San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Initial Study and 

Final Negative Declaration 

December 2012 
ii

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

GOVERNING BOARD 2012

CHAIR: WILLIAM O’BRIEN 

Supervisor, Stanislaus County 

VICE CHAIR: SKIP BARWICK 

Vice Mayor, City of Tulare 

MEMBERS: 

OLIVER L. BAINES III 

Councilmember, City of Fresno 

TONY BARBA 

Supervisor, Kings County 

SALLY J. BOMPREZZI 

Councilmember, City of Madera 

JUDITH G. CASE 

Supervisor, Fresno County 

RONN DOMINICI 

Supervisor, Madera County 

HENRY JAY FORMAN, PH.D 

Appointed by Governor 

HAROLD HANSON 

Councilmember, City of Bakersfield 

LEROY ORNELLAS 

Supervisor, San Joaquin County 

ALEXANDER C. SHERRIFFS, M.D. 

Appointed by Governor 

CHRIS VIERRA 

Mayor, City of Ceres 

HUB WALSH 

Supervisor, Merced County 

RAYMOND A. WATSON 

Supervisor, Kern County 

J. STEVEN WORTHLEY 

Supervisor, Tulare County 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER: 

SEYED SADREDIN 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 2 

Initial Study and 

Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan

December 2012 

LEAD AGENCY: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno CA 93726-0244 

Agency CEQA Contact: Mark Montelongo, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Phone: (559) 230-6000 

Fax: (559) 230-6061 

Project Sponsor San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

and Address: 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno CA 93726-0244 

Project Location: The 2012 PM2.5 Plan applies to emission sources 

(primarily emission sources of directly emitted PM2.5, 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), ) located 

within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

(SJVAB) (see Exhibit 1, Map of Basin Boundaries). 

Project Contact: Jessica Fierro, Supervising Air Quality Specialist 

 Anna Myers, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Phone: (559) 230-6000 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 3 

Exhibit 1 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Boundaries 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 4 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 4

A. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

B. Purpose and Authority .............................................................................................. 6

C. Project Background Information ............................................................................... 6

Project Description ................................................................................................... 6 

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required ............................................... 8 

D. Decision to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................. 8

E. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................. 9

F. Determination ........................................................................................................... 9

G. Environmental Impact Checklist ............................................................................. 10

I. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 10

II. Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................... 11

III. Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 13

IV. Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 15

V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 17

VI. Geology/Soils ......................................................................................................... 18

VII. Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................ 20

VIII. Hazards & Hazardous Materials............................................................................. 22

IX. Hydrology / Water Quality ...................................................................................... 26

X. Land Use/Planning ................................................................................................. 27

XI. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 29

XII. Noise ...................................................................................................................... 30

XIII. Population and Housing ......................................................................................... 32

XIV.Public Services....................................................................................................... 33

XV. Recreational Facilities ............................................................................................ 34

XVI.Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................. 36

XVII.Utilities / Service Systems ..................................................................................... 37

XVIII.Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................... 39

H. List of Attachments ................................................................................................. 41
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 5 

A. Introduction 

CEQA requires each public agency to adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures 

consistent with CEQA Statutes and the CEQA Guidelines for administering its 

responsibilities under CEQA, including the orderly evaluation of projects and 

preparation of environmental documents. The District adopted its Environmental 

Review Guidelines (ERG) in 2001. The ERG was prepared to comply with this 

requirement and is an internal document used to comply with CEQA. 

The basic purposes of CEQA are to:

• Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, 

significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly 

reduced.

• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes 

in projects through use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the 

governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.

• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the 

project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are 

involved.

Under CEQA the Lead Agency is required to: 

• Conduct preliminary reviews to determine if applications are subject to CEQA 

[CCR §15060]. 

• Conduct review to determine if projects are exempt from CEQA [CCR §15061]. 

• Prepare Initial Studies for projects that may have adverse environmental impacts 

[CCR §15063]. 

• Determine the significance of the environmental effects caused by the project 

[CCR §15064]. 

• Prepare Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations for projects 

with no significant environmental impacts [CCR §15070]. 

• Prepare, or contract to prepare, EIRs for projects with significant environmental 

impacts [CCR §15081]. 

• Adopt reporting or monitoring programs for the changes made to projects or 

conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant 

effects on the environment [PRC §21081.6 & CCR §15097]. 

• Comply with CEQA noticing and filing requirements. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 6 

B. Authority 

The District has discretionary authority to implement the District control measures, 

incentives, and other District options identified in the Plan. As such, the District serves 

as Lead Agency; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15367. 

C. Project Background Information 

Project Background 

The 2012 PM2.5 Plan (Plan) presents the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District’s (District) strategy for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), as 

established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2006. 

After approval by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the Plan will be submitted 

to EPA for review. Following receipt of the Plan, EPA must determine Plan 

completeness within six months. As required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 

110k, the EPA must act on the Plan within one year of finding the Plan complete. EPA 

approval of the Plan places it in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) as required by the 

federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA’s Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 

Final Rule (72 FR 20586-20667). 

In addition to meeting the requirements of the CAA and containing measures needed to 

attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, the SIP includes the latest technical 

information, including emissions inventory, monitoring data, and computer modeling 

results. The Plan is divided into several chapters, with supporting documents provided 

as appendices. The District developed the Plan with an extensive public process, 

including workshops and draft documents provided by the District in April, June, and 

October of 2012. 

Project Description 

The Plan is divided into several chapters and appendices. These chapters are briefly 

summarized below: 

Executive Summary 

The Executive Summary discusses the District’s commitment to expeditious PM2.5 

attainment and summarizes key Plan concepts. 

