CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICTAppellant’s Request for Judicial NoticeCal.May 28, 2014 Case No. 8213478 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA See prey py de Fy 4 Along *VRRP LAL shire CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Plaintiff and Respondent, V. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT Defendant and Appellant. After a Decision by the Court OfAppeal First Appellate District, Division One Case No. A135335 & A136212 Appeal from the Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG10548693 The Honorable Frank Roesch, Judge Presiding BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF ERIN CHALMERS *Ellison Folk (SBN 149232) Brian C. Bunger (SBN 142001) Erin B. Chalmers (SBN 245907) Randi L. Wallach (SBN 241171) Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Bay Area Air Quality 396 HayesStreet ManagementDistrict _ San Francisco, CA 94102 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94901 Tel: (415) 552-7272 Fax: (415) 552-5816 Tel: (415) 749-4797 Email: folk@smwlaw.com Fax: (415) 928-8560 Email bbunger@baaqmd.gov Attorneysfor Defendant and Appellant BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT Case No. 8213478 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Plaintiff and Respondent, BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT Defendant and Appellant. After a Decision by the Court Of Appeal First Appellate District, Division One Case No. A135335 & A136212 Appeal from the Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG10548693 The Honorable Frank Roesch, Judge Presiding BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF ERIN CHALMERS *Ellison Folk (SBN 149232) Erin B. Chalmers (SBN 245907) Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 396 HayesStreet San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 552-7272 Fax: (415) 552-5816 Email: folk@smwlaw.com Brian C. Bunger (SBN 142001) Randi L. Wallach (SBN 241171) Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94901 Tel: (415) 749-4797 Fax: (415) 928-8560 Email bbunger@baaqmd.gov Attorneysfor Defendant and Appellant BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT Pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 452, 453 and 459, and California Rules of Court 8.520(g) and 8.252(a), Defendant and Appellant Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict requests that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibits V through EE, which the Air District offers in support of its Answers to the amicuscuriae briefs of the League of California Cities et. al and Center for Creative Land Recyclinget. al, previously filed with this Court. A supplemental declaration of Erin Chalmers, attached to this Second Supplemental Motionfor Judicial Notice, establishes the authenticity of the exhibits. The documents do not relate to proceedings occurringafter the trial court’s judgment, and the Air District did not present the documents to the trial court. The Air District seeks notice of the following specific documents: Exhibit V: State of California Administrative Register 73, No. 50 (December15, 1973), showing relevant sections of the CEQA Guidelines as adopted in December, 1973. Exhibit W: Relevant sections of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Solano County 2008 Draft General Plan, Vol. 1 (July, 2008). Exhibit W also consists of Resolution No. 2008-182 of the Board of | Supervisors of Solano County, in which the County certifies the Final EIR, thereby demonstrating the County’s official adoption of the Final EIR. Exhibit X: Relevant sections of the Final Environmental Impact Report, 2035 Kings County General Plan Update (October, 2009). Exhibit X also consists of Resolution No. 10-001 of the Board of Supervisors of Kings County, in which the County certifies the Final EIR, thereby demonstrating the County’s official adoption of the Final EIR. Exhibit Y: Relevant sections of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, Tulare County General Plan (february, 2010). Exhibit Y also consists of Resolution No. 2012-0696 of the Board of Supervisors of Tulare County, in which the Countycertifies the EIR, thereby demonstrating the County’s official adoption of the EIR. Exhibit Z: Relevant excerpts of County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements: Wildland Fire and Fire Protection (August, 2010). Exhibit AA: Relevant excerpts of the Marin County Environmental Impact Review Guidelines (adopted May, 1994). Exhibit BB: Relevant excerpts of Contra Costa County Guidelines for Administering the California Environmental Quality Act (July 2010). Exhibit CC: Relevant excerpts of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, 2010 Monterey Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Association Of Monterey Bay Area Governments (May, 2010). Exhibit DD: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project (September 2009).. Exhibit EE: Letter from E. Silva, League of California Cities’ Legislative Representative, to Senator D. Rogers, April 5, 1994, stating that the League of California Cities supports SB 1453 (Rogers). I. This Court May Take Judicial Notice of the Submitted Documents. A. Exhibits V, Z, AA, and BB Represent Official Acts of the State and of Local Agencies. Exhibit V consists of CEQA regulations adopted by the Office of Planning and Research in 1973. These regulations are relevant to demonstrate that the agency charged with implementing CEQAhaslong interpreted CEQAin the manner advocated by the Air District. These regulations are subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code sections 452 (b) and (c). Love v. Superior Court (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 736, 743 fn. 5 (taking judicial notice of a public agency’s regulatory guidelines). Exhibits Z, AA and BBconsist ofCEQA guidance documents adopted by various countiesin the state. These exhibits are relevantto this case because they demonstrate that public agencies throughout California routinely analyze the impacts of exposing project residents andusers to a wide range of adverse environmental conditions as part of their CEQA review. As official county guidelines for the implementation of CEQA, these documentsare subject to judicial notice under Evidence Codesection 452(c). City ofMaywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 418 fn. 25 (taking judicial notice of adopted agency guidelines). B. This Court May Take Judicial Notice of Environmental Impact Reports and CEQA Guidance Prepared by Public Agencies. Exhibits W, X, Y, CC and DD consist of draft and final environmental impact reports issued by counties and other public agencies throughout California and of resolutions adopting someofthose reports. These documents are subject to judicial notice as official acts of subdivisions of the state, pursuant to Evidence Codesection 452(c). Watson v. Los Altos School District, Santa Clara County (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 768, 772 (county planning documents are judicially noticeable). The resolutions are also subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(b) as legislative enactments. Evans v. City ofBerkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 7 fn. 2 (courts may take judicial notice of city and county resolutions). Exhibits W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, and DDare also subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Codesection 452(h). The Air District seeks judicial notice of these documents to demonstrate that public agencies throughout California routinely analyze the impacts of exposing project residents and users to a wide range of adverse environmental conditionsas part of their CEQA review. This proposition is “not reasonably subjectto. dispute and [is] capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy”—.e., the EIRs and guidance documents. Evid. Code § 452(h). Onecourt has refused to take judicial notice of a joint powers agency’s EIR, reasoning that the agency includedcities, which are not subdivisions of the state whose acts are subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Codesection 452(c). Edna Valley Association. v. San Luis Obispo County. Coordinating Council (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 444, 449. However,this decisionis inapplicableto the request for judicial notice of Exhibits W, X, and Y because these documents are EIRs prepared by counties, which are subdivisions of the state. Moreover, a number of more recent decisions have taken judicial notice of “resolutions, reports, and other official acts ofa city.” Trinity Park, L.P. v. City ofSunnyvale (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1027, disapproved on other grounds by Sterling Park, L.P. v. City ofPalo Alto (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 1193; Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904, 907. Accordingly, Exhibits CC and DDarealso subject to judicial notice as official acts pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c). In any event, the Edna Valley court did not consider whethera city- prepared EIR wouldbe noticeable under Evidence Codesection 452(h). Although Exhibit CC waspreparedby a joint powers agency thatincludes cities, and Exhibit DD waspreparedbya city, the fact that these documents evaluated the impacts of exposing future residents or project users to adverse environmental conditions is not reasonably subject to dispute. Therefore, this Court may take judicial notice of these documents under Evidence Code section 452(h). OF The Court May Take Judicial Notice of Exhibit EE Under Evidence Code Section 452(h). Exhibit EE consists of a document fromthe legislative history file for SB 1453, which created Public Resources Code section 21096. This documentis relevant because it demonstrates that the League of California Cities previously interpreted CEQAdifferently than it does now. Exhibit EEis subjectto judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(h). Courts have held that letters from bill sponsors or supporters not communicated to the Legislature as a whole are not subject to judicial notice as legislative history. Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1049, 1062 fn. 5. However, the Air District does not request judicial notice of this documentfor the purpose of interpreting SB 1453. Rather, it seeks judicial notice to support the proposition that CEQA practitioners, including amicus League of Cities, have long believed that CEQArequires agencies to analyze the impacts of exposing new project residents to hazardous environmental conditions. This proposition can be verified by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy, such as the League’s own letter found in the State Archivesbill file for SB 1453. The Exhibitis therefore subject to judicial notice. Ampex Corp. v. Cargle (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1573 & fn. 2 (an organization’s letters were subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Codesection 452(h)). DATED: May 14, 2014 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP wy: CAT ELLISON FOLK Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT DECLARATION OF ERIN CHALMERS I, Erin Chalmers, declare as follows: l. 1am a memberof the State Bar of California, and I am an attorney with the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, attorneys for Defendant and Appellant Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict. I makethis declaration in support of the Air District’s attached Second Supplemental Motion for Judicial Notice. 2. I have personal knowledgeof the matters set forth in this declaration, and if called upon to testify to those matters, I could and would so testify. 3. A true and correct copy of the following documents for which the Air District is requesting judicial notice is attached to this motion as follows: (a) Exhibit _V: State of California Administrative Register 73, No. 50 (December 15, 1973). (b) Exhibit W: Relevant sections of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Solano County 2008 Draft General Plan, Vol. 1 July, 2008), downloaded from Solano County’s official website: http://www.co.solano.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=1 2068. Also Resolution No. 2008-182 of the Board of Supervisors of Solano County, downloaded from Solano County’s official website: http://www.solanocounty.com/bosagenda/MG29288/AS2935 1/AS29382/A §29383/A1I30032/D031486/DO_31486.pdf. (c) Exhibit X: Relevant sections of the Final Environmental Impact Report, 2035 Kings County General Plan Update (October, 2009), downloaded from Kings County’s official website: http://www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=5897. Also | Resolution No. 10-001 of the Board of Supervisors of Kings County, downloaded from Kings County’s official website: www.countyofkings.com/home/showdocument?id=3 108 (see pdf pp. 12- 15). (d) Exhibit Y: Relevantsections of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, Tulare County General Plan (February, 2010), downloaded from Tulare County’s official website: http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/generalplan201 0/Recirculated DraftEIR.pdf. Also Resolution No. 2012-0696 of the Board of Supervisors of Tulare County, downloaded from Tulare County’s official website: http://generalplan.co.tulare.ca.us/documents/GP/002Board%200f%20Super visors%20Materials/002Resolution%20No0.%202012- 0696%20(FEIR)/BOS%20Resolution%202012-0696.pdf. (e) Exhibit Z: Relevant excerpts of County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements: Wildland Fire and Fire Protection (August, 2010), downloaded from San Diego County’s official website: www.sdcounty.ca.gov/pds/docs/Fire-Guidelines.pdf. (f) Exhibit AA: Relevant excerpts of the Marin County Environmental Impact Review Guidelines (adopted May, 1994), downloaded from Marin County’s official website: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/~/media/Files/Dep artments/CD/Planning/Environmental%20Impact/ERGuide1994.pdf. (g) Exhibit BB: Relevant excerpts of Contra Costa County | Guidelines for Administering the California Environmental Quality Act (July 2010), downloaded from Contra Costa County’s official website: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/48 16. (h) ExhibitCC: Relevant excerpts of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, 2010 Monterey Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Association Of Monterey Bay Area Governments (May, 2010), downloaded from the Association OfMonterey Bay Area Governments official website: www.ambag.org/pdf/2010 %20MTP FSEIR.pdf. (i) Exhibit DD: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project (September 2009), downloaded from the City of San Jose’s official website: | http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/ 13849. 10 (j) Exhibit EE: Letter from E. Silva, League of California Cities’ Legislative Representative, to Senator D. Rogers, April 5, 1994. I obtained this letter from the California State Archives; it was in the file containing legislative history for SB 1453 (1994). I declare under penalty of perjury under the lawsof the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. | ~ Executed on May2xX, 2014. os o i é: fy AN, “Frin Chalmers $91437.1 11 PROOF OF SERVICE California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Supreme Court ofCalifornia Case No. §213478 Atthe timeofservice, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employedin the City and County of San Francisco,State of California. My business address is 396 Hayes Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. On May 26, 2014, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE on the parties in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST BY MAIL:I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressedto the personsat the addresseslisted in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that the correspondenceis placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. . I declare underpenalty of perjury under the lawsofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 2§, 2014, at San Francisco, California. PSone Patricia A. Spencer SERVICE LIST California Building Industry Association, et al. v. Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict; Supreme Court of California Case No. 8213478 Michael H. Zischke Andrew B. Sabey Christian H.Cebrian Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 555 California Street, 10" Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 392-4200 Fax: (415) 392-4250 mzischke(@coxcastle.com asabey(@coxcastle.com ccebrian(@coxcastle.com Paul Campos 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5160 Tel: (925) 274-1365 pcampos(@biabayarea.org Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division 5 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-3600 The Honorable Frank Roesch Alameda Superior Court 1221 Oak Street Oakland, CA 94612 594186.1 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION NOTICE: Beginning with the first Register printed in 7953, a svstem of numbeving the Registers to correspond to the year, i.@., 53, No. 1, has D been adopted. (Register 73, No. 50—12-15-73) State of California California Administrative Register 73, No. 50 (December 15, 1973) Amendments and Additions to Rules and Regulations of Title 3. Food and Agriculture D Title 5. State University and Colleges Title 10. Real Estate Title 14. Fish and Game Commission Title 14. S.F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission Title 14. Resources Agency Title 21. Department of Transportation D Title 23. Water Resources Control Board Published by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS Department of General Servi.es Distributed by State of California DOCUMENTS SECTION D> P.O. Box 20191 Sacramento, California 95820 REVISION RECORD FOR REGISTER 78, No. 50° (December 15, 1973) e TITLE 14. NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 6. RESOURCES AGENCY Carrer 3. GumeELINES FoR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRON MENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970 (Originally printed 2-10-73; revised 12-14-73) This part of Register 73, No. 50, contains all the additions, amend- ments, and repealsaffecting the above-entitled portion of the California Administrative Code which were filed with the Secretary of State from 12-8-73, to and including 12-15-73. The latest prior register containing regulations of the above agencyis Register 73, No. 40 (10-6-73). It is important that the holders of the above-entitled portion of the code check the section numberslisted below as well as the page numbers when inserting this material iu the code and removing the superseded material. In case of doubt rely upon the section numbers rather than the page numbers since the section numbers must run consecutively even though there may be an error in the paging. SECTION CHANGES Unless otherwise noted, the sections listed below are amended herein. 15005 15062 Repealed 15101 15012 THs 15103 15014 T5004 15104 15015 Added TAOS 15107 15020.0 Added 5065.5 Added TATOS 150v2 TAG Repealed and Added 15110 150z4 15067 liz 15025 TOA1GS 15114 15026 15069 15115 15026.5 Added 15070 15116 15027 15071 5141 15029.5 Added 15073 15146 15030 15080 Lota Added 15031 5081 15160 15083 10s2 11 1503-4 THOS3 151é5 15087 IAs 15180 Added 15039 15085 Appendix A 17050 T5086 Appendix B 15053 TOONT Appendix € 1ae51 1598s Added Appendix D Added (over) (Precedes page 285, Title 14) PAGE CHANGES REMOVE INSERT Old Pages Attached Pages 285-324. 286-324 ---- 324.1-324.2 It Is Suggested That Superseded Material Be Retained. Save it and place it in a separate file under the original heading (either the appropriate title or register heading). It will then always be possible to find the prior wording of any section by using the history notes pro- vided. Nore: This revision sheet is not a part of the code. It is chiefly for filing purposes, If preserved with the removed pages, it will afford a ready reference to the sections affected by agency action. It is suggested that the latest Revision Record be retained for convenience in verifying whether or not the prior Register has been received. TITLE 14 RESOURCES (Register 73, No. 50—12-16-73) CHAPTER 3. GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970 Article m o m a m o t O h 11. Section 15000. Section 15005. Section 15010. 15011. 15012. 15013. 15014 15015 Section 15020. 15020.5. 15021. 15022. 15023. 15024. 15025 15026. 150265 13027. 15028. 15029. 150295. 15030. 15031. 15032 General Purpose Policy Definitions General Responsibilities Application of the Act to Projects Evaluating Projects Categorial Exemptions Contents of Environmental Impact Reports Evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports Appendices EIR Monitor Datailad Analysis Article 1. General Authorits Article 2 Purpose Purpose Article 3.) Policy Legslative Declaration State Policy Informational Document Early Preparation Application Terminology Article 4. Definitions General Applicant Approval CEQA—California Environmental Quality Act Categorical Exemption Discretionary Project Emergency Environment Environmental Document EIR—Environmental Impact Report KIS—Environmental Impact Statement Feasible Initial Study Lead Agency Local Agencs Ministerial Projects Seetion 15433 15034. 15035. 15036. 15037. 15038. 15039, 15040 Section 15050. 15051. 15052. 15053. 15054. Section 15060, LaO6L. 15063. 15064. 15065 15065.5, 13066, 15067 15068, 15089. 15070. 15071 15072. 15073. Section 15080 15081 15082. 15083. 15084. 15085. I50S6. {S087 T508S. Section 15200. 15101 15102, 15105. S14, 151085. 15106 NATURAL RESOURCES Negative Declaration Notice of Conipletion Notice of Determination Person Project Public Agency Responsible Agency Sistnificant [effect Article 5. General Responsibilities Public Agencies Office of Plannand Researeh (OPR) The Secretary of the Resources Avency Fees Timely Compliance Article 6. Application of the Act to Projects General Rule Projects Controlled by State or Local Agencies Federal Projects Lead Agency Principte Lead Agency Criteria Designation of Lead Ageney by Office of Planning and Research Consultation with Responsible Agencies Subsequent EIR Use of a Single FIR Multiple and Phased Projects Ongomy Project Emergency Projects Feasibility and Phinning Studies Ministerial Projoets Article 720 Evaluating Projects Initial Studs Determining Significant Effect Mandatory Findings of Sizniticance Negative Declaration Decision to Prepare an EIR EIR Process FIR Combined with Existing Planning and Review Process Additianal Notices Staternent of Overriding Considerations Article S| Categorical Exemptions Categorical Exemptions Class 1: Existing Facilities Class 2; Replacement or Reconstruction Class 2: New Construction of Small Structures Class 4: Minor Alterations to Land Class 5: Alterations in Land Use Limitations Class 6: Information Colleetion U i d e O o TITLE14 (Register 73, No. S0—12.15-73) TITLE 14 RESOURCES 987 (Register 73, No. 50—12-16-73) Section 15107. Class 7: Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources 15108, Class 8: Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environ- ment 15109. Class 9: Inspections 15110. Class 10: Loans 15111. Class 11: Accessory Structures 15112. Class 12: Surplus Government Property Sales 15113, Relation to Ministerial Projects 15114. Exception by Location I51M5. Revisions to List of Categorical Exemptions 15116. Application by Public Agencies Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports Section 15140. General 15141. Description of Project 15142. Description of EnvironmentalSetting 15143. Environmental Impact 15144. Organizations and Persons Consulted 15145. Water Quality Aspects 15146. Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report 15147. Degree of Specificity Article 10. Evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports Section 15160. Adequate Time for Review and Comment 15161. Review of Environmental Impact Reports 15162. Failure to Comment 15163. Requests for Environmental Documents 15164. Public Participation 15165. Public Hearings 15166. Retention and Availability of Comments Article 11. EIR Monitor Section 15180 EIR Monitor Appendices Appendix A. Flow Chart Appendix B. Statutory Authority of State Departments Appendix C. Notice of Con pletion Form Appendix D. Notice of Inte: t TITLE 14 RESOURCES 303 (Register 73, No. 50—12-15-73) Article 7. Evaluating Projects 15080. Initial Study. [f the proi tis not part of a class of projects that qualifies for a Categorical Exeniption and thereis a possibility that the project may havea significant effect on the environment, the lead agency should conductaninitial study to determineif the project may havea significant effect on the environment.If any of the effects of a project may have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, then an environmental impact report must be prepared where discretionary governmental action is involved. If the projectis to be carried out by a nongovernmental person,the lead agency may require such person to submit data and information which will enable the agency to make this determination. History: 1. Amendmentfiled 12-14-73 as an emergency;effective upon filing. Certifi- cate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 15081. Determining Significant Effect. (a) The determination of whether a project may havea significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An iron clad definitionof significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which maynotbe significant in an urban area may besignificant in a rural area. There maybe a difference of opinion on whethera particular effect should be considered adverse or beneficial, but where thereis, or anticipated to be, a substantial bodyof opinion that considers orwill ‘consider the effect to be adverse, the lead agency should prepare an EIR to explore the environmental effects involved. (b) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agencyshall consider both primary or direct and sec- ondary or indirect consequences. Primary consequencesare immedi- ately related to the project (the construction of a new treatmentplant mayfacilitate population growth in a particular area), while secondary consequences are related more to primary consequences than to the project itself (an impact upon the resource base, including land,air, water and energy use of the area in question may result from the population growth). (c) Some examples of consequences which may havea significant effect on the environmentin connection with most projects where they occur, include a change that: (1) Is in conflict with environmental plans and goals that have been adopted by the community where the project is to be located; (2) Has a substantial and demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; (3) Substantially affects a rare or endangered species of animal or plant, or habitat of such a species, (4) Causes substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratoryfish or wildlife species; (5) Breaches any published national, state, or local standardsrelat- ing to solid waste or litter control: 304 NATURAL RESOURCES TITLE14 (Register 73. No. 50—12-15-73) (6) Results in a substantial detrimental effect on air or water qual- ity, or on ambient noise levels for adjoining areas; (7) Involves the possibility of contaminating a public water supply systern or adversely affecting ground water: (8) Could cause substantial flooding, erosion or silta tion; (9) Could expose people or structures to major geologic h azards. Historv: 1. Amendment filed 12-14-73 as an emergency; effec tive uponfiling. Certifi- cate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50). 15082. Mandatory Findings of Significance. In every case wh ere any of the following conditions are found to exist as a result of a project, the project shall be found to have impacts with a significant effect on the environment: (a) Impacts which have the potential to degrade the qualit y of the environmentor curtail the range of the environment. (b) Impacts which achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals. A short-term impact on the enviro nmentis one which occursin arelatively brief, definitive period of ti me while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. (c) Impacts for a project which are individually limited, but curm ula- tively considerable. A project may affect two or more separa te re- sources where the impact on each resource is relatively small. H the effect of the total of those impacts on the environmentis signif icant, an EIR must be prepared. This mandatory finding of significance do es not apply to two or more separate projects where the impact o f each is insignificant. (a) The environmental effects of a project will cause subst antial adverse effects on humanbeings, either directly or indirectly. Historyv: 1. Amendment filed 12-14-73 as an emergency, effect ive uponfiling. Certifi- cate of Compliance included (Register 73, No. 50)- 15083. Negative Declaration. (a) A Negative Declaration shall be preparedfor a project which could yotentially have a significant eff ect on the environment, but which the lead agencyfinds on the ba sis of an Initial Study will not have a significant effect on the environment. (b} A Negative Declaration must include a brief description of the project as proposed,afinding that the project will not have a signific ant effect on the environment, a brief statement of reasonsto support the findings, and a statementindicating who preparedtheinitial study and where a copy of it may be obtained. The Negative Declaration should normally not exceed one page in length. ic) The Negative Declaration shall be made available to the publ ic with sufficient tinie before the project is approvedto provide an oppor- tunity for members of the public to respondto the finding. id) After making a decision to carry out or approve the project, the lead agencyshall file a Netice of Determination with a copy of the Negative Declaration attached. The Notice of Determination shall in- clude the decision of the agency to approveor disapprovethe project, the determination of the agency whether the project will havea sivnifi- cant effect on the environment, anda statement that no EIR has been prepared pursuunt to the provisions of CEQA. Final Environmental Impact Report Solano County 2008 Draft General Plan SCH # 2007122069 Volume| Preparedby: EDAW 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95811 July 21, 2008 EDAW AECON COUNTY OF SOLANO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Department of Resource Management 675 Texas St., Suite 5500 Fairfield, CA 94533 (707) 784-6765 / (707) 784-4805 July 21, 2008 RE: Final EIR — 2008 Solano County General Plan A comprehensive update of the Solano County GeneralPlan wasinitiated in 2006by the Board of Supervisors. After months of meetings by the Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors the Draft General Plan wasreleased for public review this spring. The Draft Environmental !mpact Report for the 2008 Draft Solano County General Plan wasreleased for public review on April 18, 2008, with the formal public review period concluding on June 2, 2008. The Solano County Planning Commission on May 15, 2008 held a public hearing to accept comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR for the 2008 Draft Solano County GeneralPlan is enclosed with this transmittal. Environmental review in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA)is required as part of the County’s consideration of the 2008 Draft General Plan. CEQA requires the County of Solanoto include in the Final EIR responses to comments received on the Draft EIR which describe the disposition of any significant effects identified by commenters. The Solano County Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing to review the Final EIR and receive public comments at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 29 2008, at the Solano County Board of Supervisors Board Room, 675 Texas Street, 1° Floor, Fairfield, California. The Board of Supervisors will consider certification of the Final EIR for the 2008 Solano County General Plan on August 5, 2008. If you have any further questions regarding the Final EIR for the 2008 Solano County General Plan please contact Jim Louie, Senior Plannerat either 707.784.3173 or jaloule@solanocounty.com. iceee Jim Louie, Senior Planner A\ un og ou rj os M I F UE ld [B 48 US D Y e s BO 0Z Sb Table 1-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance _ Impacts Before Mitigation Measures Significance Afterwe MitigationMitigation 42 Air Quality 4.2-1a (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-1b (Maximum Development Ss Mitigation Measures 4,2-1a(1) (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-1b(1) SU Scenario): Generation of Short-Term Construction-Related (Maximum DevelopmentScenario): Require Implementation of Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Supplemental Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Exhaust Emissions Mitigation Measures 4.2-1a(2) (Preferred Plan) and 4,2- 1ab(2) (Maximum Development Scenario): Require Implementation of Supplemental Measures to Reduce Fugitive PM) Dust Emissions 4.2-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-2b (Maximum Development S Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-2b SU Scenario): Consistency with Air Quality Planning Efforts (Maximum Development Scenario): Coordinate with Air Districts on Assumptions from Air Quality Plan Updates 4.2-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-3b (Maximum Development Ss Mitigation Measures 4.2-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.2.