2. Surrounding Uses F I G U R E 3: SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-3

Transcription

1 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-3 2. Surrounding Uses An aerial photograph from Google Earth (2016) shows adjacent agricultural industrial uses south and east of the project. Agricultural uses and a tall wind turbine are located north of the project site, and a drainage facility is west of the project site. Figure 3 shows the project site and surrounding uses. F I G U R E 3: S U R R O U N D I N G U S E S Source: Google Earth, 2016; ZeroCity LLC Agenda Pck 340

2 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-4 C. P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N 1. Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project is to construct and operate three medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facilities in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The project consists of three essentially identical buildings located on three contiguous parcels, each of which will contain the maximum allowable 22,000 square foot of medical marijuana cultivation space allowed by State statute. The three facilities would comprise the total of three medical marijuana growing facilities allowed under the City of Gonzales Municipal Code Chapter , and if the project is approved no other medical marijuana growing facilities would be allowed within the city limits. 2. Project Characteristics The applicant proposes to construct and operate three medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facilities, each consisting of a 43,510 square foot building suitable for growing, processing, and packaging of cannabis products, and each located on contiguous two-acre parcels in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. Each building includes 22,000 square feet of cultivation room, plus office space, processing and packaging space, laboratory, and miscellaneous storage and maintenance space. Each facility will be used to cultivate, process, store, and package medical marijuana. Each will also be used in the manufacturing of related medical marijuana products, such as oils, tinctures, and other extracts. Uses also include the operation of a laboratory for product testing and research. Finally, the uses include the storage of dry and liquid fertilizers, small tools, and cleaning materials. Ancillary improvements include fencing, paved surfaces, utility connections, parking, landscaping, signage, lighting, trash enc1osure, and a stormwater detention basin. Figure 4 and 5 show site plans and a typical floor plan. The application requires the processing of a Conditional Use Permit, a Site Plan Permit, and a Marijuana Cultivation and Manufacturing Permit for each of the three planned facilities. The proposed Project also includes a Development Agreement by and between the City of Agenda Pck 341

3 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-5 Gonzales and NetZero Farms, LLC prepared pursuant to the authority of California Government Code et seq. and the City of Gonzales Resolution No The Development Agreement includes terms and conditions that provide certainty to both parties with regard to: actions associated with the development process, operational fees to be paid by Developer to the City associated with the approved cultivation and manufacturing activities and other measures addressing good land use practices and the general welfare of the neighborhood area and the residents of the City as a whole. Agenda Pck 342

4 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-6 This page intentionally left blank Agenda Pck 343

5 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-7 F I G U R E 4: S I T E P L A N ( A L L T H R E E F A C I L I T I E S ) Agenda Pck 344

6 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-8 F I G U R E 5 : F L O O R P L A N ( T Y P I C A L ) Agenda Pck 345

7 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-9 3. Description of Construction Activities Project construction is divided into three phases. Phase 1 involves the construction of NetZero Farms I at 165 Katherine Street. Construction of NetZero Farms II and III, at 175 and 185 Katherine Street, are expected to begin construction within six months and one year, respectively. Figure 6 shows the proposed site plan phasing for the project. The site is topographically flat, and only minor grading is needed to clear the site and prepare the ground for circulation, lighting, and landscaping improvements. Trenching will also be required to provide water, electrical, and drainage facilities. Equipment to be used during construction is expected to include bulldozer, backhoe, and other standard construction equipment. Agenda Pck 346

8 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-10 This page intentionally left blank Agenda Pck 347

9 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-11 F I G U R E 6 : S I T E P L A N P H A S I N G Agenda Pck 348

10 SECTION II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE II-12 This page intentionally left blank Agenda Pck 349

11 Section III. Environmental Checklist A. E N V I R O N M E N T A L F A C T O R S P O T E N T I A L L Y A F F E C T E D The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that requires mitigation to be reduced to a level of Less Than, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics -- Agricultural Resources Air Quality -- Biological Resources Cultural Resources -- Geology / Soils -- Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality -- Land Use / Planning -- Mineral Resources -- Noise -- Population / Housing -- Public Services -- Recreation Utilities / Service Systems -- Greenhouse Gas Emissions -- Transportation / Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance B. E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question (see references listed in Section VII). A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Agenda Pck 350

12 PAGE III-2 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. Negative Declaration: Less Than with Mitigation Incorporated: applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Impact to a Less Than Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. This Initial Study is tiered from the Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ) (Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR). The following issues were addressed in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR that have relevance to the proposed project analyzed in this Initial Study: Section 2.2 (Air Quality), of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, addressed air quality impacts resulting from construction activities to take place in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR found this impact to be less than significant with mitigation (Mitigation Measure 1 from the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR), and this measure is incorporated into the Initial Study below as Mitigation Measure 2. Section 2.7 (Other Issues Cultural Resources) addressed cultural resources impacts caused by grading and construction activities to take place in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR found this impact to be less than significant with mitigation (Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 from the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR), and these measures are incorporated into the Initial Study below as Mitigation Measures 3 and 4. Agenda Pck 351

13 PAGE III-3 1. Aesthetics ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact Explanation: For purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista is the scenic, relatively extensive view available from a scenic vantage point, scenic overlook, or scenic highway as designated by a state or local plan or policy. There are no scenic vistas affected by the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact Explanation: A scenic resource is a landscape pattern or feature, either built or natural, that is visually and aesthetically pleasing, and that therefore contributes to and helps define a distinct community or region. The General Plan EIR evaluated scenic resources in the Central Salinas Valley and identified Highly Sensitive Areas and Agenda Pck 352

14 PAGE III-4 Sensitive Areas, which were confined to the ridge lines and foothills of the Gabilan and Santa Lucia Ranges. The proposed project sites are not in either of these two categories. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Impact Explanation: The existing visual character of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park is dominated by industrial and commercial structures and public infrastructure such as roads and drainage features. The area also includes agricultural land east and north of the project site. The proposed project site are three vacant lots with frontage on Katherine Street, which is an improved industrial street in the industrial park. While the proposed project would convert the lot from vacant industrial lot to an agricultural industrial use, such a conversion would not change the essential character of development in the industrial park. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on visual character. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; ZeroCity Site Visit d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less-Than- Impact with Mitigation Explanation: The proposed project would include nighttime security lighting that while similar to lighting on other properties in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park would still contribute to the gradual degradation of nighttime views. Gonzales General Plan Implementing Action CC (Reduce Light Pollution) requires new development to reduce light pollution by designing exterior lighting to be downward cast and hooded. This is a significant impact that would be made less than significant with the following mitigation measure: Agenda Pck 353

15 PAGE III-5 Mitigation Measure 1 Project proponents will add provisions to their plans to ensure that all exterior lighting is designed to be downward cast and hooded. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. in determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Agenda Pck 354

16 PAGE III-6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, 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? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a. Would the project 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? No Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities are to be located on improved lots located in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. Before the sites were improved, the land was classified as "prime" based on the State Department of Conservation's Important Farmlands Inventory and as "Class I" or "Class II" based on the SCS Land Capability System. This impact was discussed in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR. There is no further impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities are to be located on land in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park that is appropriately zoned for the proposed agricultural industrial use. While land that lies immediately outside the General Plan s Urban Growth Boundary and adjacent to the project sites are under agricultural easement, the proposed project sites are located within the City of Gonzales Sphere Agenda Pck 355

17 PAGE III-7 of Influence and Urban Growth Boundary and is not under Williamson Act contract. The project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526)? No Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities are to be located on land in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park that is zoned for industrial use. There is no forest land zoning in the area, and there is no possibility of conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, as none exists in the area. The project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities are to be located on land in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park that is zoned for industrial use. There is no forest land in the area, and there is no possibility of the project resulting in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment that, 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? Explanation: No Impact The proposed facilities are located adjacent to the Permanent Agricultural Edge designated by the Gonzales 2010 General Plan Land Use Diagram. Agenda Pck 356

18 PAGE III-8 Gonzales 2010 General Plan Implementing Action COS (Protect Agricultural Operations) calls for the siting of less sensitive uses such as agricultural support, agricultural packing, agricultural warehousing, agricultural processing, parking, roads, storage, and landscaping adjacent to agricultural areas. The proposed facilities are consistent with this General Plan implementing action. Furthermore, the project sites are zoned for industrial use. Accordingly, the project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 3. Air Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact Agenda Pck 357

19 PAGE III-9 a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact Explanation: Buildout of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park has been anticipated by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) in its population and employment forecasts. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan revised in 2013 by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (since renamed the Monterey Bay Air Resources District), which is based on AMBAG growth forecasts. The project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: MDUAPCD Triennial Plan Revisions, (2013); AMBAG Region Growth Forecast to 2035 (2012); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Explanation: Less than Impact with Mitigation This discussion is organized into two sections 1) indirect emissions (operational impacts) and 2) direct emissions (stationary source impacts). Indirect Emissions. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008), Table 5.4, indicates that the threshold for potentially significance air emissions associated with indirect sources for an industrial park is approximately 1.4 million square feet. The proposed project would result in the construction of approximately 130,500 square feet of structure with minimal grading for site preparation. Nonetheless, the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR found short-term construction impacts to be a significant impact for the business park as a whole and set forth Mitigation Measure 1 to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern with this mitigation measure from the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR: Agenda Pck 358

20 PAGE III-10 Mitigation Measure 2 The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities: a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure (and prevent visible emissions and off-site drift); b. Perform grading activities primarily during morning hours when wind are calmer, and prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph); c. Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials shall be covered; e. Cover inactive storage piles; f. Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks; g. Post a publicly visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance); h. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible; i. Sweep street if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; and j. Limit the area under construction at any one time. (From the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR): Mitigation Measure 1) Direct Emissions. The drying and processing of medical marijuana could engender emissions that are vented from on-site processing rooms. In a discussion with David Craft, Air Quality Engineer III at the Air Resources District, Mr. Craft indicated that the Air District Board was studying the possibility of regulating emissions from the processing of medical marijuana. He said that no immediate decision is pending and Agenda Pck 359