Chapter 1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes applicable federal requirements, the District’s Guiding 

Principles for the Plan, the Valley’s unique PM2.5 challenges, and the health impacts 

associated with PM2.5 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 7 

Chapter 2 Risk-based Strategy 

This chapter describes the District’s Risk-based Strategy is being utilized in the 

development of this Plan to maximize public health benefits. 

Chapter 3 Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley: Challenges and Trends 

While presented with unique geographical and meteorological challenges, the San 

Joaquin Valley has made significant progress in reducing total PM2.5 emissions and 

PM2.5 precursor emissions. PM2.5 concentrations have also decreased as emissions 

have been reduced, despite impacts of uncontrollable meteorological conditions. This 

chapter summarizes the Valley’s PM2.5 challenges, the progress that has been made 

reducing emissions, and recent ambient PM2.5 trends. 

Chapter 4 Scientific Foundation and PM2.5 Modeling Results 

This chapter provides an overview of the scientific foundation for this PM2.5 plan. It 

describes Study Agency and other research efforts related to this plan, the nature of 

PM2.5 in the Valley, and PM2.5 species. It also summarizes the regional modeling 

effort and the results of the analyses conducted for this plan. These results show which 

emissions control strategies will most effectively assure attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 

NAAQS and improved PM2.5 air quality throughout the Valley. 

Chapter 5 Regulatory Control Measures 

This chapter contains a discussion about regulations contributing to PM2.5 

improvement, a description of federal RACT/RACM requirements, and the District’s 

ongoing approach for evaluating potential new control measures for opportunities for 

emissions reductions. The regulatory control strategies will be summarized in this 

chapter accompanied by a rule making schedule. 

Chapter 6 Incentive Programs 

This chapter describes the role of the District’s robust incentive program in reducing air 

pollution and expediting attainment. 

Chapter 7 Technology Advancement 

This chapter discusses the District’s Technology Advancement program, through which 

the District identifies, solicits, and supports technology advancement opportunities. The 

goal is to accelerate technology development that may provide additional emission 

reductions as part of the District’s multi-faceted approach to attain increasingly stringent 

ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards. Meeting such standards will require significant 

advancements in low-emissions technologies from mobile and stationary sources. 

Chapter 8 Innovative Strategies 

This chapter describes the District’s additional efforts to reduce air pollution emissions 

through policy efforts, interagency collaboration, and community outreach. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 8 

Chapter 9 Progress Toward Attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 Standard 

This chapter explains and demonstrates reasonable further progress (RFP), 

demonstrates the Valley’s attainment year, synthesizes the RACM demonstration, and 

discusses contingency measures. 

Appendices 

The Plan makes reference to the following appendices: 

Appendix A: Ambient PM2.5 Data Analysis 

Appendix B: Emissions Inventory 

Appendix C: Mobile Source Control Strategies 

Appendix D: Stationary and Area Source Control Evaluation 

Appendix E: California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study Publications 

Appendix F: SJV PM2.5 SIP Modeling Protocol 

Appendix G: Weight of Evidence 

Appendix H: Emissions Reductions Credits (ERC) 

Other appendices may be added as needed to show additional analysis relevant to Plan 

development. 

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required 

The District has discretionary authority to implement the District control measures, 

incentives, and other District options identified in the Plan. It does not have authority to 

approve or implement the State of California measures identified in the Plan, nor does 

the District have land use authority to implement measures identified by local 

governments in the Plan. ARB must approve this plan and then officially transmit it to 

EPA. EPA’s final rule approving the plan would place it in to the SIP. 

D. Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration 

District staff has proposed the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, incorporated herein by reference. The 

Negative Declaration demonstrates that the proposed Plan would not have an adverse 

impact on air quality. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15063(a), District staff prepared an 

Initial Study for the proposed project. The District finds that there is no substantial 

evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The District 

issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration that was made available for 

public review and comment from November 9, 2012 to December 8, 2012. The District 

received no comments during the comment period. Upon approval of the proposed Plan 

by the District’s Governing Board, District staff will file a Notice of Determination with 

each County Clerk within the boundaries of the District, CEQA Guidelines §15075(d). 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 10 

G. Environmental Impact Checklist 

I. Aesthetics 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 

scenic vista? X

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 

including, but not limited to trees, rock, 

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a 

state scenic highway? 

 X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 

character or quality of the site and its 

surroundings? 

 X 

d) Create a new source of substantial light or 

glare which would adversely affect day or 

nighttime views in the area? 

 X 

I. Aesthetics 

Scenic Vistas and Visual Character (a-d) 

Conclusion: The Project will not have an impact on scenic vistas, damage scenic 

resources, degrade visual character in and around the sites or create new sources of 

light or glare. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. As such, adoption 

of the Plan would not require any changes in the physical environment that would 

obstruct any scenic vistas or views of interest to the public. In addition, the Plan would 

not create aesthetically offensive sites visible to the public and no significant adverse 

aesthetic or recreation impacts are expected from the Plan. As a result, the Plan may 

have a beneficial effect on scenic resources by improving visibility as well as improving 

air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, the District concludes there is no 

substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would 

have a detrimental impact on aesthetics, as identified above (a-d). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 11 

II. Agricultural Resources 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead 

agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1197) 

prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing 

impacts on agricultural and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including 

timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, 

including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and 

forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air 

Resource Board. 