-3b SU Scenario): Generation of Long-Term Operational, Regional (Maximum Development Scenario): Require Implementation of Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors YSAQMD Design Recommendations for DevelopmentProjects 4.2-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4,2-4b (Maximum Development S Mitigation Measures 4.2-4a(1) (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-4b(1) SU Scenario): Generation of Long-Term, Operational, Local (Maximum Development Scenario): Require Implementation of Mobile-Source Emissions of CO Measures to Reduce Operational Emissions from Mobile Sources Mitigation Measures 4.2-4a(2) (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-4b(2) Maximum Development Scenario): Implement EPA Recommendations for Wood-Burning Appliances 4.2-5a (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-5b (Maximum Development LTS Mitigation Measures 4.2-Sa (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-5b SU Scenario): Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Emissions of (construction) |(Maximum DevelopmentScenario): Require Implementation of Toxic Air Contaminants EFS Measures to Reduce the Potential for Exposure to TACs from (operation) Mobile Sources 4.2-6a (Preferred Plan) and 4.2-6b (Maximum Development S Mitigation Measures 4.2-6a (Preferred Plan) and 4,2-6b SU Scenario): Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Emissions of Odors (Maximum Development Scenario): Require Implementation ofMeasures to Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to OdorousEmissions uo yo np ou yu y M v d s Lj Ly M v a 3 uo na np o. yu l 1 Table 1-1 Summary of Project impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance impacts Before Mitigation Measures SigeircanceAfter Mitigation 9 43 Noise 4.3-1a (Preferred Plan) and 4.3-1b (Maximum Development LTS Nomitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Development of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses within programsis required. Areas Subject to Noise Impacts '4.3-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.3-2b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Development of Noise-Producing Uses near programsis required. , Existing Noise-Sensitive Land Uses 4.3-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.3-3b (Maximum Development S Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.3-3b SU Scenario): Traffic Noise Level Increases Caused by (Maximum Development Scenario): Adopt Countywide Noise Development Consistent with the 2008 Draft General Plan Reduction Program 4.3-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4.3-4b (Maximum Development PS Mitigation Measures 4,3-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4.3-4b LTS Scenario): Possible Tempor: Short-Term Exposure of (Maximum Development Scenario): Require Implementation of Sensitive Receptors to Vibration Measures to Reduce Temporary, Short-Term Project-Generated Vibration Levels from Construction 44 Transportation and Circulation 4.4-la (Preferred Plan) and 4.4-1b (Maximum Development 8 Nofeasible mitigation is available to fully mitigate this impact to SU Scenario): Degradation of Roadway Levels of Service a less-than-significantlevel. 4.4-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.4-2b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Adverse Effects on Emergency Access programsis required. 4.4-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.4-3b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Potential for Inadequate Parking Capacity programsis required. 4.4-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4.4-4b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Potential for Conflict with Adopted Plans, Policies programsis required. or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation 4.4-5a (Preferred Plan) and 4.5-5b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Potential for Air Traffic Safety Risks programsis required. 45 Hydrology and Water Resources 4.5-1a (Preferred Plan) and 4.5-1b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Violation of Water Quality Standards programsis required. Ul dd Ub , fe se Ua d Y E G B0 0e Ay un o9 ou rj og Ay un od ou ej os U I s Ye lf e B U a D y e s BO 0Z a t uo no np on u| M v d a Table 1-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance oe Impacts Before Mitigation Measures StoniicanceAfter Mitigation 3 4.5-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4,5-2b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): On-Site and Downstream Erosion and Sedimentation programsis required. 4.5-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.5-3b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts programsis required. 4.5-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4,5-4b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Interference with Groundwater Recharge programsis required. 4.5-5a (Preferred Plan) and 4,5-45b (Maximum LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Development Scenario): Exposure of People or Structures to programsis required. Flood Hazards 4.5-6a (Preferred Plan) and 4.5-6b (Maximum Development S Nofeasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact. SU Scenario): Potential for Failure of a Levee 4.5-7a (Preferred Plan) and 4.5-7b (Maximum Development LTS Nomitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Scenario): Potential for Failure of aDam programsis required. 4.6 Biological Resources 4.6-1a (Preferred Plan) and 4.6-1b (Maximum Development NY Mitigation Measures 4.6-1a (Preferred Plan) and 4,6-1b LTS Scenario): Loss ofHabitat for Swainson’s Hawk, Other (Maximum Development Scenarig): Preserve Agricultural Raptors, and Burrowing Owl Foraging Habitat 4.6-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.6-2b (Maximum Development 8 Mitigation Measures 4.6-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4,6-2b LTS Scenario): Loss of Value of Upland Grassland, Oak Woodland (Maximum Development Scenario): Require a Habitat Qak Savanna, and Scrub/Chaparral Habitats Inventory and Mitigation and ManagementPlans, and Specify a Replacement Ratio for Native Trees and Shrubs 4.6-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.6-3b (Maximum Development S Mitigation Measures 4.6-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.6-3b LTS Scenario): Loss or Reduction in Habitat Values of Valley Floor (Maximum DevelopmentScenario): Require a Habitat Grassland and Vernal Pool Grassland Habitats Inventory, Buffer Zones, and Appropriate Avoidance and Compensatory Measures to Mitigate Habitat Loss 4.6-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4.6-4b (Maximum Development Ss Mitigation Measures 4.6-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4.6-4b LTS Scenario): Potential for Direct and Indirect Impacts on Riparian, Stream, and Open-Water Habitats (Maximum Development Scenario): Require an Inventory forSpecial-Status Species and Uncommon Habitats, and AppropriateMitigation of Impacts on Valiey Elderberry Longhorn Beetle,Salmonid, and Other Habitats Aj un og ou ej og UI Fd UR ld [e BU ED Y E G B0 0Z 6b uononposjuy Mvd3 Table 1-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance ae Impacts Before Mitigation Measures SignificanceAfter Mitigation g 47 Geology andSoils 4.7-1a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-1b (Maximum Development LTS Nomitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSScenario): Potential for Fault Rupture programsis required. 4.7-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-2b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSScenario): Potential for Exposure to Seismic Ground Shaking programsis required. 4.7-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-3b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSScenario): Potential for Seismic Ground Failure programsis required. 4.7-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-4b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSScenario): Potential for Exposure to Landslides programsis required. 4.7-5a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-5b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSScenario): Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil programsis required. 4.7-6a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-6b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft GeneralPlan policies and LTSScenario): Potential for Unstable Soils programsis required. 4.7-7a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-7b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyondthe 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSScenario): Construction in Areas with Expansive Soils programsis required. 4.7-8a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-8b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSScenario): Construction in Areas with Soils with Poor Septic programsis required. Suitability 4.7-9a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-9b (Maximum Development LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSScenario): Loss of Availability of Known Mineral Resources programsts required. 4.7-10a (Preferred Plan) and 4.7-10b (Maximum LTS No mitigation beyondthe 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTSDevelopment Scenario): Potential for Loss of Availability of programsis required. Locally Important Mineral Resource Recovery Sites 48 Agricultural Resources 4.8-1a (Preferred Plan): Loss of Important Farmland S Nofeasible mitigation is available to reducethis impact SU 4.8-1b (Maximum DevelopmentScenario): Loss of Important S No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact SUFarmland : 4.8-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.8-2b (Maximum Development S Nofeasible mitigation is available to reducethis impact SU Scenario): Conflict with Williamson Act Contracts A y u n o 9 o u r j o s UI A U E l d [e s8 ue d Ye sQ 80 02 C l k uo no np os yu y M v O 4 Table 1-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance ag Impacts Before Mitigation Measures Significance After ae itigation Mitigation 4.12 Energy 4.12-1a (Preferred Plan) and 4.12-1b (Maximum LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS DevelopmentScenario): Effects on Energy Consumption from programsis required. Land UseLocations and Patterns 4.12-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.12-2b (Maximum LTS Nomitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Development Scenario): Increased Energy Demand and Need programsis required. for Additional Energy Infrastructure 4.13 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.13-la (Preferred Plan) and 4.13-1b (Maximum LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft Genera] Plan policies and LTS Development Scenario): Release of Hazardous Materials programsis required 4.13-2a (Preferred Plan) and 4.13-2b (Maximum LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Development Scenario): Safety Hazards Associated with programsis required Public and Private Airports 4.13-3a (Preferred Plan) and 4.13-3b (Maximum LTS No mitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Development Scenario): Interference with an Adopted programsts required Emergency-Response Plan 4.13-4a (Preferred Plan) and 4.13-4b (Maximum LTS Nomitigation beyond the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and LTS Development Scenario): Exposure of Structures to Urban and programsis required Wildland Fires 4.14 Recreation 4.14-1a (Preferred Plan): Need for New or Expanded Parks or S Mitigation Measure 4.14-1a (Preferred Plan): Require LTS RecreationalFacilities Developers to Pay Fair-Share Park and Recreation Impact Fees 4.14-1b (Maximum Development Scenario): Need for New or S Mitigation Measure 4.14-1b (Maximum Development LTS Expanded Parks or Recreational Facilities Scenario): Require Developers to Pay Fair-Share Park and Recreation Impact Fees 6.2 Climate Change 6.2-1a (Preferred Plan) and 6.2-1b (Maximum Development S Implementation of the 2008 Draft General Plan goals, policies, SU Scenario): Increases in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and implementation programs would reduce emissions of GHGs,but the degree of future impacts and applicability, feasibility, andsuccessof future mitigation measures cannot be adequately uo no np o. ju v i b A u n o d ou er jo s M v d 3 MI Ad Ue ld [P sB UE D YE IQ B 0 0 Table 1-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Impacts Before Mitigation Measures Mitigation Significance After Mitigation knownfor each specific future project at this program level of analysis. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether these measures would reduce GHGlevelsto a less-than-significant level. 6.2-2a (Preferred Plan) and 6.2-2b (Maximum Development 8 Implementation of the 2008 Draft General Plan policies and Scenario): Effects of Climate Change on Solano County implementation programs wouldserve to reduce the impacts of climate change on Solano County. However, the efficacy of such policies and programsis uncertain. No other feasible mitigation measuresexist to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. SU Cumulative Impacts The 2008 Draft General Plan would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to: » land use conflicts between urban,rural residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses population increase » emissionsofozone and particulate matter (both PM9 and PM; ;) » exposure to TAC emissions from mobile sources » carbon monoxide emissions from local mobile sources » traffic noise level increases > degradation of roadway levels of service » demand for and resulting effects on groundwater and surface-water supplies » loss of sensitive wildlife habitat (grassland, vernal pool, oak woodland and savanna, marsh, and riparian woodland) » foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and burrowing ow!fromlossofagricultural land » conversion of Important Farmland » insufficiency of available water supplies to incorporated areas and portions of unincorporated areas to accommodateprojected future growth » historical built-environmentresources » conversion of local viewsheds from agricultural land uses and open spacesto urban development » increases in demandfor energy » County parks and recreation programs, from increased growth in the unincorporated county » climate change RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -_182 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SOLANO COUNTY CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOLANO COUNTY 2008 GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS,Solano County has proposed to adapt a comprehensive updatetoits existing General Plan, encompassing all elements of the existing Plan except for the Housing » Element, the Park and Recreation Element, and the Tri-City and County Cooperative Plan, which updateis referred to in this resolution as the Solano County 2008 General Plan or the Project: and WHEREAS,the Solano County 2008 General Plan contains the policy framework, guiding both land development and conservation in the unincorporated portions of the County, necessary tofulfill the community's vision for Solano County through the year 2030: a sustainable place with a thriving environment and an economythat maintains social equity; and WHEREAS,Solano County, through its consultant EDAW,Inc., has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, consisting offive volumestitled Draft Environmental Impact Report, Solano County 2008 Draft General Plan, volumes | andII (dated Apnil 18, 2008), Final Environmental Impact Report, Solano County 2008 Draft General Plan, volumes| and |] (dated July 21, 2008), and Final Environmental Impact Report, Solano County 2008 GeneralPlan, volumeIll (dated August 1, 2008); and - WHEREAS,a Draft Environmental tmpact Report (State Clearing House Number 2007122069) wasdistributed to the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, State Clearinghouse,state and local agencies and specialdistricts, property owners and others requesting notice, and other interested groups andindividuals on April 18, 2008, which began a 45-day public review and commentperiod ending on June 2, 2008: and WHEREAS,all individuals, groups, and agencies desiring to comment were given adequate opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report: and WHEREAS,all comments submitted timely during the public review and comment period regarding the contents or adequacyof the Draft Environmental Impact Report were responded to adequately in the Final Environmental Impact Report: and WHEREAS,the Solano County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental impact Report; and WHEREAS,the Board has reviewed and considered the report and recommendation of the Solano County Department of Resource Management: and , WHEREAS,the Board has considered all comments submitted regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report and its preparation; and Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2008- 182 Solano County 2008 General Plan FEIR Page 2 WHEREAS,the Final Environmental Impact Report. as presented to the Board on August 5, 2008, {requires no amendmentor revision. /is amendedas foliows:] RESOLVED,the Solano County Board of Supervisors CERTIFIES asfollows: 4. The Final Environmental impact Report for the Solano County 2008 General Plan has been compieted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Solano County 2008 General Plan was presented to the Solano County Board of Supervisors, and the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report, prior to approving the Project; and 3. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Solano County 2008 General Plan reflects Solano County's independent judgment and analysis. Rewreee ent KRekRaH eH ARETE Passed and adopted by the Solano County Board of Supervisors atits regular meeting on August 5, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Reagan, Spering, Vasquez, and Chair Silva NOES: Supervisors Kondylis EXCUSED: Supervisors None ATTEST: Michae! D. Johnson, Clerk Board of Supervisors 2035 Kings County General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report Preparedfor: County of Kings Kings County Government Center 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 2009 2035 Kings County Genera! Plan EIR Section 4.3 Air Quality AQ Policy C1.1.3 Ensure that air quality and climate change impacts identified during CEQA review are minimized and consistently andfairly mitigated at a minimum, to levels as required by CEQA. © AQ Policy C1.1.6 Encourage and support the developmentofinnovative and effective mitigation measures and programsto reduce air quality and climate change impacts through proactive coordination with the S[VAPCD, project applicants, and other knowledgeable and interested parties. AQ Policy F2.1.1 Coordinate with the S)}VAPCDto ensure that construction, grading, excavation and demolition activities within County's jurisdiction are regulated and controlled to reduce particulate emissions to the maximum extent feasible. AQ Policy F2.1.2 Require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial developmentare constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions and are appropriate to the scale and intensity ofuse. The above-mentioned policies would reduce overall air quality impacts related to construction. The SJVAPCD’s approach to CEQA analyses of construction PMio impacts is to require implementation of comprehensive control measures rather than to require detailed quantification of emissions (although CEQA Lead Agencies mayelect to do so). The S)VAPCD has determined that compliance with PMio control measures contained in the S)VAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (refer to Tables 6-2 and 6-3 in that document) will constitute sufficient mitigation to reduce the PMio impacts related to construction of a project to a level considered less than significant. Adherence to applicable General Plan policies and SJVAPCD guidelines would reduce potential construction-related impacts to a less than significantlevel. Mitigation Measures. Additional mitigation beyond adherence to applicable proposed GeneralPlan policies and S)VAPCDrulesis not required. Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Impact AQ-3 The 2035 General Plan wouldfacilitate residential developmentin proximity to high-volumelocal roadways, which would exposeresidents to elevated health risks. Impacts associated with placement of residential development near these highways wouldbeClassIII, less than significant. The ARB publication, Air Quality And Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005), indicates that living close to high traffic and the associated emissions may lead to adverse health effects beyond those associated with regional air pollution in urban areas. Studies cited by the ARBreport associations between residential proximity to high traffic roadways and a variety of respiratory symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and decreasesin lung function in children. Key health findings cited in the ARB study include: County of Kings 4.3-15 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.3 Air Quality e Reduced lungfunction in children was assoctated with traffic density, especially trucks within 1,000feet and the association was strongest within 300feet e Increased asthma hospitalizations were associated with living within 650feet of heavy traffic and heavy truck volume e Asthma symptomsincreased with proximity to roadways and the risk was greatest within 300feet e Asthma and bronchitis symptomsin children were associated with proximity to high traffic in a San Francisco Bay Area community with good overall regionalair quality e A San Diego studyfound increased medical visits in children living within 550feet of heavytraffic Interstate 5, State Route 41, State Route 43, and State Route 198 are the highest-volume roadwaysin Kings County. The Existing Conditions Background Report by Omni-Means projects average daily traffic on county roadwaysfor buildout conditions under the 2035 General Plan. Accordingto the report, the highest projected average daily traffic (ADT) on Interstate 5 under buildout conditions (2035) would be 52,990, the highest ADT on State Route 41 would be 43,840, the highest ADT on State Route 43 would be 18,590, and the highest ADT on State Route 198 would be 67,710. Interstate 5 is considered a freewayfor this analysis; however, no residential development associated with the 2035 General Plan would occur within 500 feet of Interstate 5. State Route 41, State Route 43, and State Route 198 would be considered urban roadways withinthe boundaries of the Community Plans. Each of these roadways carries an ADT below ARB’s health risk threshold for urban roads of 100,000 ADT. Therefore, future developmentis consistent with ARB recommendations, and impacts wouldbeless than significant. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. The following policies from the Air Quality Elementof the 2035 General Plan are designed to limit traffic and particulate emissions from area roadwaysto the extent possible, reducing the likelihood that roadwaytraffic would cause a significant health risk to area residents: AQ@Policy D2.1.1 Request project sponsors to demonstrate thatallfeasible TCMs and other measures have been incorporated into project designs which increase the effective capacity of the existing road networkprior to seeking approval to construct additional roadway capacity, such as additional lanes or new highways. AQ Policy F1.1.1 Locate residential development projects and projects categorized as sensitive receptors an adequate distancefrom existing and potential sources ofhazardous emissions such as major transportation corridors, industrial sites, and hazardous material locations in accordance with the provisions ofARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. AQ Policy F2.1.3 Develop a program to reduce PM10 emissionsfrom County maintained roads to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measures. Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. County of Kings 4.3-16 ae 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.3 Air Quality Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would beless than significant without mitigation. Impact AQ-4 The 2035 General Plan wouldfacilitate construction of projects with the potential to cause nuisance odors. Impacts associated with objectionable odors would be ClassII, significant but mitigable. Future development underthe 2035 General Plan would allow commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. All of these land uses havethe potential to generate odor nuisanceeffects to the public or to adjoining residents. Odors from these uses could present significant impacts to neighboring residences. The 2035 General Plan proposes mixed use development within the Community Plan areas. Future residents within mixed use development may be exposed to odor impacts resulting from the developmentof residences in close proximity to commercial uses that may produce odors. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Examples of commercial uses that have the potential to cause odor nuisance impacts includeagricultural sales, fast food, photographic studios, and laundryfacilities. Industrial and agricultural uses mayalso generate nuisance odors. The 2035 General Plan and Community Plans do not contain policies specifically designed to limit odor nuisancesat sensitive receptors. However, the Land Use Element, Air Quality Element, and Community Plans contain various policies generally intended tosite potential sources of nuisance away from sensitive receptors. However, the 2035 General Plan does not specifically propose any of the uses described in Table 4.3-3, which are noted by the S)VAPCD as requiring project-level odor analysis if they are within one to two miles of sensitive receptors. Under the 2035 General Plan, any of these uses would be located within the Heavy Industrial land use designation, which is located along major transportation corridors and farther away from sensitive land uses. Similarly, agricultural uses that may produce nuisance odors would be located in areas designated General Agriculture or Exclusive Agriculture, which are generally buffered from sensitive uses by the Limited Agriculture designation. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required: AQ-4 Mixed Use Restrictions. Mixed use developmentthat includes residential uses shall not include photographic studios, laundry facilities, or other types of developmentthat could generate odors, suchasthesales of agricultural products, fast food establishments, photographic studios, and laundryfacilities. This language shall be addedto the definition for the Downtown Mixed Use and Mixed Use land use designations, as part of the final 2035 General Plan Land Use Element. Significance after Mitigation. With implementation of the above mitigation measures, development under the 2035 General Plan would haveless than significant odor nuisance impacts. County of Kings 4.3-17 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology b. Project and Cumulative Impacts. Impact GEO-1 Future seismic events could produce ground shaking within Kings County area that could damagestructures and/or create adverse health and safety effects. However, with the implementation of draft General Plan policies and required building codes, impacts would be ClassIII, less than significant. In populated areas, the greatest potential for loss of life and property damage from a powerful earthquake can bea direct result of ground shaking. The degree of damage depends on many interrelated factors, including magnitude, focal depth, distance from fault, duration of shaking, type of surface, ground water depth, topography, and quality of buildings. Since new structures can be designed and built to withstand probable shaking withoutcollapse, the greatest existing dangerrelating to geological events is the continued use of older structures incapable of withstanding earthquake forces. Wood framestructures of twostoriesorless constructed prior to 1948 can be considered safe, while buildings constructed prior to 1948 of other materials should be considered suspect!. In all cases, unreinforced masonry structures should be considered unsafe. Damageandinjury resulting from geologic hazards can be reducedto acceptable levels through zoning and building permit review procedures and construction standards. New construction conforming to the standardsof the California Building Code (CBC)will provide adequate protection. Dams, schools, and hospitals are more stringently regulated by state and federal agencies for protection against such hazards. It should be noted that the purpose of the earthquake provisions of the CBCis to preventloss oflife, not to prevent structural damage. Kings County does not have major fault systems within its boundaries; however, the San Andreas Fault is about four miles west of the Kings County line. The primary hazard dueto seismic activity in Kings County would come from ground shaking, with the potential varying from 20-30% g in the northeast third of the County, including thecities of Hanford, Lemoore, Corcoran, and the Santa Rosa Rancheria to 3-40% g in the central part of the County, whichis primarily agricultural. Earthquake hazards area more severe in the southeast third of the County andin the City of Avenal, with the potential for ground shaking in this area ranging from 40-50% g to 70-80% g at the southwester County line. Valley Zones (V1 through V4), represents areas along the valley floor with highest near-surface amplification identified along the west and decreasing towardsthe east due to the damping of thick alluvial sediments. Coast Ranges Zones (C1 and C2) represent the Kettleman Hills and Coast Range areasthat are closest to the San Andreas Fault, which are anticipated to experience moderately high ground shaking levels. The safest zones correspond generally to the areas of greatest population within the County. Zone V1, the area of least expected seismic shaking, encompassesthe cities of Hanford and Lemoore, communities of Armona, Home Garden and Stratford, and Naval Air Station Lemooreresidential areas and Santa Rosa Rancheria. Zone V2 "In 1948, earthquake regulations were adoptedasa legally binding section of the UBCforthe first time. Previously, earthquake standards were setforth in the Appendix of the UBC and were not a mandated part of the Code. It is morelikely then, that a building constructed before 1948 would be less able to withstand the shock of an earthquake than one built after 1948. County of Kings 4.6-14 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology contains the City of Corcoran. Kettleman City and Avenal, however, are located within Zone V4 andadjacent to morecritical Coast Range Zones. The geologic hazards in Kings County are most acute for the City of Avenal and the community of KettlemanCity dueto the presence of the San Andreas Fault along the southwestern border of the County. Data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s HAZUS(computer hazard estimation modeling tool) presented in the HMPpredicts estimated losses countywide forall jurisdictions for two different earthquake scenarios. The model predicts building losses will be highest in manufactured housing, which may be an important consideration for the County’s housing rehabilitation programs in unincorporated areas. There areless than 10 unreinforced masonry buildings in the unincorporated County and noneofthese exist within Seismic Zone V4. New developmentwithin the County would conform to the CBC as required by law. Although nothing can ensure that structures do notfail under seismic stress, proper engineering, including compliance with the CBC, can minimizetherisk to life and property, resulting in a less than significant impact to new development from groundshaking. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. The 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Elementincludes the following policies intended to minimize the risks associated with seismic related hazards: HS Policy A1.3.1 Implementnatural hazards review criteria for new developmentthat is based upon information provided in the Natural Hazards Section of the Health and Safety Element to improve long term loss prevention. HSPolicy A1.4.1 Implementthe current California Building Codes and any subsequent amendments as contained within California Code ofRegulations Title 24 to improve disaster resistance offuture buildings. HS Policy A2.1.1 Maintain and enforce current building codes and standardsto reduce the potentialfor structural failure caused by ground shaking and other geologic hazards. HSPolicy A2.1.2 Use the 1997 Uniform Codefor the Abatement ofDangerous Buildings ofa non-residential nature, and the 1997 Uniform Housing Code to assess unsafe residential structures and ensure their safe construction and rehabilitation. HSPolicy A2.1.3 Prohibit new construction along known fault zones, and limit uses to nonstructuralland uses. HSPolicy A2.1.4 Review all development proposals to determine whether a geotechnical soils report is requiredfor new construction. HS Policy A2.1.5 Consider the environmental review process for land use projects seismic hazards, including subsidence, liquefaction, flooding, local soils, and geologic conditions. County of Kings 4.6-15 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology HSPolicy A2.1.6 Require agriculture or open space land uses around areasidentified as engaging in potentially hazardousactivities to serve as a buffer that reduces possible personal or property damageresultingfrom an earthquake. Mitigation Measures. Noadditional mitigation measuresare required beyond compliance with applicable proposed General Plan policies and provisions of the CBC. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would beless than significant with implementation of the CBC requirements and polices contained in the Health and Safety Element. Impact GEO-2 Future seismic events could result in liquefaction of soils in portions of the County area. Developmentin these areas could be subject to liquefaction hazards. However,the risk and dangerof liquefaction and subsidence occurring within the County is considered to be minimal. With implementation of proposed General Plan policies and required building codes, impacts would beClassIII, less than significant. —4 The risk and dangerof liquefaction and subsidence occurring within the County is considered to be minimal. However,as detailed in Figure 4.6-4, Zones V4, C1, and C2 wouldlikely experience the greatest ground shaking. Consideration of future development proposals in areas of potential liquefaction should place primary emphasis upon communicating to developers the findings of the Five County Seismic Safety Element and studies performed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The problem of potential liquefaction should be handled ona site- by-site basis by a licensed soils engineer. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. Refer to the applicable 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element policies described under Impact GEO-1. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the CBC and applicable policies of the Health and Safety Element, including Policy HS Policy A2.1.5, would ensure that impacts would beless than significant. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the CBC requirements and polices contained in the Health and Safety Element. Impact GEO-3 Kings County has very “Low” to “Moderate”risk landslide areas and a small portion of land that is rated to have “High” landslide incident probability. Landslides havethe potential to damageand destroystructures, roadwaysand other improvementsas well as to deflect and block drainage channels, causing further damage and erosion. Compliance with the CBC would generally address landslide hazards. However, because the draft General Plan does not include specific requirements to address landslide hazards, impacts ' would be ClassII, significant but mitigable. _4 County of Kings 46-16 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology Kings County has very “Low” to “Moderate”risk landslide areas located in remote uninhabited sections of southwest Kings County. Figure 4.6-5 depicts whereterritories throughoutthe State, including Kings County, may be susceptible to landslides. Those areas potentially susceptible to landslides within Kings Countyare nearly all defined as having “Low”(less than 1.5 percent of area involved) and “Moderate” potential (1.5 to 15 percent of area involved) for landslide incident. A smaller portion of land within the Coast Ranges, along the southwestcorner of the County,is the only area rated to have “High” (Greater than 15 percent of area involved) landslide incidentprobability. This portion of the county is designated for Agricultural and Natural Resource Conservation land uses and therefore not likely to result in any dense population or development. Slope instability may result in landslides, mudslides, or debris flows that can cause substantial damageanddisruption to buildings and infrastructure. Impacts from these typesofsoil hazardsare generally reducedto less than significant levels by the standard development review process. Standard building and grading procedures would mitigate mostsoil hazards. Geotechnical engineering of any landslide areas would be necessary to ensure that slopes would not becomedestabilized during grading activities. Onsite soil investigations identify local hazard conditions, which are then mitigated through implementation of appropriate construction techniques and through propersiting improvements. In general, the primary remedial measure to be employed during grading is the removalof the slumpor debris slide from the top to the toe. The potential for destabilization or activation of mass wastage areasincreases with an increase in the amountof proposed earthwork. Debris flowstypically form in responseto localintense rainfall in steep swale areas thatarefilled with saturated, fine-grained soils. Portions of the plan area, becauseoftheir relatively steep topography, are considered to have a moderate debris flow potential. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. Refer to the applicable 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element policies described under Impact GEO-1. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the CBC and applicable policies of the Health | and Safety Element, including Policy HS Policy A2.1.5 would ensure that impacts would be less \ than significant. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would beless than significant with implementation of the CBC requirements and polices contained in the Health and Safety Element. Impact GEO-4 Expansivesoil conditions could result in foundation and building distress problems and cracking of concrete slabs. However, implementation of draft General Plan policies would reduce impacts relating to soil expansion to a ClassIII, less than significant, level. Expansivesoils exhibit clay like characteristics and swell when wetted and shrink whendried. Wetting can occur naturally in a numberof ways,(e.g., absorption from theair,rainfall, groundwaterfluctuations, lawn watering and broken water or sewerlines). In hillside areas, as expansive soils expand and contract, gradual downslope creep may occur, eventually causing landsliding. Claysoils also retain water and mayact as lubricated slippage planes between County of Kings 46-17 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology other soil/rock strata, also producing landslides, often during earthquakes or by unusually moist conditions. The shrink-swell characteristics of soils can vary widely within short distances, depending on the relative amountandtype of clay. Expansivesoils are also often proneto erosion. Foundationsof structures placed on expansive soils may swell during the wet season andshrink during the succeeding dry season, potentially resulting in foundation damage. Detailed geologic studies are required prior to development to evaluate the potential for geologic and soil hazards, including expansivesoils, and these conditions must be minimized or corrected during construction. The analysis would provide recommendationsto preparesites for developmentto avoid the hazards associated with expansive soils. Typical measuresto treat expansivesoils involve removal, properfill selection, and compaction. Expansion should not be a substantial constraint to developmentof individual sites provided that adequate soil and foundation studies are performedprior to construction and that CBC guidelinesare followed. Therefore, impacts would beless than significant. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. Refer to the applicable 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element policies described under Impact GEO-1. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the CBC and applicable policies of the Health andSafety Element, including Policy HS Policy A2.1.5 would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would beless than significant with implementation of the CBC requirements and polices contained in the Health and Safety Element. Impact GEO-5 Radonis a contaminantthat affects indoorair quality. Radongasfrom natural sources can accumulate in buildings and reportedly is the second most frequent causeof lung cancer, after cigarette smoking. However, compliance with the CBC and applicable policies of the proposed Health and Safety Element would ensure that impacts would be Class IIL, less than significant. The potential for radon gas exposure could result in significant impacts to new developmentin areas prone to radon gas. A radon gas survey prior to development should be performed to evaluate the potential for radon gas hazards. The analysis provides recommendations to preparethe site for developmentto avoid the hazardsassociated with radon gas. Typical measuresto treat soils during construction involve non-permeable barriers and proper ventilation. Large-scale radon gas exposure would notbe likely, and would notresult in a significant impact, provided that adequate soils and foundation studies are performed prior to construction and that Building Code guidelines are followed. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. Refer to the applicable 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element policies described under Impact GEO-1. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the CBC would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required. County of Kings 4.6-18 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.6 Geology Significance After Mitigation. Impacts related to radon gas would beless than significant level following compliance with the CBC. County of Kings 4.6-19 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials b. Project and Cumulative Impacts. Impact HAZ-1 Potential development that could be facilitated near known hazardous material users, construction in areas with existing hazardous materials, or accidental releases of hazardous materials during transportation could expose individuals to health risks due to soil/groundwater contamination or emission of hazardous materials into the air. This is a Class III, less than significant impact. The 2035 General Plan wouldfacilitate development(including residences) within areas where hazardous materials could be stored or used, or where previoususe has resulted in contamination of the site. Developmentof residential uses or schools in proximity to commercial or industrial uses that use or store hazardous materials could increasethe risk of exposure to harmful health effects. In addition, hazardous materials are routinely transported by trucks along the major state routes and roadways, on railways, and via pipelines throughout the County; however, transportation of such materials is highly regulated to ensurethe safety of the public. Negligence during use, constructionactivities, or accidents involving the transport of these materials could result in the release of hazardous substances into the environment, creating an emergencysituation that could be detrimental to the public or environment. The use or storage of hazardous materials within a flood zone also poses a hazard to people and the environment, because these materials could be released during flood events. The community of Stratford is the only area of the County where developmentis proposed that could be susceptible to flood hazards. A more detailed discussion of countywide flood hazards can be found in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality. Older structures throughout the County could potentially contain asbestos containing materials (ACM)and/or lead-based paint (LBP). If demolition of these structures occurred, ACM or LBP could be released, resulting in adverse health effects. To prevent health risks to occupants or construction workers, proper ACM and LBP abatement and disposal procedures, described in the regulatory setting section above, are required to be undertaken whenever the demolition is considered for structures that were built prior to 1979. The 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element, and the Stratford Community Plan contain several policies that would protect County residents and the environmentfrom exposure to hazardous materials. In addition to these policies, compliance with existing hazardous materials transportation, storage and disposal regulations as well as continuing participation and maintenance of the Countywide emergency response systems would reduce impacts related to hazardous material upsetrisk to a less than significant level. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. The 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element includes the following policies, the implementation of which would mitigate potential hazardous materials risks. HS Objective B1.5 Ensure adequate protection of County residents from new generations of toxic or hazardous waste substances. County of Kings 4.7-12 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HS Policy B1.5.1 Evaluate development applications to determine the potentialfor hazardous waste generation and be required to providesufficient financial assurancethatis available to the County to cover waste cleanup and/or site restoration in instances where the site has been abandoned or the business operator is unable to remove hazardous materials from the site. The Stratford Community Plan includesthe following additional policies, the implementation of which would mitigate potential hazardous materialsrisks. SCP Policy 7D.1.3_ Facilities using, storing, or allowing substantial quantities ofhazardous materials to be stored onsite shall not be permitted within the 100-year flood zone unless, all standards for elevation, anchoring, andflood proofing are proven satisfactory to the County's Flood Protection Administrator. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, in combination with the General Plan policies listed above would mitigate potential health risk impacts to a level of less than significant. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts wouldbe less than significant without mitigation. Impact HAZ-2. Developmentconsistent with the proposed 2035 General Plan would introduceresidential land uses into areas designated as Moderate or High Wildland Fire Hazardareas. However, compliance with General Plan policies and state and local regulations would ensure ClassIII, less than significant, impacts. Fire hazards throughout most of the County are considered moderate. In rural areas where there are large areas of dry vegetation, fewer access roads, and increased distances trom fire stations, fire hazards can be much higher. Hazards in these areas can be greatly reduced by removing dry vegetation aroundstructures andinstalling dependable water systems. The southern portion of the County west of State Route 33 has steep topography,andis classified as an extremefire hazard area. Since this part of the County is isolated and contains no urban settlements, hazardsto life and property are considered minimal. Dry grain crops are grown throughout the County, and arealso at high risk during the peak fire season. Wildfires in these unpopulated areas can quickly spread to urbanized areas; therefore, even the developed portions of the County have somefire risk. Future developmentfacilitated by the 2035General Plan would be focusedin the existing communities of Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford. Noneof these communities are included in CalFire’slist of communities at risk for wildfire. To decrease the hazardoffires in developed areas of the County, property owners and new developments are required to comply with the Kings County ImprovementStandardsas to minimum road widths, required clearances around structures, and peakload water capacity (2035 Kings County County of Kings 4.7-13 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials General Plan Health and Safety Element). In addition, the 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element states that future development proposals will be reviewed according to the Fire Hazard Map,and appropriate building standardsorrestrictions will apply. The 2035 General Plan proposes a Natural Resource Conservation overlay for the southwestern portion of the County, whichis designated as an extremefire hazard area. The General Plan Land Use Elementstates that developmentin this area will be subject to review by CalFire, which will ensure that impacts remain less than significant. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. The 2035 General Plan Land Use Element and Health and Safety Element includesthe following policies, the implementation of which would mitigate potential risk of injury or damage from wildlandfires. LU Policy A1.1.7 HS Objective C2.2 HS Policy C2.2.1 HS Policy C2.2.2 HS Policy C2.2.3 HS Policy C2.2.4 HS Policy C2.2.5 All proposed permanentstructures within the Coast Range Natural Resource Conservation overlay designated areasshall be directed to the California DepartmentofForestryfor review and compliance with all State Response Areafire requirements. Providequalityfire protection services throughout the County by the Kings County Fire Department, and Fire safety preventative measures to prevent unnecessary exposure ofpeople and property to fire hazards in both County Local Responsibility Areas and State Responsibility Area. Community planning efforts should evaluate the projected needfor Fire Department personnel and equipmentand necessaryfunding support to maintain current levels ofservice as community growth occurs. Development proposals andcoderevisionsshall be referred to the County Fire Departmentfor review and comment. Use the 1997 Uniform Codefor the abatement of Dangerous Buildings. All new structures to be occupied shall be built to current Fire Code Standards. Review development proposals according to California Departmentof Forestry and Fire Protection “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps”to determine whethera site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and subject to Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area Building Standards and defensible space requirements as adopted under Senate Bill 1595 and effective January 1, 2009. Forwardfor review and commentall proposed structures within the State Responsibility Area to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection within all State Responsibility Areas. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the above policies and existing regulations would reduce the risk of injury or damage from wildlandfires to a less than significantlevel. No mitigation is required. r County of Kings4.7-14 ) 4 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would beless than significant without mitigation. Impact HAZ-3 Public and private airports in Kings County could create safety hazards for nearby development. Careful land use planning in adherence with proposed General Plan policies and continued coordination with the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would ensure ClassIII, less than significant impacts. Mostof the public safety risk created by airports is attributed to aircraft accidents in the vicinity of populated areas. Land use planning considerations can help reducerisks to the public by preventing dense residential development, schools, hospitals, or other densely populated uses that could put residents or workers in harm’s way, should an accidentoccur. Airportfacilities in Kings County include the Hanford Municipal Airport, Corcoran Airport, NAS Lemoore, several private airstrips, and agricultural cropdusterairstrips. The majority of these airstrips are located in the rural agricultural areas of the County, and would notcreate significant safety hazards for people living or working in the area. Only the Hanford and Corcoran Airports are designated for public use, and as such are included in the Kings County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The ALUCP describes land use and developmentrestrictions within the designated safety zones,asillustrated on Figures 4.7-2 and 4.7-3. Developmentfacilitated by the 2035 General Plan would occur primarily in and around the existing cities and four Community Plan areas of the County. The Corcoran Airportis surrounded by agricultural land, and would not impact future development. Although the Hanford Airportis located directly northeast of the Community of Home Garden, this Community is designated as “Zone D: Other Airport Environs”; therefore, the Hanford Airport poseslittle threat to this plan area. Developmentoccurring north of Home Garden,within the “Urban Fringe” of the City of Hanford, would becloser to the airport and would beat greater risk. Proposed land uses on undeveloped parcels within the “B2: Extended Approach/Departure” zone include Very Low Density Residential (1 unit/acre) and Heavy Industrial. The ALUCPlimits residential developmentin this zone to 0.5 units/acre (1 unit per 2 acres). While future development under this land use designation could conflict with the requirements of the ALUCP,the 2035 General Plan contains policies to ensure land use compatibility on a project-specific basis. The ALUCPalso prevents any above-ground bulk storage of hazardous materials in Zone B2, and prohibits any other uses that may cause hazardsto flights within any of the safety zones. Of the County’s airports, the NAS Lemoore occupies the largest airspace and has the greatest amountofaircraft activity. The 2035 General Plan has designated the area around the NASL as Exclusive Agriculture which serves as a public safety buffer to ensure the preservation of large and sparsely developed parcels in the area surrounding the base. While this designation has proven effective in preventing land use andsafety conflicts between the base and the general public, the 2035 General Plan also contains numerouspoliciesrelating to land use in the vicinity of the NASL, that would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. County of Kings 47-15 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality cleanup programsdischarging to surface waters. Discharge limits, under the NPDES permits, for minerals and pollutants are established and regulated by the RWQCB. Projects disturbing more than oneacre of land during construction are requiredto file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the RWQCBto be covered under the State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activity. A developer must propose control measuresthat are consistent with the State General Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (GWPPP) must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the general permit. ASWPPP should include Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction andlife of the project. The control of non-point source runoff from industrial sources and associated pollutants is regulated in California by the SWRCB underthe statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities Order No. 97-03-DWQ. The General Permit presents the requirements for compliance of certain industries with the NPDES. A wide range of industries is covered underthe general permit, including mining operations, lumber and woodproducts facilities, petroleum refining, metal industries, and someagricultural product facilities. 4.8.2. Impact Analysis a. Methodology andSignificance Thresholds. Flooding risk was determined using Federal Insurance Rate Mapsfor the area. Impacts would be considered significant if developmentfacilitated by the 2035 General Plan ‘| would: ¢ Potentially degrade surface or groundwater quality below standards established by the RWOQCB(these standards are usually in accordance with the California EPA’s maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water); ¢ Substantially interfere with groundwater recharge; e Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area such that substantial erosion or siltation occurs; e Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or substantially increase the rate or amountofsurface runoffin a manner whichresults in flooding; e Substantially add additionalsources ofpolluted runoff to a water body; or e Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area as mappedon afederal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or otherflood hazard delineation ‘\ map. County ofKings 48-7 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality b. Project and Cumulative Impacts. Impact HWQ-1 A small portion of commercially designated land in the Stratford Community Plan area would be located within the 100-year flood zone. Limited residential development may also occur in agricultural designated land thatis within the 100-year flood zone. However, with implementation of 2035 General Plan and Community Plan policies, impacts related to flooding would be Class IIL, less than significant. Floodingas a result of storm events can cause widespread damageto affected areas, and endanger human safety. When urban areas encroach on floodplains, buildings and vehicles can be damaged or destroyed, while smaller objects can be buried in flood-deposited sediments. Floodwaters can break utility lines, interrupting services and potentially affecting health and safety. Floods mayalso create health and safety hazards and disruptionofvital public services. The secondary effects of flooding are due to standing water, which can result in crop damage, septic tank failure, and water well contamination. Standing water can also damage roads, foundations, andelectrical circuits. The extent of damage caused by any flood dependson the topographyof the area flooded; depth, duration, and velocity of floodwaters; the extent of developmentin the floodplain; and the effectiveness of forecasting, warnings, and emergency operations. Encroachmentonto floodplains, suchas artificial fills and structures, reduces the capacity of the floodplain and increases the height of floodwater upstream of the obstructions. For the vast majority of Kings County, the 100-year floodplain occupies agricultural land to the south of existing urbanized areas. As discussed in section 2.0 Project Description, the majority of commercial and residential developmentis expected to occur in urbanized areas, primarily within the four Community Plan areas. Development that would occur outside of community plan areas would mostly occur adjacent to the urban boundariesof the plan areas, knownas the urban fringe. Each community planarea, as well as the areas immediately surrounding the community plan areas are not located within the 100-year floodplain, with the exception of a small portion of the Stratford Community Plan area. As such, development that would occur in these areas would notbe subject to flooding and associated hazards. Should structures be developed beyond the urban areas and urbanfringes of the community plan areas on agricultural designated land, such that they are located within the 100-year flood zone, they would be subject to the County’s policies as set forth the in proposed 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element, which would ensure that people or property are not subjectto the risks associated flooding. Within Stratford, the 100-year flood zone occupies a small portion of the western and southern perimeters of the Community Plan area, as shown on Figure 4.8-3. The portions of the plan area near the western perimeter within the floodplain include Limited Agriculture and Commercial land use designations, while the portions near the southern boundary include Public and Open Space land use designations. The commercially designated area near the western boundaryis within the 100-year flood zone. This area would accommodate commercial structures, which may posea risk to structures and temporary human populations during a 100-year storm event. , County ofKings 4.8-8 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality In addition, the Public-designated areas could include uses such as community centers or schools, which mayalso pose a risk during a storm event. No habitable structures would be located within Open Space designated areas. Nonetheless, any development within the 100- year flood zone would be subject to the County’s policies as set forth in the proposed 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element and the Stratford Community Plan, which would ensure that people or property are not subject to the risks. Therefore, impacts related to flooding caused by storm events would beless than significant. - Proposed General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. The 2035 General Plan Health and Safety Element includesthe following policies, the implementation of which would mitigate potential impacts related to floodrisk. HS GOAL A4 HS OBJA4.1 HS Policy A4.1.1 HS Policy A4.1.2 HS Policy A4.1.3 HS Policy A4.1.4 HSPolicy A4.1.5 HSPolicy A4.1.6 HS Policy A4.1.7 HSPolicy A4.1.8 Prevent unnecessary exposure ofpeople and propertytoflood damage. Direct new growth awayfrom designatedflood hazardrisk areas, and regulate new development to reduce the risk offlood damage to an acceptablelevel. Review new developmentproposals against current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)digitalflood insurance rate maps and California Department ofWater Resource specialflood hazard maps to determine project site susceptibility toflood hazard. Reserve FEMA designatedflood hazard areasfor agricultural and natural resource conservation uses along the floodway channels and Tulare Lake Basin. , Determinebaseflood elevations for new development proposals within or adjacent to 100 yearflood zone areasas identified in latest FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map,to definitively assess the extent ofproperty potentially subject to onsiteflood hazards andrisks. Direct new urban growthto existing cities and community districts, or awayfrom New Community Discouragement Areasto avoidflood hazard areas and increased risk to people and property. Regulate development, water diversion, vegetation removal, and grading to minimize any increase in flood damageto people and property. New developmentshall provide onsite drainage or contribute towards their fair share costofoff-site drainagefacilities to handle surface runoff. Consider and identify all areas subjecttoflooding in the review of all land divisions and developmentprojects. Enforce the “Kings County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance,” Chapter 5A of the Kings County Code of Ordinances. r County ofKings4.8-10 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The 2035 Stratford Community Plan includes the following policies, the implementation of which would mitigate potential impacts related to flood risk. SCP OBJ 7D.1 Prevent the construction offacilities or land improvements, within the 100 yearflood zone, that could result in a loss oflife or property. SCP Policy 7D.1.1_ The County shall apply a minimum level ofacceptable risk to new construction and proposals for substantial improvementstoall development within the 100-yearfloodplain and disapprove projects that cannot mitigate the hazardto the satisfaction of the Building Official or other responsible agency. SCP Policy 7D.1.2 The County shall continue to use the 100-yearflood event and any base flood elevations available to measure the level ofacceptable risk and protection when considering any amendmentsto the Stratford Community Plan Land Use Map. Mitigation Measures. None required beyond implementation of the existing regulatory framework and proposed General Plan policies. Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would beless than significant. Impact HWQ-2 Portions of the County are located within an identified dam inundation hazard area associated with the Pine Flat Dam and the Terminus Dam. Thereis potential to expose people andstructures to associated dam inundation hazards. However, the Hazard Mitigation Plan identified dam inundationas a low significance hazard. Therefore, impacts related to dam inundation would beClassIII, less than significant. The 2007 Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP)states that Pine Flat and Terminusare the only damsin the region which,if breached, might cause flooding of significance to local inhabited areas, refer to Figure 4.8-2. The mapped inundation areafor the failure of Terminus Dam covers the area east of Hanford andtherailroad, and north of Corcoran to the eastern county line. The inundation area for the failure of Pine Flat Dam is muchlarger, covering the northern third of the County,east of the Naval Air Station Lemoore and west of Corcoran, south to the El Rico Main Canal. If Pine Flat Dam failed while atfull capacity, its floodwaters would arrive in Kings County within approximately five hours. If Terminus Dam failed while at full capacity, its floodwaters would arrive in Kings County within approximately twelve hours. The 2035 General Plan does not introduce populations of people into dam inundation zonesthat are currently unpopulated, as muchof the inundation zone includes the communities of Armona and Home Garden,and the cities of Hanford and Lemoore. In addition, based on a risk analysis, the HMP concludes that dam inundationis not a significant hazard dueto the very low probability of dam failure (County of Kings, 2007) Therefore, impacts related to dam inundationare less than significant. County ofKings 4.8-11 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. The 2035 General Plan does not include policies intended to address hazards related to dam inundation because the HMP determined that dam inundationis a very low risk. Mitigation Measures. Nonerequired, as no significant impacts were identified. Significance after Mitigation. Impacts would beless than significant without mitigation. Impact HWQ-3 Developmentfacilitated by the 2035 General Plan would incrementally increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the County, resulting in an increase in watershed runoff and a decreasein percolation to the Tulare Lake Basin. Runoff could degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts would beClassII, significant but mitigable. Developmentthat could befacilitated by the 2035 General Plan would incrementally increase developmentintensity in portions of the County, thereby increasing the amountof impervious surface area within the watershed. This could incrementally increase surface runoff into area drainages and reduce the area available for groundwater percolation to the Tulare Lake Basin. The majority of new developmentfacilitated under the 2035 General Plan would occurin existing urban areas where impervious surfaces occupy a substantial portion ofthe land. Additionally, the areas where development would occurare similar to those under the 1993 General Plan. Developmentin large undeveloped areas would not increase under the 2035 General Plan, as the plan intends to focus developmentwithin existing urban areas. In addition, over 90 percentof the 818,778 acres that comprise the unincorporated portion of the County are designated for agriculture, natural resource conservation and open space, which are land uses that do notfacilitate the development of impervious surfaces. In addition, developmentthat would not occur within existing urban areas would primarily occur within the urban fringe of existing urban areas. As such, development under the 2035 General Plan would not result in substantial amounts of impervious surface such that groundwater recharge is severely hindered. In addition, any future developmentin these areas would be subjectto all federal and state regulations regarding impervious surface and stormwaterrunoff, as described in subsection 4.8.1(f). Therefore, impacts related to impervious surfaces and groundwater recharge would beless than significant. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. There are no policies within the 2035 General Plan which specifically address impervious surfaces. However, as discussed above, the 2035 Land Use Element and Community Plans policies encourageinfill development and preservation of agricultural land and open spaces, thereby limiting the addition of new impervious surfaces. Nevertheless, increase in impervious surfaces may result in impacts to water quality. Mitigation Measures. For future development within the County, compliance with an approved SWPPP would achieve compliance with applicable regulatory improvements. The following mitigation measure would provide minimum standardsthat ensure that temporary construction-related water quality impacts are reducedto less than significantlevel: County ofKings 4.8-12 2035 Kings County General Plan EIR Section 4.10 Noise e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ofa public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or e Fora project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The FHWA HighwayTraffic Noise Prediction Model wasusedto predict existing and future traffic noise levels within Kings County. The FHWA Modelis the traffic noise prediction model currently preferred by the FHWA,Caltrans, and most county governments forusein traffic noise assessment. Noise contours were created from the FHWA modelresults for the purposes of evaluating whether a given increase in noise is “substantial.” A “substantial” increase in traffic noise is defined by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) recommendations. These are shown in Table 4.10-2. Table 4.10-2. Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure Post-Project Noise Level Significant Impact (CNEL) < 60 dB + 5.0 dB or more 60 - 65 dB + 3.0 dB or more > 65 dB + 1.5 dB or more b. Project and Cumulative Impacts. Impact N-1 New developmentfacilitated by the 2035 General Plan could result in exposureof future residences and other noise- sensitive land uses to noise levels exceeding the “acceptable” range. However, implementation of noise attenuation features on new development, as required by draft General Plan policies, would reduce impacts to a ClassIII, less than significant, level. The 2035 General Plan wouldfacilitate the developmentof new residential and other noise- sensitive uses that could be exposed to long-term noise exceeding acceptable levels shown in Table 4.10-1. The draft General Plan Noise Element would update the acceptable noise standards,as reflected in Tables 4.10-3 and 4.10-4. Potential sources of noise exposure include: (1) traffic on Interstate 5, local state routes, and countywidearterial roadways; and (2) commercial, industrial, and agricultural activity onsites that are adjacent to or near noise- sensitive uses. The FHWA Modelwas used with existing and future traffic data to develop Lan contours for the major highways and roadways within Kings County. The 2035 General Plan Noise Element depicts the distances from the centerlines of major roadwaysto the 60, 65 and 70 dB Lan contours for existing (2006) and future (2035) conditions. On the ground these distances may be less than modeled because of topographic attenuation and intervening buildings. r 4.1046 County ofKings BEFORE THE KINGS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTYOF KINGS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF CERTIFYING THE ) RESOLUTION NO.10-001 FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ) IMPACT REPORTFOR THE 2035 KINGS ) COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ) RE: 2035 Kings County ) General Plan Update WHEREAS,the Kings County Community Development Agency,at the direction of the Kings County Board of Supervisors, began the process to update the Kings County General Plan in 2006; and WHEREAS,the draft 2035 Kings County General Plan has been prepared by the Kings County Community Development Agency in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code; and . WHEREAS,the Kings County Community Development Agency researched the draft General Plan to ensure that it is consistent with current law, is internally consistent, coordinates policies from one element to another, and addresses the needs of the county and the people who live and work here; and WHEREAS,the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (“Draft PEIR”) for the 2035 Kings County General Plan Update was distributed by the Kings County Community Development Agency (“Community Development Agency”) and circulated for a 30-day public review period on December 3, 2008; and WHEREAS,a public scoping meeting was held on December15, 2008 to receive public input on the scope of the Draft PEIR; and WHEREAS, the existing conditions described in the Draft PEIR reflect the physical environmental conditions in existence at the time the NOP wasdistributed; and WHEREAS,the Kings County Community Development Agency received written comments on the NOP for the Drafi PEIR; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Agency determined that the preparation of a Program EIR was appropriate dueto the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that could be caused by the Project; and WHEREAS,a Notice of Completion of a Draft PEIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research on July 6, 2009, establishing a Public Review Period of 45 days; and WHEREAS,a Notice of Intent to Adopt a PEIR was posted at the Kings County Clerk- Recorder’s Office on July 6, 2009, and published in the Hanford Sentinel on July 6, 2009, providing notice that the Draft PEIR had been completed and was available for public review and comment; and WHEREAS,the Draft PEIR was published and circulated for public comments from July 6, 2009, to August 20, 2009, and subsequently extended to August 26, 2009 at the request of a responding agency; and WHEREAS,the Community Development Agency distributed copies of the Draft PEIR to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, as well as to other interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS,on August 20, 2009 the Kings County Community Development Agencyconducted a public meeting at which time the public was given the opportunity to provide oral comments on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS,following closure of the public comment period on the Draft PEIR, a Final PEIR wasprepared, including responses to commentsreceived by the Community Development Agency; and WHEREAS,the Final PEIR for the County of Kings 2035 General Plan Update consists of the following information: the revisions, clarifications and corrections of the Draft PEIR; the comments and recommendations received on the Draft PEIR; a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR; the responses of the Community Development Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; other information added by the Community Development Agency. The Final PEIR also consists of the Draft PEIR, including the technical appendices included therein; and WHEREAS,on October 23, 2009 a public notice of Final PEIR availability and the Kings County Planning Commission notice of public hearing for their November 2, 2009 meeting was published in a newspaperofgeneralcirculation and mailed to all Responsible Agencies, interested groups, organizations and persons, includingall persons and agencies that had commented onthe Draft PEIR; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2009 the Kings County Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a duly noticed public hearing for the 2035 Kings County General Plan and associated Final PEIR and continued the public hearing to December 14, 2009; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2009 the Planning Commission resumed the public hearing, received additional testimony, closed the public hearing, deliberated, and recommended that the Board of | Supervisors certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2035 Kings County General Plan; and WHEREAS,on January 15, 2010, notice of the Kings County Board of Supervisors scheduled January 26, 2010 public hearing on the Final PEIR, was published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to all Responsible Agencies, interested groups, organizations and persons, includingall persons and agencies that had commented on the Draft PEIR; and WHEREAS,notices for the public hearing were given by the County as follows: 1. Mailed to all responsible and trustee agencies on January 15, 2010; and 2. Mailed to all those persons who specifically requested notice in writing on January 15, 2010; and 3. Posted atleast ten days prior to the hearingin at least three public places within Kings County, including (i) at the South and West doors of the Administration Building, Building No. 1, Kings County Government Center, 1400 W. Lacey Blvd., Hanford, California; (11) South door 2 of the Engineering Building No. 6, Kings County Government Center, 1400 W. Lacey Blvd, Hanford, California; and (iii) at Kings County Hanford Branch Library; and 4. Published one time in the Hanford Sentinel, a newspaper of general circulation in Kings County as designated by the Kings County Board of Supervisors. WHEREAS,copiesof these notices and affidavits of mailing, posting and publishingare onfile in the office of the Kings County Community Development Agency. WHEREAS,on January 21, 2010, the Community Development Agency made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that the Final PEIR was adequate; and WHEREAS,on January 26, 2010, the Board of Supervisorsheld a duly noticed public hearing on the County of Kings 2035 General Plan Update at the Kings County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 1400 W.Lacey Blvd., Building 1, Hanford, California; and WHEREAS,at the January 26, 2010, public hearing the Board of Supervisors received a report presented by County staff that included recommendations; a report from the EIR Consultant; and testimony from various private groups; and WHEREAS,the Board of Supervisors closed the public hearing after the conclusion ofpublic testimony; and WHEREAS, the Kings County Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents, including all maps, exhibits, testimony and written documents contained in the file for this project, includingits environmental analysis, on record in Kings County, and has considered theoral presentations given atthe public hearing, and now findsthat: 1. Notice has been given in the time and in the manner required by State Law and the County Code. 2. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the County of Kings 2035 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2008121020), on file in the office of the County Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, was presented to the Kings County Board of Supervisors. The Final PEIR includes the Draft PEIR, dated July 2009, all comments and recommendations received on the Draft PEIR, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR, the responses to comments made regarding significant environmental points, and the Final PEIR for the 2035 General Plan Update (collectively the Final PEIR). The Board of Supervisors has independently reviewed and consideredthe information contained in the Final PEIR, including comments received from the public, before making a decision on the 2035 General Plan Update Project. 3. The Final PEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. 4. The Final PEIR reflects the County’s independent judgmentand analysis. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND CERTIFIED,by the Kings County Board of Supervisors that: . ]. The Final PEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental ‘Quality Act of 1970 (Cal. Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), as amended, and the State Guidelines thereto (Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15000 et seq.). 2. The Final PEIR waspresented to the Board of Supervisors, and was independently reviewed and considered by the Board of Supervisors prior to acting on the proposedProject. 3. The Final PEIRreflects the Board of Supervisors independentjudgmentand analysis. 4. The documents comprising the Final PEIR shall be held with the Director of the Kings County Community Development Agency,as the official custodian ofthe record, at the Kings County - Government Center, Building No. 6, 1400 W. Lacey Boulevard, Hanford, CA 93230. PASSED AND ADOPTEDon a motion by Supervisor Oliveira and seconded by Supervisor Barba, at a meeting held on January 26, 2009, by the following vote: * AYES: SUPERVISORS OLIVEIRA, BARBA, FAGUNDES,NEVES, VALLE NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE - ABSENT: NONE KINGS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Te.Cer Richard Valle, Chairperson WITNESS,myhand this 26" day of January, 2010. Rhonda Bray © Go Deputy Clerk to the Board HAPLANNING\GENERAL PLAN\2035 GP UPDATE PROGRAM\I6 PROGRAM EIR\FINAL ETR\BOS MEETING\BOS RESOLUTION- PEIR CERTIFICATION.DOC Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2006041162 jalee as Nowe Impact3.3-6: The proposed project would belocated within an airport land use plan area | or within the vicinity of a private airstrip and could expose people residing or working within the project area to excessive noise levels. | Impact Sununary Levelof Significance Before Mitkzation: Potentiaty Signicent Required Additional Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures: Wa aetna! miigation Resultant Level of Significance: Significant and Ueavoidable ImpactAnalysis Implementation of the General Pian 2030 Updale would resultin ational residential and non- residential land use developmenls. These land use developments could result in new urban development, including new urban land uses inthe vicinity ofairports and private airstrips, of which the County hus nine public airports. Newdevelopmentnearaviation facilities could be exposed to excessive airport-related noise levels within the Corridor Framework, Rural ValleyLands, and Foothill Growth Management geographic areas, ‘The Mounlain Framework geographic area has limited access fo aviation facilities and would likely experience no impacts ‘The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)wasestablished to ensure thatthere are no direct conflicts with landuses, noise, or other issues that would impactthe functionality and safety ofairportoperations, One of the keyfunctions of the ALUCis wo require that cities’ and counties" generalplans and zoning ordinances are consistent with Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plans (CALUP), which contain in contours, restrictions fur types ofconstruction andbuilding heights in navigable air space, as well as requirements impacting the establishment or construction of sensitive uses within close proximity fo airports. Overall, theintent ofthe proposed Gneral Planist ensure that existing, and future land uses function ‘without imposing a nuisance, havard, or unhealthy condition upon adjacent uses. Policies included 4s part ofthe General Plan 2030 Updite thal would minirnize conflicts with local airportsare summarized below by general plan element, The Lund Use Klement provides a number of policies that establish requirements for compatible development,including buffering, screening, controls and performance standards, and the siting of compatible land uses (see Policies LU 1.3, LU-3.6, amd LU-5.4).Other policies from the Transportation and Circulation and Health and Safety Elements (see Policies TC-3.4, TC-3.6, 1IS-3.1, 115-3.2,and HS-8.4) require the Countyto censure that all development within the vicinityof local airport facilities is consistent with the poli adopted by the Tulare CountyAirport Land Use Commission and the most recently adopted Aisport LandUse Compatibility Plan. However, evenwith implementation of the below ‘mentioned policies and implementation measures, this impactis considered potentially significant. iSin Seas ‘earina “TolerGosnly Genel ian7030 Uple MITIGATING POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Land Use Eloment Boliioe digned to promote compatland use development ard patios that minimize Impacts to suroundingland uses {Gneluding open space uses}includethefollowing Lu-1.2 Preventfneampatibie Lisas 1 Project Design LU-5 4 Compatibility sith Surraunsing Lari Use ‘Transportation and Circulation Element Health and Safety Element Policies designed to promote development compatibie wit Tocalarport land use compatiblity plans include iefolowing: ‘T6344 Aiport Compatibility HS-2.1 Alport Land Use Compatibility Plan TC-36 Airport Encroachment HS-1.2 Camplance wit Federal Aviation Adminstration (FAA) Regulations HS-84 Airpori Noise Contours Required Additional Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures As stated above, the County will implementa variety ofpolicies designed to address airport noise and land use compatibilityissues. In addition, the County will ensure that fulure CEQA documentation be prepared forindividual projects (swith project-specific data}thatwill (if technically possible) mitigate anypotential airport-related noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, it should benoted,the abilityto mitigate this potential impact is contingent upona variety offactors, including the severityof the noise impact, existing land use conditions and the technical feasibility of being able to implement any proposed mitigation measures. Giventhe uncertainty as to whether Future airport noise-relatedimpacts could be adequately mitigated for all the individual projects that will be implementedas part of the General Plan 2030 Update,this impact remains significant. No additional (easible mitigation is currently available. Significance after Implementation of Mitigation for Impact 3.5-3 ‘As slated above, no additional technologically or economically feasible mitigation measures are currently available to reduce this impact to a less thansignificant level. Consequently, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. “ame Cary Gor 2000 Upte 35-36 ESAT 1 Geology Sous Seismioty and Mina Recources Impact 3.7-2: The proposed project could expose people to injury or structures to damagefrom potential rupture of knownearthquake fault, strong groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslide, Impact Summary Lovelof Significance Before Mitigation: Pet Required Additionatmitigating Policies and Implementation Measures: New Policy HS-2.8 “Alquist. Praia Act Compliance’ Resultant Lovelof Significance: Less than Significant Impact Analysis The County is divided into two major geologic provinces: the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Ceniral Valley. Although the County is situated in proximity to several fault groups, itis not identified ina delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, However, isolated portions of the County maybe subject to strong seismic groundshaking, These locations are primarily located in the easter portion of the County. broken down into four “Sierran Zones”that detcrrninethe predicted effects of the maximum probable earthquake on the Owens Valtey fault. Within (hese Sierran Zones,alluvial valleys or the weatheredand decomposed zonesin the meadowsor foothills are expected to experience the greatest groundshaking, Development within these zones must confortn to Uniform Building Code-Zone Il and I11, ‘The probability of soil liquefaction actually ‘occurring in the Countyis considered to be a low to mexerate hazard. However, detailed geotechnical enginecring investigations would be necessary to more accuratelyevaluate liquefaction potential withinall of the County” individual planning areas, The proposed project includes several policies designed 1o address a variety of public health and safety issuesresulting fromseismic hazards, For example, the Health and Safety Hlement provides a numberofpolicfes that have been developed to ensure a safe environmentfor the County’s residents, visitors, and businesses, These policies and implementation measures in the Goals and Policies Report (Part T ofthe General Plan 2030 Update) inchide continued compliance with atl applicable development requirements (.e., Califomia Building Code, ete.) seismic retrofitting ofstructures(see policyHS-2.5 andHS-2.6), und the restriction of developmentin hazardous arcas (see policies 1IS- 1.3, IS-1.11, HS-2.1, HS-23, HS-2.4, and 11S-2.7),The Health and Safety Element of the General Planalso includes a number ofimplementation measures (IIS Implementation Measures #1 through#4) that require updating emergency responseplans and providing training to ensure the ‘County’s ability 0 effectively respond to natural disasters, such as scismiv events, and keep residents and visitors safe. With adherence to these codes and regulations and implementation of the policies and implementation measures contained in the Health & Safety Element, geologic hazard impacts associated with potential rupture of known earthquakefault, strong seismic groundshaking, and seismie-related groundfailure would be minimized. Part Il, Area Plans, of the General Plan 2030 Update also includes Poliey FGMP-8.10, whichprohibits development in foothill arews that are considered to be geologicallyhazardous (due to slides, earthquake faults aie 3719 esaianast etry 2010, Take Carty anna e064 Tulare County General Plan 2080 Updote etc.) and Policy FGMP-4.1 that requires the County to identify and protect from development areas containing unstable geology. However, evenwith implementation of the below mentioned policies, eurrent rules do not prevent building in an Alquist-Priclo zone if'and when such zones ave identified in the County. Therefore, this impact is consideredpotentially significant. MITIGATING POLIGIES ANDIMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Health and Safety Element and Foothill Growth Management Plan Policies and implementation measures dasignad ta minimize geolagic hazard impacts to people and structures inthe Gaunty include thefollowing: H5-1.2 Development Constraints HS.25 Financial Assistance for Seismic Upgrades HS-13— Hazardous Lanas HS28 Seismic Standards for Dams HS-1.4 —Bulldng and Codes HS27 Subsidence HS-1'5 Hazard Awareness and Public Faucation Health and Safety Implomentation Measures #1, #2, #3, i 7 Safe Housing and Structures and #4 HS.11 Sie Investigations FGMP-41_ ldentiication af Environmentally Sensitive HS-21 Continued Evaluation of Earthquake Risks Areas 5-23 Hilside Davelopment FGMP-6.{0 Development in Hazard Areas S24 Stucture Sting Required Additional Mitigating Poticies and Implementation Measures Tn addition to the above mentioned policies and implementation measures. the following new policy HS-2.8 “Alquist-Priolo Act Compliance”is requited to address the impact: © HS-2.8 Alquist-Priolo Act Compliance. The County shall not permit anystructure for fhuman occupancy to be placed within designated kurthywake Fault Zones (pursuant to andas determined bythe Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act; Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.5) unless the specific provisions of the Act and ‘title 14 ofthe California Code of Regulations have been satisfied. {New Polley — Drafi EIR Analysis] Significance after Implementation of Mitigation for Impact3.7-2 As slaied above, the Countywill continue to implement a variety of policies designed to address Public health and safety issues resulting from seismic hazards. therefore, implementation of the proposedprojec! including the adoptionof the policies and implementation measures listed above (including the new PolicyIS-2.8 “Alquist-Priolo Act Compliance”), adherence tothe Aiquist-Priolo ‘Act, and enforcementof theCalifornia Building Code wouldresult in a fess than significant impact. “han Cont Garr ar 2Ups caasaorear rele ravonage Rapa Felon290 37 Geolony, Sol, Seismic and Minerl Recoweas Impact3.7-3: The proposed project could result in potential structural damage from develapment an a potentially unstable geologic unit oF soil, Impact Summary Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less then Sgnicant Required Additional Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures: Wie required Resultant Lovelof Significance: Less than Signvicant Impact Analysis Thefoothill and mountain areas of the County are mare likely to experience Tandslides than the Valley floor. Susceptible arcas include areas where fractured and steepslopes are present ar where inadequate ground cover accelerateserosion, Erosion and ground slumping ofsoils can also oceur along bluff and banks of the Kaweah, Kings, and Tule Rivers. The probability ofsoil liquefaction ‘actually taking place in the County is considered to be a low moderate hazard. Soil types in the area are not conduciveto liquefaction because they are either too coarse or too high in clay content Tlowever, due to the high clay content, there is potential for some subsidenceto occur. Impacts related to these types of geological havards are site specific and need fo be evaluated on a site bysite basis within all of the County’s individual planning areas. Theproposedproject includes several policies and implementation measuresthat have been developed to ensure a safe envitonmentforits residents, visitors, and businesses. For example, Policies 118-1.2, HS-1.3, H8.2.2, HS-2.3, and HS-2.7 provide guidanceforlimiting development in areas withsevere slope conditions, subsidence conditions, and other hazardous conditions. Policy HS-1.1] also requires the preparation of engineering studies for all new development proposals ‘within areas of potential soil instability. Part 11, Area Plans, of the General Plan 2030 Update also includes several policies in the FGMP (see Policies EGMP-L.11, FGMP-8.7, FGMP-8.8, FGMP- 8.11, and FGMP-8.12) which prohibit developmentin foothill areas that are considered to be geologicallyhazardous (duc to slides, carthquake faults, ec.), Policy FGMP-1.1 requires the County to identify and protect environmentallysensitive areas, including areas with steepslopes and unstable geology, which could further minimize the potential for future development to be exposedte havaards associated with unstable geologic conditions. With adherenceto all applicable State andl local building codes and regulations and implementation ofthe policies and implementation measures contained in the draft Health and Safety Element, impacts associated with on- or off-site fandstige, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be minimized, Consequently, with implementation ofthe below mentioned policies and implementation measure, this impact Is consideredfess than significant. Ture Gran Gana a 20Up 37-21 ‘Eoa207 Recreate be rennerImport Ror sera 200 Count Ganecal MITIGATING POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Health and Safety Element and Foothill Growth ManagementPlan Policies and implementation measures designedto minimize geologic hazardimpactsto people and structures inthe County Include the folowing: HS-1.2 Development Constraints HS.2.5 Financial Assistance for Se smie Upgrade H5-13— Harardous Lands 5-26 Salamie Standards for Dams HS-1.4 —Buloing and Cados HS.27 Subsence HS 1.5 Hazara Awareness and Public Fucation Health and Safely Element inplementaion Measures#1 HS-1.7_ Safe Housing and Structures 92,93, and #4 HS-1.11 Site Investigations FOMP.4.1 Igentication of Envrormentally Senetive Areas 5-21 Continued