21 PAGE III-11 that the issue might wait for statewide guidance. At this time, no regulations or CEQA thresholds of significance exist for the operation of medical marijuana processing facilities. Project plans submitted by the applicant include measures for proper air filtration, including impregnated carbon filters for all air exhaust to remove agricultural odor. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Sources: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (2008) c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Impact Explanation: The Monterey Bay Air Basin is considered an attainment or maintenance area for Federal air quality standards. The air basin is a non-attainment area for State ozone standards and particulate matter standards, which involve vehicle trips and grading, respectively. The threshold of significance set forth in the MBUAPCD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008) address these indirect emissions, and the size of the proposed project falls below the threshold set by the Air Resources District. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (2008) d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Impact Agenda Pck 360

22 PAGE III-12 Explanation: The proposed project would increase truck trips to the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The addition of diesel-powered vehicles on the road would cause a corresponding increase in locally produced diesel exhaust, which is considered a toxic air contaminant. According to the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, the estimated operational emissions resulting from buildout of the business park would fall below the threshold a significance established by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008). The proposed project is of the type and scale of development envisioned for the business park and therefore falls within the analysis undertaken in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR. The proposed project would have a lessthan-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (2008); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No impact Explanation: As discussed in subsection b above, the drying and processing of medical marijuana could engender emissions that are vented from on-site processing rooms. Project plans submitted by the applicant include measures for proper air filtration, including impregnated carbon filters for all air exhaust to remove agricultural odor. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales City Code Chapter (Cultivation and Manufacturing of Medical Marijuana) Agenda Pck 361

23 PAGE III Biological Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or Agenda Pck 362

24 PAGE III-14 special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities would have no substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed facilities are located on a vacant lot in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park that is improved with streets, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The site was actively farmed in recent years, and according to the Gonzales General Plan EIR Figure (Biotic Resources) the proposed project sites are not in proximity to any significant biotic resource. A site visit by the preparer of this Initial Study confirmed that the site contains no wet feature and no significant vegetation. Accordingly, the proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities have no possibility of having a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. According to the Gonzales General Plan EIR Figure (Major Drainages) and Figure (Biotic Resources), the proposed project sites are in proximity to neither any major water resource nor significant biotic resource. A site visit by the preparer of this Initial Study confirmed that the site contains no wet feature and no significant vegetation. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Agenda Pck 363

25 PAGE III-15 Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Explanation: No Impact The proposed facilities would have no possibility of having a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. According to the Gonzales General Plan EIR Figure (Major Drainages) and Figure (Biotic Resources), the proposed project sites are in proximity to neither any major water resource nor significant biotic resource. A site visit by the preparer of this Initial Study confirmed that the site contains no wet feature and no significant vegetation. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC d. Would the project 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? No Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities would not 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. According to the Gonzales General Plan EIR, important wildlife movement is confined to northeast part of the planning area, where Johnson Canyon Creek, McCoy Creek, and other seasonal drainages and ditches offer dispersal and foraging habitat. In addition, the Salinas River corridor, which lies east of the project site by approximately 1.5 miles, provides for wildlife movement. The proposed facilities are not close enough to either of these areas to pose a significant threat to Agenda Pck 364

26 PAGE III-16 wildlife movement. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities would have no possibility of conflicting with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. A site visit by the preparer of this Initial Study confirmed that the site contains no wet feature and no significant vegetation. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Explanation: No Impact The proposed facilities would have no possibility of conflicting with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. According to the General Plan EIR, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the project vicinity. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR, Volume II (Gonzales General Plan EIR Notice of Preparation, December, 2009); Site visit by ZeroCity LLC Agenda Pck 365

27 PAGE III Cultural Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section ? No Impact Explanation: According to the General Plan EIR Figure (Cultural Resources), there are no historical resources in the project area. A site visit by the preparer of this Initial Study confirmed that the proposed sites contain no structures of any sort and has in recent years been cultivated for row crop production. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section ? Less than Impact with Mitigation Agenda Pck 366

28 PAGE III-18 Explanation: The proposed facilities are to be located on three lots in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. At the time that Katherine Street was constructed, each of these lots were graded to create building pads lifted above the grade of Katherine Street to ensure proper drainage. The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR addressed this issue. According to the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, there are no known historic resources located on or adjacent to the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that cultural resources could be uncovered during grading and site preparation. This is a significant impact that would be made less than significant with the following mitigation measures from the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR: Mitigation Measure 3 The following language shall be included on any permits issued for the project site, including, but not limited to, grading and building permits for future development. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in the area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. (From the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR: Mitigation Measure 7) Mitigation Measure 4 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that the following language is included in all permits. If human remains are found during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until a coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If Agenda Pck 367

29 PAGE III-19 the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. (From the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR: Mitigation Measure 8) In a letter dated August 17, 2016, the City of Gonzales invited the Esselen Tribal Nation to consult on the NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project. Louise Ramirez, Chairperson of the Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation, responded positively to that request in a letter dated August 26, Ms. Ramirez requested archaeological reports/surveys, subsurface testing and presence/absence testing. Ms. Ramirez also requested to be included in any mitigation and recovery programs and to have an approved Native American Monitor present on site during relevant construction activities. Given that this issue was already adequately evaluated in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, that the proposed project sites were already graded to create construction pads in an earlier year, and that Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 above would ensure that any artifacts discovered during construction are handled Agenda Pck 368

30 PAGE III-20 appropriately, it is the position of the City of Gonzales that the only remaining impact could involve excavation below six (6) feet in depth. The proposed project would include the placement of an underground stormwater retention vault, which could involve excavation below six (6) feet. The proposed project would have a significant impact in this category of concern, and the following mitigation measure would render this impact less than significant: Mitigation Measure 5 If during the course of reviewing final building plans, the City of Gonzales determines that excavation below six feet in depth is required, it will retain the services of a qualified Native American monitor approved by the Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation to monitor such excavation. The expense of retaining this monitor shall be borne solely by the project applicant. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Letter dated August 17, 2016 from the City of Gonzales to Louise Ramirez; Letter dated August 26, 2016 from Louise Ramirez to the City of Gonzales. c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Impact with Mitigation Explanation: According to the General Plan EIR, there are no known paleontological localities within the planning area. However, the deep alluvial deposits within much of the planning area increase the potential for buried paleontological resources and/or unique geologic features that may have no surface indication. Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 above would ensure that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR Agenda Pck 369

31 PAGE III-21 d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than with Mitigation Explanation: The proposed facilities are to be located on three lots in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. At the time that Katherine Street was constructed, each of these lots were graded to create building pads lifted above the grade of Katherine Street to ensure proper drainage. The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR addressed this issue. According to the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park, there are no known human remains interred in or adjacent to the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that cultural resources could be uncovered during grading and site preparation. This is a significant impact that would be made less than significant with Mitigation Measure 3 and 4, set forth above. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application Agenda Pck 370

32 PAGE III Geology and Soils ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a. (i) Would the project create exposure to rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued Agenda Pck 371

33 PAGE III-23 by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Impact Explanation: According to the General Plan EIR, the proposed project sites are not located in an area subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR a. (ii) Would the project create exposure to strong seismic ground shaking? Less-than- Impact Explanation: According to the General Plan EIR Figure (Seismic Hazards), the proposed facilities are located in a High Seismic Hazard area. The California Building Standards Code requires building construction designed to withstand most earthquake occurrences, and in order for the proposed project to obtain approved building permits form the City of Gonzales, the building plans must comply with all applicable building codes. The project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR a. (iii) Would the project create exposure to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less-than- Impact Explanation: According to the General Plan EIR Figure (Liquefaction Hazards), the proposed facilities are located in a Moderate Liquefaction Potential area. The California Building Standards Code requires building construction designed to withstand most earthquake-related impacts, including liquefaction, and in order for the proposed project to obtain approved building permits form the City of Gonzales, the building plans must comply with all applicable building codes. To support the effective application of building codes, the Gonzales 2010 General Plan Implementing Action HS (Geotechnical Investigations) requires all proposed applications to Agenda Pck 372

34 PAGE III-24 include a geotechnical investigation where development is proposed in areas with moderate or high seismic risks or where soil stability may be an issue. Accordingly, the City of Gonzales includes the requirement for a geotechnical investigation as a standard condition of approval on all Site Plan Permits. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR; Gonzales 2010 General Plan a. (iv) Would the project create exposure to landslides? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project has no possibility of being affected by landslides. The proposed project area is flat with no potential for landslide. The proposed project would no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities include buildings that occupy approximately half of the area of each site; most of the remaining area on each site will be used for paved parking, landscaping, and security fencing. There are no drainage courses in the vicinity and the site is topographically flat. Finally, the project sites will be the subject of drainage and erosion control plans approved as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the site. According to General Plan EIR Figure (Erosion Potential), the proposed project sites are located in an area with Low Erosion Potential. The potential is low that the project would result in substantial soil erosion. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR Agenda Pck 373

35 PAGE III-25 c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Explanation: Less than Impact According to the General Plan EIR, lateral spreading can occur in weaker soils on slopes and adjacent to open channels that are subject to strong ground shaking during earthquakes. The proposed site and the surrounding sites are topographically flat with no major drainages, so the potential for lateral spreading is very low. According to General Plan EIR Figure (Liquefaction Hazards), the proposed facilities are located in a Moderate Liquefaction Potential area. The California Building Standards Code requires building construction designed to withstand most earthquake-related impacts, including liquefaction, and in order for the proposed project to obtain approved building permits form the City of Gonzales, the building plans must comply with all applicable building codes. The City of Gonzales includes the requirement for a geotechnical investigation as a standard condition of approval on all Site Plan Permits. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC d. Would the project 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? Less-than- Impact Explanation: According to General Plan EIR Figure (Soil Shrink/Swell Potential), the proposed project sites are located in an area with High Soil Shrink/Swell Potential. The Gonzales General Plan Implementing Action HS (Soils Analysis) requires all proposed applications to include a soils analyses where development is proposed in areas with moderate or high seismic risks or where soil stability may be an issue. The City of Gonzales includes the requirement for a geotechnical investigation as a standard condition of approval on all Site Plan Permits. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in the category. Agenda Pck 374