Would the Project

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 

or Farmland of Statewide Importance 

(Farmland), as shown on the maps 

prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping 

and Monitoring Program of the California 

Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 

 X 

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 

use, or a Williamson Act contract? X 

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 

rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public 

Resources Code section 12220 (g)), 

timberland (as defined by Public Resource 

Code section 4526), or timberland zoned 

Timberland Production (as defined by 

Government Code section 51104 (g))? 

 X 

d) Result in the loss of forest land or 

conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X

e) Involve other changes in the existing 

environment which, due to their location or 

nature, could result in conversion of 

Farmland, to non-agricultural use or 

conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 

 X

II. Agricultural Resources 

Farm and Forest Lands (a-e) 

Conclusion: The Project will not conflict with existing zoning and will not have an 

impact on agriculture and forest lands. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 12 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. Control 

measures provided in the Plan will not result in substantive conversion of prime or 

unique farmland to non-agricultural use and will not conflict with existing zoning for 

agricultural use or Williamson Act contract. PM2.5 levels are expected to be lowered 

over the life of the Plan and could provide benefits to agricultural resources by reducing 

the adverse impacts of PM2.5 emissions on plants and animals. Any new regulatory 

control measure commitment identified in the Plan, will be developed within its own 

public process and CEQA analysis. Therefore, the District concludes there is no 

substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval and implementation 

of the project would have a detrimental impact on agricultural resources, as identified 

above (a-e). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 13 

III. Air Quality 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air

pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. 

Would the Project: 

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 

the applicable air quality plan? X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 

substantially to an existing or projected air 

quality violation? 

 X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 

increase of any criteria pollutant for which 

the Project region is non-attainment under 

an applicable federal or state ambient air 

quality standard (including releasing 

emissions which exceed quantitative 

thresholds for ozone precursors)? 

 X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 

pollutant concentrations? X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 

substantial number of people? X

III. Air Quality (a-e) 

Conclusion: This project will not conflict with any other air quality plans, substantially 

contribute to or create an air quality violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net 

increase of criteria pollutants, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 

concentrations, or create objectionable odors.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will reduce directly 

emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully 

implemented over the next few years per the established timeline in the adopted rules, 

greatly contributing to the Valley’s progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan 

also includes additional control measures for future consideration and adoption; 

however, these new control measures will be developed in the future and will have their 

own public process and CEQA evaluation. Hazardous risk assessments and other 

analyses will be completed as individual rules and regulations are developed and 

adopted. 

Federal and state laws require emission control measures in areas like the San Joaquin 

Valley where air pollution exceeds ambient air quality standards. Attainment is achieved 

through adopting and implementing cost-effective air pollution control measures, 

providing meaningful incentives for reducing emissions, and by developing creative 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 14 

alternatives for achieving emissions reductions. The purpose of the Plan is to move the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin toward attainment of the federal and state ambient air 

quality standards for PM2.5 through incentive and control strategy implementation. 

District staff has prepared an Emission Reduction Analysis, incorporated herein by 

reference which demonstrates that implementation of the Plan would result in 25.0 tons 

per day reduction in PM2.5 emissions, 256.6 tons per day of NOx emissions, and 3.8 

tons per day of SOx emissions from the winter inventory. Thus, implementation of the 

Plan would result in a benefit for improving air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin. 

Based on analysis of the reasonably foreseeable control measures included in the Plan, 

the Plan will not violate any air quality standards or significantly contribute to an existing 

or projected air quality violation. Hazardous risk assessments and other analyses are 

completed as needed as individual rules are developed and adopted. No alteration of 

air movement, moisture, temperature, climate change, or creation of objectionable 

odors will result from adoption of the Plan. 

The Plan identifies control options to meet target emissions reductions of each control 

measure without fully developing the details for how those reductions would be 

achieved. Subsequent rule making will determine the actual air quality reductions and 

impacts. As such, these issues will continue to be evaluated as the Plan’s control 

measure commitments are developed in their post-plan public processes. However, the 

net result is improved air quality. Therefore, the District concludes there is no 

substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would 

have a detrimental impact on air quality, as identified above (a-e). 

Mitigation: None required.

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 15 

IV. Biological Resources 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 

directly or through habitat modifications, on 

any species identified as a candidate, 

sensitive, or special status species in local 

or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or 

by the California Department of Fish and 

Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 

 X

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 

riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 

community identified in local or regional 

plans, policies, and regulations, or by the 

California Department of Fish and Game or 

US Fish and Wildlife Service? 

 X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 

federally protected wetlands as defined by 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal 

pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, 

filling, hydrological interruption, or other 

means? 

 X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of 

any native resident or migratory fish or 

wildlife species or with established native 

resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 

impede the use of native wildlife nursery 

sites? 

 X

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 

protecting biological resources, such as a 

tree preservation policy or ordinance? 

 X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 

Community Conservation Plan, or other 

approved local, regional, or state habitat 

conservation plan? 

 X

IV. Biological Resources (a-f) 

Conclusion: The Project will have no impact on candidate, sensitive, special status 

species or any adopted conservation plans. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 16 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

Adoption of the Plan and subsequent implementation are not expected to adversely 

affect existing plant or animal species or communities, unique or endangered plant or 

animal species, or agricultural crops. No significant adverse impacts to biological 

resources are anticipated from the Plan because biological resources are already 

disturbed on existing sites and areas where the Plan will be implemented. Further, 

improvements in air quality from the Plan are expected to provide health benefits to 

plants and animal species, as well as to humans in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 

The Plan would not affect any current land use policies or designations. For these 

reasons, the proposed project would not adversely affect protected wetlands as defined 

by §404 of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to marshes, vernal pools, 

coastal wetlands, et., through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other 

means. Implementation of the Plan is not anticipated to affect land use plans, local 

policies or ordinances. Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial evidence 

of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental 

impact on biological resources, as identified above (a-f). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 17 

V. Cultural Resources 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of a historical resource as 

defined in '15064.5? 

