, California 95825-1846, phone (916) 414-6620 or (916) 414-6600.

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 7
and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified professional archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

If a potentially-eligible resource is encountered, then the qualified professional archaeologist, the Lead Agency, and the Project proponent shall arrange for either 1) total avoidance of the resource or 2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and submitted to the Lead Agency as verification that the provisions for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.

MM 3.9.2: During any ground disturbance activities, if paleontological resources are encountered, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified paleontologist as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010), can evaluate the find and make recommendations regarding treatment. Paleontological resource materials may include resources such as fossils, plant impressions, or animal tracks preserved in rock. The qualified paleontologist shall contact the University of California Museum of Paleontology, or other appropriate facility regarding any discoveries of paleontological resources.

If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects, or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 8
the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide any potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

MM 3.12.1: Prior to ground-disturbing activities, the City shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMP), with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite. The SWPPP shall include contain a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed man-made facilities, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the Project site.

Additionally, the SWPPP shall contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants to be implemented (if there is a failure of best management practices). The requirements of the SWPPP and BMPs shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include the following:
• Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly. • Protecting any existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas. • Implementing erosion controls.
• Properly managing construction materials.
• Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls.

Administrative Draft Introduction

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 9
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Overview
The Project is the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change of a 20-acre parcel in southern Lemoore to accommodate the development of 134 residential lots.

1.2 - CEQA Requirements
The City of Lemoore is the Lead Agency for this Project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 15000 et seq.). The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section 3 – Initial Study) provides analysis that examines the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to prepare an IS to determine whether a discretionary project will have a significant effect on the environment.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is appropriate when an IS has been prepared and a determination can be made that no significant environmental effects will occur because revisions to the Project have been made or mitigation measures will be implemented that reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. The content of a MND is the same as a Negative Declaration, with the addition of identified mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (see Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).

Based on the IS, the Lead Agency has determined that the environmental review for the proposed application can be completed with a MND.

1.3 - Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of project environmental impacts.
• A finding of “no impact” is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect a topic area in any way.
• An impact is considered “less than significant” if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. • An impact is considered “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the proponent.
• An impact is considered “potentially significant” if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.

Administrative Draft Introduction

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 10

1.4 - Document Organization and Contents
The content and format of this IS/MND is designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The report contains the following sections:
• Section 1 – Introduction: This section provides an overview of CEQA requirements, intended uses of the IS/MND, document organization, and a list of regulations that have been incorporated by reference.
• Section 2 – Project Description: This section describes the Project and provides data on the site’s location.
• Section 3 – Environmental Checklist: This chapter contains the evaluation of 18 different environmental resource factors contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Each environmental resource factor is analyzed to determine whether the proposed Project would have an impact. One of four findings is made for each factor, which include: no impact, less-than-significant impact, less than significant with mitigation, or significant and unavoidable. If the evaluation results in a finding of significant and unavoidable for any of the 18 environmental resource factors, then an Environmental Impact Report will be required. • Section 4 – References: This chapter contains a full list of references that were used in the preparation of this IS/MND.
• Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This appendix contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. • Appendix B – CalEEMod Results: This appendix contains the 2005 (base) and 2019 (estimated opening day) readouts from the California Emissions Estimator Model.

Administrative Draft Project Description

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 11
SECTION 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 - Introduction
The Project is the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC) of a 20-acre parcel in southern Lemoore to accommodate the development of 134 residential lots.

2.2 - Project Location
The site consists of a 20-acre parcel (APN 023-320-005) located at the northeast corner of State Route 198 and State Route 41, south of San Simeon Drive and west of Arcata Avenue in south-central Lemoore. The site is in Section 9, Township 19 South, Range 20 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDB&M) within the Lemoore United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 provide a regional vicinity and location map of the Project site, respectively.

2.3 - Surrounding Land Uses
The area surrounding the proposed site consists of a single-family residential to the north, Highway 41 to the west, Highway 198 to the east and the Highway 41 Interchange to the south. Beyond Highway 41 to the west are more single-family residences and beyond Highway 198 to the southeast are a variety of uses including Bennett Farm Supply, Motel 6, Valero gas station, McCann and Sons Truck and Tractor Service and Master Storage. Land uses and development surrounding the subdivision site are depicted on Figure 2-4.

2.4 - Proposed Project
The proposed Project is the development of up to 134 residential lots on a 20-acre parcel in southern Lemoore (Figure 2-1). The City actions required to permit the Project include a GPA/ZC, major site plan review, and a tentative subdivision map. Currently, the site, is a vacant undeveloped lot. The request by Daley Homes is to reestablish the Low Density Residential and Low Medium Density Residential land use designation on the proposed undesignated site, and reestablish the Low-Medium Density Residential (RLMD) and the Low Density Residential (RLD) zones on the proposed unzoned site.

Administrative Draft Project Description

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 12

Figure 2-1
Project Site
Administrative Draft Project Description

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 13

Figure 2-2
Regional Location
Administrative Draft Project Description

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 14

Figure 2-3
Project Location in City
Administrative Draft Project Description

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 15

Figure 2-4
Surrounding Land Uses
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 16
SECTION 3 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3.1 - Environmental Checklist and Discussion

1. Project Title:

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Lemoore
119 Fox Street
Lemoore, CA 93245

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Judy Holwell, Development Services Director
(559) 924-6740

4. Project Location:

The site consists of a 20-acre parcel (APN 023-320-005) located at the northeast corner of State Route 198 and State Route 41, south of San Simeon Drive and west of Arcata Avenue in south-central Lemoore.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Scott Daley, Vice President
Daley Homes
1356 E. Tulare Ave.

Tulare, CA 93274
(559) 686-1761

6. General Plan Designation:

Low Density Residential and Low Medium Density Residential

7. Zoning:

Low-Medium Density Residential (RLMD) and Low Density Residential (RLD)

8. Description of Project:

See Section 2.4 – Proposed Project.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

See Section 2.3 – Surrounding Land Uses and Figures 2-4.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 17

10. Other Public Agencies Approval Required:

None.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
Yes, the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Tribe has requested consultation with the City of Lemoore. Letters were sent to the tribe on May 9, 2017, informing them of the Project.