36 PAGE III-26 Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; General Plan EIR; Gonzales 2010 General Plan e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project has no possibility of requiring the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems that would require soils adequate to support such systems. The project would be located in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park and hooked to the City s sanitary sewer system. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact 17. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less-than- Impact Agenda Pck 375

37 PAGE III-27 Explanation: The proposed project includes three 43,510-square-foot buildings each housing a medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facility. The Gonzales Climate Action Plan GHG Reduction Metric (Table CAP-15 of the Climate Action Plan), requires 1.23 MT CO 2E reduction per 1,000 square feet of new commercial/industrial construction annually. When this metric is applied to the proposed project at hand, each building would require measures to reduce annual GHG emissions by MT CO 2E (or 115,809 pounds CO 2E). PG&E s CO 2 emission rate is 435 pounds per megawatt hour (source: PG&E, 2014), so each of the three project phases could meet its GHG emission reduction requirement by installing clean renewable energy facilities to reduce annual PG&E electricity consumption by approximately 265 megawatt hour (115,809 pounds 435 pounds per megawatt hour 265 megawatt hour). If solar panels were to be used, this would require a 195-kilowatt (DC) system (assuming an efficiency rate of 75% and 5 peak solar-hours per day). According to NetZero Farms application materials, NetZero Farms I (165 Katherine Street) would include a 350-kilowatt roof-top solar system. NetZero Farms II and III (175 and 185 Katherine Street, respectively) would each include a 1,000 kilowatt cogeneration micro turbine capable of producing 9,000 megawatts per year, plus 100- kilowatt roof-top solar system. These planned renewable energy facilities would meet and surpass the 265-megawatt-hour reductions required by the Gonzales Climate Action Plan. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in the category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales Climate Action Plan (2012); ZeroCity LLC analysis; PG&E b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project includes renewable energy elements that are anticipated to offset most or all of the facilities carbon footprint. This aggressive renewable energy plan far exceeds goals set forth in AB32, Executive Order S-03-05, Agenda Pck 376

38 PAGE III-28 and Executive Order B In addition, the proposed project exceeds requirements set forth in the City of Gonzales Climate Action Plan. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales Climate Action Plan (2012) 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact Agenda Pck 377

39 PAGE III-29 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less-than- Impact Explanation: According to the NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application, the proposed medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facilities will use the following hazardous substances: Facility Cleaning and Disinfecting Standard Cleaning Products Bleach (generic or name brand) Ammonia (generic or name brand) Isopropyl Alcohol (generic or name brand - less than a gallon) Naccosan (natural based, plant and human safe, antimicrobial solution) Other common household cleaning products Cultivation Fertilizers/Products Water Soluble Plant Fertilizers. The facility will be fertilizing with Manna Nutrients which includes: Grow, Bloom, Liquid Roots, Flip, Vigorous, Critical Mass, Liquid Greatness, Mothers, Calcium, Rhizo Clean, and Summer. Pest Preventive (Natural Based): Azamax, and Monterey Garden Insect Spray (see below for pest control procedures). Agenda Pck 378

40 PAGE III-30 Processing and Lab Standard Cleaning Products Food grade alcohol for lab use (less than three gallons stored onsite) Pest Control Pesticide, fungicide, fertilizer and media storage According to the NetZero Farms Application, anyone applying pesticides in the grow rooms must have the appropriate operator or applicator licenses provided by the state. All applicable pesticide label instructions, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and EPA Worker Protection Standard (WPS) guidelines will also be followed. Warning signs, recording, and posting of grow rooms that have had pesticide/fungicide application will be recorded information in the Grow Room Pesticide Records and shared with the garden staff by the Cultivation Manager. All hazardous material products will be supplied with a Material Safety Data Sheet/Safety Data Sheet that will be located in a Safety Binder at each NetZero Farms facility. Each product will be utilized and stored and based on regulated safety standards. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would not include the storage and use of large amounts of hazardous substances. For example, unlike many neighboring facilities in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park, the NetZero Farms project includes no cold storage, which can require storages of ammonia gas. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Agenda Pck 379

41 PAGE III-31 Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Explanation: No Impact The proposed project would be approximately 3,550 feet (6/10 th of a mile) from the nearest school in Gonzales La Gloria Elementary School and all new schools are planned further away across Highway 101. In any event, the proposed facility would not emit hazardous substances and would not handle hazardous or acutely hazardous substances, except in the small amounts described in Subsection a above. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales 2010 General Plan; Google Earth d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less-than- Impact Explanation: According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control s List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites (EnviroStor database), there are no hazardous materials sites in Gonzales. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: California Department of Toxic Substances Control ( 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? No Impact Agenda Pck 380

42 PAGE III-32 Explanation: According to Google Earth, the closest public use airport in the Salinas Airport located approximately 14 miles north and west of the City of Gonzales. The proposed project sites are not within an airport land use plan area and is not within two miles of a public use airport. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Google Earth 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? No Impact Explanation: According to the Gonzales General Plan EIR Notice of Preparation (2009), there are no private airstrips in the Gonzales vicinity. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR Notice of Preparation (2009) g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Explanation: No Impact According to the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, Gonzales River Road is a designated emergency evacuation route in Gonzales Evacuation Plan. The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park is located northwest of Gonzales River Road, and the proposed project sites are in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park on Katherine Street. There is no feature of the proposed project that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC Agenda Pck 381

43 PAGE III-33 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? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project has no possibility of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. There are no wildlands or forest in the project vicinity. Land immediately adjacent to the proposed project sites are either agricultural land (northwest) or agricultural industrial use (all other sides). The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Sources: Site visit by ZeroCity LLC 9. Hydrology and Water Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (for example, the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact Agenda Pck 382

44 PAGE III-34 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- 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? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would not discharge stormwater into a watercourse or other body of water located off site. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b. Would the project 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 ground water table level (for example, Agenda Pck 383

45 PAGE III-35 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)? Explanation: Less-than- Impact The City of Gonzales obtains groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin for all municipal and industrial purposes. Recharge to the groundwater basin occurs through the Salinas River, percolation of rainfall and runoff from the surrounding hills, and irrigation return flow. Currently, the site is vacant but was farmed in recent years. The proposed project would reduce recharge at the site. The City of Gonzales, in planning for the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park, included a drainage basin located on about five (5) acres of property immediately adjacent to the NetZero Farms Project site to provide overflow capacity. The off-site drainage basin provides for percolation. The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR found this impact to be less than significant and identified no mitigation measure for the purpose of increasing stormwater recharge. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales City Code c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Less-than- Impact with Mitigation Explanation: The proposed facilities are located on vacant but improved sites in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The sites are topographically flat, and there are no drainages or other water features on or near the site. Improvement of the sites would could alter existing drainage patterns such that erosion or siltation would occur on or off site. This impact would be rendered less than significant with the following mitigation measure: Agenda Pck 384

46 PAGE III-36 Mitigation Measure 6 The proposed project shall comply with the most recent Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit (Order No DWQ) and the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Developments Projects in the Central Coast Region (Resolution No. R ). Due to the project type and size, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) may need to be prepared and proper documentation submitted to the State Water Board to register under the Construction General Permit. The applicant is required to provide a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number prior to issuance of a grading permit. A Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be prepared to document the Post- Construction Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs). The Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program has developed a Technical Guidance Manual and SCP template that should be used to prepare the SCP. The guidance manual and template can be found at the following website: The SCP must include an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that addresses the maintenance procedures and intervals for each SCM and identifies the responsible party to conduct maintenance. A maintenance covenant will be required to ensure on-going maintenance for the life of the facility. The covenant shall include, at a minimum: a. The project owner s signed statement accepting responsibility for the O&M of the installed onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCMs until such responsibility is legally transferred to another entity; and either: i) Written conditions in the sales or lease agreements or deed for the project that require the buyer or lessee to assume responsibility for the O&M of the onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCM until such responsibility is legally transferred to another entity; or ii) Any other legally enforceable agreement or mechanism, such as recordation Agenda Pck 385

47 PAGE III-37 in the property deed, that assigns responsibility for the O&M of the onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCM to the project owner(s) or the City The proposed project must be designed to not increase the peak flow to the downstream system. Therefore, a drainage report will need to be prepared demonstrating compliance. Refer to the City s Design Standards and Standard Specifications for the specific flood control requirements. The proposed project may be subject to the California Stormwater Industrial General Permit (IGP). You are required to review the IGP to determine your compliance action and submit a letter to the City stating your findings. Source: Site visit by ZeroCity LLC; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Less-than- Impact with Mitigation Explanation: The proposed facilities are located on a vacant but improved site in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The site is topographically flat, and there are no drainages or other water features on or near the site. Improvement of the site would increase stormwater run-off from the site that could result in flooding. The proposed project would have a significant impact in this category of concern. This impact would be rendered less than significant with Mitigation Measure 6, above. Source: Site visit by ZeroCity LLC; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application e. Would the project 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? Less-than- Impact with Mitigation Agenda Pck 386

48 PAGE III-38 Explanation: The proposed facilities are located on a vacant but improved site in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The site is topographically flat, and there are no drainages or other water features on or near the site. Improvement of the site would increase stormwater run-off from the site that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and Mitigation Measure 6, above, requires the preparation of a Stormwater Control Plan. The proposed project would have a lessthan-significant impact in this category of concern with Mitigation Measure 6. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); Site visit by ZeroCity LLC; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact Explanation: There are no features of the proposed project that have the potential to otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application g. Would the project 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? No Impact Explanation: According to the General Plan EIR Figure (Flood Hazard Zones), the proposed project is not located in a 100-year flood hazard zone. The proposed project would include no housing. The project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application Agenda Pck 387