 X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of an archaeological resource 

pursuant to '15064.5? 

 X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 

paleontological resource or site or unique 

geologic feature? 

 X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those 

interred outside of formal cemeteries? X

V. Cultural Resources (a-d) 

Conclusion: The Project will not have an impact on cultural resources.

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. As a result, 

significant impacts to cultural resources are not expected from the Plan because it will 

not require the destruction of existing buildings or sites with prehistoric, historic, 

archaeological, religious, or ethnic significance. Adoption of the Plan is not anticipated 

to result in any activities or promote any programs that could have a significant adverse 

impact on cultural resources within the District. Therefore, the District concludes there is 

no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan 

would have a detrimental impact on cultural resources, as identified above (a-d). 

Mitigation: None needed. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 18 

VI. Geology / Soils 

Would the Project 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential 

substantial adverse effects, including the 

risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 

 

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 

delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 

issued by the State Geologist for the 

area or based on other substantial 

evidence of a known fault? Refer to 

Division of Mines and Geology Special 

Publication 42. 

 X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 

liquefaction? X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 

of topsoil? X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 

unstable, or that would become unstable as 

a result of the Project, and potentially result 

in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, 

subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 

 X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 

Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code 

(1994), creating substantial risks to life or 

property? 

 X

e) Have soils incapable of adequately 

supporting the use of septic tanks or 

alternative wastewater disposal systems 

where sewers are not available for the 

disposal of wastewater? 

 X

VI. Geology/Soils (a-e) 

Conclusion: The Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil 

nor have an impact on the capacity of the soil to support wastewater disposal systems. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 19 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

Plan implementation provides no provisions that would call for the disruption or overcovering of soil, changes in topography or surface relief features, the erosion of beach 

sand, or a change in existing siltation rates. Any facilities affected by the control 

measures included in this Plan would also be required to comply with relevant Uniform 

Building Code (a standard safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life) 

requirements in effect at the time or initial construction or modification of a structure. 

The local cities or counties are responsible for assuring that projects comply with the 

Uniform Building Code as part of the issuance of the building permits and can conduct 

inspections to ensure compliance. The District does not have land use authority 

(California Health and Safety Code, Sec. 40716(b)), so the District is generally 

prohibited from encouraging or prohibiting specific land uses in specific locations in the 

Valley. As such, adoption of the Plan will not increase the exposure of people or 

property to geological hazards, faults, rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground 

failure, seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. 

The proposed Plan’s control measures are focused on efforts to reduce PM2.5 

emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) from disturbed and already existing 

operations. Any resulting facility modifications are not anticipated to require substantial 

grading or construction activities. Similarly, the proposed Plan does not include control 

measures that require paving to reduce fugitive dust emissions from dirt roads or 

unpaved parking areas. The proposed project does not have the potential to 

substantially increase the area subject to compaction or over-covering since the subject 

areas would be limited in size and, typically, have already been graded or displaced in 

some way. Therefore, significant adverse soil erosion impacts are not anticipated from 

implementing the Plan, as identified above (a-e). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 20 

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 

directly or indirectly, that may have a 

significant impact on the environment? 

 X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or 

regulation adopted for the purpose of 

reducing the emissions of greenhouse 

gases? 

 X

VII. Greenhouse Gases (a, b) 

Discussion: Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that absorb and emit radiation 

within the thermal infrared range, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere. There are no 

“attainment” concentration standards established by the Federal or State government 

for greenhouse gases. In fact, GHGs are not generally thought of as traditional air 

pollutants because greenhouse gases, and their impacts, are global in nature, while 

traditional “criteria” air pollutants affect the health of people and other living things at 

ground level, in the general region of their release to the atmosphere. Some 

greenhouse gases occur naturally and are emitted into the atmosphere through natural 

processes. Other GHGs are created and emitted solely through human activities. The 

principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are 

carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated carbons. 

Additional information on GHG and global climate change can be found in the District 

staff report titled: Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Under the California 

Environmental Quality Act. 

The PM2.5 Plan provides a strategy by the District for achieving the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

(PM2.5), as established by EPA in 2006. The Plan applies to emission sources 

(primarily sources of directly emitted PM2.5 nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley. The Plan demonstrates 

that existing regulations recently adopted under previous air quality attainment 

demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this 

PM2.5 Plan. The existing control measures identified in the Plan are focused on those 

efforts, to contribute to reducing PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and 

SOx) from disturbed and already existing operations. 

The Plan also includes additional control measures for future consideration and 

adoption; however, these new control measures will be developed with their own public 

process and CEQA analysis to determine air quality and GHG impacts. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 21 

The potential exists for certain control measures in the plan to decrease GHG 

emissions. The rulemaking process will identify the control options of each the control 

measure commitment. As noted above, the details resulting from the rulemaking 

process would determine the overall GHG and potential climate change impact. 

As a result, these impacts will continue to be evaluated as the Plan’s control measure 

commitments are developed in their post-Plan public processes. The desired goal is 

improved air quality for the San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, the District concludes there 

is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan 

would have a detrimental impact on greenhouse gas emissions, as identified above 

(a,b). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 22 

VIII. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 

the environment through the routine 

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 

materials? 

 X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 

the environment through reasonably 

foreseeable upset and accident conditions 

involving the release of hazardous materials 

into the environment? 