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 18

3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service
Systems
Findings of
Significance

3.3 - Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

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

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 19
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. /ss May 22, 2017

Judy Holwell, Development Services Director Date
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 20

3.4 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (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 projectspecific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 21

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 22
Response: a) The Project site is located adjacent to the Highway 41 and 198 interchange to the south and single-family residential developments to the north. The City of Lemoore 2030 General Plan states there are currently no buildings or structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places or as California Historic Landmarks. However, there are 37 sites listed as having local historic significance located within the downtown district (City of Lemoore , 2008). There are no local historic resources within the vicinity of the Project site.

The Project is not located in an area that would result in substantial adverse effects on any scenic vistas and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: b), c) There are no listed State scenic highways within Kings County; therefore, the site would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway (Caltrans, 2017).

As discussed, the proposed development is consistent with the existing character and uses of the surrounding area. There would be no substantial degrade to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.5 - Aesthetics
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 23
Response: d) The proposed development would comply with all lighting standards established in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 9, Chapter 5, Article B, Section 4). There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 24
Response: a), b), c), d), e) There will not be any conversion of farmland, nor conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use or forest land, or Williamson Act contracts. The proposed Project site is classified as “urban and built-up land” by the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The site is an undeveloped-vacant urban parcel.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.6 - Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
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?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 25
The proposed Project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The proposed Project consists of the development and operation of 134 residential lot subdivision.

Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL)
The District has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, which are based on District New Source Review (NSR) offset requirements for stationary sources.

Using project type and size, the District has pre-qualified emissions and determined a size below which it is reasonable to conclude that a project would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. In the interest of streamlining CEQA requirements, projects that fit the descriptions and project sizes provided below are deemed to have a less than significant impact on air quality and as such are excluded from quantifying criteria pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes. Table 3-1 below shows the SPAL thresholds for single-family projects.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.7 - Air Quality

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c. 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 (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 26
Table 3-1
SPAL Thresholds – Single Family
Vehicle Trip Thresholds Project Type Thresholds
Single Family – 1,453 trips/day Single Family – 134 units Response: a) The project includes the division of 20 gross acres to create 134 residential lots. The ultimate build out of these lots would consist of up to 134 residential lots and is projected to generate approximately 1,282 additional daily trips (at a worst-case scenario) within the existing residential area (134 lots X 9.57 average trips per household). Therefore, the project qualifies as a SPAL and is deemed to have a less than significant impact on air quality.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Response: b) There are two pollutants of concern for this impact: CO and localized PM10.

The proposed Project would not result in localized CO hotspots or PM 10 impacts as discussed below. Therefore, the proposed Project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard in the Project area.

Localized PM10
Localized PM10 would be generated by Project construction activities, which would include earth-disturbing activities. The proposed Project would comply with the SJVAPCD's Regulation VIII dust control requirements during construction. Compliance with this regulation would reduce the potential for significant localized PM10 impacts to less than significant levels.

CO Hotspot
Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles. The SJVAPCD provides screening criteria to determine when to quantify local CO concentrations based on impacts to the level of service (LOS) of roadways in the Project vicinity.

This proposed Project would result in the division of 20 gross acres to create 134 residential lots. Construction of the proposed Project would result in minor-temporary increases in traffic for the surrounding road network during the construction period and an estimated 1,282 daily trips (134 lots x 9.57 average trips per household) during the operation, which is the worst-case scenario. The minor increase in trips would not substantially lower the LOS.

Therefore, the Project would not generate, or substantially contribute to, additional traffic that would exceed State or federal CO standards.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 27
Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: c) The SJVAPCD does not have quantifiable thresholds for analyzing a project’s cumulative impacts on air quality. As previously determined, the project will have a less than significant impact on air quality since it qualified as a SPAL. Since a majority of the surrounding land is developed, there are not many opportunities for new development to occur in the future. Therefore, the project plus future projects combined, will not create a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Response: d) The proposed Project is consistent with the surrounding land uses and would not create or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or emissions (Figure 2-4).

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: e) According to the 2015 SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:
• Generators – projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate; and
• Receivers – residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.

The proposed Project does not meet any of these two criteria.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 28

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.8 - Biological Resources
Would the project:
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?
Methodology: Database searches were conducted to determine which sensitive biological resources historically occurred on and within 10 miles of the Project site. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2017), California Native Plants Society (CNPS) Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 29
database (CNPS 2017), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened and Endangered Species List (USFWS 2017a), and USFWS Critical Habitat database (USFWS 2017b) were reviewed to identify State and federal special-status species were searched. The CNDDB provides element-specific spatial information on individual documented occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural vegetation communities. The CNPS database provides similar information specific to plant species, but at a much lower spatial resolution.

The USFWS query generates a list of federally-protected species known to potentially occur within individual USGS quadrangles. Wildlife species designated as “Fully Protected” by California Fish and Game Code Sections 5050 (Fully Protected reptiles and amphibians), 3511 (Fully Protected birds), 5515 (Full Protected Fish), and 4700 (Fully Protected mammals) are added to the list.

Additional databases that were accessed included the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map (NWI 2017), the USGS topographical maps, National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (NHD 2017), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain database (FEMA 2017), and the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley and Essential Connectivity Habitat Areas for wildlife corridors (Spencer 2010).

Response: a), b) The CNDDB searches listed historical occurrences of five special-status bird species, three special-status plant species, nine special-status wildlife species and one sensitive natural community within a 10-mile buffer around the Project site (Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-4). However, none of these records occurred on or within the immediate vicinity of the Project site.

No USFWS-designated Critical Habitat units occur on the Project site. Critical Habitat for the Buena Vista Lake ornate Shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) is over five miles southwest of the site (Figure 3-5). Riparian habitats are defined as vegetative communities that are influenced by a river or stream, specifically the land area that encompasses the water channel and its current or potential floodplain. No riparian habitat occurs on or near the Project site. No sensitive natural communities or critical habitats occur on or near the Project site.

The proposed Project site is frequently disked and surrounded by residential urban uses to the north and bordered by Highway 41 and 198 to the west, east and south. The potential for special-status species to occur on the site is low; however, a pre-construction survey would need to be completed to ensure there is no evidence of occupation by special-status species on the Project site. General mitigation measures are included to prevent any potential impacts during construction. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

MM 3.8.1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey on the Project site and within 500 feet of its perimeter within 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction activities.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 30
If any evidence of occupation of the Project site by listed or other special-status species is subsequently observed, a buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist that results in sufficient avoidance to comply with applicable regulations. If sufficient avoidance cannot be established, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted for further guidance and consultation on additional measures.