49 PAGE III-39 h. Would the project place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact Explanation: According to the General Plan EIR Figure (Flood Hazard Zones), the proposed project is not located in a 100-year flood hazard zone. The project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application i. Would the project 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? Less-than- Impact with Mitigation Explanation: According to the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, the project sites are located in an area of dam inundation for the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams. Dam failure would cause significant flooding, destroying much in its path. Should the integrity of one or more dam come into question, dam officials would notify officials from the City of Gonzales, and in turn, City officials would notify industrial park occupants. According to the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, it would take approximately 10½ hours for flood waters to reach the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. This is a significant impact in this category of concern that would be made less than significant with the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure 7 Project proponents shall revise the security plan for each of the three proposed facilities to include evacuation procedures to follow in the event that either (or both) of the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams experience failure and release flood waters. These procedures shall be consistent with established procedures for emergency evacuation. Agenda Pck 388

50 PAGE III-40 Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application j. Would the project create exposure to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact Explanation: There is no potential for the project site to be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The proposed project sites are located on flat land in the Central Salinas Valley, approximately 25 miles from the Pacific Ocean and two to three miles from the mountain ranges that line this part of the Salinas Valley. The project has no impact in this category of concern. Source: Google Earth; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 10. Land Use and Planning ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact Agenda Pck 389

51 PAGE III-41 Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of physically dividing an established community. The proposed project would develop three parcels in an established industrial park the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park and is of the scale and type of development envisioned in the Gonzales 2010 General Plan for Gonzales industrial areas. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Plan NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales 2010 General b. Would the project 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? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of conflicting with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is consistent with the Gonzales 2010 General Plan and consistent with the Gonzales Climate Action Plan, which was adopted to address GHG emission impacts related to the adoption of the Gonzales 2010 General Plan. This Initial Study addresses potential cultural impacts with Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, above. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); Gonzales 2010 General Plan; Gonzales Climate Action Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application c. Would the project conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of conflicting with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Agenda Pck 390

52 PAGE III-42 According to the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effect in the Gonzales area. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 11. Mineral Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of resulting in the loss of availability of a mineral resource of value to the region and the residents of the state. According to the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, there are no known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state in the project vicinity. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application Agenda Pck 391

53 PAGE III-43 b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of resulting in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. According to the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, there are no locally-important mineral resource recovery sites in the project vicinity. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 12. Noise ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact Agenda Pck 392

54 PAGE III-44 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a. Would the project result in 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? Explanation: Less-than- Impact The proposed project would have a low probability of exposing persons to, or generating, noise levels in excess of standards. The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR included an analysis of potential noise impacts that could accompany development and build out of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park and found the impacts to be less than significant. The proposed facilities are a medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facility and is of the type and scale of development envisioned by the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR. With the exception of short-term construction impacts, the proposed project involves no activities or operations that would generate significant noise or vibration. Construction-related noise impacts are also expected to be less than significant, as standard concrete tilt-up construction is proposed, and no pile driving or other exceptional construction techniques are proposed. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application. b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less-than- Impact Agenda Pck 393

55 PAGE III-45 Explanation: The proposed project would have a low probability of exposing persons to, or generating, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. See the discussion above in Subsection a. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application. c. Would the project result in substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have a low probability of resulting in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. See the discussion above in Subsection a. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application. d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have a low probability of resulting in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. See the discussion above in Subsection a. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application. 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 Agenda Pck 394

56 PAGE III-46 project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of exposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from an airport. According to the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, there are no airports in the project vicinity. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales 2010 General Plan 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? Explanation: No Impact The proposed project would have no possibility of exposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from a private air strip. According to the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, there are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales 2010 General Plan Agenda Pck 395

57 PAGE III Population and Housing ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial unintended population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a. Would the project induce substantial unintended 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)? Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have a low probability of inducing substantial, unintended population growth in an area, as the proposed facilities are located on sites within an established industrial park that anticipates the type and scale of projects, like the one at hand. The General Plan EIR analyzed the impact of planned growth, including development and build out of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park, and found the impact to be less than significant. The project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Agenda Pck 396

58 PAGE III-48 Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of displacing substantial numbers of existing housing. The proposed project would be located on three vacant lots in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of displacing substantial numbers of people. The proposed project would be located on three vacant lots in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Site visit by ZeroCity LLC 14. Public Services ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical 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: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? d) Other public facilities? Agenda Pck 397

59 PAGE III-49 a. Fire protection Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities are of the type and scale of projects anticipated by the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR. That EIR found the impact of new development on fire services to be a less-than-significant impact with a mitigation measure, which requires the Fire Department to review all proposed development applications to ensure that adequate services can be provided to the proposed project. In addition, in 2006, the City of Gonzales adopted a Fire Capital Facilities Mitigation Fee to expand fire protection services in the city. The City of Gonzales requires the Gonzales Fire Department to review all project applications and requires payment of the Gonzales Fire Capital Facilities Mitigation Fee as a standard condition of project approval. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of impact. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); General Plan EIR; Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b. Police protection Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities are of the type and scale of projects anticipated by the Gonzales 2010 General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. That EIR found the impact of new development on police services to be a less-thansignificant impact because of various implementing action contained in the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, including Implementing Action HS-4.1.7, which requires the Police Department to review all proposed development applications to ensure that adequate services can be provided to the proposed project. The Gonzales City Code Chapter (Cultivation and Manufacturing of Medical Marijuana) requires medical marijuana facilities to implement a security plan that includes security cameras, alarm system, and secure locked entrances and windows. The proposed project includes a plan with all these features, plus security guards and Agenda Pck 398

60 PAGE III-50 fingerprinting/background checks of all employees, to ensure security at the proposed facilities. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Gonzales City Code c. Schools Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed project includes three medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facilities and as such would not directly result in the create of new housing. Accordingly, the proposed project would not directly generate new students that could impact area schools. The Gonzales 2010 General Plan Implementing Action FS requires the City of Gonzales to collect at appropriate school impact fees from approved projects. Accordingly, the City of Gonzales requires payment of the Gonzales Unified School District s School Impact Fee as a standard condition of project approval. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application d. Parks Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed project would not directly result in a need for new or expanded parks. The proposed project includes three medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facilities and as such would not directly result in the create of new housing. The proposed project would create new jobs that could indirectly lead to population growth that would place more demand on park facilities, but this impact would likely be very small. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application Agenda Pck 399

61 PAGE III-51 e. Other public facilities Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed project would not directly result in a need for other public facilities, such as libraries, social services, and the like. The proposed project includes three medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facilities and as such would not directly result in the create of new housing. The proposed project would create new jobs that could indirectly lead to population growth that would create demand for other public facilities, but this impact would likely be very small. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 15. Recreation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less-than- Impact Agenda Pck 400

62 PAGE III-52 Explanation: The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation: No Impact The proposed project would not result in an increase in demand for park facilities that require the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application Agenda Pck 401

63 PAGE III Transportation/Traffic ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 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 system, including but not limited to Agenda Pck 402

64 PAGE III-54 intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less-than- Impact Explanation: This category of concern was analyzed in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, which found that all area roadway segments would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with buildout of the industrial park. Kimley-Horn and Associates studied the traffic impacts of the proposed project and in a memo dated August 29, 2016 to ZeroCity LLC concluded that traffic generated by the proposed project was consistent with trips analyzed earlier in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR. The proposed project would have a lessthan-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Memo dated August 29, 2016, from Frederik Venter, Kimley-Horn Associates to Martin Carver, ZeroCity LLC Re: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Traffic Study, Gonzales, California. b. Would the project 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? Less-than- Impact This category of concern was analyzed in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, which found that regional corridors subject to the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Congestion Management Program would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with buildout of the industrial park. Kimley- Horn and Associates studied the traffic impacts of the proposed project and in a memo dated August 29, 2016 to ZeroCity LLC concluded that traffic generated by the proposed project was consistent with trips analyzed earlier in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR. The proposed project would have a lessthan-significant impact in this category of concern. Agenda Pck 403

65 PAGE III-55 Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Memo dated August 29, 2016, from Frederik Venter, Kimley-Horn Associates to Martin Carver, ZeroCity LLC Re: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Traffic Study, Gonzales, California. c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Explanation: No Impact The proposed project would have no possibility of resulting in a change in air traffic patterns. According to the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, there are no public airports, public use airports, or private air strips in the project vicinity. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? Less-than- Impact with Mitigation Explanation: Kimley-Horn and Associates studied the traffic impacts of the proposed project and in a memo dated August 29, 2016 to ZeroCity LLC concluded that all sight distances and turning radii were adequate to avoid substantially increasing hazards due to a design feature. This category of concern was also analyzed in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, which found that increased truck traffic resulting from buildout of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park would increase the potential for accidents to occur at the intersection of Alta Street and Gonzales River Road. The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR found this impact to be significant and set forth mitigation measures requiring various traffic improvements in the area. These measures have been superseded by a citywide traffic improvement program and Agenda Pck 404

66 PAGE III-56 fee. The proposed project would have a significant impact that would be made less than significant with the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure 8 Project proponents shall pay their pro-rata share of the citywide traffic impact fee established by the City of Gonzales. This fee shall be paid at the issuance of building permits for each of the three facilities to be developed. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application; Memo dated August 29, 2016, from Frederik Venter, Kimley-Horn Associates to Martin Carver, ZeroCity LLC Re: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Traffic Study, Gonzales, California. e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of resulting in inadequate emergency access. The proposed project would be developed on three vacant parcels located on Katherine Street in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The proposed project would have no impact in this category of concern. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 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? Less-than- Impact with Mitigation Explanation: The proposed project would be located on Katherine Street, which is an improved street with curbs and gutters but no sidewalks. The Gonzales 2010 General Plan Implementing Action CIR (Streets as Joint Use Facilities) calls for all streets and roads in Gonzales to be designed as joint-use facilities, and Implementing Action CIR (Design Streets for Pedestrians) calls for the City of Gonzales to ensure that street designs provide adequate safety for pedestrians. According to the NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application, the proposed Site Agenda Pck 405