Fvalustion of Earthquake Risks Haaith and Sofety Element Foothill Growth Management Pian Policies designed to minimize andslida hazard impacts fo people and structuresinthe County though the establishment of ‘development guidelines in hillside areasinclude thefollowing: HS-12 Development Consiramis FOMP-1 2 Grading HS-13 Hazardauo Lands, FMP 1.11 Hillside Development HS 22° Landoise Aroas FGMP.441 Identticaton of Envirenmentally Sensitive Areas HS 23 lisige Developmen FGMP-8.7 Minimize Soi Disturhance HS-2.4 Shucture Sting FGMP-B.8 Eicsion Mitigation Measures S27 Subsiounce FGMP-8.11 Development on Slopes FGMP-8.12 Vegetation Removal RequiredAdditional Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures Asstated above, the County will implement policies designed to protect residents, visitors, and businesses fromacolopic husurds. Adherence to all applicable State andlocal building codes and regulationsin addition to implementationofthe policies and implementation measures contained, in the draft Health and Sufety tlemment will minimize impacts associated with on- or off-site landslide, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, This impact is considered fess than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. ignificance after Implementation of Mitigation for Impact A numberof policies referenced abovein the impact analysis and includedin the proposed project ‘were specifically designed 19 minimize impacts from geologic tuvants, Wilh implementation of the above mentionedpolicies, this impact is considered texs shan significant. / Impact 3.7-4: The proposed project could increase the potenti developmenton expansive soil. Tor structural damage from Eg Impact Summary Lovet of Signiticance Beare Mitigation: Loss znan Sigesuant Roqultod Additional Mitigating Policios and Implementation Measures: Mone required Resultant Level of Significance: | ess than Significant ‘ume Cain GoreHen Upc 37-22 Fsainuage 3:7 Gadlogy, Sul, Soimicty and Minera Rasouroes Impact Analys Expansivesoils ure those possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes byshrinking (whenthey dry) or swelling (whenthey become wet). Expansive soils canalso consist ofsilty to sandy clay. The extent of shrinking and swelling influenced by the environment,includingthe extent of wet or drycycles, and by the amount of clay in the soil. This physical change in the soifs can react unfavorablywith building foundations, conerete walkways, swimming pools, coadways, and masonry walls. Within the County. expansive soils are more common along the Western edge of the Southernfoothills. In most developedareas, the existing layer ofclay has been blended into more granular soils as a part of general site excavation, which helps to reduce the overall soil”s expansiveness Theproposedproject includes several policies and implementation measures that have been developed to ensure a safe environmentfor residents, visitors, and businesses. For example, policies inchide continued compliance with all applicable development requirements including the: C Building Code (see Policies HS-1 4) and the restrictionofdevelopment within a variety of hazardous areas (see Policies HS- 1.2 and HS-1.3). PolicyHS-1.5 promotes the awareness and education of residents about natural havards, including soil conditions. Policy HS-1.11 requires the preparation of engineering studies for all new development proposals within areas of potential soil instability. ‘TheFoothill Growth Management Plan contains policies that guide future development away from. areas containing unstable geologic conditions (sce Poticies PGMP-4.1 and FGMP-8.10). With adherence to these codes and regulations and implementation of the policies and implementation measures contained in the Health and Safety Element, geologic hazard impacts associated with expansive soils would be minimized. With iinplementation of the belowmentioned policies, this omit impactis considered fess than significant, MITIGATING POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Health and Safety Element Foothill Growth Mansgemont Pian Policies designed to minimize geologic hazard impacts to paople and structurosinthe County include the fllaring: HS-12 Development Constraints FGMP-£.1 Ideniileatonof Enaronnentaly Sensitive HS-13 Hazardous Lands feos HS.14 Buidng and Codes FGMP-8.50 Development in Hazand Areas HS-15 Hazaid Awareness and Public Fducation HS-L11 Site Investigations Required Addit ntl Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures As stated above, ihe proposed project includes policies that requirethe preparation of engineering studies for all new development proposals within areas of potential soil instability in addition 10 policies and implementation measures contained in the draft Heatth and Safety Elementthat will minimize impacts associated with a variety of geologic hazards. Adherenceto these policies and all applicable State and local building codes and regulations will minimize impacts associated with expansive soils. This impact is considered fess than significant. Noadditionalmitigation measures are required. aeCary SavePa2080 Update esa 207407 FertDt Eritrea ge eget Feta 2010 Tulare County 6 Significance after Implementation of Mitigation for Impact 3.7-4 A numberofpolicies referenced above in the impact analysis and included in the proposed project were specifically designed to minimize impacts associated with expansive soils. With implementation ofthe above mentioned policies, this impactis considered less than significant. Impact3.7-5: The proposed project could result in the loss of availability of a knownmineral resouree or a locally important mineral resource recovery site, Impact Summary Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Lass than Sizniteant | Required Additional Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures: ‘one requared Resultant Level of Significance: Lees then Signfcant Impact Analy Mineral resources located within the Counly predominantly inchide sand and gravel resources and (io lesser extent) minerals such as asbestos, copper, gold, ironand silver. Currently,there are four streains that have provided the main source of high quality sand and gravel in Tulare County. These include the KaweahRiver, ].ewis Crevk, Deer Creek and the Tule River. The highest quality deposits are lovaled along the Kaweah River, near Lemon Cove, and along the Tule River between Porterville and Lake Success, Aygregate resource extraction operations are located predominantly within these areas. Although the locations of mostmajor sind and gravel deposits and other mineral commodities are known, notall areasofthe Countyhave beencomprehensively investigated bythe State of the ‘County loidentify other mineral deposits and potential Jand use planning implications. Development resulting from implementation of the proposed project would require the use of aggregate or other mineral resources thatcould be extractedfrom existing and future deposits. Additionally,if developmentresultingfrom implementationof the proposed project were to occurin locations where the presence orextent of extractive mineral resources has not been clearlydelineated,access 1 those minerals could be restrictedor eliminated as a result of development ‘The proposed project includes a number of policiesin the Environmental Resources Management Element designedto conserve this important County resource. For example, Policies ERM-2.1 through ERM-2.5 recognize the importantcontribution of mineral resources to both thefocal and regional economy and provide forthe future conservation of identified andior potential mineral deposits within the County. Other policies (see Policies ERM-2.9 and ERM-2.10) serve to protect existing mineral resource operations bylimiting the development of potentially incompatible uses near existing identified o¢ potential stineral depusits. The Environmental Resources Management Elementaso contains a mumber of implementation measures that will support implementation of “Tues Coury Gavel Han 220 Upc 37-24 Fearne ocelot Une Entenmertlepe Feary 280 “Tare County General Plan 2090 Undate Impact 3.8-3: Developmentunder the proposedproject could belocated on ahazardous waste site. Impact Summary Level af Significance Botare Mitigation: Potentiay Signifeant Required Additional Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures: NewPoiicy HS-4 8 "Hazardous Materals Studies Resultant Level of SigaiRcance: Less tan Signifcsnt ImpactAnalysis As more fully describedabove under “Environmental Setting,” lists of contaminatedsites, including sites on the Cortese list (see Table 3.8-4), within the County are available through the Regional ‘Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Toxic Substance Control. The Tulare County EHDalso maintains records for generators of large quantities of hazardous waste and hazardous waste treatment facilities. According to information provided by these agencies, a majorityof the contaminatedsites ate associated with leaking underground storage tanks, pesticide manufacturing’processing, industrial manufacturing, old landfills, and dry cleaning and maintenance yards. As a result of the programsimplemented hythe State and County,the likelihood of development subsequent 10 the proposed project to be located on an identified hazardous waste site is Jow. It can be assumed that site cleanup would occur prior to development on a hazardous waste site. However, the possibilityremains for future development to occur on unidentified contaminated The proposed project includes a mumber ofpolicies that help ensure the safety ofits residents, visitors, and businesses. Policiesincluded as part of the proposed project that would minimize this impact are summarized below. For example, the Health & Safety Element contains policies ‘that minimize the potential for exposure and contamination from hazardous materials throughreview of newdevelopment proposals and creation of buffers betweenincompatible uses (Policies 1IS-4.4 and LU-S.6). The proposed project includes implementation measures that direct the Countyto create specific developmentstandards and the Hazardous Waste ManagementPlan to avoid locating incompatible uses near each other (Health & Safety Implementation Measures #12 and #13). In order to preventfurther contaminated conditions, the Health & Safety Element provides a numberof policies and implementation measures that have beendevelopedto address hazardous materials concerns including the safe storage, use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials (sce Policy HS-4.1), continued compliance with all applicable loeal, State, and federal safety standards (sce Policy HS-4.1), and continued coordination with the Catifornia HighwayPatrol (o establish procedures forthe movement of hazardous waste (see Policy HS-4.2). Additional preemptive policies from both the Land Lise and Health & Safety Elements (see Policies LU-1.3, LU-5.4, and HS-4.3) prevent the placement ofincompatible land uses within residential areas or near properties that produce or store hazardous materials. Policy T1S-4.7 directs the County to work with State and federal land managers to coordinate the handling and disposal of hazardous materials on public lands. Tlowever, even with implementation of the below mentioned policies and implementation measures, this impact is considcred potentially significant, ‘uluy Saar0le 38-18 esavaoiasr ‘38 Hezaiaoue Materials ana Puke Safety MITIGATING POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Land Use Element Policies designed to promote compatible land use development and pattems that minimize impacts te surrounding land use. ‘including open space uses)Include the folowing: LUA.3 Prevent incompatible Uses 1054 Compatibilty wih Suraurstig Land Use LSS _Inoustral Use Putter Health & Safety Element Policiesand implementation measures designed to minimize the iskof County residents and property sociated withthe ‘transport, distribution, use,and storage of hazardous materials include the following: HS-41 Hazardous Materials HS4.2 Establishment of Procedures ta Transport Hazardous Waste HS-43 Incompatible Land Uses. 1iS-4.4 Contamination Prevertion HSA? Coardinalian of Materials on Public Lands Healthand Safety Implamentation Measure #12 Health and Safely Implementation Measure #13 Required Additional Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures In addition to the above mentioned policies und implementation measures, the following new Policy HS-4.8 “Hazardous Materials Studies” is required to ensure that this impact is reduced to a less than significantlevel: + HS-42 Mazardous Materials Studies. The County shall ensure thatthe proponents ofnew development projects address hazardous materials concerns through the preparation of Phase Lor Phase Il hazardous materials studies for each identified site as part ofthe design phase for each project. Recommendations required (o salisfy federal or State cleanup standards outlined in the studieswill beimplemented as part ofthe construction phase for each project. few Policy Draft EIR Analysis} ignificance after Implementation af Mitigation for Impact 3.8-3, Asstated above, the County will continue to regulate hazardous materials concems as part of the development process for future projects in the County. Additionally, the Countywill implement a variety of policies designedto address hazardous materials concems including continued cooperation withthe California Highway Patrol and otherState and federal agencies to manage the use of hazardous materials, the designation ofroutes forthe transport of hazardous materials, and continued compliance with all applicable Tocal, State, and federal safety standards. Therefore, implementation ofthe proposed project including the adoption of the policies and implementation measures listed abave Gneluding the new Policy HS-4.8 “Hazardous Materials Studies") would resultin a fess than significant impact. “Tate Cone Conran 2050sa 3819 esasaevasr ‘2 Haranous Materials and Put Safety TABLE 3.8-7 SUMMARYOF WILDLAND FIRE IMPACTS BY GENERAL PLAN AREA Plan Areas Gr ow th Ma na ge me nt Ov er al l Ge ne ra l Pl an Go rr do r Fr am ew or k Ru ra lV alt ey La nd s Mo un ta ln Fr am ew or k Project Impacts Iinpact 38-5: The proposed project could expose people orsucures igs .ag {0 significant risk of oss. injury. o¢ death involving widland ines. Impacts andMitigation Measures Impact 3.8-6: The proposed project could expose people orstructures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death invalving wildlandfires. Impact Summary Level of Significance Betore Mitigation: Less than Signitecant Required Additional Mitigating Policlos and Implementation Measures: fone required Resultant Level of Significance: Jess then Signifcont ImpactAnalysis ‘As fulure developmentoccurs, wildlandfires would continue to pose a significantthreat o Ure people ‘and structures ofthe County,in particular those residingin the Foothill Growth Management Plan ‘and Mountain Framework Plan Areas, which are more susceptible to wildlandfires due to potentiat fuel loads (grassland and other vegetation). Developed areas that are near high fire hazard areas include Lemon Cove and Lindcove and the easter portions of Hxeter, Lindsay and Porterville. Developed areas that are near very high fire havard areas include Three Rivers and Springville Oneofthe primary factors contributing tothe effective control ofa vegelation fireis the rapid response bylocalfire units. This is especiallytrue during fire season, when lire units may be committed to other fires and are unavailable to respond as quickly. Under future ctimate change conditions, more extreme weather conditions may occur that potentially results in greaterfire fuel toads, a longer fire season,andor a greater area containing vegetation susceptible to wildland fires. Climate change vonditions could expose more people and structures to wildland fire potential, Policies and implementation measures included as part of the proposed project that address the necd for additional fire prevention services are summarized belowbythe Health & Safety Element. For example, Policies HS- 1,10 and 118-73 through ITS-7.6 requite the County to plan for and expand a variety of public services(includingfire protection services and favitities) consistent with “ure cietyGer 0200 Ute 3833 sa r20rs7 Tulere County General Plan 2050 Update community needs. Policy PPS-7.5 indicates the Countyshall strive to maintain fire department staffing and response time gouls consistent with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, Policies HS-6.14, HS-7.1, 1S-7.2,IIS-7.7 and PFS-7.4 promote the implementation of a coordinated emergency responseplan both locally and regionally. Policies HS-1.4, HS-6.1, HS.6,5 through HS-6.12, FGMP-10,2, FGMP-10.3, and Public Facilities & Services Implementation Measure #12 provide requirements regarding fire safety and building standards for new development. Policy HS-1.12 directs the County to expand home addressing requirements for emergency service response. Policy FIS-6.13 directs the County to support the restoration of disturbed land resulting from wildfites and 118-6.15 provides direction on reducing fuel related hazards. Additionally, policy PFS-1.3 and Public Facilities & Services Implementation Measures #1, #2, and #3 provide for the finding mechanism to provide additional or expandedservices in conjunction with new development. With implementation ofthe below mentioned poticies and implementation measures, this impact is considered less than significant. MITIGATING POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Planning Framework, Public Facilities & Servic Health & Safety Element Elements and Foothill Growth Managemer Policies andimplementation measures designedto rininze this impact though the continued provision of fire protection services “and emergoncy response planning Include the following: HS-1.4 Building and Codes PE52 Criteria for New Towns (Planned Communities) HS-115 Hazard Awareness and Public Caucation PFS-13_ Impact Mitigation HS-116 Public Safely Programs PFS-2.1 Water SupplyHS-1.8 Response Times Planningin GIS PFS71 Fire Protection HS-19 Emergency Accese PFS72 Fite Protection Standards HS1.10 Emergency Services Near Assisted | ing PFS.7.3 Vislla Signage for Roads and Buildings Housing PFS-7.4 Inte1agency Fire Protection Ceoparaion HSA.12 Addressing PFS-7.5 Fite Staffing and Response Time StandardsHS-6.1 New Building Fire Hazards PES-7.6 Provision of Station Facihiesand EquipmentHS-62 Development in Fire Hazard Zones HS-63 Consultation wih Fia Service Disicte Cost Sharing Locations of Fire and Sherif Staons/Sub- HS.6.4 —Cnoguraga Ciustar Development stavons HS-6.5 Fire Rick Recommanaalions FGMP-10.2 Provision of Safety Services HS-8.5 Vidland Fire Management Plans FGMP-10.3 Fire and Grime Protection Plan HS67 Water Supply System HS5.B Private Water Supply S59 Fuel Modification Programs H5-6.10 Fuel Sreaks HS6.11 Fire Buflrs HS-6.12 Weed Abatement HS.6.13 Rastoration of Disturbed Lands HS-6.14 Coordination with Cities HS-6.15 Coordination of Fuel Hazards on Pubic Lands HS-71 Coordinate Emergency Rosponse Services With Government Agencies HS-7.2 Mutual Aid Agreement 18-73 Maintain Emergency Evacuation Plans HS-74 Upgrading for Streets and Highways HS-75 Emergency Centers HS-76 Sparen and Reecue HS77 Joint Exercises HS Implementation Measure #15 HS Impiemertation Measures #16 Pubile Facies & Services Element Public Failies and Services Implemontation Measuresdesigned to ensure funding for County services ta provideadequate service levelsincludthe following ‘are Carey GneraPan220 3834 errPecans ra Cremaesp Feary 090 1.6 Hazardous Matvals and Pubic Safety Planning Framework, Public Facilities & Services Health & Safety Eleront Elements and Foothill Growth Management Plan Pofiies andimplementationmeasures designed to miniize this impact troughthe continued provsion offre protaction services and emergency responseplanning include the following Public Facies & Services Implementation Measure #1 Public Fanitias & Senaces Implementation Measure #2 Public Facies & Services Implementation Measure #3 Public Facies & Services Implementation Measure #12 Required Additional Mitigating Policies and Implementation Measures Asstated above, the County will implement a variety of policies designed to address fire hazards, Y andminimize exposure of people and structures to fire hazards, In addition, the County will ensure that future CEQA documentation be prepared for individual projects (with project-specific data) that will (if technically possible) mitigate any potential impacts associated with fire hazards to a —| less thansignificantlevel, This impactis considered fess than significant, No mitigation is, required. significance after Implementation ofMitigation for Impact 3.8-6 A numberofpolicies referenced abovein the Impact analysis andincluded in the proposed project were specifically designed to minimize impacts associated with fire hazards. With, implementationofthe above mentioned policies, this impact is considered fess than significant. “are Cry Gana Pa2000 ote 3835 Esa saaraer BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF TULARE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF: ) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ) TULARE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN } Resolution No. 2042-0696 2030 UPDATE, PROPOSEDFINAL ) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT =) UPON MOTION OF SUPERVISOR WORTHLEY, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR COX, THE FOLLOWING WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AT AN OFFICIAL MEETING HELD AUGUST 28, 2012, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES: SUPERVISORSISHIDA, VANDER POEL. COX, WORTHLEY AND ENNIS. NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE ATTEST: JEAN M, ROUSSEAU COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’ iS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BY: OCCU| LG Usk a?) Deputy ley That the Board of Supervisors in the matter of the General Plan 2030 Update Final EnvironmentalImpact Report approves thefollowing recitals and actions: 1. Aseries of 19 workshops, 11 public Board of Supervisors study sessions, 12 technical advisory committee meetings and four joint Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings were held to discuss, review, recommend and provide public commentto the General Plan 2030 Update 2. The Board of Supervisors initiated the process for updating the County's generalplan in the summerof 2003. As lead agency under CEQA, the County issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR for the Proposed General Plan 2030 Update on April 25, 2006. The NOP was submitted to the Stale Clearinghouse (SCH No 2006041162), ali responsible and trustee agencies, and interested groups and individuals for a 30-day review period beginning April 29, 2006 and ending on May 29, 2006. Availability of the NOP was advertised through direct mailing to federal agencies, state agencies, regional agencies, local agencies(including cities and counties,local districts, schoo! districts, water agencies), other special districts and agencies, as well as private groups and individuals requesting notification The County held an EIR scoping meeting on May 1, 2006 to provideinformation about the General Plan, thepotential environmental impacts and the CEQA review process, as well as a schedule for General Plan adoption and implementation. Members ofthe public and otherinterested parties had the opportunity to ask questions and provide their input as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be addressedin the EIR On January 14, 2008 after many community and County workshops the County published the Draft EIR forthe Tulare County General Plan (SCH # 2006041162) and distributed it to the State Clearinghouse of the Governor's Office of Planning and Researchaswell as responsible and trustee agencies, citizen groups, andindividuals for a public review period initially scheduled for January 14, 2008 through March 14, 2008to allow for maximum pablic involvement and input. A Notice of Completion ('NOC") andNotice of Availability (’NOA") of the DEIR were prepared, published, and distributed, as required by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087. On January 25, 2008 the County added Correctory #1 (Background Report, Appendices 4, B, and C) to the DEIR because it had beeninadvertently omitied from the draft released on January 14, 2008. On February 26, 2008 the County added Correctory #2 {Background Report, Appendix C Pages 25, 26, 27 and Figures 4-1 through 4-8) to the DEIR because it had been inadvertently omitted from the draft released on January 14, 2008. The County thenissued another Notice of Availability, providing for an extended public review period of 45 days ending on April 18, 2008. Copies of the DEIR were available for public review during normal business hours at the County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. Copies of the draft General Plan and DEIR were also available for review at libraries in Tulare County, and on the County's website. In total, the public review period on the Draft EIR was approximately 90 days. The County considered comments received on the DEIR, as well as continued developmentsin the areas of air quality, climate change impacts regulation and water resources, and decided to update and recircutate a number of sections ofthe previous DEIRaswell as the Background Report. This resulted in release ofthe "proposed project" draft of the General Plan 2030 update also known as the "February 2010 Generai Plan 2030 Update Document", (B) the Recirculated Draft EIR (ROEIR’), and (C) preparation of a Climate Action Plan circulated for a 60 dayreview period between March 25, 2010 and May 27, 2010 to allow for maximum public involvement and input Following the release of the revised GPU and the RDEIR, 19 additional public outreach efforts were conducted in 2010 and 2011 with presentations made to each city council and in a numberof unincorporated communities A total of 40 comment letters were received on the RDEIR during the public review period from March 25, 2010 to May 27, 2010. Fouradditionalletters were received shortly after the public review period. Altogether, these 44 fetters contain approximately 2,300 comments, with approximately 1,570 pages of materials. Letters 10. 1 12 13, received from governmentand local agencies accounted for 4 percent of the total commentsreceived. Letters received from individuals and organizations comprised 96 percent of thetotal comments received The County prepared a Final EIR for the 2010 draft Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update (SCH #2006041 162) and released the Final EIR for public review onor about August 30, 2011. The FEIR for the General Plan 2030 Update was prepared in compliance with the CEQA(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14). The Final EIR was distributed on CD to the State Clearinghouse, and ali agencies who commented on the RDEIR. Individual notices of the FEIR availability were sent to agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the RDEIR. The Final EIR was available in all Tulare County Libraries, at the Tulare County Resource Management Agencyoffice, and onthe Tulare County Website at http:‘igeneralplan.co.tulare.ca.us/ On August 30, 2011 a joint warkshop was held by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to receive an update from staff regarding staff review of comments received on the Proposed General Plan 2030 Update Goals and Policies Report, Proposed Climate Action Pian and Proposed FEIR. A notice regarding the joint workshop held by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission was Published in the Visalia Times-Delta on August 26, 2011. Thejoint workshop notice wasalsoavailableathtto://generalplan.cotulare.ca.usl. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to considerthe Final EIR, the GPU, andthe Climate Action Plan (CAP) beginning on October 19, 2011 and continued to November16, 2011 and December7, 2011. A public notice wasprinted in the Dinuba Sentinel on October 6, 2011, the Visalia Times Delta, Porterville Recorder, and the Tulare Advance Register on October 7, 2011 at leastten daysprior to the public hearing, The public notice wasalso available on the County website Planning Commission adopted Resolutions Nos, 8636, 8637, and 8638 indicating that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EIR, including the mitigation measures and alternatives identified therein and making its written recommendations to the Board of Supervisors that the Board certify the FEIR and approve the General Plan 2030 Update and the Climate Action Plan, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The FEIR, the General Plan 2030 Update and the Climate Action Plan were accordingly transmitted tc the Board for consideration. Comments received afterthe close of the CEQA commentperiod and in the course of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors’ hearing on the Final EIR, the GPU and the CAP are addressed in AttachmentG {tem 3 and fall generally into one ofthefollowing areas of continued public interest: Climate Change/Air Quality, Water quality and quantity, Land Use and Project buildout assumptions, Level of detail and programmatic nature of the RDEIR, Enforcementofthe general plan policies, Range of Alternatives, Healthy Growth, Smart Growth, Compact Development, City Centered Growth, Location of DevelopmentiNew Towns, Regional Growth Corridors, Preservation of Agricultural. Land and Open Space, Disadvantaged Communities/Infrastructure Needs, Inventories, Archeological Resources, and Flood 14. 15 16. 17. 18. Control. The County and its consultants reviewed and considered these written and verbal comments received after the CEQA commentperiod, identified information in the EIR and the record that already adequately addressed the environmentaleffects raised in the comments, provided additional discussion and presented this information to the Board as Attachment G Item 3. These materials merely clarify and ampiify and make insignificant modifications to the EIR. They do not provide significant or substantial new information. The Board of Supervisors has given notice of the proposed amendmentto the General Plan asprovided in Sections 65355, 65090, and 65091 of the Government Code of the State of California, A public notice wasprinted in the Dinuba Sentinel on August 23, 2012 the Visalia Times Delta, Porterville Recorder, and the Tulare Advance Register on August 17, 2012 at least ten dayspriorto the public hearing before the Boardof Supervisors on August 28, 2012 The Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered a Final Environmental Impact Report for the adoption of the General Plan 2030 Update at a duly advertised public heating held on August 28. 2012, at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented Throughout the development and environmental review of the Project. various names have been used fo refer to the plan underreview,including “Proposed General Plan 2030 Update”, or "General Plan 2030 Update”, or "General Pian Update”, or "2025 Update”. or “GPU", or “Goals and Policies Report", or “GPR.” All of these terms describe the General Plan update. The Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Government Code section 65300, must adopt a comprehensive, long term general plan for the physical developmentof the county Theproposed project will amend and update the County's existing generalplan. The GPUwill reorganize, update, modernize and add to the County's general plan policies and documents as described in Part i, Chapter7 (‘introduction’) of the General Plan 2030 Update, This GPU addressessix ofthe seven mandatary general plan elements required by the State: land use, circulation, open-space, conservation, safety, and noise (Government Code Section 65302). The seventh mandatory element, the Housing Element, is required to be updated every five years and, is following a separate track than thatof the GPU. The Housing Element proposed for the 2009- 2014 planning period has been tentatively approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Developmentbyfetter dated January 3, 2012, was adopted by Board of Supervisors on May 8, 2012, and has been submitted to the HCDforfinal certification. The GPU reorganizes, updates, modernizes and adds to the County's existing general plan policies and retains the plan's historic three tier organizational structure. The parts of the General Plan modified or revised in GPUinclude Part | (the Goals and Policies Report) Part Ii (the Area Plans), Part Ill plans are not proposedfor revisions or re-adoption as part of the GPU, with two exceptions: the Urban Development Boundary for the Pixley Community Plan is modified to include the Harmon Field Airport and the County Adopted City General Planfar Dinuba is modified to refiect the recently annexed Dinuba Golf Course, residential and wastewater treatmentarea 19 20. 