If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, active raptor nests should be avoided by 500 feet and all other migratory bird nests should be avoided by 250 feet. Avoidance buffers may be reduced if a qualified and approved on-site monitor determines that encroachment into the buffer area is not affecting nest building, the rearing of young, or otherwise affect the breeding behaviors of the resident birds. Avoidance buffers can also be reduced through consultation with the CDFW and USFWS. If Swainson's hawks are found to nest within the survey area, active Swainson’s hawk nests shall be avoided by 0.5 mile unless this avoidance buffer is reduced through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 31
No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within a non-disturbance buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction areas. This typically occurs by early July, but September 1st is considered the end of the nesting period unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. Once raptors have completed nesting and young have fledged, disturbance buffers will no longer be needed and can be removed, and monitoring can be terminated.

3. If western burrowing owls are present in the non-breeding season and must be passively relocated from the Project site, passive relocation shall not commence until October 1st and must be completed by February 1st. Passive relocation must only be conducted by a qualified biologist or ornithologist and with approval by CDFW. After passive relocation, the area where owls occurred and its immediate vicinity shall be monitored by a qualified biologist daily for one week and once per week for an additional two weeks to document that owls are not reoccupying the site.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 32
MM 3.8.4: The measures listed below shall be implemented during construction:

4. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a Project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the USFWS and the CDFW shall be contacted at the addresses provided below.

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 33
discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

7. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.

10. An employee education program shall be conducted. The program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in San Joaquin kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the Project. The program shall include: a description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the Project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during Project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the Project sites.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 34

12. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the USFWS shall be contacted for guidance.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Response: c) No National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) features or blue-line drainages (as found on USGS topographic maps and in the National Hydrography Dataset) occurred on the Project site (Figure 3-6).

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: d) The proposed Project site does not occur within a known migration route, significant wildlife corridor, or linkage area as identified in the Recovery Plan for Upland Species in the San Joaquin Valley (USFWS 1998). The site is located within areas of residential development and highways. Wildlife movement corridors are routes that provide shelter and sufficient food supplies to support regular movements of wildlife species. A movement corridor is a continuous geographic extent of habitat that either spatially or functionally links ecosystems across fragmented, or otherwise inhospitable, landscapes.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 35
Faunal movement may include seasonal or migration movement, life cycle links, species dispersal, re-colonization of an area, and movement in response to external pressures.

Movement corridors typically include riparian habitats, ridgelines, and ravines, as well as other contiguous expanses of natural habitats. Movement corridors may be functional on regional, sub-regional, or local scales.

No significant wildlife movement corridors, core areas, or Essential Habitat Connectivity areas occur on or near the Project site. The Project would not substantially affect migrating birds or other wildlife. The Project will not restrict, eliminate, or significantly alter wildlife movement corridors, core areas, or Essential Habitat Connectivity areas either during construction or after the Project has been constructed. Project construction will not substantially interfere with wildlife movements or reduce breeding opportunities.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: e), f) The City of Lemoore does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources nor an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 36

Figure 3-1
CNDDB Special-Status Birds
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 37

Figure 3-2
CNDDB Special-Status Invertebrates, Fish, Amphibians and Reptiles Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 38

Figure 3-3
CNDDB Special-Status Mammals
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 39
Figure 3-4
CNDDB Sensitive Natural Communities and Special-Status Plant Species
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 40

Figure 3-5
USFWS Critical Habitat
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 41

Figure 3-6
National Wetland Inventory and Hydrologic Information
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 42

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.9 - Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Response: a), b) As discussed in Section 3.5 – Aesthetics, there are no identified historical resources within the vicinity of the Project site. There is a low potential for grounddisturbing activities to expose and affect previously unknown significant cultural resources, including historical or prehistorical resources at the Project site. However, there is still a possibility that historical materials may be exposed during construction. Grading and trenching, as well as other ground-disturbing actions, have the potential to damage or destroy these previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural resources within the Project area, including historical resources. Disturbance of any deposits that have the potential to provide significant cultural data would be considered a significant impact under CEQA.

Although considered unlikely since there is no indication of any archaeological resources on or in the vicinity of the Project site, subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed Project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measures:

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 43
materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified professional archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Response: c) There are no unique geological features or known fossil-bearing sediments in the vicinity of the Project site. However, there remains the possibility for previously unknown, buried paleontological resources or unique geological sites to be uncovered during subsurface construction activities.

Mitigation Measures:

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 44
Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Response: d) Human remains including known cemeteries are not known to exist within the Project area. However, construction would involve earth-disturbing activities, and it is still possible that human remains may be discovered, possibly in association with archaeological sites.

Mitigation Measures:

MM 3.9.3: If human remains are discovered during construction or operational activities, further excavation or disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (Chapter 1492, Statutes of 1982, Senate Bill 297), and Senate Bill 447 (Chapter 44, Statutes of 1987), shall be followed. Section 7050.5(c) shall guide any potential Native American involvement, in the event of discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 45

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.10 - Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or offsite 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 risks to life or
property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems in areas where
sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 46
Response: a), b), c), d), e) There are no known active seismic faults in Kings County or within its immediate vicinity. The principle earthquake hazard affecting the area is ground shaking as opposed to surface rupture or ground failure (City of Lemoore , 2008). Per the Department of Conservation Landslide Map, the City of Lemoore does not contain any areas that are prone to landslides (Department of Conservation, 2017). As shown in Figure 3-1, the site contains Lakeside loam, partially drained and Lemoore sandy loam, partially drained soil.

Both soils are very deep, somewhat poorly drained, saline-alkali soils that are mainly used for irrigated crops and urban development (United States Department of Agriculture, 1986).

Impacts from soil erosion would be minimal as it most likely occurs on sloped areas and the project site is relatively flat and the site soils contain zero to one percent slopes. Per Table 15 of the Kings County Soil Survey, the site soils have a low shrink-swell potential; therefore, the site does not contain expansive soils (United States Department of Agriculture, 1986).

The proposed residential developments would be required to comply with City building code requirements and Lemoore’s General Plan policies, and their cited regulations, that mitigate seismic hazards and soils-related structural concerns for permitted development.