67 PAGE III-57 Plan does not include provisions to construct sidewalks along the project frontage on Katherine Street. This is a significant impact that would be made less than significant with the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure 9 The project applicant will revise its proposed site plan to include five-foot sidewalks along the entire frontage on Katherine Street, and these facilities will be constructed at the sole cost of the project applicant prior to building occupancy. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 17. Utilities and Service Systems ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact Agenda Pck 406

68 PAGE III-58 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Issues Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Impact No Impact a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less-than- Impact Explanation: According to Harold Wolgamott, Gonzales Public Work Director, the Gonzales Wastewater Treatment Plant has an approved capacity of 1.3 million gallons per day (gpd), and this is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. Sewer effluent from the proposed facilities are not expected to result in high biological demand levels or contain heavy oils or toxic substances that could otherwise overtax the treatment plant. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Memo Dated, August 26, 2016 from Harold Wolgamott. Public Works Director; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application b. Would the project 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? Less-than- Impact Explanation: According to Harold Wolgamott, Gonzales Public Work Director, the Gonzales Wastewater Treatment Plant has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. With regard to water supply, the City prepared a SB610 Water Supply Assessment for the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park in 2004 as part of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR (SCH # ), and Agenda Pck 407

69 PAGE III-59 found that the City of Gonzales had sufficient water supplies to serve buildout of the industrial park. The proposed facilities are of the type and scale of projects envisioned for the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. Accordingly, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); Memo Dated, August 26, 2016 from Harold Wolgamott. Public Works Director; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less-than- Impact with Mitigation Explanation: The proposed project would have no possibility of resulting in the construction or expansion of off-site stormwater drainage facilities. Katherine Street is improved with curbs and gutters and project proponents are already required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan for each of the three sites to the City of Gonzales. The proposed project would include the construction of on-site drainage detention facilities, including possibly an underground stormwater retention vault. If unrecorded buried cultural resources exist on site, the construction of on-sight drainage facilities could disturb the resources, and Mitigation Measure 3, 4, and 5 above would ensure that such impacts are less than significant. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern with Mitigation Measures 3, 4, and 5. Source: NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application 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? Less-than- Impact Agenda Pck 408

70 PAGE III-60 Explanation: According to the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR (SCH # ), the City prepared a SB610 Water Supply Assessment for the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park in 2004 and found buildout of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park would result in decreased water demand compared with existing water demand at the site. Buildout of the park would result in a total water demand of AFY, AFY less than existing water use at the project site. The proposed facilities are of the type and scale envisioned for the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park, so it is reasonable to conclude that the City of Gonzales has adequate water supply to serve the proposed project, and no new or expanded water entitlement are needed. The proposed project would have a lessthan-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application e. Would the project 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? Less-than- Impact Explanation: The Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR analyzed this issue and found the impact to be significant. The EIR included two mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant, and according to Herold Wolgamott, the Director of Public Works, each of these mitigation measures has been fully implemented. In a memo dated August 26, 2016, Harold Wolgamott. Public Works Director, the City of Gonzales, stated that since the completion of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR the City of Gonzales expanded the capacity of its wastewater treatment plan to 1.3 million gpd, from 750,000 gpd. According to Mr. Wolgamott, this added capacity is sufficient for buildout of the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park and does not compromise capacity to serve other users in the city. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Agenda Pck 409

71 PAGE III-61 Source: Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ); Memo Dated, August 26, 2016 from Harold Wolgamott. Public Works Director; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? Explanation: Less-than- Impact According to the General Plan EIR, the Johnson Canyon Road Landfill had approximately 2.2 million tons of capacity remaining in 2010, enough to provide services for approximately 32 years through the year The landfill operator, the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, is working to expand operations at the Johnson Canyon Road facility to provide expanded capacity to its member cities, of which Gonzales is one. The proposed facilities are of the type and scale envisioned by the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, so it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs. The proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact in this category of concern. Source: General Plan EIR g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less-than- Impact with Mitigation Explanation: Gonzales 2010 General Plan Implementing Action SUS (Recycling Facilities) requires new development to include features in buildings to facilitate recycling of waste generated by building occupants and associated refuse storage areas. It also requires new development to provide permanent, adequate, and convenient space for individual building occupants to collect refuse and recyclable material. According to the NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application, the proposed project plans include no features to facilitate recycling of waste generated by building occupants or provide permanent, adequate, and convenient space for individual building occupants to collect refuse and recyclable material. It is also Agenda Pck 410

72 PAGE III-62 unclear from project Site Plan that there is sufficient space in the designated trash enclosure to include recycling bins/containers. Absence of a recycling plan would conflict with the Gonzales 2010 General Plan, and this would be a significant impact that would be made less than significant with the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure 10 The City of Gonzales Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director shall review project plans to ensure that the proposed trash enclosure is appropriately sized to contain both trash and recycling containers, and no Site Plan Permit shall be issued until the Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director finds the enclosure adequate. The project applicant shall submit a recycling plan that facilitates recycling of waste generated by building occupants by providing permanent, adequate, and convenient space for individual building occupants to collect refuse and recyclable material and by providing recycling storage areas. Source: Gonzales 2010 General Plan; NetZero Farms I, II, and III Project Application Agenda Pck 411

73 PAGE III Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Issues 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than 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 self-sustaining 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? Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities are the construction and operation of three medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facilities to be located in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The three facilities would be developed on three parcels located at 165, 175, and 185 Katherine Street, which for the exception of Agenda Pck 412

74 PAGE III-64 sidewalks, is a fully improved industrial street within the industrial park. The proposed facilities are of the type and scale anticipated for the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The analysis contained in this Initial Study has identified seven categories of environmental impact that involve potentially significant impacts aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation/traffic, and utilities/services systems and sets forth 10 mitigation measures to address these impacts. In all cases, significant impacts in these categories have been reduced to a level of less-than-significant impact. Accordingly, there is a low probability that the proposed project would degrade the quality of the environment. The proposed project sites consist of three vacant lots that contain no significant vegetation and no water feature, so there is a low probability that the proposed project would substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Finally, the proposed project would involve minor grading and some excavation to install underground drainage vaults and other drainage mechanisms. The Initial Study identifies mitigation measures that would ensure that the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, should such resources be discovered during construction. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: ZeroCity LLC 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 the past Agenda Pck 413

75 PAGE III-65 projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed project would generate new truck traffic that would add to the cumulative impact of diesel emissions along Highway 101. The Gonzales 2010 General Plan EIR analyzed this issue and included a mitigation measure that reduced this significant cumulative impact to a level of less than significant. This Initial Study tiers off the General Plan EIR for the purpose of addressing this cumulative impact and found the resulting impact to be less than significant. The proposed project would generate ozone and particulate matter emissions that would add to the cumulative impact of urbanization on air quality in the region. This impact was considered significant by the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR, and Mitigation Measure 2 (Dust Control during Construction) would make this cumulative impact less than significant. The proposed project would generate new sources of nighttime light that would add to the cumulative impact of urbanization on the nighttime sky. This cumulative impact is addressed by Mitigation Measure 1, which requires hooded and downcast exterior lighting. This mitigation measure reduces this impact to a level of less than significant. Finally, the proposed project would generate traffic that would add to the cumulative impact of urbanization on area traffic conditions. This cumulative impact was addressed by Mitigation Measure 8, which requires the proposed project to pay citywide traffic impact fees. This mitigation measure would reduce the proposed project s contribution to cumulative traffic impacts to a level of less than significant. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: ZeroCity LLC Agenda Pck 414

76 PAGE III-66 c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less-than- Impact Explanation: The proposed facilities are located in an area subject to inundation caused by dam failure at the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams. This impact was addressed by Mitigation Measure 7, which requires that the proposed project adopt evacuation procedures to be followed in the event of dam failure. This mitigation measure reduced the impact to a level of less than significant. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact in this category of concern. Source: ZeroCity LLC Agenda Pck 415

77 Section IV. Environmental Determination A. D E T E R M I N A T I O N On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Thomas Truszkowski, Deputy City Manager/Director of Community Development Date Agenda Pck 416

78 SECTION IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PAGE IV-2 This page intentionally left blank Agenda Pck 417

79 Section V. Mitigation Monitoring Plan A. S U M M A R Y O F M I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E S The following is a summary of mitigation measures set forth in this Initial Study in the order that they appear above. Mitigation measures from a previous EIR (from which this Initial Study is tiered) are annotated to indicate when the mitigation measure is from the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Park EIR. Mitigation Measure 1 Project proponents will add provisions to their plans to ensure that all exterior lighting is designed to be downward cast and hooded. Mitigation Measure 2 The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities: a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure (and prevent visible emissions and off-site drift); b. Perform grading activities primarily during morning hours when wind is calmer, and prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph); c. Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials shall be covered; e. Cover inactive storage piles; f. Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks; g. Post a publicly visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance); h. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible; Agenda Pck 418

80 SECTION V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PAGE V-2 i. Sweep street if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; and j. Limit the area under construction at any one time. (From the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR: Mitigation Measure 1) Mitigation Measure 3 The following language shall be included on any permits issued for the project site, including, but not limited to, grading and building permits for future development. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in the area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. (From the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR: Mitigation Measure 7) Mitigation Measure 4 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall ensure that the following language is included in all permits. If human remains are found during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until a coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native Agenda Pck 419