 X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 

hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 

substances, or waste within one-quarter 

mile of an existing or proposed school? 

 X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a 

list of hazardous materials sites compiled 

pursuant to Government Code Section 

65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a 

significant hazard to the public or the 

environment? 

 X

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? 

 X

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private 

airstrip, would the Project result in a safety 

hazard for people residing or working in the 

Project area? 

 X

g) Impair implementation of or physically 

interfere with an adopted emergency 

response plan or emergency evacuation 

plan? 

 X

h) 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? 

 X

VIII. Hazards & Hazardous Materials (a-h)

Conclusion: The Project will not expose the public to hazardous materials. The Project 

will not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans; nor will it expose people 

or structures to risks from wildland fires. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 23 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. As control 

measures undergo rule development, hazardous risk assessments and other analyses 

are conducted to identify any potential hazards. These potential hazards are addressed 

in separate CEQA documents accompanying the rule, in the rule development and 

adoption process. 

It is anticipated that facilities included on the Government Code §65962.5 list affected 

by the Plans control measures would continue to manage any and all hazardous 

materials in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Most of the control 

measures identified in the Plan are not anticipated to impact any clean-up activities or 

contaminated sites; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 

Implementation of the Plan would not adversely affect any airport land use plan or result 

in any safety hazard for people residing or working in the San Joaquin Valley. The U.S. 

Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 

70/7460-2k) provides information regarding the types of projects that may affect 

navigable airspace. Projects that involve construction or alteration of structures greater 

than 200 feet above ground level within a specified distance from the nearest runway; 

objects within 200,000 feet of an airport or seaplane base with at least one runway more 

than 3,200 feet in length and the object would exceed a slope of 100:1 horizontally (100 

feet horizontally for each one foot vertically from the nearest point of the runway; etc., 

may adversely affect navigable airspace. However, the control measures provided in 

the Plan would not require construction of tall structures near airports so potential 

impacts to airport land use plans or safety hazards to people residing or working in the 

vicinity of local airports are not anticipated. 

The Plan would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with any adopted 

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Any existing facilities affected 

by the control measures provided in the Plan would typically have their own emergency 

response plans for their facilities already in place. Emergency response plans are 

typically prepared in coordination with the local city or county emergency plans to 

ensure the safety of not only the public, but the facility employees as well. Adoption of 

the proposed Plan is not anticipated to interfere with any emergency response 

procedures or evacuation plans. 

In addition, since facilities that are affected by the Plan are not typically located near 

wildland or forest areas, implementing control measures has no potential to increase the 

risk of wildland fires. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 24 

Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a 

conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on hazardous and 

hazardous materials, as identified above (a-h). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan, Government Code §65962.5
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 25 

IX. Hydrology / Water Quality 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 

discharge requirements? X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies 

or interfere substantially with groundwater 

recharge such that there would be a net 

deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the 

local groundwater table level (e.g., the 

production rate of pre-existing nearby wells 

would drop to a level which would not 

support existing land uses or planned uses 

for which permits have been granted)? 

 X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 

pattern of the site or area, including through 

the alteration of the course of a stream or 

river, in a manner, which would result in 

substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? 

 X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 

pattern of the site or area, including through 

the alteration of the course of a stream or 

river, or substantially increase the rate or 

amount of surface runoff in a manner which 

would result in flooding on- or off-site? 

 X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which 

would exceed the capacity of existing or 

planned storm water drainage systems or 

provide substantial additional sources of 

polluted runoff? 

 X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 

quality? X

g Place housing within a 100-year flood 

hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood 

Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate 

Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 

 X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 

structures which would impede or redirect 

flood flows? 

 X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant 

risk of loss, injury or death involving 

flooding, including flooding as a result of the 

failure of a levee or dam? 

 X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow X
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 26 

IX. Hydrology / Water Quality (a-j) 

Conclusion: The Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste 

discharge requirements and will not degrade water quality. The Project will not have an 

impact groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or 

drainage patterns. The Project will not expose people or structures to flood hazards, 

seiche, tsunamis or mudflows. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard.The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

Implementation of the Plan would not require action that would violate any established 

local, state, or federal standards. Any potential facilities affected by the Plan that 

generate wastewater are subject to waste discharge or pretreatment requirements are 

assumed to comply with all relevant wastewater requirements, waste discharge 

regulations, standards for stormwater runoff, and any other relevant requirements for 

direct discharges into sewer systems. These standards and permits require water 

quality monitoring and reporting for onsite water-related activities. Should the volume or 

discharge limits change as a result of implementing control measures, the facility would 

be required to consult with the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board and/or 

the local sanitation district to discuss these changes. As such, implementation of the 

Plan would not cause any exceedances of water quality standards or waste discharge 

requirements. 

The Plan contains no control measure commitments that would substantially increase 

water usage at facilities, generate any new structures that could alter existing drainage 

patterns. In addition, the District does not have land use authority and is generally 

prohibited from encouraging or prohibiting specific land uses in specific locations in the 

Valley (California Health and Safety Code, Sec. 40716 (b)). The Plan does not require 

any new construction or relocation of existing housing or other types of facilities and, as 

such, would not require the placement of housing or other structures within a 100-year 

flood hazard area. Therefore, the District concludes that there is no substantial evidence 

of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental 

impact on aesthetics, as identified above (a-j). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 27 

X. Land Use / Planning 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Physically divide an established community? X

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 

policy, or regulation of an agency with 

jurisdiction over the Project (including, but 

not limited to the general plan, specific plan, 

local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) 

adopted for the purpose of avoiding or 

mitigating an environmental effect? 