The Project site is not located on an unstable geologic unit or soil nor on expansive soil. The proposed Project does not include the development of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems as the Project would hook up to the City’s existing sewer system.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impacts and less than significant impacts.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 47

Figure 3-7
Soil Map
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 48

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.11 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Response: a), b) Greenhouse gas (GHG) significance thresholds are based on the 2014 Kings County Regional Climate Action Plan (CAP). According to the CAP, the AB 32 Scoping Plan encourages local governments to establish a GHG reduction target that “parallels the State’s commitment to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent from current levels by 2020.” Therefore, this CAP establishes a reduction target to achieve emissions levels 15 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2020 consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

Proposed development projects that are consistent with the emission reduction and adaptation measures included in the CAP and the programs that are developed as a result of the CAP, would be considered to have a less than significant cumulative impact on climate change. Therefore, the 15 percent reduction will be used as the significance threshold for GHG emissions for this analysis.

The Project Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, the SJVAPCD’s approved modeling system for quantifying emissions. The results are shown in the Table 3-5 below* Table 3-5
Project GHG Emissions
CO2e (tons/year)
Business as Usual (2005) 3,326
Project (2019) 1,958
% reduction 15%
15% reduction met? YES
*See Appendix B for calculations
Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 49

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.12 - Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Would the project:
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 involve
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site that 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 for people residing or
working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g. Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 50

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Response: a), b), c) There will not be any hazardous material transported to and from the project site, nor utilized thereon after construction. Project construction activities may involve the use of hazardous materials. These materials might include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction. The use of such materials would be considered minimal and would not require these materials to be stored in large quantities.

There will not be any hazardous material stored in unapproved quantities at the site.

Adherence to regulations and standard protocols during storage, transport, and use of hazardous materials would minimize or avoid potential upset and accident conditions involving the release of such materials into the environment.

P.W. Engvall Elementary School is located approximately a half mile northeast of the proposed Project site. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing school.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Per the Cortese List, there are no hazardous waste and substances sites in the vicinity of the Project site (Cal EPA, 2017). Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker compiles a list of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites. There are no LUST Cleanup Sites within the vicinity of the Project site (California Water Resources Board, 2017). The proposed Project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would therefore not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.
e), f) There are two private airstrips and no public airports within the Lemoore area including Reeves Field at the Naval Air Station and Stone Airstrip. There is no adopted airport land use plan for the City of Lemoore. Both are located outside of the City’s limits and would not impact the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 51
g) The City of Lemoore published an Emergency Operations Plan in 2005, which provides guidance to City staff in the event of extraordinary emergency situation associated with natural disaster and technological incidents (City of Lemoore , 2008). The proposed Project would not interfere with the City’s adopted emergency response plan; therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.
h) The proposed Project site is in an unzoned area of the Kings County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Local Responsibility Area (LRA). However, Cal Fire has determined that portions of the City of Lemoore are categorized as a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone in LRA. The Project site is not within a wildland area nor is there within the vicinity of the Project site.

The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 52

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact

3.13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on site or off
site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on site or off site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal flood
hazard boundary or flood insurance rate
map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 53
Response: a), f) Project construction would cause ground disturbance that could result in soil erosion or siltation and subsequent water quality degradation offsite, which is a potentially significant impact. Construction-related activities would also involve the use of materials such as vehicle fuels, lubricating fluids, solvents, and other materials that could result in polluted runoff, which is also a potentially significant impact. However, the potential consequences of any spill or release of these types of materials are generally small due to the localized, short-term nature of such releases because of construction. The volume of any spills would likely be relatively small because the volume in any single vehicle or container would generally be anticipated to be less than 50 gallons.

As required by the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (No. 2012-0006-DWQ) for stormwater discharges associated with construction and land disturbance activities, the City must develop and implement a SWPPP that specifies BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite. The City is required to comply with the Construction General Permit because Project-related construction activities result in soil disturbances of least 1 one acre of total land area. Mitigation Measure MM HYD-1 below requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to comply with the Construction General Permit requirements.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (WDRs) during the construction period, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project operation would not violate any water quality standards or WDRs because it: 1) does not result in point-source pollution (e.g., outfall pipe) discharges into surface waters that require WDRs and 2) would be developed in compliance with the General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater from Small MS4s (No. 2013-0001-DWQ) in which the City is one of the permittees. Operators of MS4s1, like the City, serve urbanized areas with populations fewer than 100,000. To comply with the MS4 General Permit, the Project would have to comply with City design standards to maximize the reduction of pollutant loading in runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The City Building Department would review grading and 1 MS4s are defined as a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels or storm drains): 1) designed or used for collecting and/or conveying storm water; 2) which is not a combined sewer; and 3) which is not part or a Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 54
site plans to ensure compliance before approving such plans. The site plan review process ensures that operations of the Project would not violate water quality standards outlined in the MS4 General Permit, and operational impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Conclusion:

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Response: b) The City of Lemoore currently utilizes local groundwater as its sole source of supply from underground aquifers via ten active groundwater wells. The groundwater basin underlying the City is the Tulare Lake Basin and the City of Lemoore is immediately adjacent to the south boundary of the Kings subbasin. Water for construction and operation would come from the City of Lemoore’s existing water system. Per the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, the City’s existing system has a total supply capacity of 21,674,000 gallons per day with an average day demand of 8,769,000 gallons (City of Lemoore, 2013). The proposed Project would have temporary construction water usage and operation is estimated to demand approximately 40,870 gallons per day requiring 0.19% of the total supply capacity. Since the proposed Project would have minimal impacts on the City’s water supply, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 55
Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Response: c), d), e) The Project site is relatively flat and Project grading would be minimal and consist of mostly grubbing the site to remove vegetation. The topography of the site would not appreciably change because of grading activities. The site does not contain any blue-line water features, including streams or rivers. Construction-related erosion and sedimentation impacts as a result of soil disturbance would be less than significant after implementation of a SWPPP (MM 3.12.1). The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Response: g), h) As shown in Figure 3-8, the Project is not located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain. The Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal flood hazard boundary or flood insurance rate map or other flood hazard delineation map. The Project would not place, within a 100-year flood hazard areas, structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: i) The City of Lemoore is located within the Pine Flat Dam inundation area. Pine Flat Dam is located east of the valley floor in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. If Pine Flat Dam failed while at full capacity, its floodwaters would arrive in Kings County within approximately five hours (Kings County, 2010). Dam failure has been adequately planned for through the Kings County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, which identifies a dam failure hazard to be of medium significance and unlikely to occur in the City of Lemoore (Kings County, 2007). With the implementation of the Kings County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, impacts related to dam failure would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Response: j) The Project site is not located near the ocean, body of water or a steep topographic feature (i.e., mountain, hill, bluff, etc.). Therefore, there is no potential for the site to be inundated by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 56