81 SECTION V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PAGE V-3 American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. (From the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR: Mitigation Measure 8) Mitigation Measure 5 If during the course of reviewing final building plans, the City of Gonzales determines that excavation below six feet in depth is required, it will retain the services of a qualified Native American monitor approved by the Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation to monitor such excavation. The expense of retaining this monitor shall be borne solely by the project applicant. Mitigation Measure 6 The proposed project shall comply with the most recent Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit (Order No DWQ) and the Post- Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Developments Projects in the Central Coast Region (Resolution No. R ). Due to the project type and size, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) may need to be prepared and proper documentation submitted to the State Water Board to register under the Construction General Permit. The applicant is required to provide a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number prior to issuance of a grading permit. A Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be prepared to document the Post-Construction Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs). The Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program has developed a Technical Guidance Manual and SCP template that should be used to prepare the SCP. The guidance manual and template can be found at the following website: Agenda Pck 420

82 SECTION V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PAGE V-4 The SCP must include an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that addresses the maintenance procedures and intervals for each SCM and identifies the responsible party to conduct maintenance. A maintenance covenant will be required to ensure on-going maintenance for the life of the facility. The covenant shall include, at a minimum: a. The project owner s signed statement accepting responsibility for the O&M of the installed onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCMs until such responsibility is legally transferred to another entity; and either: i) Written conditions in the sales or lease agreements or deed for the project that require the buyer or lessee to assume responsibility for the O&M of the onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCM until such responsibility is legally transferred to another entity; or ii) Any other legally enforceable agreement or mechanism, such as recordation in the property deed, that assigns responsibility for the O&M of the onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCM to the project owner(s) or the City The proposed project must be designed to not increase the peak flow to the downstream system. Therefore, a drainage report will need to be prepared demonstrating compliance. Refer to the City s Design Standards and Standard Specifications for the specific flood control requirements. The proposed project may be subject to the California Stormwater Industrial General Permit (IGP). You are required to review the IGP to determine your compliance action and submit a letter to the City stating your findings. Mitigation Measure 7 Project proponents shall revise the security plan for each of the three proposed facilities to include evacuation procedures to follow in the event that either (or both) of the Nacimiento and San Antonio dams experience failure and release flood waters. These procedures shall be consistent with established procedures for emergency evacuation. Agenda Pck 421

83 SECTION V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PAGE V-5 Mitigation Measure 8 Project proponents shall pay their pro-rata share of the traffic impact fee established by the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park Development Agreement. This fee shall be paid at the issuance of building permits for each of the three facilities to be developed. Mitigation Measure 9 The project applicant will revise its proposed site plan to include five-foot sidewalks along the entire frontage on Katherine Street, and these facilities will be constructed at the sole cost of the project applicant prior to building occupancy. Mitigation Measure 10 The City of Gonzales Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director shall review project plans to ensure that the proposed trash enclosure is appropriately sized to contain both trash and recycling containers, and no Site Plan Permit shall be issued until the Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director finds the enclosure adequate. The project applicant shall submit a recycling plan that facilitates recycling of waste generated by building occupants by providing permanent, adequate, and convenient space for individual building occupants to collect refuse and recyclable material and by providing recycling storage areas. B. M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M The following actions are required to monitor implementation of the 10 mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study as necessary to reduce project impacts to a level of less than significant. 1. Plan Additions and Revisions Mitigation Measures 1 (Lighting Design), 3 (Archaeology Artifacts), 4 (Human Remains), 7 (Emergency Evacuation Procedures), 9 (Sidewalks), and 10 (Recycling Bins) each require the project proponent to revise plans prior to Site Plan approval. In addition, Mitigation Agenda Pck 422

84 SECTION V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PAGE V-6 Measure 6 (Stormwater Control Plan) requires the preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan, also prior to Site Plan approval. Specific Actions Needed for Implementation: Actions are specified in the measure. Staff or Agency Responsible for Implementation: The project proponent is responsible for revising project plans and submitting the Stormwater Control Plan prior to Site Plan Permit approval. The Deputy City Manager/Director of Community Development is responsible for ensuring that plans are appropriately prepared and revised prior to Site Plan Permit approval. Timing of Implementation: To be completed prior to issuance of the Site Plan Permit. Timing of Monitoring or Reporting: The Deputy City Manager/Director of Community Development will report on the implementation of the mitigation measures as part of the staff report that accompanies the permit approval. 2. Construction Activities Mitigation Measure 2 (Dust Control during Construction) requires the project applicant to undertake various measures during construction to control dust. Specific Actions Needed for Implementation: Actions are specified in the measure. Staff or Agency Responsible for Implementation: The project proponent is responsible for undertaking the dust control measures set forth in the mitigation measure. The Building Official is responsible ensuring that the measures are effectively implemented during construction. Timing of Implementation: To be implemented during construction. Agenda Pck 423

85 SECTION V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PAGE V-7 Timing of Monitoring or Reporting: The Building Official will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measure as part of periodic site inspections. 3. Site Monitoring Mitigation Measure 5 (Native American Monitor) requires the Deputy City Manager/Director Community Development to determine if stormwater control plans require excavation below six (6) six in depth. If such a determination is made, then the project applicant must at his/her own expense, hire a Native American Monitor approved by the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation to monitor site excavation activities. Specific Actions Needed for Implementation: Actions are specified in the measure. Staff or Agency Responsible for Implementation: the Deputy City Manager/Director Community Development is responsible for reviewing the Stormwater Control Plan and determining if on-site monitoring is required. The project proponent is responsible for hiring the Native American monitor and having them present on site during all qualifying excavation activities. Timing of Implementation: To be implemented during Site Plan Permit review and approval and during construction. Timing of Monitoring or Reporting: The Deputy City Manager/Director Community Development will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measure as part of Site Plan Permit process, and the Building Official will confirm the presence of the Native American monitor should one be required. 4. Payment of Fees Mitigation Measure 8 (Traffic Fee) requires the project applicant to pay fees to the City of Gonzales upon approval of Building Permit. Agenda Pck 424

86 SECTION V. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PAGE V-8 Specific Actions Needed for Implementation: Actions are specified in the measure. Staff or Agency Responsible for Implementation: The project proponent is responsible for paying fees set forth in the mitigation measure. Building Official is responsible ensuring that the fees are paid in full prior to issuance of the Building Permit Timing of Implementation: To be completed prior to issuance of the Building Permit. Timing of Monitoring or Reporting: The Building Official will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measure as part of building permit approval. Agenda Pck 425

87 Section VI. References A. R E P O R T P R E P A R A T I O N ZeroCity LLC, Martin Carver, AICP, Report Preparation B. P E R S O N S C O N T A C T E D Harald Wolgamott, Director of Public Works, City of Gonzales Thomas Truszkowski, Deputy City Manager and Director of Community Development, City of Gonzales David Craft, Monterey Bay Air Resources District Frank Lopez, Harris & Associates Louise J. Miranda Ramirez, Tribal Chairwoman, Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation C. R E F E R E N C E S 1. L + G Attorneys at Law, Application for Medical Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Permit, August 2016 (NetZero Farms LLC I, II, and III Project Application). 2. City of Gonzales, January 2011, Gonzales 2010 General Plan. 3. City of Gonzales, 2012, Gonzales Climate Action Plan. 4. City of Gonzales, July 2010, Gonzales 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Volume 1 (SCH# ) (General Plan EIR). 5. City of Gonzales, July 2010, Gonzales 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Volume 2 (SCH# ). 6. EMC Planning Group, Inc. February 2005, Environmental Impact Report, Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park (SCH# ) (Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park EIR) Agenda Pck 426

88 SECTION VI. REFERENCES PAGE VI-2 7. California Department of Toxic Substances Control ( 8. PG&E Website, 9. City of Gonzales, August City of Gonzales City Code 10. City of Gonzales, August 2016, Gonzales City Code Chapter (Cultivation and Manufacturing of Medical Marijuana) 11. City of Gonzales, August 2016, Aerial Photograph by Google Earth 12. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 2008, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. 13. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 2013, Triennial Plan Revisions, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, AMBAG Region Growth Forecast to County of Monterey, August 2016, Monterey County Ordinance County of Monterey, August 2016, Monterey County Zoning Ordinance (Monterey County Code Title 21) 17. ZeroCity LLC, July 27, Field visit to project site. 18. Kimley-Horn & Associates, August NetZero Farms LLC I, II, and III Project Traffic Study. 19. Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, Letter dated August 17, 2016 from the City of Gonzales to Louise Ramirez. Agenda Pck 427

89 SECTION VI. REFERENCES PAGE VI City of Gonzales, Letter dated August 26, 2016 from Louise Ramirez to the City of Gonzales. Agenda Pck 428

90 SECTION VI. REFERENCES PAGE VI-4 This page intentionally left blank Agenda Pck 429

91 ATTACHMENT 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Property Address: 185 Katherine Street Gonzales, CA APN(s): Property Owner: MJP Partners 180 Corwin Street, Unit 1 San Francisco, CA Project Applicant: NetZero Farms III, LLC 325 Sharon Park Drive Suite 108 Menlo Park, CA Permit Issued To: Owner and Applicant as described above Approval Date: January 9, 2017 Resolution No.: PC Use Permitted. The Owner/Applicant shall have the right to establish a medical marijuana cultivation and manufacturing facility consisting of a 43,510 square foot building suitable for growing, processing, and packaging cannabis products, located on a two-acre parcel in the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. The permit authorizes the applicant to cultivate, process, store, and package medical marijuana. The permit also allows the manufacturing of related medical marijuana products, such as oils, tinctures, and other extracts. Additionally, the permit allows the operation of a laboratory for product testing and research. Finally, the permit allows the storage of dry and liquid fertilizers, small tools, and cleaning materials. Ancillary improvements include fencing, paved surfaces, utility connections, parking, landscaping, signage, lighting, trash/recycling enclosure, and a storm water detention basin. Minor changes may be approved administratively by the Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director upon receipt of a written request/application. Prior to such approval, the Director shall confer with each affected City Department and shall verify the request is not in conflict with any City regulations or plans, and is not otherwise of substantial concern to the 1 Agenda Pck 430