 X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 

conservation plan or natural community 

conservation plan? 

 X

X. Land Use/Planning (a, b, c) 

Conclusion: The Project will not divide an established community or conflict with 

applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations already adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans can also serve as control measures 

for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted 

PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented 

over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys progress towards the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. Several new control measure commitments were identified in the Plan, 

however, these new control measures will be developed within its own public process 

and CEQA analysis. 

The District does not have land use authority and is generally prohibited from 

encouraging or prohibiting specific land uses. As such, the Plan and its provisions have 

no characteristics that would directly change land use, zoning or land use plans or 

directly affect the land use classification, or location criteria of any public or private 

residential, commercial, industrial, or public land use facility. Any facilities affected by 

the proposed Plan would still be anticipated to comply with, and not interfere with, any 

applicable land use plans, zoning ordinances, habitat conservation or natural 

community conservation plans. No provisions in the Plan would directly affect these 

plans, policies, or regulations. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 28 

Population growth, land development, housing, traffic, and air quality are linked. The 

eight Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) within the SJVAB, which are also 

regional transportation planning agencies, account for these links when designing ways 

to improve air quality, transportation systems, land use, compatibility and housing 

opportunities in the region. Land use planning is handled at the local level and 

contributes to planning (e.g., growth projections), but the Plan does not affect local 

government land use planning decisions. 

The eight MPOs drafted the local Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) 

approach for the Plan. Implementation of the local RACM approach is documented in 

the proposed plan. 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 29 

XI. Mineral Resources 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 

mineral resource that would be of value to 

the region and the residents of the state? 

 X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally 

important mineral resource recovery site 

delineated on a local general plan, specific 

plan or other land use plan? 

 X

XI. Mineral Resources (a, b) 

Conclusion: The Project will not have an impact on mineral resources. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

Implementation of the Plan would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 

resource of value to the region and the residents of the state or of a locally-important 

mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other 

land use plan. District control measures in the proposed Plan are not anticipated to 

deplete non-renewable mineral resources, such as aggregate materials, metal ores, 

etc., at an accelerated rate or in a wasteful manner because District control measures 

are typically not mineral resource-intensive measures. Therefore, significant adverse 

impacts to mineral resources are not anticipated, as identified above (a-b). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References

2012 PM2.5 Plan
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 30 

XII. Noise 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of 

noise levels in excess of standards 

established in the local general plan or noise 

ordinance, or applicable standards of other 

agencies? 

 X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 

excessive groundborne vibration or 

groundborne noise levels? 

 X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 

noise levels in the Project vicinity above 

levels existing without the Project? 

 X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase 

in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity 

above levels existing without the Project? 

 X

e) For a Project located within an airport land 

use plan or, where such a plan has not been 

adopted, within two miles of a public airport 

or public use airport, would the Project 

expose people residing or working in the 

Project area to excessive noise levels? 

 X

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private 

airstrip, would the Project expose people 

residing or working in the Project area to 

excessive noise levels? 

 X

XII. Noise (a-f) 

Conclusion: The Project will not result in increased noise exposure and will not expose 

people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

The Plan may result in affected facilities installing air pollution control equipment or 

modify their operations to reduce potential stationary source emissions. However, any 

new regulatory control measure commitment identified in the Plan, will be developed 

within its own public process and CEQA analysis. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 31 

Implementation of the Plan is not anticipated to substantially increase ambient 

(operational) noise levels, either permanently or intermittently, or expose people to 

excessive noise levels that would be noticeably above and beyond existing ambient 

levels. In addition, the Plan is not anticipated to increase any groundborne vibration 

levels because air pollution control equipment is not typically vibration intensive. 

Consequently, the Plan would not directly or indirectly cause substantial noise or 

excessive groundborne vibration impacts. 

Implementation of the Plan would not interfere with any applicable airport land use plans 

and would not result in any excessive noise levels to affected residences and workers 

pursuant to existing rules, regulations and requirements. Potential facilities affected by 

the control measures identified in the Plan, are still subject to compliance with existing 

community noise ordinances and applicable OSHA or Cal/OSHA workplace noise 

reduction requirements. As noted in the above discussion, there are no components of 

the proposed Plan that would substantially increase ambient noise levels, either 

intermittently or permanently. Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial 

evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a 

detrimental impact on noise, as identified above (a-f). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 32 

XIII. Population / Housing 

Would the Project: 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially

Significant 

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less 

Than 

Signific

ant 

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an 

area, either directly (for example, by 

proposing new homes and businesses) or 

indirectly (for example, through extension of 

roads or other infrastructure)? 

 X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 

housing, necessitating the construction of 

replacement housing elsewhere? 

 X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 

necessitating the construction of replacement 

housing elsewhere? 