Figure 3-8
FEMA Map
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 57
Response: a) The Project would not physically divide an established community (see Figure 2-1). The proposed residential development would connect to the surrounding uses and City road network.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.
b) If approved, the new general plan and zoning designations would be consistent with the Project as proposed and therefore no impacts will be created.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.
c) The Project site is not within the boundaries of an adopted habitat or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.14 - Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to, the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal Program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 58
Response: a), b) The City of Lemoore and the surrounding area are designated as Mineral Resources Zone 1 (MRZ-1) by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB). MRZ-1 areas are described as those for which adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

Additionally, per the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), there are no active, inactive, or capped oil wells located within the Project site, and it is not within a DOGGR-recognized oilfield. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.15 - Mineral Resources
Would the project:

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?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 59
Response: a) Project construction would generate temporary increases in noise levels. Title 5, Chapter 6 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes regulations and enforcement procedures for noise generated in the city. The regulations do not apply to the operation on days other than Sunday of construction equipment or of a construction vehicle, or the performance on days other than Sunday of construction work, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M., provided that all required permits for the operation of such construction equipment or construction vehicle or the performance of such construction work have been obtained from the appropriate city department (Lemoore Municipal Code 5-6-1-C.4). The City of Lemoore 2030 General Plan (City of Lemoore , 2008) has objectives to minimize residential development noise levels. The proposed Project would comply with all regulations, standards and policies within the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.16 - Noise
Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to, or generate, noise
levels in excess of standards established in a
local general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generate
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
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
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 60
Therefore, the Project would not result in the exposure of persons to, or generate, noise levels more than standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Response: b), c), d) The Project involves the construction and operation of 134-residential units. As shown in Figure 2-4, the Project would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and would not cause out of the ordinary noise levels than what is currently established in the area. Construction of the Project would generate temporary ground borne vibrations.

However, like construction noise, such vibrations would be attenuated over distance to the point where they would not be felt by the nearest receptors. Additionally, construction would be done during the daylight hours and would be temporary so the surrounding land uses would not be affected by construction of the new development. The Project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels and would not result in substantial permanent, temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above the existing environment.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Response: e), f) There are no airports within two miles of the Project site, nor is it in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Lemoore Zoning Ordinance has adopted a military influence area that identifies areas that may be subject to noise impacts from the Naval Air Station Lemoore, which is approximately seven miles west of the project site. The project site is outside of the established Naval Air Station Lemoore Overlay Zone. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 61

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less- than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

3.17 - Population and Housing
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial 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
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Response: a) The proposed Project would accommodate, but not induce, population growth.

Table 2-34 of the Kings County and Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford and Lemoore 2016- 2024 Housing Element (2016-2024 Housing Element) shows the City of Lemoore’s housing needs allocations for the 2014-2024 period. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan determines the number and affordability of housing units that jurisdictions need to plan for through land use policies, regulations, infrastructure plans, and other housing assistance programs (Kings County, 2016). Construction and development of the proposed 134 singlefamily units would assist in meeting the RHNA Plan, which allocates for 2,773 units of different income category. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: b), c) The Project site is currently undeveloped. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 62

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.18 - Public Services
Would the project:
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 to other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Response: a) In general, impacts to public services from implementation of a Project are due to its ability to induce population growth and, in turn, result in a greater need for fire and police protection, etc. to serve the increased population. The proposed Project includes the construction and operation of 134 single-family residential units, which would accommodate the City’s future population growth and require amenities provided by public services. Additionally, the Project would not physically affect any existing government facilities as the proposed site is currently undeveloped. As part of the City’s project approval processes, the applicant will be required to construct the infrastructure needed to serve the Project site and pay the appropriate impact fees to cover the subdivision’s impacts to public services.
i. Fire suppression support is provided by the City of Lemoore Volunteer Fire Department (LVFD). The LVFD has three stations and the closest station to the Project site is located near the intersection of Fox Street and C Street approximately a mile northeast of the Project site. The proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of 134 residential units in south-central Lemoore. Construction activities would be in accordance with local and State fire codes. Fire services are Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 63
adequately planned for within the City’s General Plan through policies to ensure the City maintains Fire Department performance and response standards by allocating the appropriate resources. As stated, the Daley Homes Project applicant is responsible for constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the subdivision and pay the appropriate impact fees, which would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Law enforcement and public protection are provided by the City of Lemoore Police Department. The City’s police station is located at 657 Fox Street on the northwest corner of Fox Street and Cinnamon Drive. The station is approximately a mile northeast of the Project site. As discussed, the proposed Project would not induce but accommodate population growth, and therefore would not increase demands for public safety protection. As stated, the Daley Homes Project applicant is responsible for constructing any infrastructure needed to serve the subdivision and pay the appropriate impact fees. Impacts on police protection services related to population growth would therefore be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.
iii. The schools that would be accommodating the proposed subdivision are P.W. Engvall Elementary School, Liberty Middle School, and Lemoore Union High School. Per the Parks, Schools, and Community Facilities Element of the 2030 General Plan, both the elementary and middle schools are running under capacity. Additionally, the City has identified several sites for a future high school to accommodate population growth as the current high school is running 17% over capacity. Since the proposed Project would be accommodating population growth, the impact to schools would be considered less than significant. The developer will be required to pay established school impact fees upon construction of the homes.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.
iv. The proposed Project includes the development of 134 residential lots. The City is currently maintaining a 5-acre to 1,000 residents park ratio, which exceeds current City Park Standards and Quimby Act requirements (City of Lemoore , 2008). The Project would have no impact to the City park system.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 64
v. The proposed Project does not include any other impacts to public facilities.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 65

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.19 - Recreation
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Response: a), b) As discussed, the population growth accommodated by the Project (134 homes x 3.05 persons per home) is approximately 409 people. The City’s General Plan indicates that the City is continuing to maintain its parkland dedication standard of 5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 66
Response: a) The City’s transportation policies and requirements are incorporated in its General Plan. The only such policy which is affected by this Project is that requiring that no Level of Service violations be engendered by a Project. Per the City’s Circulation Element of