92 City. The Director may refer any requests deemed to be significant to the Planning Commission for formal application and consideration. FINDINGS: Section 1. Environmental (CEQA) Compliance An Initial Study ( IS ) has been prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Gonzales has determined that the Project will have less than significant effect on the environment with mitigation measures and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND ). The IS/MND tiers off the Gonzales Agricultural Business Park Environmental Impact Report (SCH # ) as a means of excluding from further consideration more global issues and allowing more focus on issues that are applicable to the proposed Project. No other environmental review is necessary. Section 2. General Plan Consistency A. The permitted use is consistent with the Gonzales General Plan to the following extent: 1. The permitted use is consistent with the City s General Plan. The project site is designated Industrial/Manufacturing on the General Plan Land Use Plan Diagram. The primary purpose of this designation is to define those areas that are appropriate for heavy industrial and manufacturing uses, the location of which may create land use conflicts with residential uses and schools. The emphasis is on agricultural services, but other types of industry compatible with the policies in the General Plan are encouraged. The designation permits industrial parks, light manufacturing, warehousing, wineries, auto and farm equipment sales or repair establishments, feed stores, lumberyards, construction supply companies, and similar and compatible uses. Section 3. Zoning Ordinance Consistency A. The Permitted use is consistent with the Gonzales Zoning Ordinance to the following extent: 1. An application has been received and accepted by the City of Gonzales for processing. 2. The site is zoned Industrial (I). 3. The proposed use meets zoning standards including setbacks, maximum lot coverage, landscaping and parking requirements. Section 4. Zoning Ordinance Findings A. The use is necessary or desirable in relation to the purposes and intent of the Gonzales General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the economic, social and environmental status of the City because: 2 Agenda Pck 431

93 The proposed use is consistent with the City's General Plan. The project site is designated Industrial/Manufacturing on the General Plan Land Use Plan Diagram. The primary purpose of this designation is to define those areas that are appropriate for heavy industrial and manufacturing uses, the location of which may create land use conflicts with residential uses and schools. The designation emphasizes agricultural services and permits industrial parks, light manufacturing, warehousing, wineries, auto and farm equipment sales or repair establishments, feed stores, lumberyards, construction supply companies, and similar and compatible uses. The proposed use is consistent with the Gonzales Zoning Ordinance, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The intent of the industrial (I) district is to provide areas for general industrial, manufacturing, wholesale, and service uses needed by the city and region subject to regulation necessary to protect other nearby uses from hazards, noise and other disturbances. B. The use will be properly related to other uses, transportation facilities, and other public facilities in the area, and will not cause undue environmental impacts relating to noise, odor, pollution, etc. because: The proposed use on the site will have access to Katherine Street, an improved public street. Other businesses in the vicinity are agricultural, industrial, or service commercial in character. Noise generated by the proposed use will be primarily the operation of trucks, but this noise level is acceptable in this location and typical of this area. Zoning regulations prohibit the use from creating any dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable, explosive or other hazards. The use shall not create noise or vibration, smoke, dust, odor or other form of air pollution; heat, cold or dampness; electrical or other disturbance; glare; liquid or solid refuse or wastes; or other substance, condition or element in such a manner or in such amount as to unreasonably adversely affect the surrounding area or adjoining properties. C. The use will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons living or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare of the city and its residents because: The use is subject to adherence of the conditions of approval associated with this permit and to obtaining permits and inspections from various agencies to ensure that the storage and handling of fertilizers and chemicals occurs in a manner that is safe for employees and persons living or working in the vicinity. The use is appropriately located in an area of the City that is zoned industrial. The use is entirely consistent with planned uses within the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Park and should not result with any incompatibility issues for existing and future-neighboring land uses. D. The Conditional Use Permit has been processed per the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements per Chapter as follows: 1. An application has been received and accepted by the City of Gonzales for processing. 2. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the Gonzales Tribune on December 28, Agenda Pck 432

94 3. Public Hearing Notices were also mailed to all property owners within 300'-0" of the site. A certification of mailing is on file at the Planning Department. 4. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission to consider the request on January 9, 2017 and members of the public were invited to comment and all comments were considered by the Planning Commission prior to its decision on the request. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Standard Conditions. 1. Timely Completion of Conditions. Unless otherwise provided for in a special condition to this use permit, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to occupancy approval for any portion of the project. 2. Conditions Run with the Land. The terms and conditions of this permit shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and be to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the Owner/Applicant. 3. Change in Permitted Use. Any proposed change in the description of the permitted use approved herein shall be approved by the Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director, who may impose such requirements in addition to those set forth herein as may be necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the public interest. If the Director finds that any proposed change in the use would represent a substantial deviation from the purpose for which this permit was granted, then such change shall be considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission as an amendment to this permit. 4. Revocation. Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval of this application and issuance of this Permit constitutes cause for the revocation of the Permit. 5. No Nuisance/Use of Property. Use of the property shall be conducted in such a way that it does not constitute a nuisance. If the Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director/Planning Commission/City Council finds at any time that any use of the property constitutes such a nuisance or is otherwise detrimental to adjacent uses, neighborhoods, or to the community, such use shall be discontinued or modified as may be required. Failure to fully comply with all conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this permit. 6. Code and Standards Compliance. All construction and improvements and uses shall be in accordance with zoning, building, fire, and all other codes, ordinances, and public works standards and specifications of the City of Gonzales or agencies that have regulatory jurisdiction over the project. All such requirements shall be met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final building inspection, except for items agreed to by the Owner/Applicant and the Building Official and/or Public Works and Director. 4 Agenda Pck 433

95 7. Development Impact Fees. Owner/Applicant shall pay all Development Impact Fees as set forth in Chapter 1.48 of the Gonzales City Code at the time and in the manner set forth in the Code unless an alternate time and manner of payment is established through the Special Conditions of Approval as set forth below. The Owner/Applicant shall also pay all applicable impact fees as described in the Development Agreement between the City of Gonzales and American Cooling, Inc. and Herbert G. Meyer, Trustee originally adopted by the City Council on November 7, 2005 and term extended on November 21, 2011 and extended again on December 7, School Facilities Impact Fees payable to the Gonzales Unified School District (GUSD) and if applicable, Regional Transportation Impact Fees payable to the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) are due at the time of issuance of a building permit. 8. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. Except to the extent the City has constructed improvements on or about the property, City and Owner/Applicant acknowledge that City has not made an independent investigation of the design of the proposed use or conditions affecting either design or use. Owner/Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees from all damages, injuries, claims and any and all liability and costs arising from or about the site or in connection with the conduct of business thereon. Owner/Applicant agrees to, and shall, defend City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents and employees, from any suits or actions at law or equity from damages caused, or alleged to have been caused, by reason of the aforesaid design, construction and use of the involved site pursuant to this Permit. Except as provided above, the terms of this paragraph shall apply to all damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the aforesaid design or operations referred to herein, regardless of whether or not City has prepared, supplied or approved of plans and or specifications for use of the proposed site. To the extent that Owner/Applicant is required to indemnify and hold harmless the parties listed above, it shall have the right to control the litigation, including but not limited to contracting for counsel of its choice, and accepting or rejecting any settlement offer. B. Special Conditions 1. Site Plan, Floor Plan & Building Elevations. The Site Plan (Exhibit ' ), Floor Plan (Exhibit Y ) and Building Elevations (Exhibit 'Z') that accompany this permit are conceptual illustrations of the proposed project. Final approval of exhibits for the project will occur as a component of a future Site Plan Permit approved by the City's Deputy City Manager/Director of Community Development. 2. CEQA Environmental Mitigation Measures. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures as described in the Gonzales Agricultural Business Park Environmental Impact Report (SCH # ), and all of the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/MND ) entitled City of Gonzales NetZero Farms, LLC, I, II, and III Three Medical Marijuana Facilities dated September 13, Agenda Pck 434

96 3. On-Site Parking. Owner/Applicant shall revise the Site Plan to add two on-site parking spaces, making the total number of parking spaces Comply with Development Agreement. Owner/Applicant shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Development Agreement Between the City of Gonzales and American Cooling, Inc. and Herbert G. Meyer, Trustee originally adopted by the City Council on November 7, 2005 and with term extended on November 21, 2011, and extended again on December 7, Comply with Adopted CC&R s. Owner/Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions for the Gonzales Agricultural Industrial Business Park. 6. Industrial District Design Guidelines. Owner/Applicant shall comply with the City of Gonzales Industrial District Design Guidelines as specified in Chapter (I) of the Gonzales City Code. 7. California Code - Green Building Standards (CalGreen). Owner/Applicant shall comply with all of the applicable non-residential mandatory measures contained in Chapter 5 of the 2016 California Code of Green Building Standards ('CalGreen"); California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part Climate Action Plan Compliance. Prior to the approval of a Site Plan Permit, the Owner/Applicant shall submit for the review and approval by the Deputy City Manager/Director of Community Development a report demonstrating that the Project includes greenhouse gas emission reduction measures that when applied together will account for a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of MT C02e annually. The report should include a GHG emission reduction value for each measure and a calculation demonstrating how the reduction value was determined. 9. State Water Resources Control Board Phase II Small MS4 NPDES Permit. The Owner/Applicant shall be aware of the requirement to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that has been designed specific to its site, conforming to the State Storm water NPDES Construction Permit or local ordinance, which-ever is stricter, as is required for projects one acre or more. The Plan should cover prevention of soil loss by storm water run-off and/or wind erosion, of sedimentation, and/or of dust/particulate matter air pollution. Owner/Applicant shall be aware that a Storm Water Control Plan (SCP) will be required as a result of the City of Gonzales' enrollment on, July 1, 2013, into the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) - Order No DWQ, General Permit CAS Agenda Pck 435