 X

XIII. Population and Housing (a, b, c) 

Conclusion: The Project will not result in a substantial growth in population growth or 

the displacement of people or housing units. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

The Plan is not anticipated to generate any significant effects, either directly or 

indirectly, on the District’s population or population distribution. Provisions in the Plan 

would not result in the creation of any industry that would affect population growth or 

directly or indirectly induce the construction of single- or multiple-family units. The 

District does not anticipate that affected facilities will be required to hire additional 

personnel to operate and maintain new control equipment on site, because air pollution 

control equipment is typically not labor-intensive equipment. In the event that new 

employees are hired, it is anticipated that the existing local labor pool in the District can 

accommodate any increase in demand for workers that might occur as a result of 

adopting the proposed Plan. As such, adopting the proposed Plan is not anticipated to 

result in significant changes in population densities or induce significant growth in 

population. Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record 

to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on 

population and housing, as identified above (a-c). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 33 

XIV. Public Services 

Would the Project: 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Potentially

Significant

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant

Impact 

No 

Impact

a) Result in substantial adverse physical 

impacts associated with the provision of new 

or physically altered governmental facilities, 

need for new or physically altered 

governmental facilities, the construction of 

which could cause significant environmental 

impacts, in order to maintain acceptable 

service ratios, response times or other 

performance objectives for any of the public 

services: 

 

i) Fire protection? X

ii) Police protection? X

iii) Schools? X

iv) Parks? X

v) Other public facilities? X

XIV. Public Services 

Conclusion: The Project will not require additional public services and will not 

negatively impact the existing facility’s ability to provide services. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

The implementation of the Plan is not anticipated to generate significant adverse 

impacts to public services (i.e., fire departments, police departments, and local 

governments). The Plan would not result in the need for new or physically altered 

government facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or 

other performance objectives. Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial 

evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a 

detrimental impact on public services, as identified above (a). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 34 

XV. Recreation 

Would the Project: 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially

Significant 

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a) Increase the use of existing 

neighborhood and regional parks or 

other recreational facilities such that 

substantial physical deterioration of 

the facility would occur or be 

accelerated? 

 X

b) Include recreational facilities or 

require the construction or 

expansion of recreational facilities 

which might have an adverse 

physical effect on the environment? 

 X

XV. Recreational Facilities (a, b) 

Conclusion: The Project will not have an impact on neighborhood or regional parks, or 

any other local recreational facilities. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard.The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

Provisions of the proposed Plan would not directly affect land use plans, policies, 

ordinances, or regulations. Land use and other planning considerations are determined 

by local governments. In addition, land use or planning requirements including those 

related to recreational facilities, would not be altered by the Plan. The proposed Plan 

does not have the potential to directly or indirectly induce population growth or 

redistribution. As a result, the Plan would not increase the use of or demand for existing 

neighborhood and/or regional parks or other recreational facilities, nor would it require 

the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse 

physical effect on the environment. Further, improvements in air quality from the Plan 

are expected to provide health benefits to plant and animal species, potentially 

improving recreational facilities. Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial 

evidence of record to support a conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a 

detrimental impact on recreational facilities, as identified above (a,b). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 35 

XVI. Transportation / Traffic 

Would the Project: 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially

Significant 

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, 

ordinance or policy establishing 

measures of effectiveness for the 

performance of the circulation 

system, taking into account all 

modes of transportation including 

mass transit and non-motorized 

travel and relevant components of 

the circulation systems, including 

but not limited to intersections, 

streets, highways and freeways, 

pedestrian and bicycle paths, and 

mass transit? 

 X

b) Conflict with an applicable 

congestion management program, 

including, but not limited to level of 

service standards and travel 

demand measures, or other 

standards established by the county 

congestion management agency for 

designated roads or highways? 

 X

c) Result in a change in air traffic 

patterns, including either an 

increase in traffic levels or a change 

in location that results in substantial 

safety risks? 

 X

d) Substantially increase hazards due 

to a design feature (e.g., sharp 

curves or dangerous intersections) 

or incompatible uses (e.g., farm 

equipment)? 

 X

e) Result in inadequate emergency 

access? X

f) Conflict with adopted policies, 

plans, or programs regarding public 

transit, bicycle, or pedestrian 

facilities, or otherwise decrease the 

performance or safety of such 

facilities? 

 X
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 36 

XVI. Transportation/Traffic (a-f) 

Conclusion: The Project will not conflict with any circulation plans, congestion 

management programs, or alternative transportation facilities. Project related traffic will 

not change air traffic patterns or include hazardous design features and, therefore, will 

not pose a safety risk. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

Implementation of the Plan is not anticipated to substantially increase vehicle trips or 

vehicle miles traveled in the San Joaquin Valley. As described in the Plan, the District 

supports alternative transportation and other efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, as 

these efforts contribute to improve PM2.5 air quality. Therefore, implementing the Plan 

control measures could ultimately provide transportation improvements and congestion 

reduction benefits. 

The Plan contains no provisions pertaining to air traffic levels and is not anticipated to 

result in direct or indirect increases in roadway design hazards or incompatible risks. 

Implementation of the Plan would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or 

programs supporting alternative transportation programs. The Plan is not anticipated to 

generate any significant adverse impacts to transportation or traffic systems. Therefore, 

the District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a conclusion 

that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on transportation/traffic, as 

identified above (a-f). 

Population growth, land development, housing, traffic, and air quality are linked. The 

eight Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) within the SJVAB, which are also 

regional transportation planning agencies, account for these links when designing ways 

to improve air quality, transportation systems, land use, compatibility and housing 

opportunities in the region. Land use planning is handled at the local level and 

contributes to planning (e.g., growth projections), but the Plan does not affect local 

government land use planning decisions. 

The eight MPOs drafted the local Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) 

approach for the Plan. Implementation of the local RACM approach is documented in 

the proposed plan. 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 37 

XVII. Utilities / Service Systems 

Would the Project: 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially

Significant 

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a) Exceed wastewater treatment 

requirements of the applicable 

Regional Water Quality Control 

Board? 

 X

b) Require or result in the construction 

of new water or wastewater 

treatment facilities or expansion of 

existing facilities, the construction of 

which could cause significant 

environmental effects? 