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.20 - Transportation and Traffic
Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
Programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 67
the City of Lemoore 2030 General Plan Update (City of Lemoore , 2008), the “City of Lemoore does not currently have any adopted level of service (LOS) standard. However, recent traffic studies have used level of service D as the standard for evaluating project impacts at intersections.” A LOS of D is characterized by congestion with average vehicle speeds decreasing below the user’s desired level for two and four land roads. The Level of Service for 19th Avenue is C; the daily traffic of the Project site is, 1,282 cars per day (9.57 trips per day per residence; see Section 3.3 - Air Quality). As discussed in the Population and Housing Section, the Project will be accommodating future population growth. The calculated trips per day is considered the worst-case scenario. It is assumed that the LOS of the surrounding streets would remain the same. Additionally, trips to bring materials for construction to the site would be temporary. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Response: b) Neither the City of Lemoore or Kings County has an adopted congestion management program. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: c) As discussed, there are no public airports or private airstrips within the vicinity of the Project site and the Project does not include the construction of any structures that would interfere with air traffic patterns. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: d), e) The Project would not involve design features that would increase hazards or involve the development of incompatible uses. It would also not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Response: f) The Project would not affect existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the surrounding area. There is no conflict with the Kings County’s 2005 Regional Bicycle Plan; therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 68
Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 69

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less–thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.21 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
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 a 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 Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Response: a) The Project is not located within an area with known tribal cultural resources.

As discussed in the Section 3.9 - Cultural Resources, there are no historical resources located on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, consultation has been requested from the local tribes; however, no responses have been received. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact to tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: There would be no impact.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 70

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less-thanSignificant
Impact

No
Impact

3.22 - Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or would new or expanded
entitlements be needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that 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?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Response: a), b), c), d), e), f), g) Like public services, the Project applicant is required to either extend the needed utility infrastructure or pay impact fees to accommodate the subdivision’s impact to local utility and infrastructure systems. The City’s wastewater facilities, water system, storm drainage system, and solid waste disposal programs have capacity for, or are planned to maintain capacity for, community growth in accord with the adopted General Plan.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 71
Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Conclusion: Impacts would be less than significant.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 72
Response: a) As evaluated in this IS/MND, the proposed Project would not 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; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Mitigation measures have been included to lessen the significance of potential impacts. Similar mitigation measures would be expected of other projects in the surrounding area, most of which share a similar cultural paleontological and biological resources. Consequently, the incremental effects of the proposed project, after mitigation, would not contribute to an adverse cumulative impact on these resources.

Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

3.23 - Mandatory Findings of
Significance
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, 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. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 73
Implement Mitigation Measures MM 3.8.1 through MM 3.8.4, MM CUL 3.9.1 through MM 3.9.3 and MM 3.12.1.

Conclusion:

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Response: b) As described in the impact analyses in Sections 3.5 through 3.22 of this IS/MND, any potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project would be reduced to a less-than significant level following incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. All planned projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform to the City of Lemoore General Plan, zoning, mitigate for project-specific impacts, and provide appropriate engineering to ensure the development meets applicable federal, State and local regulations and codes. As currently designed, and with compliance of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact. Thus, the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures:

Implement Mitigation Measures MM 3.8.1 through MM 3.8.4, MM CUL 3.9.1 through MM 3.9.3 and MM 3.12.1.

Conclusion:

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Response: c) All of the Project’s impacts, both direct and indirect, that are attributable to the Project were identified and mitigated to a less than significant level. As shown in Appendix A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Project proponent has agreed to implement mitigation substantially reducing or eliminating impacts of the Project. All planned projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform to the City of Lemoore General Plan, zoning, mitigate for project-specific impacts, and provide appropriate engineering to ensure the development meets are applicable federal, State and local regulations and codes.

Thus, the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed Project would not either directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because all potentially adverse direct impacts of the proposed Project are identified as having no impact, less than significant impact, or less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

Implement Mitigation Measures MM 3.8.1 through MM 3.8.4, MM CUL 3.9.1 through MM 3.9.3 and MM 3.12.1.

Administrative Draft Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 74
Conclusion:

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Administrative Draft References

Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change May 2017 City of Lemoore Page 75
SECTION 4 - REFERENCES
Cal EPA. (2017, May 8). Superfund Cleanup Site List. Retrieved from Cortese List:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Cal Fire. (2006). California Wildland Hazard Severity Zone Map Update. Retrieved from Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Map:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_statewide California Water Resources Board. (2017, May 8). GeoTracker. Retrieved from https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Caltrans. (2017). California Scenic Highway Mapping System . California, United States of America.

City of Lemoore . (2008). 2030 General Plan.

City of Lemoore. (2013). Urban Water Management Plan.

Department of Conservation. (2017, May 9). CGS Information Warehouse. California, United States of America.

Kings County. (2007). Kings County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Kings County. (2010). 2035 General Plan . Hanford: Kings County Community Development Agency.

Kings County. (2016). 2016-2024 Housing Element of Kings County and the Cities of Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford and Lemoore.

United States Department of Agriculture. (1986). Soil Survey of Kings County California.

APPENDIX A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Daley Homes General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Mitigation Measure Timeframe Responsible
Monitoring Agency
Date Initial
MM 3.8.1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey on the Project site and within 500 feet of its perimeter within 14 days of and no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction activities.

If any evidence of occupation of the Project site by listed or other specialstatus species is subsequently observed, a buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist that results in sufficient avoidance to comply with applicable regulations. If sufficient avoidance cannot be established, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted for further guidance and consultation on additional measures. The Project proponent shall obtain any required permits from the appropriate wildlife agency. Copies of all permits and evidence of compliance with applicable regulations shall be submitted to the lead agency.

The following buffer distances shall be established prior to construction activities:
• San Joaquin kit fox or American badger potential den: 50 feet; • San Joaquin kit fox known den: 100 feet;
• San Joaquin kit fox or American badger pupping den: contact the California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Burrowing owl burrow outside of breeding season: 160 feet; • Burrowing owl burrow during breeding season: 250 feet; • Swainson’s hawk nest during breeding season: ½ mile;
Prior to
construction
Lead Agency
• Other protected raptor nests during the breeding season: 300 feet; • Other protected nesting migratory bird nests during the breeding season: 50 feet; and
• Other special-status wildlife species: as recommended by qualified biologist.

No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within a nondisturbance buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction areas. This typically occurs by early July, but September 1st is considered the end of the nesting period unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. Once raptors have completed nesting and young have fledged, disturbance buffers will no longer be needed and can be removed, and monitoring can be terminated.