24 22. Staff has made such investigation of fact bearing upon the proposed General Plan 2030 Update and the propased Climate Action Plan to assure action consistent with the procedures and purposessetforth in the California Government Code. During the public hearing to considerthe Final EIR, the GPU andthe CAP, the Board heard presentations and received a Board Report on the GPU, the CAP andthe Final EIR, heardtestimony from the public, and deliberated on the contentof the GPU, the CAPandtheFinal EIR. The Board of Supervisor's public hearing was closed after public testimony was received on August 28, 2012: and Pursuantto Gavernment Code Sections 65368 and 65355,the Tulare County Board of Supervisors is the decision making body for the adoption of a General Plan amendment. Prior to any discretionary approvals the Board of Supervisors must certify the FEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, make CEQA Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuantto CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(d) and 15097 The Board of Supervisors hereby resolvesasfollows: 1 The aboverecitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference asif set forth in full The Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR") for the Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2008041162) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) to analyze the environmental impacts of the new General Plan. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update and the Climate Action Plan (SCH#2006041 162) includes: (1) the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR)released March 25, 2010 (included in Attachment A, Exhibit 1 in the Board of Supervisors Board Agenda for August 28, 2012 on this item); (2) the Final Environmental Impact Report released for public review on or about August 30, 2011 {included in Attachment A as Exhibit 1 in the Board of Supervisors Board Agenda for August28, 2012 on this item), which inciudes: (A) Executive Summary,(B) Introduction and Readers Guide, (C) Minor Revisionsto the Recirculated Draft EIR, (0) Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR received during the public comment period and the four late letters identified above (including a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Recirculated Draft EIR); (E) Master Responses, (F) Responses to Commentsonthe Recirculated Draft EIR, (3) the Board of Supervisors Final EIR Minor Changes Matrix (Attachment G, Item 1) included in the Board of Supervisors Board Report for the August 2, 2012 public hearing on this item and (4) Response to CommentsReceived After the Close of the CEQA Comment Period for the Tulare County 2030 General Pian Updateincludedin Attachment G,item 3 RMA Whenreading andinterpreting the FEIR, revisions containedin the most recentportions ofthe documentshall take precedence, for example the “Final Environmentaltmpact Report" releasedfor public review on or about August 30, 2011, shall take precedence overthe “Recirculated Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report" released March 25, 2010 The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the FEIR and additional public comments made and submitted at public meetings up to the time of adoption of this resolution The Board of Supervisors certifies that: (A) the “FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, (B)the FEIR was presentedto the Board of Supervisors, and that the Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to approving the project, and (C) the FEIR reflects Tulare County's independent judgmentand analysis. The Board of Supervisors adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerationsincluded in AttachmentA of the Board Report for this agenda item, dated August 28, 2012 The Board of Supervisors adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in AttachmentA of the Board Report for this agendaitem, dated August 28, 2012, and directs the Clerk of the Board to issue a Notice of Determination in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15094. Go Counsel Day sone ‘A ge nd a li em At ta ch me nt G It em 1 At ta ch Mi no r Ch an ge s t o Final EIR Te xt Ve rs io n dal e: Aug ust 28, 20 12 Fi na l E I R M i n o r C h a n g e s Ma tr ix yy decisio nm ak er s an d fo ru se by Co un ty st af Ta nd Mi no r Ch an ge s Ma tr ix ” id en ti id en ti fi ed by re vi ew er s fo r t he pr op os ed Tu la re C ien era l P la n 2 03 0 Up da te . Th es e ch an ge s cla rif y, am pl if y or jon sa re sh ow n in st ri ke th ro ug h In so me in st an ce s, so me tex t id ed w h i c h is no t he in g mo : ne; th is h o w e v e r sh ou ld no t be ith an ex pl i in te rp re te d t me : in th is ma tr ix co ns } 1y be ad de d or mod ifi ed by m a Re sp on se 8 Ta bl e 4-3 5-4 1d h r o u g h 5, b el ow ,i s ar e ba se d on da ta de ve lo pe d fo r t he Co un ty ’s 20 09 Ho us in g Fl em en t fo r “ fi xe d” co ns tr ai nm (s uc ha s se tb ac k, slo pe, te rr ai n, a] P la nn it eC o m m ‘R ec on im en da ti on \h av e a wa te r s up pl y as se ss me nt (W SA ) do ne ro jec tu nd er wa te r co de 10 91 0 an d in cl ud ed in th e EI R 61 0 fu rt he r sn de d to mo di fy te sp ec tl o pr oj ec ts pr ov id es th at no t ot he rw is e c ha ng th at ar en ot su bj ec t to. }P ag e2 - 1 Chapter 2, re co mm en de df or FE TR , P i n a n g C o m m o y p |. Re co mm en da ti on © ge ol og ic ha za rd s, Th er e al so he in st an ce s wh er e | d ev el op me nt fl oo d ar ea ca n be pe rf or me d sa fe ly . . — pac ts of pro pos ed p wi lL be s " | 1- 20 4 | T he in g re vi sl on s is re co mm en de d f or th e | | r es po ns e to co mm en t I1 1- 20 4 on pa ge 5- 14 3: re as on ab le nub , 06 1. 1; C E Q A Gu id el in es Se ct io n | COUNTYOFSAN DIEGO GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE AND REPORT FORMAT AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS WILDLAND FIRE AND FIRE PROTECTION ACERS LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP Departmentof Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works Second Revision August 31, 2010 APPROVAL | hereby certify that these Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements for Wildland Fire and Fire Protection are a part of the County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Technical Report Format and Content Requirements and were considered by the Director of Planning and Land Use,in coordination with the Director of Public Works on the August31, 2010. Ae ERIC GIBSON Director of Planning and Land Use QI \. JOHN SNYDER Directcrof Public Works | hereby certify that these Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements for Wildland Fire and Fire Protection are a part of the County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Technical Report Format and Content Requirements and have hereby been approved by the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (DCAO) of the Land Use and Environment Group on the 31% of August, 2010. The Director of Planning and Land Use is authorized to approve revisions to these Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements for Wildland Fire and Fire Protection, except any revisions to the Guidelines for Determining Significance presented in Chapter 4.0 must be approved by the DCAO. Approved, August 31, 2010 Text Approved March 19, 2007 Qrnquika Vidtos First Revision CHANDRA WALLAR December 19, 2008 Deputy CAO Second Revision August 31, 2010 EXPLANATION These Guidelines for Determining Significance for Wildland Fire and Fire Protection and information presented herein shall be used by County staff for the review of discretionary projects and environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These Guidelines present a range of quantitative, qualitative, and performancelevels for particular environmental effects. Normally, (in the absenceof substantial evidence to the contrary), an affirmative response to any one Guideline will mean the project will result in a significant effect, whereas effects that do not meetany of the Guidelines will normally be determined to be “less than significant.” Section 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: “The determination whether a project may have a significant effect on the environmentcalls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on factual and scientific data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” The intent of these Guidelines is to provide a consistent, objective and predictable evaluation of significant effects. These Guidelines are not binding on any decision- maker and do not substitute for the use of independent judgment to determine significance or the evaluation of evidence in the record. The County reservesthe right to modify these Guidelines in the event of scientific discovery or alterations in factual data that may alter the commonapplication of a Guideline. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION|..2000000ccceect cecseeeececeneneeeeeeneseaueeeeceueecessugsstececeeeeecererenenas 1 1.0 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXISTING CONDITIONSow.2 1.1. Wildland-Urban Interface Ignition Factors................000.00.cceeee 2 1.1.1 COMGUCHION ooo.ccccccenterceeeeeeeteeeeccneetreceeeuavaneeeege 2 1.1.2 COmVvection ......cccccccnsteeeeeeceseuessusnssreseesecieanaeeerees 2 1.1.3 Radiation...cccccccecssnsceeeeseseueceuensssneseeanecaeaatesees 2 1.1.4 Firebrands 22.00.0000.cccccccncceeceeeeeeseeessusnssanssssusevanneeesens 3 1.1.5 Flame Impingement...........00000000000eee cece ccceeceevesecereeeanenees 3 1.2 Defensible Space 2.0.0.0...cece ccccecccececensessscescsssecceseceeeeeceeserensas 3 1.3 Defensible Structures ............0000cececccceneneceeeeceeeenteseseeeetecersaes 4 2.0 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS......0.00000000000cc eecccccceeeeeeeenteees 4 2.1 Federal Requlations and Nationally Recognized Standards................ 5 2.2 State Requlations and Standards............000000000leccece seceseseeees 5 2.3 Local Regulations and Standards.........000000.00.oeeecceeeeeeeeenteees 6 3.0 TYPICAL ADVERSE EFFECTS...ccccecescssceestecseseeseesererereeenees 7 4.0 GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE.....0000000..oe8 4.1 Fire Protection Plan...cccccccceeecessesesesssssseceverenssesseeereres 10 4.2. Plan Acceptance Process 0000000000... ccccccccccceccececeessceteentnnecsesesecsrass 11 5.0 STANDARD MITIGATION AND PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS....... 12 §.1 Emergency Services 2.0.00...icccccecceseessseseeseeseeseseessssststesererenss 12 5.1.1 Emergency Fire Response........00000000000000occccccccccccceceeeseceeecceeeaaees 12 5.1.1.1 Applicable Code/Regulations..................0.0000000.... 12 §.1.1.2 Applied Standards.............0.000.00000cccceecceeeeeeeeeeees 12 §.2 Fire AcCeSs Roads2.2.0.0... ccecccescccsscscsecceceuseseesesssaeeeeeeerenees 13 5.2.1 Maximum Length of Dead-End Roads......0.000....00eee 13 5.2.1.1 Applicable Code/Regulations...............00000...00000. 13 §.2.1.2 Applied Standards. ...........00.0000.000000cccccceeeeeeeeeeeees 14 5.2.2 Fire Access Road Width ....0000000.0.0.occeccccceeeeeennens 17 §.2.2.1 Applicable Code/Regulations..............0....0.0.00000.. 17 §.2.2.2 Applied Standards. ..............0.000.00000ccceeeeeeeeeceeeee 17 5.2.3 Fire Access Road Grade......000.0..0....000.cccccccccceccetscesesssessreceeeeess 17 §.2.3.1 Applicable Code/Regulations............0....0.0.000000.. 17 §.2.3.2 Applied Standards..............0.0..0.00000cccceeeeeeeeeeeeee 17 5.2.4 Fire Access Road Surface Type................00000000cccccceeceeesesstnerees 17 5.2.4.1 Applicable Code/Regulations..............0..00.0000000. 17 §.2.4.2 Applied Standards.......0.......0..0.cccccecceeneeeeees 17 BB Water.ccccece cccccceu ee ceceeeue cece esseuueseeu seve eteetbtetiuebetbecnbecerees 18 §.3.1 Inside a Water District ...0.0.....00000ooo occ ccccccccccccccceceetceeseee. 18 5.3.1.1 Applicable Code/Regulations .........000....00. 18 §.3.1.2 Applied Standards.....0000.00.....000oeeceeeeeeeeeee 18 5.3.2 Outside a WaterDistrict000000000000 ieccceeetseesssteeeeens 18 §.3.2.1 Applicable Code/Regulations .........0000...000. 18 §.3.2.2 Applied Standards...........00..0000000 ccc cccceeeeeeeereees 18 5.4 Ignition Resistive Building Construction and Fire Protection Systems eee et et ee cece eeeeesecseecenaeeceenaesaeececeeeeaeeessaeeeseeeeesssseeeaseececesssssusecctsrstessrsnssttneeaaas 18 5.4.1 Ignition Resistant Construction ......00.0.00.0000ccccccecccccceeeeseceees 19 5.4.1.1 Applicable Code/Regulations .........000..... 19 5.4.1.2 Applied Standards..........0000.0000.0cce ee 19 5.5 Defensible Space, Ornamental Landscaping and Vegetation Management...icccececceecesscessessensseesevesssasevareusteaesentasens 19 5.5.1 Fuel Modification and Setback from Property Line.................. 19 5.5.1.1 Applicable Codes/Regulations...........00.000c.. 19 5.5.1.2 Applied Standards........0.0000000. cee cecceeeeeeeee 19 5.6 Design Strategy Sheltering .....00..0000000000cocc ces ceceecceeecceseessestseeeesses 20 5.7 Alternatives to the Standards.........0....0..0..0coc cec cee cee cee eee eee 21 5.7.1 Required Findings for Alternative to Standards....................22 5.7.2 Scenarios when Acceptable Alternatives are Unlikely........... 23 6.0 REFERENCES CITED AND/OR CONSULTED....00000.00.0o coc ceccccceceeettececnes 24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Figure 1 Climate Zonesin San Diego County..........00.00.ccecceccceceescesecsseseeeeees 28 Figure 2 Fuel Modification Zone/Limited Building Zone .........0..0....ccccccceceeceeeeeee 4 Figure 3 Guidance for Determining Primary Access Road Length................... 16 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment Attachment A Definitions...cccceccescseneecvereeseesseaseteesesstvaeseatesterscteeneees 29 Attachment B Summary of Revisions ..0....00.00..0ccccecececccceseceeccseeeensesseestesecessevenseces 30 INTRODUCTION This document provides guidance to planners, applicants, consultants,fire professionals and other interested parties for evaluating adverse environmental effects that a proposed project may have from wildland fire and establishes standards to ensurethat developmentprojects do not unnecessarily expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Specifically, this document addresses the following questions listed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines: Appendix G, VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Appendix G, XIV. Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmentalfacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? Appendix G, XVI. Transportation/Traffic | e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Appendix G, XVII. Utilities and Service Systems d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Guidelines for Determining Significance 1 Wildiand Fire and Fire Protection nd Limited Building Zone ERMAN zy 1.3 Defensible Structures Wildfires are dangerous and unpredictable. In a wildfire, firefighting resources are often over-extended and may be unavailable. Defensible space alone does not ensure the safety of structures confronted by a wildfire. Many additional precautions will assist in the survival of structures from wildland fire threats. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), County of San Diego, andlocalfire districts can provide guidance on preparing structures for wildfire including proper landscaping practices, construction standards and techniques, adequate emergency water supply needs and access. 2.0 EXISTING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS A numberof existing laws, regulations, policies and programs have been enacted to prevent, manageor mitigate the threat of wildland fires to public health, safety and the environment. The following discussion is an overview of the primary existing regulations that affect wildland fire in San Diego County. The regulations discussed below have been chosen for their applicability to the typical development project encountered in San Diego County and for their usefulness in assessing potential adverse project impacts as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), focusing on the threat these firés would pose to people orstructures. It is important to note that the unincorporated area of the County is served by various independentfire districts, County Service Areas and CALFIRE. It is important for planners, applicants, consultants, fire professionals and otherinterested parties who are processing discretionary permits to understand the respective service areas and responsibilities as well as policies and procedures of the FAHJthat will eventually serve the proposed project. Communication early and often with the FAHJ throughout the entitlement process is encouraged. Guidelines for Determining Significance 4 Wildiand Fire and Fire Protection 2.1 Federal Regulations andNationally Recognized Standards [[Regulation]] National Environmental Policy Act, [42 USC § 4321 et seq.] Federal agencies that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consider potential public health and safety hazards,including wildland fires, when considering the environmental impacts of proposed federal projects [[Nationally Recognized Standard] , International Fire Code Published by the International Code Council, it is a model code which may be adopted by a jurisdiction. It forms the basis for the current California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 part 9) The International Fire Code (IFC) is the underlying nationally recognized code that sets standards and requirements to safeguard against the threat fires may pose to public health, safety, and the environment. The IFC, when adopted by a jurisdiction, regulates the planning, construction and maintenance of developmentin all areas. [[Nationally Recognized Standard] International Wildland-Urban Interface Code Published by the International Code Council, it is a model code addressing wildfire issues. It has not been adopted by the State of California or by the County of San Diego. It may be used as a reference for subjects not addressed within the California and County Fire Codes. [[Nationally Recognized Standard] National Fire Protection Association Standards (http://nfpa.org/codes/index.asp) The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards are a product of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a world-wide organization offire industry, fire agencies,fire professionals and concernedindividuals. These model standards are annually compiled from the standards, recommendedpractices, manuals, guides, and model laws that are prepared by the individual technical committees of the NFPA. Most are revised on a three-year cycle. The published standards are voted on by the members of the NFPA. Theindividual standards can be adopted by jurisdictions or modified and adopted asthat jurisdiction’s ordinance. 2.2. State Regulations and Standards [[Regulation]] California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines [Public Resources Code, §§ 21000-21178; Guidelines for implementation of CEQA,California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§15000-15387, Appendix G.] Consideration of impacts relating to wildland fires is required by CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines are concerned with assessing impacts associated with exposing people or structures to wildlandfires. [[Regulation]] California Building and Fire Codes [California Code of Regulations, Title 24 parts 2 & 9, http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/] Title 24 contains several International Codes that addressfire Guidelines for Determining Significance 5 Wildiand Fire and Fire Protection e Emergency responseservices (fire stations, equipment and personnel) that are inadequate to serve the project; e Development projects that are built without ignition-resistive construction, interior fire sprinklers, and/or sufficient water supply (volume) and pressure; e Inadequate access and evacuation options; e Insufficient maintenance of access roads, signage, gates; and e Lack of appropriate landscaping restrictions, including monitoring and maintenance, FMZs, and periodic fuel management monitoring. A wildfire’s aftermath typically leaves land scorched and exposed. Until the land rehabilitates, the exposed soils may contribute to adverse environmental impacts including air and water pollution and unstable soils conditions (mudslides). The end result of uncontrolled wildfire also includes debris from burned homes, some of which can be highly toxic, and can adversely impact the environment by polluting local waterways (streams and rivers). 4.0 GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE Section 15382 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a significant effect on the environment meansa substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in anyof the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air and water. An affirmative response to, or confirmation of any one of the following Guidelines, will generally be considered a significant impact related to Wildland Fire and Fire Protection as a result of the project, in the absence of evidence to the contrary: 1. The project cannot demonstrate compliance with all applicable fire codes. 2. A comprehensive Fire Protection Plan has been accepted, and the project is inconsistent with its recommendations. 3. The project does not meet the emergency response objectives identified in the Public Facilities Element of the County General Plan or offer feasible alternatives that achieve comparable emergency response objectives.” The significance guidelineslisted above have beenselectedfor the following reasons: The first guideline for determining significance is based on compliance with existing wildland fire regulations. Since the applicable regulatory requirements for a projectwill differ based on use type and extent of the WUI, all discretionary projects may be required to prepare a Fire Protection Plan (FPP) designed to assess a project’s compliance with current regulatory codes and ensure that impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards Guidelines for Determining Significance 8 Wildland Fire and Fire Protection have been adequately mitigated. The FPP describes ways to minimize and mitigate the fire problems created by the project or development. The FPPis similar in concept to a Technical Report as authorized in the Fire and Building Codes. The FPPis prepared by a wildland fire behavior and fire code expert for review by the County and FAHJ. A Technical Report, which focuses on fire code and otherfire protection issues for a specific industrial, commercial or special risk occupancy, should accompany a FPPif a complex fire code issue makes it necessary. A Technical Report should be separate from, yet coordinated with, related provisions of the FPP. The County DPLU maintainsa list of persons currently authorized to prepare FPPsforprojects within its jurisdiction. The authority to require FPP can be found in the County Fire Code and the County Consolidated Fire Code. Examples of regulatory requirements that a project will be required to meet include the California Code of Regulations and County Fire Code. Given the complexity of wildland fire regulation and the numerous agencies that have regulatory responsibility related to wildland fires, applicable regulations will be determined on a project-by-project basis. Dueto the potential severity of impacts from fire in wildland areas, the existing laws are stringent and regulate many aspects of wildland fire and their hazards,including building standards, fuel modification, water availability/flow, and/or access. Because project site constraints vary from property to property, fire codes provide for modifications whenthe following requirements are met: e Special individual reasons makethestrict letter of the code impracticable; e The modification is in compliance with the intent and purposeof the code; and, e Such modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety standards. Any project that does not show compliance with regulatory codes or does notinclude a valid risk assessment for the project site may result in a potentially significant impact of wildlandfire hazard. . The second guideline applies to all projects that are required to model fire behavior in mature vegetation on and near the site (Fire Behavior Modeling) as part of its Fire Protection Plan. The Fire Behavior Modelwill evaluate a worst-case scenario wildland fire based on site topography, fuel loads, atmospheric conditions, and fire intensity. From the results of the model, combined with the consultant’s expertise, minimum fuel modification and brush clearance distances can be determined to ensure relatively safe building sites. These fuel-modeling programs are widely accepted and used throughout the fire fighting profession as a planning tool. The models were developed by expert fire- research scientists, but do not provide a total analysis of the threat. Modeling program limitations must be taken into consideration. Fire behavior history and professional Guidelines for Determining Significance 9 Wildland Fire and Fire Protection experience may require greater or lesser requirements for individual projects, and such justification should be clearly articulated in the FPP. The fire model gives general guidance andtypically calculates behavior under worst-case weather conditions over time. Any project that would not be consistent with the consultant/fire authority's recommendations based on the Fire Behavior Modeling,fire history, and personal experience or expertise for that site may result in a potentially significant impact and may presentsignificantrisk of loss,injury or death. The third guideline for determining significance is based on the need to have adequate fire services available in order to provide sufficient emergency responsein the event of a wildfire or other emergency. Applicants are required to obtain a Project Facility Availability Form (DPLU Form #399F) that is to be completed and signed by the Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction (FAHJ) prior to formally submitting the project application to the County. The FAHJ will review the project and determine whetherexisting fire services are adequate to serve the project. A Project Facility Availability Form that showsthat a project is not located within the fire district boundaries andis not eligible for service, does not meet the travel time requirements specified under the County’s General Plan, is unable to implement the required FMZ, or is unable to provide adequate waterfireflow and pressure mayresult in a potentially significant impact and may present significant risk . of loss, injury or death. Travel time is determined by measuring the mostdirect reliable route from the nearestfire station obligated to respond to the site to the most remote portion of the project with consideration given to safe operating speeds for heavy fire apparatus and the types of roads being used and neighborhoods traveled. Fire agencies typically encourage use of major roads versus traveling through private residential neighborhoods. Travel time does not include reflex or reaction time, or on- scene size-up andset-up prior to attacking the fire, all of which are critical precursors of actualfire fighting. Travel time may be calculated by using NFPA 1142 Tabie C.11 (b), SANDAGlayering, DPLU-GIS softwaretravel time mapping, actual emergencytravel time run data, or actual driving tests using fire apparatus. Deferenceis typically given to the FAHJ. 4.1__ FIRE PROTECTION PLANS A Fire Protection Pian is a documentthat describes the level of fire hazard that would affect or be caused by a proposed development and the methods proposed to minimize that hazard. The FPP also evaluates the consistency of the proposed project with applicable fire protection regulations. In order to minimize hazards and meetfire code requirements, the FPP may include recommendations that involve limitations on future land use on the subject property, building construction standards, vegetation management, access improvements,installation of fire suppression facilities, and other design measures. The FPP must include measures to address the specific location, topography, geology,level of flammable vegetation and climate of the proposed project site. The FPP must be prepared consistent with applicable fire codes and be accepted by the FAHJ and County. The plan must demonstrate compliance with the applicable fire code or how the measures proposed to reduce fire hazards are adequate to meet Guidelines for Determining Significance 10 Wildland Fire and Fire Protection the intent of the code. The following elements must be addressed in a FPP required as part of the review of a discretionary permit application: e Emergency Services- Availability and Travel Time; e Access for emergency services and evacuation of residents (primary and,if required, additional access): , Firefighting Water Supply; Fire Sprinkler System: Ignition Resistant Construction; and, Defensible Space, Ornamental Landscaping and Vegetation Management Each of these design considerations is detailed below and includes discussions on relevant Federal, State and local codes and the standards that are used to ensure compliance with the regulations. Failure to comply with either the fire code/regulations or the standards may result in a potentially significant impact. Refer to section 2 “Report Format and Content Requirements Wildland Fire and Fire Protection’. 4.2___ PLAN ACCEPTANCE PROCESS Fire Protection Plan preparers should work with the local FAHJ. Once the plan is prepared and submitted to the local fire agency,it will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable ordinances and regulations. If practical difficulties in achieving compliance have beenidentified and modifications or alternate methods are proposed, they must also be evaluated by the FAHJ. If the FAHJ determines that the plan is incomplete or inadequate, it should be sent back to the preparerwith a letter explaining why. If the plan proposes modifications due to practical difficulties in meeting the code requirements, the FAHJ should determine whether to grant a modification. If the FAHJ approves a modification, the FAHJ should send a letter to the applicant and DPLUfinding that special individual reasons make compliance with the strict letter of the code impracticable, the proposed modification complies with the intent and purpose of the code, and the modification does not lessen health, life and fire safety requirements. The FAHJ must include an explanation for eachfinding. Concurrent with the process at the local FAHJ, the County DPLU will also review the plan. The plan will be reviewed for completeness and code compliance. If the plan is found to be complete, code compliant and to have been accepted by the FAHJ, an acceptanceletter will be prepared. If the plan is found to be incomplete, to be inconsistent with code requirements or not to have been accepted by the FAHJ, DPLU will not accept the plan. The County Fire Code and the County Consolidated Fire Code include a procedure for appealing the decision of the FAHJ relating to the application of the applicable fire code. The County will make every effort to provide sufficient time for the FAHJ to review and comment on the proposed project and associated Fire Protection Plan. If comments are not received from the FAHJ in a timely manner, DPLU will assumethat the FAHJ has no Guidelines for Determining Significance 11 Wildland Fire and Fire Protection g a 00L0-22b (988) W o o e u j u O q M I a a N T e ~ ~ MARIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW GUIDELINES (EIR GUIDELINES) POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Marin County Community Development Agency Planning Division, Room 308 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, California 94903 Adopted May 17, 1994 Marin County Board of Supervisors MARIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS Marin County Procedures for Implementation of CEQA Page I. Purpose and Objectives... cee ccceceeesec eee eneeteceeeneeeeneeeetecetnetiseeetaes ] I. Definitions... cccccceccecceeeeeee sens ceneeeeeeeeeeneeseaueteaeesaeecnsesseeeeeneasneeersaeey 1-4 I. Environmental Coordinator Duties 2.0... cecccceeeeceeseeereeenseeenteneneneees 4-5 IV. Environmental Impact Evaluation Procedure ...........cccscceseseereeeees 5 - 12 V. Preparation of Environmental Impact Reports........