 X

c) Require or result in the construction 

of new storm water drainage 

facilities or expansion of existing 

facilities, the construction of which 

could cause significant 

environmental effects? 

 X

d) Have sufficient water supplies 

available to serve the Project from 

existing entitlements and resources, 

or are new or expanded 

entitlements needed? 

 X

e) Result in a determination by the 

wastewater treatment provider that 

serves or may serve the Project that 

it has adequate capacity to serve 

the Project’s projected demand in 

addition to the provider’s existing 

commitments? 

 X

f) Be served by a landfill with 

sufficient permitted capacity to 

accommodate the Project’s solid 

waste disposal needs? 

 X

g) Comply with federal, state, and 

local statutes and regulations 

related to solid waste? 

 X

XVII. Utilities / Service Systems (a-g) 

Conclusion: The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or 

require the construction of new wastewater or storm water facilities. The Project will 

have sufficient water supplies and new or expanded entitlements are not required. The 

Project will comply with all solid waste regulations and will not have an impact on 

landfills.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 38 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous air quality attainment demonstration plans and CEQA processes also serve as 

control measures for this PM2.5 Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically 

reduce directly emitted PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they 

are fully implemented over the next few years, greatly contributing to the Valleys 

progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 standard. The Plan also includes additional control 

measures for future consideration and adoption; however, these new control measures 

will be developed within their own public process and CEQA analysis. 

The Plan will not result in any demand for new utilities or service systems or result in 

any substantial demand on existing sources. There are no provisions in the Plan that 

would affect existing communication systems, sewer or septic tanks, or regional water 

treatment or distribution facilities. The Plan would not result in any demand for new 

utilities or service systems, or result in any substantial demand on existing sources. 

Therefore, the District concludes there is no substantial evidence of record to support a 

conclusion that approval of the Plan would have a detrimental impact on utilities and 

service systems, as identified above (a-d). 

Mitigation: None required. 

References: 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 39 

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of 

Significance 

Would the Project 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially

Significant 

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

a) Does the Project have the potential 

to degrade the quality of the 

environment, substantially reduce 

the habitat of a fish or wildlife 

species, cause a fish or wildlife 

population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to 

eliminate a plant or animal 

community, reduce the number or 

restrict the range of a rare or 

endangered plant or animal or 

eliminate important examples of the 

major periods of California history 

or prehistory? 

 X

b) Does the Project have impacts that 

are individually limited, but 

cumulatively considerable? 

("Cumulatively Considerable" 

means that the incremental effects 

of a Project are considerable when 

viewed in connection with the 

effects of past Projects, the effects 

of other current Projects, and the 

effects of probable future Projects)? 

 X

c) Does the Project have 

environmental effects, which will 

cause substantial adverse effects 

on human beings, either directly or 

indirectly? 

 X

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance 

Impacts on the Environment and Special Status Species and Cumulative Impacts (a, b) 

Conclusion: The Project will have no impact on the environment and special status 

plant and animal species. In addition, the Project will not have cumulatively significant 

impacts on the environment, plant and animal species, or the human population. 

Discussion: The Plan demonstrates that existing regulations recently adopted under 

previous plans and CEQA processes also serve as control measures for this PM2.5 

Plan. These adopted regulations will dramatically reduce directly emitted PM2.5 

emissions and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SOx) as they are fully implemented over the 

next few years, greatly contributing to the Valley’s progress towards the 2006 PM2.5 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 40 

standard. Any new regulatory control measure commitment identified in the Plan, will be 

developed within its own public process and CEQA analysis. 

The proposed Plan is not anticipated to impact any biological resources including 

wildlife and the resources on which it relies, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 

community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or 

animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or 

prehistory. Overall improvements in air quality are, ultimately, anticipated to provide 

substantial benefits to local biological resources in the District. 

Mitigation: None required. 

Impacts on Humans (c) 

Conclusion: The Project will not result in environmental impacts that would cause 

substantial adverse effects on human beings. 

Discussion: The Plan is not anticipated to create significant adverse effects on human 

beings, either directly or indirectly. The District anticipates that as the plan is 

implemented and the air quality with respect to PM2.5 improves, substantial human 

health benefits would occur. 

Mitigation: None required. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 41 

H. List of Attachments 

I. INITIAL STUDY DISTRIBUTION LIST 

59 cities within District Boundaries (Planning Directors) 

Eight Counties within District Boundaries (Planning Directors) 

Caltrans, District 6 

P.O. Box 12616 

Fresno, CA 93779 

California Department of Fish and Game 

San Joaquin Valley Region 

1234 East Shaw Avenue 

Fresno, CA 93726 

Kern Council of Governments 

1401 19th Street, Suite 300 

Bakersfield, CA 93301 

Kings County Association of Governments 

1400 W. Lacey Blvd. 

Hanford, CA 93230 

Tulare County Association of Governments 

210 N. Church Street, Suite B 

Visalia, CA 93291 

Merced County Association of Governments 

369 West 18th Street 

Merced, CA 95340 

Council of Fresno County Governments 

2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201 

Fresno, CA 93721 

San Joaquin Council of Governments 

555 E. Weber Ave 

Stockton, CA 95202 

Madera County Transportation Commission 

2001 Howard Road, Suite 201 

Madera, CA 93637 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 10, 2012 

 Initial Study and Final Negative Declaration 

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Page 42 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Fresno Office 

1685 “E” Street 

Fresno, CA 93706 

Stanislaus Council of Governments 

1111 “I” Street, Suite 308 

Modesto, CA 95354 

Office of Planning & Research 

1400 Tenth Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814