During
construction
Lead Agency
MM 3.8.3: If any burrowing owl burrows are observed during the preconstruction survey, avoidance measures shall be consistent and in accordance with protocols outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) and the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Active burrows shall be avoided, but if avoidance is not possible then compensation shall be provided for the active or passive displacement of western burrowing owls, and habitat acquisition and the creation of artificial dens for any western burrowing owls shall be provided for any owls relocated from construction areas. These measures are outlined as follows:

3. If western burrowing owls are present in the non-breeding season and must be passively relocated from the Project site, passive relocation shall not commence until October 1st and must be completed by February 1st. Passive relocation must only be conducted by a qualified biologist or ornithologist and with approval by CDFW. After passive relocation, the area where owls occurred and its immediate vicinity shall be monitored by a qualified biologist daily for one week and once During
construction
Lead Agency
per week for an additional two weeks to document that owls are not reoccupying the site.

Compensation acreage shall be determined as described in the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).

MM 3.8.4: The measures listed below shall be implemented during construction:

San Joaquin kit fox USFWS Exclusion Zone Recommendations Den Type Recommendation
Potential Den 50-foot radius
Known Den 100-foot radius
Natal/Pupping Den (Occupied
and Unoccupied)
Contact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for guidance
Atypical Den 50-foot radius

Replacement dens will be required if such dens are removed. Potential dens that are removed do not need to be replaced if they are determined to be inactive by using standard monitoring techniques (e.g., applying tracking medium around the den opening and monitoring for San Joaquin kit fox tracks for three consecutive nights).

3. Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all Project areas, except on County roads and During
construction
Lead Agency
State and federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes and badgers are most active. Night-time construction shall be minimized to the extent possible. However, if construction at night does occur, then the speed limit shall be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated Project areas shall be prohibited.

If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved until the USFWS has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.

7. No pets, such as dogs or cats, shall be permitted on the Project sites to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.

8. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in Project areas shall be restricted.

This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional Project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the USFWS. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.

10. An employee education program shall be conducted. The program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in San Joaquin kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the Project. The program shall include: a description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the Project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during Project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the Project sites.

11. Upon completion of the Project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. shall be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-Project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the Project, but after Project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the USFWS, CDFW, and revegetation experts.

12. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the USFWS shall be contacted for guidance.

Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. The USFWS contact is the Chief of the Division of Endangered Species, at the addresses and telephone numbers below.

The CDFW contact can be reached at 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, (530) 934-9309.

MM 3.9.1: If prehistoric or historic-era cultural or archaeological materials are encountered during construction activities, all work within 25 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for During
construction
Lead Agency
prehistoric and historic archaeologist, can evaluate the significance of the find and make recommendations. Cultural resource materials may include prehistoric resources such as flaked and ground stone tools and debris, shell, bone, ceramics, and fire-affected rock as well as historic resources such as glass, metal, wood, brick, or structural remnants. If the qualified professional archaeologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and evaluation or data recovery excavation.

If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations and fossil recovery may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from Project implementation. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, they shall be avoided to ensure no adverse effects, or such effects must be mitigated. Construction in that area shall not resume until the resource appropriate measures are recommended or the materials are determined During
construction
Lead Agency
to be less than significant. If the resource is significant and fossil recovery is the identified form of treatment, then the fossil shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution. Copies of all correspondence and reports shall be submitted to the Lead Agency.

During
construction
Lead Agency
MM 3.12.1: Prior to ground-disturbing activities, the City shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies best management practices (BMP), with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite. The SWPPP shall include contain a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed manmade facilities, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the Project site. Additionally, the SWPPP shall contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants to be implemented (if there is a failure of best management practices). The requirements of the SWPPP and BMPs shall be incorporated into design specifications and construction contracts. Recommended best management practices for the construction phase may include the following:

Prior to
construction
Lead Agency
• Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly.
• Protecting any existing storm drain inlets and stabilizing disturbed areas.
• Implementing erosion controls.
• Properly managing construction materials.
• Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and
implementing sediment controls.

Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Per site plan

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 134.00 Dwelling Unit 20.00 241,200.00 383

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics

2.0 Emissions Summary
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2018
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 43.51 20.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 20.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 20.00 0.00
Daily Homes Subdivision
Kings County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

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
2004 0.0000
Maximum 0.0000
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
2004 0.0000
Maximum 0.0000
Mitigated 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 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.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

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 60.0603
Energy 599.4823
Mobile 2,566.342
5 Waste 69.3401
Water 31.3069
Total 3,326.532
1 Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Highest
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx 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.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/5/2004 1/4/2004 5 20 2 Building Construction Building Construction 1/5/2004 1/4/2004 5 300 3 Demolition Demolition 1/5/2004 1/4/2004 5 20
4 Grading Grading 1/5/2004 1/4/2004 5 30
5 Paving Paving 1/5/2004 1/4/2004 5 20
6 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/5/2004 1/4/2004 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 488,430; Residential Outdoor: 162,810; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 75
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
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
Architectural Coating 1 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 48.00 14.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.4 Demolition - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.4 Demolition - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.5 Grading - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.5 Grading - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.7 Site Preparation - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Site Preparation - 2004
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 2,566.342
5 Unmitigated 2,566.342
5 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 1,275.68 1,327.94 1155.08 3,623,370 3,623,370 Total 1,275.68 1,327.94 1,155.08 3,623,370 3,623,370
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 42.30 19.60 38.10 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.472912 0.030922 0.145205 0.141616 0.025886 0.005289 0.012264 0.153809 0.001816 0.002088 0.006227 0.001059 0.000908 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
368.5390
Electricity
Unmitigated
368.5390
NaturalGas
Mitigated
230.9433
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
230.9433

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

4.30215e
+006
230.9433
Total 230.9433
Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

4.30215e
+006
230.9433
Total 230.9433
Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.2619e
+006
368.5390
Total 368.5390
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area 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
Mitigated 60.0603
Unmitigated 60.0603

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.2619e
+006
368.5390
Total 368.5390
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

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

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000
Hearth 58.3948
Landscaping 1.6655
Total 60.0603
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000
Hearth 58.3948
Landscaping 1.6655
Total 60.0603
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 31.3069
Unmitigated 31.3069

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

8.73064 /

5.5041

31.3069
Total 31.3069
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

8.73064 /

5.5041

31.3069
Total 31.3069
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 69.3401
Unmitigated 69.3401
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
137.88 69.3401
Total 69.3401
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
137.88 69.3401
Total 69.3401
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 29 Date: 5/15/2017 11:05 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