--.ceceeee 12-14 VI. Processing of Draft Environmental Impact Reports«0.0.0.0.ee 15-21 VI. Issuance of Negative Declaration...cececeesee entree ces seeeeeeteeetineey 21-23 VII. Mitigation Monitoring...ccccceee nee eee ee eeeeeeeeeeneeseneeaereritenereees 23 IX. Notice of Determination. 0... ccecceccceceecne riers rnenteeesetesseensseteeneeeneees 24 xX. Appeal Procedures ......ccccccccccccseceneetee ce eeeeeteneeeneeeeecaranenenatienieneenetaees 24 - 25 XI. Review of Environmental Documents Prepared by Agencies Other Than Those of Marin County... cceseceeeeeerees 25 XM. Time for Completion of Environmental Documents...........0..cscs 25 XII. Time Requirements for Development Projects Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining ACt.....ccccscsens eseeeeeeeeeeeeeereeneeteerentenens 26 - 27 9.a ol<1cEESOSEO ESE ESSE OSES TE ODE STSSOOSOESOSSSTSSSSOSSSSSSSSOSSSSSS 27 Appendices Page ie H Administrative Procedures for Selecting and Utilizing Consultants......... A-1 - A-12 Model Consultant Contract Form .....ssssccsssssesssseesseesstseessstesseccensennesennaseee B-1 - B-3 Notice of Exemption Porm... cccccscecceeccceeneseneneceeteseeneneeteseeatereencas C-l Notice of Determination Form - Negative Declaration/EIR ................0- D-1 State Clearinghouse Transmittal FOr...cccence tet ener ere e ree ctees E-1] - E-2 Notice of Preparation Forms .......cccccc csc een eeteen rene re renee rrr ere ea esas F-] - F-2 Notice of Draft Negative Declaration Forms...........:ccccceereeeneeeeeeneeets G-1 - G-2 Notice of Completion Forms ~ Draft EUR ........ccceeetee cette tent eees H-1 - H-2 Notice of Distribution Forms- Final EDR...eeeeeeetree erie I-] - 1-2 Negative Declaration Form .......cccccccseecec ne eeeenee rite ceteris nsenesteeereess J-] -J-2 Initial Study Check List Form 0.0... ccccneeeee cee ence eneenrie ise teeeeneeeseeeees K-1 - K-13 Mitigation Monitoring Format ......0..:cccccc cece reer eee e rere nett teense ees L-| - L-7 Model CEQA Findings.............6cc coecaetaecseeeseceeeueeeusestetnecieteeteesteneeteees M-1 Criteria for Significance and List of Ministerial Projects ...........:eee N-1 - N-6 Environmental Review Submission FOLoo .e cece eeecceeeeeeneeeeeeesteneeeteeenseees O-1 - O-7 Environmental Assessment Notification and Procedures..........-0ss+- P-1 Environmental Review Process Summary/Flowchalt.........:cccccceeeeees Q-1 Ik. MARIN COUNTY PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Purpose and Objective The purpose ofthese regulations is to provide a guide for County Agencies and Departmentsin carrying out their responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These procedures do not replace the State requirements under CEQA,rather, they are intended to conform with and supplementState procedures by providing local process for the County. County Agencies and Departments mustfollow these proceduresin addition to the State requirements for implementing CEQA. The overall objective in adopting these procedures is to comply with the policies the legislature and courts have established for preserving and enhancing the environment. CEQAandthe State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, are incorporated by reference into these County procedures asif they wereset forth in full. In those instances where the County Procedures refer to CEQA orState CEQA Guidelines Sections, the section number may be given to facilitate reference to that section. It should be recognized that CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines are amended from time to time which may change the numberofthe section referenced in these County procedures depending on printing date. In the eventany part or provision of these procedures is determined to be invalid, the remaining portions thereof which can be separated from the invalid portions, shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect. Definitions A. Definitions Adopted. ‘Those definitions set forth in Title 14, Article 4 (beginning with Section 15350) of the California Administrative Code, (hereinafter cited as "State CEQA Guidelines") are hereby adopted and included verbatim. B. Additional Definitions by Marin County. 1. Board. Board means the Marin County Board of Supervisors. 2. County. County means the County of Marin. 3. Environmental Coordinator. Environmental Coordinator means the County Community Development Agency Director (CDA Director) or the person appointed by the CDA Director for the purpose of determining whether or not a project (either public or private) will have a significant effect on the environment and whetheror not environmental review of the project is required pursuant to CEQA. The Environmental Coordinator has the principal responsibility for implementing project environmental review pursuant to CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and these procedures. Page | APPENDIX K INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM Marin County Environmental Coordination and Review II. Hi. MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PLANNINGDIVISION INITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND a) Project Sponsor's Name and Address: b) Lead Agency Name and Address: c) Contact Person and Phone Number: PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) by c) d) 8) Project Title: Type of Application(s): Project Location: APN # General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to its purpose and objectives, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additionalsheets if necessary.) Environmental Setting: (Describe the environment, including any sensitive environmental resources, in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencementof the project, from both a local and regional ' perspective.) CIRCULATION AND REVIEW:(The agencies listed in the section include County departments or divisions which have jurisdictional authority and/or oversight over the project, as well as State, Federal or other jurisdiction-by-law agencies which may use this documentin executing their respective permit authority over the project.) a) Marin County Agencies: Agency/Division: (insert appropriate agency and division) Name: (insert name ofreviewing officer) The following signature of the agency reviewing officer attests to the completeness and adequacyofthe information contained in the Initial Study as it relates to the concerns which are germane to the agency's jurisdictional authority. Signature of Reviewing Officer Date IV. b) c) d) Responsible Agencies: (agencies whose approval is required and permits needed) Trustee Agencies: (State agencies who have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by project) OtherJurisdiction-By-Law Agencies: (other agencies which have permit authority over the project) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and the County EIR Guidelines, Marin County will prepare an Initial Study forall projects not categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The Initial Study evaluation ts a preliminary analysis of a project which provides the County with information to use as a the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration. The points enumerated below describe the primary procedural steps undertaken by the County in completing an Initial Study checklist evaluation and, in particular, the manner in which significant environmental effects of the project are made and recorded. A. The determinationof significant environmental effect is be based on substantial evidence contained in the administrative record and the County's environmental data base consisting of factual information regarding environmental resources and environmental goals and policies relevant to Marin County. As a procedural device for reducing the size of the Initial Study document, relevant information sources cited and discussed in topical sections of the checklist evaluation are incorporated by reference into the checklist (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Each of these information sources has been assigned a number whichis shownin parenthesis following each topical question and which corresponds to a numberon the data base source list provided herein as Attachment #1. See the sample question below. Othersources usedor individuals contacted may also be cited in the discussion of topical issues where appropriate. In general, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA wheneither the Initial Study demonstrates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have one or more significant effects on the environment. A Negative Declaration shall also be prepared if the Initial Study identifies potentially significanteffects, but revisions to the project madebyoragreedto by the applicant priorto release of the Negative Declaration for public review would avoid or reduce sucheffects to a level of less than significance, and there is no substantial evidence before the Lead County Departmentthat the project as revised will have a significant effect on the environment. A signature block is provided in Section VII of this Initial Study to verify that the project sponsor has agreed to incorporated mitigation measures into the project in conformancewith this requirement. All answers to the topical questions must take into account the whole of the 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. Significant unavoidable cumulative impacts shall be identified in Section VI of this Initial Study (Mandatory Findings of Significance). A brief explanation shall be given for all answers except "Not Applicable" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources the Lead County Department cites in the parenthesis following each question. A “Not Applicable” 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 "Not Applicable” answershail be discussed where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). "Less Than Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is found to be less than significant based on the project as proposed and without the incorporationof mitigation measures recommendedinthe Initial Study. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact" to a “Less than Significant Impact." The Lead County Department must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced). "Significant Impact” is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, orif the Lead County Department lacks information to make a finding that the effect is less than significant. If there are one or more effects which have been determined to be significant and unavoidable, an EIR shall be required forthe project. SAMPLE QUESTION: Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Potentially Less Than Not Impact Significant Significant Applicable Unless Impact Mitigated Would the proposal result in: Conflicts with applicable Countywide Plan { ] [ ] { ] [ j designationor zoning standards? (source #1, 3) (Attached source list explains that | is the Countywide Plan, and 3 is the zoning ordinance. This answer would probably need only abrief further explanation.) VI. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. a) b) Earlier analyses used. (Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.) Impacts adequately addressed. (/dentify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed bythe earlier document.) Mitigation measures. (For effects that are "potentially significant" or “potentially significant unless mitigated", 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.) K-3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Potentially Less Than Not Impact Significant Significant Applicable Unless Impact Mitigated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with applicable Countywide Plan designation or { ] [ ] [ ] [ ] zoning standards? (source #(s): ) b) Conflict with applicable environmentalplans or policies [ ] | | [ ] adopted by Marin County? (source #(s): ) c) Affect agricultural resources, operations, or contracts(e.g. { J { ] [ ] [ ] impacts to soils or farmlands, impacts from incompatible land uses, or conflicts with Williamson Act contracts)? (source #(s): ) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangementof anestablished [ } [ ] { ] { ] community (including a low-income or minority community)? (source #(s): ) e) Result in substantial alteration of the character or functioning [ ] { ] { ] { ] of the community, or present or planned use of an area? (source #f(s): ) f) Substantially increase the demand for neighborhood or [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] regionalparks orotherrecreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities? (source #(s): ) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: o a — — = 7a) Increase density that would exceed official population projections forthe planning area within which the project ‘site is located as set forth in the Countywide Plan and/or community plan? (source #(s): ) b) Induce substantial growthin an areaeither directly or [ ] [ ] {[ } [ ] indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (source #(s): ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] { ] [ ] [ ] (source #f(s): ) Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 3. GEOPITYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) b) c) Locationin an area of geologic hazards, including but not necessarily limited to: 1) active or potentially active fault zones; 2) landslides or mudslides; 3) slope instability or ground failure; 4) subsidence; 5) expansivesoils; 6) liquefaction; 7) tsunami ; or 8) similar hazards? (source #(s): , ) Substantial erosion of soils due to wind or waterforces and attendant siltation from excavation, grading, orfill? (source ##(s): ) Substantial changes in topography from excavation, grading or fill, including but not necessarily limited to: 1) ground surface relief features; 2) geologic substructures or unstable soil conditions; and 3) unique geologic or physical features? (source f(s): ) WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) d) €) Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (source ##(s): ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards, including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) flooding; 2) debris deposition; or 3) similar hazards ? (source #(s): ) Discharge of pollutants into surface or ground waters orother alteration of surface or ground water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygenorturbidity)? (source #(s): ) Substantial change in the amount of surface water in any water body or ground watercither through direct additions or withdrawals, or through intersection of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (source #(s): ) Substantial changesin the flow of surface or groundwaters, including, but not necessarilylimited to: 1) currents; 2) rate of flow; or 3) the course or direction of water movements? (source#(s): ) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? (source #Hs): ) K-5 Significant Potentially Less Than Not Impact Significant Significant Applicable Unless Impact Mitigated [ ] { ] {| [ | { ] { | { ] { ] [ ] [ J [ J { ] [ J [ J {| [ | [ J [ J [ J [ J [ ] { J [| [ } Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): AIR QUALITY. Wouldthe proposal: a) b) c) d) Generate substantial air emissions that could violate official air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (source #(s): ) Exposesensitive receptors to pollutants, such as noxious fumes or fugitive dust? (source #(s): ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any changein climate? (source éf(s): ) Create objectionable odors? (source #(s): ) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) d) Substantial increase in vehicletrips or traffic congestion such that existing levels of service on affected roadwayswill deteriorate below acceptable County standards? (source #(s): ) Traffic hazards related to: 1) safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerousintersections); 2) barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists; or 3) incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? (source #(s): _) Inadequate emergency access oraccess to nearby uses? (source #(s): ) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (source #(s): ) Substantial impacts upon existing transportation systems, including rail, waterborne orairtraffic systems? (source #(s): ) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) b) Reduction in the numberof endangered, threatened or rare species, or substantial alteration of their habitats including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) plants; 2) fish; 3) insects; 4) animals; and 5) birds listed as special-status species by State or Federal Resource Agencies? (source #(s): ) Substantial changein the diversity, number, or habitat of any species of plants or animals currently presentorlikely to occur at any time throughout the year? (source é#(s) ) Significant Impact { J { ] [ J { ] [ ] [ ] [ J [ J { ] { J [ J Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated [ ] [ | { | [ J [ | [ ] [ | [ ] ( J [ J [ ] Less Than Not Significant Applicable Impact [ ] [ ] [ | [ | [ J [ ] {| [ J { J { ] { ] [ ] { ] [ ] { | [ J LJ [ J { ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 10. Cc) Introduction of new species of plants or animals into anarea, or improvementsoralterations that would result in a barrier to the migration, dispersal or movementof animals? (source #(s): ) ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) Substantial increase in demand forexisting energy sources, or conflict with adopted policies or standards for energy use? (source ##(s): ) Use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and tnefficient manner? (source #(s): ) Loss of significant mineral resource sites designatedin the Countywide Plan from premature developmentor other land uses which are incompatible with mineral extraction? (source ds): ). HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) e) A risk of accidental explosionor release of hazardous substances including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) oil, pesticides; 2) chemicals; or 3) radiation)? (source #(s): ) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (source #(s): ) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (source #(s): ) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (source #(s): ) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammablebrush,grass, or trees? (source#(s): ) NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) b) Substantial increases in existing ambient noise levels? (source #(s): (source #(s): ) Exposure of people to significantnoise levels, or conflicts with adopted noise policies or standards? (source #(s): ) kK-7 Significant Impact [ J [ J [ ] [ J [ ] { J [ J [ J { J [ | [ ] Potentially Less Than Not Significant Significant Applicable Unless Impact Mitigated [ ] [ ] [ J { ] { ] [ ] { | [ ] L | [ ] [ J [ ] [ ] { | [ ] [ | [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ J { | { | [ | [ ] [ J [ ] { | { J { J { J { J { ] Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 11. 12. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have aneffect upon, or result in a needfor newor altered governmentservice in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (source i(s): . ) b) Police protection? (source #(s): ) c) Schools? (source #(s): ) d) Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads? (source #(s): ) e) Other governmental services? (source #(s): ) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a needfor new-systems, or substantialalterationsto the following utilities: a) Poweror natural gas? (source #(s): ) b) Communications systems? (source#(s): ) c) Local or regional water treatmentordistribution facilities? (source #(s): ) d) Seweror septic tanks? (source #(s): ) e) Storm water drainage? (source #(s): ) f) Solid waste disposal? (source #(s): ) AESTHZETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Substantially reduce, obstruct, or degrade a scenic vista open to the public or scenic highway, or conflict with adopted aesthetic or visual policies or standards? (source #(s): ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect by causing a substantial alteration of the existing visual resources including, but not necessarily limited to: 1) an abrupt transition in land use; 2) disharmony with adjacent uses because of height, bulk or massing of structures; or 3) cast of a substantial amountoflight, glare, or shadow? (source #(s): ) K-8 Significant Impact { ] [ J [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] { J [ ] [ ] [ J { J Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated [ J [ } [ |] [ J [ | [ J { J [ | [ ] [ J LJ [ J [ ] Less Than Not Significant Applicable Impact [ | [ |} [ J [ ] { ] { | [ ] { ] [ |] [| [ ] [ | [ J [ J { | { J [ } { |} [ ] [ ] [ | { | [| [ ] { | [ ] APPENDIX N CRITERIA FOR SIGNIFICANCE AND LIST OF MINISTERIAL PROJECTS Marin County Environmental Coordination and Review CRITERIA FOR SIGNIFICANCE Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment (Public Resources Code section 21068). The guidelines implementing CEQAdirect that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. The following criteria, coupled with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, are intended to provide general guidance to EJR preparer's in characterizing the significance of impacts. Geology, Soils and Seismicity Geotechnical hazards include the effects of seismically induced groundshaking, fault rupturc, landsliding, and weak or unstable soils conditions that represent potential risks to public health or that could result in damageto structures. Specific site investigations should evaluate the following: - Is the site located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, or contain a knownactive fault zone, or an area characterized by surface rupture that might be related to a fault? - Does the substrate consist of material that is subject to liquefaction or other secondary seismic hazards in the event of groundshaking? - Is there any evidence of static hazards, such as landsliding or excessively steep slopes, that could result in slope failure? - Is the site in the vicinity of soil that is likely to collapse, as might be the case with karst topography, old mining properties or areas of subsidence caused by groundwater drawdown? - Are soils characterized by shrink/swell potential that might result in deformation of foundations or damageto structures? - Is the site located in a Mineral Resource Zone identified by the California Department of Mines and Geology or within an.area designated as important Farmland identified by the Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture)? - Is the site located next to a water body that might be subject to tsunamis or seiche waves? _\ Hydrology and Water Quality Criteria for determining the significance of hydrology and water quality impacts related to whether the proposed project would result in the substantial degradation of surface or groundwater resources compared to prevailing conditions, or whether it would cause or increase the potential for substantial flooding, erosionorsiltation. Analyses should consider the following: - Doesthe project proposefacilities that would be located in flood-prone areas? - Does the project propose facilities that would increase off-site flood hazard, erosion or sedimentation? - Does the project propose uses orfacilities that would substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources? - Does the project propose facilities that wouldinterfere substantially with groundwater recharge? - Does the project propose uses orfacilities that would substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Biological Resources - Would the project substantially reduce the numberorrestrict the range ofarare, endangered or threatened plant or animal? Wouldthe project cause a fish or wildlife population drop to belowsel f-sustaining levels? - Would the project adversely affect significant riparian lands, wetlands, marshes, and other significant wildlife habitats? Cultural Resources The significance of impacts to historical and archaeological resources is generally determined by whether federally or State-listed resources are affected by the project. - Does the project disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or archaeologicalsite, or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group, ora paleontological site, except as part of a scientific study? - Doesthe project affect a local landmarkof local cultural/historical importance? Visual Quality - Does the project comply with County goals and policies related to visual quality? - Does the project significantly alter the existing natural viewsheds, including changes in natural terrain or vegetation? - Does the project significantly change the existing visual quality of the region or eliminate significant visual resources? - Does the project significantly increase light and glare in the project vicinity? - Does the project significantly reduce sunlight or introduce shadowsin areas used extensively by the public? Land Use - Does the proposed project call for land uses that would convert prime agricultural land to non- agricultural use or impairthe productivity of prime agricultural land? - Does the proposedprojectconflict with County land use goals or policies? - Does the proposedproject call for land uses that would conflict with existing or proposed usesat the periphery ofthe project area or with other local land use plans? - Does the project result in conversion of open space into urban or suburban scale development? - Does the proposed project conflict with local zoning? - Would the proposed project result in nuisance impacts as a result of incompatible land uses? Population, Employment and Housing - Does the project induce substantial growth or concentration of population? - Does the project conflict with the housing and population projections and policies as set forth in the Countywide Plan? Traffic and Circulation - Does the project traffic significantly impact intersection Level of Service (LOS) resulting in an unacceptable service Jevel (e.g. below LOS D). - . Doesthe project have adequate parking and internal circulation capacity to accommodate projected traffic so that off-site areas are not adversely affected? - Does the project include provisions for pedestrian and bicycle circulation and bicycle and motorcycle parking and security? Air Qualit - Would the project cause or contribute substantially to existing or projectedair quality violations? - Would the project result in exposure of sensitive receptors (i.e. individuals with respiratory diseases, the young, the elderly) to substantial pollutant concentrations? - Would toxic air contaminants (TAC's) cause a significant health risk above the Air Pollution Control!District's level of significance, if any (e.g. cancer risk of more than one in a million)? Noise - Would the project generate noise that would conflict with Countywide noise standards or other state local noise standards? - Does the project propose land uses that substantially increase noise levels in areas of sensitive receptors? - Is the land use proposed by the project compatible with the baseline noise levels? Public Services - Does the project require additional police/sheriff staffing, facilities or equipment to maintain acceptable service ratios? - Doesthe project require additionalfire staff, facilities or equipment to maintain an acceptable level of service (e.g. response time, rating, other)? - Does the project require additional school capacity orfacilities? - Does the project require designation of additional parkland to remain in conformance with locally acceptable or adopted park standards? Utilities - Does the project propose a significant increase in the consumptionof potable water? - Does the project require substantial expansion of water supply, treatmentor distribution facilities? - Does the project require expansion of wastewater treatmentordistribution facilities? - Is a landfill available with sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposedproject? N-4 Energy - Does the project proposeto utilize energy, oil or natural gas in an efficient manner? - Would the project encourageactivities that would result in the use of large amountsof energy, oil or natural gas? - Does the energy supplier have the capacity to supply the project's energy needs with existing supplies? planned supplies? - Would the project require the development of new energy resources? Hazardous Substances - Does the project pose a public health and safety hazard through release of emissions orrisk of upset? - Doesthe project interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? - Doesthe project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? - Doesthe project result in unsafe conditions for employces, visitors or students? Fiscal/Economic Impacts (optional) Fiscal and economic impacts can be used to make a determination of significance regarding a physica] changein the environmentthroughthe chain of cause andeffect. (Guidelines section 15131) - Does the project result in a fiscal surplus ordeficit to the County? - Will the project result in the blighting or abandonmentofexisting development? Growth Inducing Impacts - Will the project extend urbanservices into a previously unserved area? - Will the project remove a major obstacle to development and growth? - Does the project in any wayset a precedent for additional growth in the area? - Would the project induce development to supportthe uses proposed? Cumulative Impacts - Are any of the above-impacts significant when the project is combined with past, present and ‘reasonably foreseeable projects in the affected geographic area for each impact category (e.g. airbasin forair quality, watershed, etc.) Geographical areas will vary for each impact category and should be justified. N-5 & > 0020-229 (988) W o o a u j O O M s 3 N T E 2 - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTERING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Department of Conservation & Development July 2010 Adopted by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors August 3, 2010 (Board Resolution No. 2010/402) Article 1. General |. APPLICATION These guidelines are applicable to Contra Costa County and special districts and agencies governed by the Board of Supervisors. They have been prepared to be consistent with and to supplement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State Guidelines. il. PURPOSE The purposeof these guidelinesis to set forth definitions, procedures, andcriteria to be used by Contra Costa County in implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and Chapter 4.5 of the Government code, Sections 65920, et seq. The legally required preparation, review, and comment procedures for environmental! documents provide the opportunity for citizens, all professional disciplines and public agencies to critically evaluate the environmental document and the mannerin which technical data are used. ili. POLICY A. INFORMATION DOCUMENT. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational documentwhich, when fully prepared in accordance with CEQA and these Guidelines,will (1) Information governmental! decision-makers and the public about potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. (2) identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided orsignificantly reduced. (3) Prevent signficant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agencyfinds the changesto befeasible.. (4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose. (5) Evaluate public and private projects with the samelevel of environmental review. The information in an EIR constitutes evidence that Contra Costa County shall consider along with any other information which may be presented. While major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage,it is recognized that Contra Costa County has obligations to 15126. Consideration and Discussion of Environmental Impacts All phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment: planning, acquisition, development, and operation. The subjects listed below shall be discussed as directed in Sections 15126.2, 15126.4 and 15126.6, preferably in separate sections or paragraphs of the EIR. If they are not discussed separately, the EIR shall include a table showing where eachof the subjects is discussed. (a) Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project. (b) Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented. (c) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented. (d) Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project. (e) The Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Significant Effects. (f) Alternatives to the Proposed Project. 