11.0 Vegetation

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 134.00 Dwelling Unit 20.00 241,200.00 383

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2019
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Daily Homes Subdivision
Kings County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 250.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 150.00 250.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 250.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 150.00 250.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 43.51 20.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2019
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 20.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 20.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

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
2017 255.7931
2018 383.8350
2019 1.4681
Maximum 383.8350
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
2017 255.7929
2018 383.8346
2019 1.4681
Maximum 383.8346
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

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 60.0599
Energy 599.4823
Mobile 2,533.221
4 Waste 69.3401
Water 31.3069
Total 3,293.410
6 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 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Highest
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx 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 40.54 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/15/2018 1/11/2019 5 20 2 Building Construction Building Construction 9/23/2017 11/16/2018 5 300 3 Demolition Demolition 7/3/2017 7/28/2017 5 20
4 Grading Grading 8/12/2017 9/22/2017 5 30
5 Paving Paving 11/17/2018 12/14/2018 5 20
6 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/29/2017 8/11/2017 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 488,430; Residential Outdoor: 162,810; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 75
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
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
Architectural Coating 1 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 48.00 14.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 0.0000
Worker 0.3991
Total 0.3991
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 0.0000
Off-Road 1.4076
Total 1.4076
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 0.0000
Off-Road 1.1514
Total 1.1514
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2019
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 0.0000
Worker 0.3167
Total 0.3167
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 0.0000
Off-Road 1.1514
Total 1.1514
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 84.6909
Total 84.6909
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 13.6948
Worker 12.6832
Total 26.3780
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 84.6908
Total 84.6908
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 275.1071
Total 275.1071
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 44.8057
Worker 40.0535
Total 84.8592
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 275.1068
Total 275.1068
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.4 Demolition - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 35.8438
Total 35.8438
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.4 Demolition - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 0.0000
Worker 1.1324
Total 1.1324
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 35.8438
Total 35.8438
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.5 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 0.0000
Off-Road 87.0011
Total 87.0011
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.5 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 0.0000
Worker 2.2649
Total 2.2649
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000
Off-Road 87.0010
Total 87.0010
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 20.9736
Paving 0.0000
Total 20.9736
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.6 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 0.0000
Worker 1.0884
Total 1.0884
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 20.9736
Paving 0.0000
Total 20.9736
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.7 Site Preparation - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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 0.0000
Off-Road 17.8025
Total 17.8025
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

3.7 Site Preparation - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 0.0000
Worker 0.6795
Total 0.6795
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000
Off-Road 17.8025
Total 17.8025
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Improve Walkability Design
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network

3.7 Site Preparation - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
Vendor 0.0000
Worker 0.6795
Total 0.6795
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1,198.235
3 Unmitigated 2,533.221
4 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 1,275.68 1,327.94 1155.08 3,623,370 1,251,182 Total 1,275.68 1,327.94 1,155.08 3,623,370 1,251,182
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 7.30 7.50 42.30 19.60 38.10 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.480541 0.029898 0.145962 0.133853 0.023791 0.005025 0.012238 0.156969 0.001786 0.002002 0.006069 0.001023 0.000844 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
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
368.5390
Electricity
Unmitigated
368.5390
NaturalGas
Mitigated
230.9433
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
230.9433

4.30215e
+006
230.9433
Total 230.9433
Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

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

4.30215e
+006
230.9433
Total 230.9433
Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.2619e
+006
368.5390
Total 368.5390
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

1.2619e
+006
368.5390
Total 368.5390
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000
Hearth 58.3948
Landscaping 1.6651
Total 60.0599
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 29 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000
Hearth 58.3948
Landscaping 1.6651
Total 60.0599
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 30 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 31.3069
Unmitigated 31.3069

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

8.73064 /

5.5041

31.3069
Total 31.3069
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 31 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

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

8.73064 /

5.5041

31.3069
Total 31.3069
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 69.3401
Unmitigated 69.3401
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 32 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 33 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 34 of 34 Date: 5/15/2017 11:27 AM Daily Homes Subdivision - Kings County, Annual
Date Received For Filing
1 Notice of Exemption
TO: Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk
County of Kings
Kings County Government Center
Hanford, California 93230
FROM: City of Lemoore Community Development Dept.
711 W. Cinnamon Drive
Lemoore, CA 93245
PROJECT TITLE: Zoning Map Amendment No. 2021-05 and
General Plan Amendment No. 2021-03
PROJECT APPLICANT: Daley Homes
PROJECT LOCATION – City: Lemoore County: Kings
PROJECT LOCATION – Specific: Northeast Corner of State Route 198 and State Route 41, South of San Simeon Drive and West of Acrata Avenue (APN 023-320-005 Remainder) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes Zoning Map Amendments and General Plan Amendments for an undeveloped 7.09 acre site. Roughly three quarters of the site currently designated and zoned Low Density Residential (RLD) would be designated and zoned Low-Medium Density Residential (RLMD). The remaining future lots to the north (approximately one-quarter of the site) would be designated and zoned Low Density Residetntial (RLD). The proposed General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments primarily result in increasing the residential capacity on the site, from approximately 23 residential units to approximately 53 residential units, resulting in a net increase of 30 residential units on the site. As such, the City has complied with Government Code section 66300. Further, the increased residential capacity may be available to offset any decrease in residential capacity resulting from future projects.

NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: City of Lemoore NAME, ADDRESS, & PHONE NUMBER OF PERSON OR AGENCY CARRYING OUT PROJECT:

Daley Enterprises, Inc. 1356 E. Tulare Avenue, Tulare, CA 93274 (559) 686-1761 or 4Creeks, Inc. 324 S.

Santa Fe Street, Visalia, CA 93292 (559) 802-3052
EXEMPT STATUS: (check one)
Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number:

Statutory Exemptions. State code number: CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 “Significant 2 Effect on the Environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared in May 2017 at the time the site was originally designated. The Initial Study found 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 in the form of mitigations have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the City, and is attached for review.

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON:

Kristie Baley, Management Analyst
(559) 924-6744 Ext. 740 Signature Date
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code.

Reference: Sections 21068, 21083, 21100 and 21151, Public Resources Code; Hecton v. People of the State of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 653.

Findings:

1. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest and the General Plan, as amended, will remain internally consistent.

2. The Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.

3. The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with the adopted 2017 IS/MND will not have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA.

Lemoore City CouncilJanuary 10, 2022

Lemoore City Council
January 10, 2022