15126.2 Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts (a) The Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project. An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changesin the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is ‘published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced. Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environmentshall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and_ residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. The EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected. For example, an EIR ona subdivision astride an active fault line should identify as a significant effect the seismic hazard to future occupants of the subdivision. The subdivision would have the effect of attracting people to the location and exposing them to the hazards found there. Similarly, the EIR should evaluate any potential significant impacts of locating development in other areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g. floodplains, coastlines,wildlife fire risk areas) as identified in authoritative hazard maps, risk assessments, or in land use plans addressing such hazards. 68 B e e . ai ve si Rd on ii ne .c om (8 88 ) 47 7- 07 00 Q OLOCAVW Ov6E6VD‘AINaLNOW POEALINS‘MOMAYINNV)G9 Wd ‘Aqpasedaid EL6E6VINYOSNVD“VNINVW 608XO€‘O'd OVEWY JO}pasedaid ELOLIOFOOT#HPSNOYsULIea]D21215 SLNAWNYAAO!Y)JOWONNODALNNOZOLINIGNVS NV1dNOILVLYOdSNVaLTIWNOIDIY ALNNOZOLINIGNVSOL0Z NOISSIWWODNOILVLYOdSNVAYLTWNOIDIYALNNOZDZNYDVINVS NV1dNOILVLYOdSNVA|IWNOIDAY ALNNODZNYDVLINVSOLOZ ALNNO7)ATNILNOW4O4AINIDYNOILLVIYOdSNVY| NW1dNOILVLYOdSNVYLTWNOIDIY ALNNODAINILNOWOLOZ !40DNILSISNOD SLNIWNAFAOY)VVAVGAWWILNOW4ONOILVIDOSSY NV1dNOILVLYOdSNVY|NVLITOdOULIW VANAVGAJAILNOWOLOZ 1NOdIYLOVdW]TVINAWNOUIANYIVINIW31ddNS TVNIJ FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT 2010 MONTEREY BAY AREA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN SCH No. 2004061013 Preparedfor: AMBAG P.O. Box 809 Marina, California 93933 Contact: Randy Deshazo,Principal Planner Ph: (831) 883-3750 Fax: (831) 883-3755 Preparedby: PMC 585 Cannery Row,Suite 304 Monterey, California 93940 Contact: Tad Stearn, Project Manager Ph: (831) 644-9174 Fax: (831) 644-7696 May 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE A. Purposeof the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report B. Organization of the FSEIR C. Public Review Process D. Final Versions of the MTP and Individual RTPs Relative to the SEIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES List of Letters Jean Getchell, MBAUPCD Amy White, LandWatch Jack Nelson, Campaign for Sensible Transportation Richard Stover Bill Malone Rick Longinotti ReedSearle, Santa Cruz PRT Aileen k. Loe, Cal Trans Christine di lorio, City of Marina Joseph Thompson Debbie Bulger, Mission: PedestrianA T T O M M O N w > REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR FSEIR APPENDIX A. Additional EMFAC2007 Model Results FSEIR — MONTEREY BAY REGION — 2010 MTP Page P-1 P-i P-2 P-2. P-3 C&R-1 C&R-3 C&R-13 C&R-16 C&R-22 C&R-28 C&R-31 C&R-35 C&R-38 C&R-48 C&R-50 C&R-77 R-1 A-1 PAGE TOC-1 REVISIONS TO THE Draft EIR Page 3.3-24: Quantify and documentproject relationship to nearby land uses to demonstrate reductionsis vehicle miles traveled AEMEVMT) consistent with $B375. Quantify transportation efficiency created by the project (improvements in levels of service, reduction in YFM-VMT,reductions in idling, etc.) to demonstrate resulting reductions in GHGs. Pages ES-13; 3.3-25; 3.3-26 IMPACT3.3.7: Secondary Effects of Sea Level Rise The potential impacts of sea level rise are considered a secondary effect of global climate change, a cumulative effect that extends well beyond this region. This potential effect is not a_direct result of this project, but rather the potential exposure of coastal transportation projects to this phenomenon. As identified in Table 3-3, the potential effects of climate change on transportation facilities includes the potential operational and infrastructure impacts that may occur from sea level rise. Sea level rise, including increased range and intensity of storm surge events, may result in interruptions in travel and circulation, inundation of roads andrail lines, erosion and scour of road base and bridge supports, and reduced bridge clearance. Projections for levels of sea level rise along the California coast vary greatly, and most modeled timelines, which often project out to year 2100, greatly exceed the 2035 timeframe of this MTP. However, even modest increases in sea level rise in the near term could have ramifications for transportation facilities located directly along the coastline, particularly in areas that are more susceptible to erosion, and where bluff and dune retreat is already occurring. Specific vulnerabilities for individual projects within the MTP cannotbepredicted at this time. However, the implications of sea level rise as a secondary effect of climate change and GHG emission should not be ignored, and is considered a potentially significanteffect ef related to MTP implementation. Mitigation Measure 3.3.7: Addressing Secondary Effects — Sea Level Rise In those instances where MIP/RTP projects are exposed to tisk or hazards from Hf ptejeets; changes or rises in sea level in coastal this exposure ithe—vieinity-of transportation can be considered a secondary effect of long term changesin climate conditions. To address long term secondary effects the following strategies are recommendedto address long term transportation planning preseribed: e AMBAG and the RTPAs in coastal areas shall work with the FAMG, ‘Coastal Commission, coastal land use agencies, and other partners to address vulnerability of the areas region’s transportation infrastructure and appropriate adaptation strategies to protect transportation related capital improvements. Examples could include, but are not be limitedto: PAGE R-10 FINAL SEIR -MONTEREY BAY REGION — 2010 MTP REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR * Designs for new transportation projects in coastal areas shall should demonstrate that they have factored in sea level rise and potential increases in storm surge inundation, and have budgeted for necessary mitigation measures to adapt to projected sealevel rise and storm surge. =" For transportation projects that increase the capacity of existing infrastructure, project sponsors ska should demonstrate they have investigated existing facilities’ vulnerability to sea level rise and potential increases in storm surge inundation. Budgeting for adaptation, avoidance, abandonment, relocation or other measures shall be considered in transportation planning in coastal areas. Similarly, any mitigation strategy pursued to address sea level nse shall consider the effects of that strategy on other coastal zone resources as identified by the Coastal Act. Chapter 3.4 — Biological Resources Page ES-12: MITIGATION MEASURE3.4.1a: Avoidance and Design Modification For each project identified in the financially constrained Action Element of the 2010 MTP where habitat modification may be anticipated, the following measures may be used by the implementing agency to reduce modification of areas which currently provide habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species, and interference with the movementofresident or migratory fish or wildlife species:: A. Prier-tethefnalization As early as possible in the developmentof project design, the area in which the project is proposed should be thoroughly surveyed to determine the presence or absence ofhabitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species, and to determine the extent to which project construction may interfere with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. If special status species are known to occur or have the potential to occur, appropriate resource agency contacts shall, where appropriate, be made and mitigation developed in consultation with a qualified biologist and the resource agencies. B. If initial biological assessments for a proposed project identified in the 2010 MTP determine the presence or potential presence of a state or federally listed species onthesite, the implementing agencyshall, where appropriate, consult with the California Department of FINAL EIR — MONTEREY BAY REGION - 2005 TRANSPORTATION PLANS PAGE R-11 - ( urog e u y u a 0020-2L+ (889} M O G M E I N T T 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project File No. GP07-02-01, PDC07-098, and PDC09-004 SCH # 2009052053 Prepared bythe: SANJOSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY September 2009 Section 2.0 — EnvironmentalSetting, Impacts, and Mitigation While CEQAdoesnotspecifically define what amountofnoise level increase is considered significant, generally, in high noise environments,a project is considered by the City to have a significant impactif the project would: 1) substantially and permanently increase existing noise levels more than three dBA DNL(three decibels is the minimum increase generally perceptible by the humanear); or 2) would cause ambientnoise levels to exceed the guidelines established by the General Plan. Per the General Plan, the City’s acceptable noise level objectives are 55 dBA DNLasthe long-range exterior noise quality level, 60 dBA DNLasthe short-rangeexterior noise quality level, 45 dBA DNLas theinterior noise quality level, and 76 dBA DNL as the maximum exteriornoise level necessary to avoid significant adverse health effects (Noise Policy 1). The objectives are established for the City, recognizing that the attainmentofexterior noise quality levels in the environs of the San José International Airport, the Downtown Core Area, and along major roadways may not be achieved in the time frame of the General Plan. Based onthe abovethresholds and the City’s standards, a significant noise impact would resultif: e Exteriornoise levels at proposed sensitive land uses (e.g., residences) would exceed 60 dBA DNLorifthe interior day-night average noise levels would exceed 45 dBA DNL; e The project would exposesensitive residential receptors to day-night average noise levels exceeding the General Plan noise standard of 55 dBA DNL(orthe ambient noise level if existing noise levels currently exceed the standard); ° A permanentnoise level increase resulting from the project is three dBA DNLorgreater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA DNLorgreater; or ° A temporary noise level increase would occur where noise from project construction activities exceed 60 dBA Leg and the ambient noise environmentbyat least five dBA Leg at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity for a period greater than one year. The following discussion distinguishes betweenthe noise impacts from the project upon the surrounding environment and impacts resulting to the project from the surrounding environment. 2.4.3.1 Airport West Stadium Component Noise Impacts to the Airport West Stadium Component Ambient Noise Impacts Asdiscussedpreviously, primary sources of noise at the Airport West Stadium site are vehicular traffic on Coleman Avenue,aircraft noise from the airport, and railroad noise from the railroad tracks south of the site. The existing ambient noiselevel at the Airport West stadium site is 66 dBA DNL. The Airport West Stadium componentproposesa stadium, whichis not considered a noise sensitive land use. For this reason, the ambient noise level at the Airport West Stadium site would not significantly impact the proposed stadium. Impact NOI — 1: The Airport West Stadium component would not be subjectto significant ambient noise impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of San José 155 Draft EIR Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project September 2009 Section 2.0 — Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation 2.4.3.2 Great Oaks Place Component Noise Impacts to the Great Oaks Place Component Future Exterior Noise Levels Noise From Transportation Noise Sources The future noise environmentat the Great Oaks Place site would result primarily from vehicular traffic along SR 85, Monterey Highway,andrailroad operations along the UPRR. Future transportation-related noise levels at the Great Oaks Place site were calculated based on adjustments made to existing noise level data assuming future increased traffic along area roadways and the railroad. Exterior noise levels throughout the Great Oaks Placesite are estimated to range from 63 dBA DNLnearthe fruit dehydrator building on-site to 77 dBA DNL near SR 85. Noiselevels throughout the Great Oaks Place site would exceed the City’s short-range exterior noise level of 60 dBA DNL,but would vary depending on the proximity ofthe residential units to the roadways and the presence of shielding features, such as buildings. Exterior noise levels in outdoor use areas nearest SR 85 wouldlikely exceed the City’s short-term noise goal of 60 dBA DNL, however, the City recognizesthat it may notbe possible to reduce exterior noise levels to meet the noise goal near major roadways(e.g., SR 85), in the downtowncore area, or near the airport. Impact NOI - 7: The Great Oaks Place development(especially those nearest SR 85) would be exposedto exterior noise levels above the City’s short-term exterior noise quality level of 60 dBA DNL.(Significant Impact) Noise From Adjacent Equinix Operations (Existing and Proposed) While the City’s General Plan property line noise guideline of 55 dBA DNLisintended to avoid noise compatibility issues between non-residential and residential land uses, the use this metric is not necessarily the most appropriate method for assessing intermittent noise sources, such as the emergency generators (existing and proposed) at the Equinix property. A more appropriate comparison for such intermittent noise sources would be made using the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq). The Leq measures the average noise level over a given periodoftime such as the noisiest hour (e.g., when generators are being tested). Currently, the existing noise level at the property line between the Great Oaks Place site and the Equinix property ranges from 63 to 68 dBA Leg. As discussed previously, the testing of the existing diesel generators at the SV1 building would yield average noise levels of about 83 to 84 dBA Leg at the portion of the Great OaksPlacesite nearest to the SV1 building. Testing and emergency operations at SV1 would substantially increase ambientnoise levels, as operational noise levels would exceed ambient conditions by 15 to 21 dBA Leg. Operationalnoise levels resulting form the proposed SV5 project are calculated to be 48 dBA L,, at the nearest Great Oaks Place property line. While the proposed SVS facility would not increase noise levels at the property line between the Great Oaks Place site and the Equinix property, the testing of the existing generators at the SV1 facility would substantially increase the existing property line noise levels from 63 to 68 dBA Leg to 83 to 84 dBA [. This equates to a 70-year lifetime cancerrisk of 3.6 excess cancercasesper million people living near the source. Equinix has submitted an application to expandits operations. Equinix is proposing a new building (SV5) that will have seven additional standby diesel generators. These generators would be subject to more stringent emission standardsestablished by CARB and adopted by BAAQMD.Therefore, the modeled DPM concentrationsfrom these proposed generators would be less than the existing generators. The maximum predicted annual concentration ofDPM from SV5 would be 0.0060 ug/m’, which equates to a 70-yearlifetime cancerrisk of 1.9 excess cancer casesper million people. Combination ofNearby Sources (SR 85 and Equinix generators) The combination of impacts from SR 85 and Equinix (SV1 and proposed SV5) was estimated by adding the maximumrisk from all three sources. This is considered a conservative approach and estimate. Using this approach, the excess cancer risk due to exposure from these sources would be 7.6 excess cancer cases per million people, which is below the BAAQMDthreshold of 10 excess cancer cases per million people. This is considered less than significant impact. The actual cancer risks at the site, however, would be less because the receptors most affected by the freeway are not affected much by the Equinix sources. Impact AIR — 9: The Great Oaks Place component would not be exposed to significant levels ofDPM. (Less ThanSignificant Impact) City of San José 189 Draft EIR Airport West Stadium and Great OaksPlace Project September 2009 Section 2.0 — EnvironmentalSetting, Impacts, and Mitigation SCVWD.Asdiscussed previously, the SCVWDoperates a comprehensive dam safety program to ensure public safety through routine monitoring and studying ofits dams. A preliminary study that examined how Anderson Dam mightperform after a major earthquake was recently completed in December 2008. The preliminary study, which was based on limited data, foundthe presence of somealluvial materials (sands andgravel) in part of the dam’s foundation. A comprehensive study is currently underway. If the comprehensivestudy finds that the encountered alluvial materials are widely present in the dam’s foundation, a major earthquake on the Calaveras or Coyote Creek faults could pose a risk to downstream areas. The comprehensive study is expected to be completed in December 2010.* The DSODhas imposed a temporary restriction on Anderson Dam toa levelof40 feet below the crest of the dam (20.6 feet below the spillway) as an extra measureofsafety until further engineering analyses deem restriction is no longer warranted.” In addition, the SCVWDhas a comprehensive emergency action plan for Anderson Dam, which includes sending teams to inspect damsafter moderate-or-greater earthquakes. If it were determined that a dam wasatrisk of failing, SCVWD would notify appropriate emergency response agencies, including fire and police departments. In general, while the Great OaksPlacesite is located within the inundation area for Anderson Dam, the SCVWD’s comprehensive dam safety program and emergencyaction plan ensures public safety. Forthis reason,the site is not subject to a significantrisk of loss, injury or death involving dam inundation. Water Quality The existing stormwater runoff quality from thesite is similar to that of typical urban runoff (€.g., contaminated with oil and grease, plant and animal debris, pesticides,litter, and heavy metals), which have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. 2.8.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Thresholdsof Significance The following thresholds of significance are derived from Appendix G ofthe CEQAGuidelines and the City of San José General Plan and policies. These thresholds have been used by the City of San José as a matter of practice in the environmental review process. For the purposesofthis project, a hydrology and water quality impactis consideredsignificantif the project would: ° Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; ° Substantially degrade or deplete groundwaterresourcesor interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would bea netdeficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwatertable level; bin/pickdamx.pl. 2) Santa Clara Valley Water District. Anderson Dam EAP 2003 Flood Inundation Map. Sheet5. March 2003. * Santa Clara Valley Water District. Frequently Asked Questions. Anderson Reservoir. January 2009. Available at: http://www.valleywater.org/Water/Where_Your_WaterComesFrom/Local_Water/Reservoirs/Anderson.shtm. ** Hook, David. Email from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Dam Safety Program Unit, Engineering Unit Manager. “Re: Information request re: inundation from Anderson Dam.” 27 January 2009. °° Santa Clara Valley Water District. Frequently Asked Questions. Anderson Reservoir. January 2009. Available at: http://www.valleywater.org/Water/Where_Your_Water_Comes_From/Local_Water/Reservoirs/Anderson.shtm. City of San José 223 Draft EIR Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project September 2009 Section 2.0 — Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation ° Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration of a stream orriver, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoffin a manner which would result in flooding on- oroff-site; ° Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a stream orriver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; e Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; ° Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwaterquality; ° Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impedeorredirect flood flows; ° Expose people orstructures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or ° Exposepeople or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 2.8.3.1 Airport West Stadium Component Hydrology and Drainage Currently, the Airport West Stadium site is approximately 89 percent (12.9 acres) impervious and approximately 11 percent (1.6 acres) pervious. With the construction of the proposed stadium,it is anticipated that the amount of impervious surfaces would decrease to 71 percent (10.3 acres). Runoff from the Airport West Stadium site is delivered to Guadalupe River, an ultimately to the San Francisco Bay, via a 15-inch line in Coleman Avenue. Table 2.8-1 below summarizes the impervious and pervious surfaces of the Airport West Stadium site pre- and post-project. Development of the proposed project would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces on the Airport West Stadium site and therefore, decrease the quantity of stormwater runoff from that portion of the Airport West Stadium site as comparedto existing conditions. For this reason,it is anticipated that the existing storm drain lines are adequate to serve the Airport West Stadium componentand the proposed stadium would notresult in significant hydrology and drainage impacts. In addition, because the Airport West Stadium componentdoesnot result in an increase of impervious surfaces, it is exempt from City Policy 8-14. The Airport WestStadium site is not located within a natural or facility groundwater recharge area.~° The Airport West Stadium component does not propose to draw significant amounts of groundwater supplies which could lead to a draw-down of the groundwater aquifer. For these reasons, the Airport West Stadium component would not impede groundwater recharge or adversely affect the local groundwatertable level. Impact HYD - 1: The Airport West Stadium component would notresult in significant hydrology or drainage impacts, or impede groundwater recharge or adversely affect the local groundwater table level. (Less Than Significant Impact) °° Santa Clara Valley Water District. Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan.July 2001. City of San José 224 Draft EIR Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project September 2009 _] Section 2.0 — Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Table 2.8-1: Airport West Stadium — Summary of Impervious and Pervious Surfaces On the 14.5-acre Stadium Portion of the Site Existing/Pre- Project/Post- Difference Site Surface Construction % Construction % % (acres) (acres) (acres) Impervious Building Footprint 6.20 43 4.45 31 -1,.75 -12 Parking/Streets 6.73 46 5.89 40 -0.84 -6 Subtotal 12.93 8&9 10.34 71 -2.59 -18 Pervious Landscaping 1.57 li 4.16 29 +2.59 +18 Subtotal 1.57 11 4.16 29 +2.59 +18 Total 14.5 100 14.5 100 Flooding On-Site Flood Impacts and Inundation Based on FEMA FIRMsforthe City of San José, the Airport West Stadium site is not within a 100- year flood plain and/or protected from 100-year floods by levee, dike, or other structures. Therefore, the proposed stadium would not expose people to significant risks involving flooding. According to the FEMA FIRM,most of the Airport West Stadium site is located within Zone D, whichis defined as an area of undetermined,but possible, flood hazards.*” A small sliver of the Airport West Stadium site along Coleman Avenue near Newhall Drive is located in Zone X. The portion of the Airport West Stadiumsite that is within Zone X is protected from 100-yearfloods by a levee, dike, or other structures that are subject to possible failure during larger floods. Thesite is not subjectto seiche or tsunami.~® Asdiscussed previously, while the Airport West Stadium site is located within the inundation area for Lenihan Dam, Lenihan Dam is designed to have adequate seismic safety and is designed and operated to ensure adequate freeboard. In addition, the SCVWD’s comprehensive dam safety program ensures public safety. For these reasons, the site is not subject to a significantrisk ofloss, injury or death involving dam inundation. ImpactHYD —2: The Airport West Stadium site is not subject to seiche or tsunami. The Airport West Stadium component would not expose people to significant risk of floodingor inundation from dam failure. (Less Than Significant Impact) >? Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Community-Panel Number 06085C0018 D. Revised 25 October 2006. Available at: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/publicWorks/tds/PDFS/Flood/Panel%2018.pdf. Accessed: 19 May 2008. *8 Association of Bay Area Governments. ABAG Geographic Information Systems, Hazard Maps, Tsunami Evacuation Planning Map for San Francisco & San Mateo Counties. ABAG. California Office of Emergency Services. 22 June 2005. http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/tsunami/tsunami.html. City of San José 225 Draft EIR Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project September 2009 Section 2.0 — Environmental Seiting, Impacts, and Mitigation Table 2.9-2: Nearby Facilities That Could Impact the Great Oaks Place Site In the Event . of a Release Facility Name Location Chemicals of Concern AheadTek 6410 Via del Oro, approximately 370 feet south-southeast of the site 1% silane, 244 cubic feet of sulfur hexafluoride, 316 cubic feet of carbon tetrafluoride, 195 cubic feet of hydrogen, and 55 gallon quantities of waste solvents The Enterprise 6580 Via del Oro, 35 gallon quantities of solvent wastes, 35 Network/Alta approximately 1,700 feet poundsofsulfur hexafluoride, one gallon of Microtech southeastofthesite hydrofluoric acid, 70% nitric acid, and 200 gallons ofdilute acid waste solution Advanced 6389 San Ignacio Avenue, 230 cubic feet of sulfur hexafluoride, 230 Energy approximately 1,715 feet poundsofsulfur hexafluoride south-southeast of the site Techarmonic 19 Great Oaks Boulevard, Nine pounds of hydrobromicacid, one gallon of approximately 2,015 feet hydrochloric acid, 2.64 gallons of anhydrous northeast of the site ammonia, 200 cubic feet of nitrogen trifluoride, and 200 cubic feet of carbon tetrafluoride Craftsman 6660 Via del Oro, 80 pounds of propane and 55-gallons of Printing approximately 2,555 feet hydrocarbon solvent southeastofthe site Shell Station 101 Bernal Road, approximately 4,185 feet east ofthesite Two underground storage tanks at 20,000 gallons and 12,000 gallons Hitachi Global 5600 Cottle Road, 370 cubic feet of silane, 370 cubic feet ofStorage approximately 650 feet ammonia, 1,560 pounds of anhydrous ammonia,Technologies, westofthe site 2,600 gallons of mixed solvent wastes, andInc./IBM 7,000 gallons of waste isopropyl 2.9.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the City of San José General Plan and policies. These thresholds have been used by the City of San José as a matter of practice in the environmental review process. For the purposesof this project, a hazardous materials impactis considered significantifthe project would: e Create a significant hazardto the public or the environment throughthe routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; e 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; ° Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardousor acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; 251 Draft EIR September 2009 City of San José Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project Section 2.0 — Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation ® Be located ona site whichis included ona 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; e Fora 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; ° Impair implementationofor physically interfere with an adopted emergency responseplan or emergency evacuation plan; or e Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. 2.9.3.1 Airport West Stadium Component On-Site Sources of Contamination Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Asdiscussedpreviously, the existing buildings on-site may contain asbestos and lead-basedpaint. The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that all potentially friable asbestos containing materials be removed prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb ACMs. Demolition of buildings that contain lead-based paint may create lead-based dust at concentrations that would expose workers and nearby receptors to potential health risks. State regulations require that air monitoring be performed during and following renovation or demolition activities at sites containing lead-based paint. If the lead-basedpaintis peeling, flaking, or blistered, it would need to be removedprior to demolition. It is assumed that such paint would becomeseparated from the building components during demolition activities; it must be managed and disposed of as a separate waste stream. If the lead-based paintis still bonded to the building materials, its removal is not required prior to demolition. Currently, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmentare proposing additional lead-based paint regulations. As conditions of approval, the project proponent shall be responsible for project conformance with the following regulatory programs and shall implementthe following standard measures to reduce possible impacts due to the presence ofACMsand/or lead-basedpaint to a less than significantlevel. Standard Measures: SM HAZ - 1.1: A formal survey for ACMsandlead-based paint shall be conducted priorto demolition ofsite structures. SM HAZ — 1.2: Requirements outlined by Cal/OSHA Leadin Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1 shall be followed during demolition activities, including employeetraining, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coating shall be disposed ofat landfills that meet acceptancecriteria for the waste being disposed. City of San José 252 Draft EIR Airport West Stadium and Great Oaks Place Project September 2009 p o o = S L U E B I R D o n i i n e . c o m (8 88 ) 4 7 7 - 0 7 0 0 & C cpeelterd—i is LeagueofCalifornia Cities SOLK = Cavern cites Work Together April 5, 1994 Senator Don Rogers State Capitol Room 5052 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 1453 (Rogers). Notice of Support. Dear Senator Rogers: Weare pleased to inform youthat following our initial review of your $B1453, the League of California Cities supports this bill. SB 1453 would provide guidance to local lead agencies in analyzing impacts andmitigation measures for airport related impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act ‘SB_1453 provides assistance without creating a new mandate. $B 1453 would encourage local lead agencies to utilize a standardized methodology for analyzing CEQA impacts. The League supports permissive significance thresholds. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if we can be of any assistance in furthering the passage ofthis legislation. truly you EmestSilva Legislative Representative ce; Members, Senate Governmental Organization Committee Consultant, Senate Governmental Organization Committee ‘CONFERENCE REDESTRATION OFPICE HEADQUARTERS ‘SouTHERA caLRORMA OFFICE ‘BOX 700, LAFAYETTE, OA Desa. 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 96814 (602 EAST HUNTINGTON OR. SURTE‘staaa3-2113| gis aaeoo ‘MONAGMA.ca o10%8 F610) 280-780 Ax {bio oert cI