97 A Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) shall be prepared to document the Post-Construction Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs). The SCP shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, in conformance with the Post Construction Standards outlined in Section II of the "General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities Order No DWQ as amended by DWQ and DWQ". The SCP must include an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that addresses maintenance procedures and intervals for each SCM and identifies the responsible party to conduct maintenance. A maintenance Agreement will be required to ensure on-going maintenance for the life of the facility. The Agreement shall include the project owner s signed statement accepting responsibility for the O&M of the installed onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCMs until such responsibility is legally transferred to another entity; and either: a. Written conditions in the sales or lease agreements or deed for the project that require the buyer or lessee to assume responsibility for the O&M of the onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCM until such responsibility is legally transferred to another entity; or b. Any other legally enforceable agreement or mechanism, such as recordation in the property deed, that assigns responsibility for the O&M of the onsite and/or offsite structural treatment and flow control SCM to the project owner(s) or the City. 10. Design of Storm Water Facilities. City design standards require storm water detention facilities to be constructed to mitigate the increase in runoff due to development for a 100-year storm return period. A registered Soils/Geotechnical Engineer shall perform on-site soil testing and percolation tests to determine the estimated infiltration rate for design purposes. A registered Civil Engineer shall prepare a hydrology/hydraulics report based on storm hydrographs and other criteria in the Monterey County Drainage Design Manual. The results of all tests and the hydrology/hydraulics report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 11. Site Plan Permit. Prior to the physical development of the site to accommodate the permitted uses the Owner/Applicant shall file an application with the City's Community Development Department for a Site Plan Permit. No grading permit, building permit, Certificate of Occupancy, business license and/or Regulatory Permit shall be issued until site plan review has been completed. The application shall include, but is not necessarily limited to the following components: a) Site or Plot Plan showing the location of all buildings, structures and storage facilities/areas. The Plan should show the location of all easements (public utility, sanitary Sewer), driveways, sidewalks, parking areas, delivery and/or loading areas, landscaping, fencing and storm water treatment and retention area(s). b) Floor Plan(s) illustrating the layout of the interior of all buildings and storage areas with each room or use area designated as to its proposed use. c) Building Elevations that show all sides of the proposed structure, a general description of the materials to be used in the construction of the building (i.e., metal, wood, glass, etc.), colors of the main building and trim and a description of roofing type and materials. 7 Agenda Pck 436

98 d) Colors and Materials of all buildings and structures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Deputy City Manager/Director of Community Development. All buildings on the site shall be painted with base and trim colors that are harmonious, and give the impression of a unified site. If applicable, roof materials and colors should also be coordinated. e) Landscape Plan including proposed ground cover, shrubs and trees and the proposed irrigation system shall be submitted for all areas of the site to be landscaped. The landscape plan shall include the employee/visitor parking area, including planters for parking lot trees, and landscaping in the public right of way from the back of the sidewalk to the property line. The type of Landscaping and street trees on the Katherine Street frontage shall be determined by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development based on a recommendation from a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor. The landscape plan shall include a separate table for each calculation demonstrating compliance with required ratios or percentages of landscaping, site coverage, etc. f) Fencing along the frontage of Katherine Street shall be designed to be decorative but yet adequate to serve the needs of the project within the context of the industrial park. The Owner/Applicant shall coordinate with the Deputy City manager/director of Community Development as to the design and placement of the fence. Details of the proposed fencing shall be submitted for approval by the Deputy City Manager/Director of Community Development. Any area proposed for outdoor storage shall be screened by solid masonry fencing, chain link fence with slats, or a combination of the two types. Barbed wire or razor fencing shall not be permitted on any perimeter fence due to aesthetic and public safety concerns. g) Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) prepared to document the Post-Construction Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs). The SCP shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, in conformance with the Post Construction Standards outlined in Section II of the "General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities Order No DWQ as amended by DWQ and DWQ". The SCP must include an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that addresses maintenance procedures and intervals for each SCM and identifies the responsible party to conduct maintenance. A maintenance Agreement will be required to ensure on-going maintenance for the life of the facility. h) Parking layout (plan) that meets the requirements as specified in Chapter of the Gonzales City Code. The parking plan shall include a separate table with a calculation demonstrating compliance with required parking ratios and percentages. i) On-site/Off-site Circulation Plan shall be submitted showing the proposed ingress and egress of all truck traffic illustrating maximum turning and maneuvering radii at applicable on-site locations, all driveways and at vicinity intersections. The Plan shall also illustrate the movement of all on-site non-truck related traffic (i.e., employees and visitors). j) Frontage Improvement Plans for the construction of a six-foot sidewalk within the public right of way of Katherine Street shall be submitted or review and approval of the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. The number and location of access driveways 8 Agenda Pck 437

99 shall be subject to the review and approval of the City s Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. All existing rolled curb driveways that are not part of the project shall be modified to vertical curb to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. k) Meters, hydrants, poles, etc. shall be located clear of sidewalks and driveways or as determined by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. The Owner/Applicant shall install fire hydrants per City specifications and according to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. All fire hydrants shall be protected by bollards. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the City Fire Marshal and Director of Public Works. l) Signage that meets the requirements as specified in Chapter of the Gonzales City Code shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. m) Hazardous Materials Questionnaire declaring what type of hazardous materials will be associated with the proposed uses. 12. Marijuana Cultivation and Manufacturing Regulatory Permit. Prior to the physical development of the site to accommodate the permitted uses, the Owner/Applicant shall file an application with the City of Gonzales for a Marijuana Cultivation and Manufacturing Regulatory Permit. No building permit, Certificate of Occupancy or business license shall be issued until a Marijuana Cultivation and Manufacturing Regulatory Permit has been approved by the Gonzales City Council. The permit application shall include, but is not necessarily limited to the following components: a) An estimate of the size of the proposed facility; b) The address of the location for which the Marijuana Cultivation and Manufacturing Permit is to be issued; c) A site plan and floor plan of the premises denoting the use of all areas on the premises, including storage, cultivation areas, manufacturing areas, lighting, parking, signage, etc. d) A security plan including the following measures: i. Security cameras shall be installed and maintained in good condition, and used in an on-going manner with at least 120 concurrent hours of digitally recorded documentation in a format approved by the city manager. The cameras shall be in use 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The areas to be covered by the security cameras include, but are not limited to, the storage areas, cultivation areas, manufacturing areas, all doors and windows, and any other areas as determined by the city manager. ii. The Medical Marijuana Facility ( MMF ) shall be provided with an alarm system that is operated and monitored by a licensed security company. 9 Agenda Pck 438

100 iii. Entrance to any cultivation, manufacturing or storage areas within the MMF shall be locked at all times, and under the control of the MMF staff. iv. The entrances(s) and all window areas of the MMF shall be illuminated during evening hours. The applicant shall comply with the city s lighting standards regarding fixture type, wattage, illumination levels, shielding, etc., and secure the necessary approvals and permits as needed. v. All windows on the building that houses the MMF shall be appropriately secured and all marijuana and marijuana products securely stored. e) The name and address of any person who is managing or responsible for the MMF activities, and the names and addresses of any employees, if any, and a statement as to whether such person or persons has or have been convicted of a crime(s), the nature of such offense(s), and the sentence(s) received for such conviction(s). f) The name and address of the owner and lessor of the real property upon which the MMF is located. In the event the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, the application must be accompanied with a notarized acknowledgment from the owner of the property that a MMF will be operated on his/her property. g) Authorization for the city manager to seek verification of the information contained within the application. h) Evidence that the MMF is organized with a legal business structure compliant with all applicable laws of the State of California. i) A statement in writing by the applicant that he/she certifies under penalty of perjury that all the information contained in the application is true and correct. j) Any such additional and further information as is deemed necessary by the city manager to administer this section. k) The city manager shall conduct a background check of any applicant for a Marijuana Cultivation and Manufacturing Permit, including any person who is managing or is otherwise responsible for the activities of the MMF, and any employee, and shall prepare a report on the acceptability of the applicant s background and the suitability of the proposed location. l) Once an applicant has completed the submission of information set forth in this section and the city manager has completed the attendant review process, the city manager shall submit the application to the city council for final certification and approval, unless the city manager finds that: i. The applicant has made one or more false or misleading statements, or omissions on the application or during the application process; ii. The proposed MMF is not allowed by state or local law, statute, ordinance, or regulation, including this code, at the location identified in the permit; 10 Agenda Pck 439

101 iii. The applicant is not a primary caregiver or qualified patient or the legal representative of the MMF; iv. The applicant, or any person who is managing or is otherwise responsible for the activities of the MMF, or any employee, if any, has been convicted of a felony, or convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or the illegal use, possession, transportation, distribution or similar activities related to controlled substances, with the exception of marijuana related offenses for which the conviction occurred prior to the passage of the Compassionate Use Act. A conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere; v. The applicant, or a person who is managing or is otherwise responsible for the activities of the MMF has engaged in unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, or deceptive business acts or practices; or vi. The applicant has not satisfied each and every requirement of this section. m) Based on the information set forth in the application and the city manager s report, as well as all material provisions of any and all accompanying permits, including but not limited to a project conditional use permit, the city council may impose reasonable terms and conditions on the proposed operations in addition to those specified in this section. A Marijuana Cultivation and Manufacturing Permit issued pursuant to this section is not transferable. n) In the event there are more than two (2) qualified applications, the city council shall rank all qualified applications in order of those that best satisfy the requirements of this section and provide the highest level of service and opportunities for the residents of the city based on the requirements of this section and the following criteria: 1) the operations plan for the facility; 2) the security plan for the facility; 3) the experience of the operators of the facility; 4) the adequacy of capitalization for the facility and operation; and 5) the employment and other public benefits to the city. o) The obligations of the MMF, including ongoing and continuing obligations required pursuant to any provision of this section or as may be provided in any conditional approval of the city council, shall be set forth in a covenant running with the land or the leasehold interest, approved as to form by the city attorney, and enforceable by the city. Such covenant shall also provide that the MMF shall annually provide to the city manager an updated application containing the information required by this section. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the city shall not assume any liability whatsoever, and expressly does not waive sovereign immunity, with respect to medical marijuana, or for the activities of any MMF. Upon receiving possession of a Marijuana Cultivation and Manufacturing Permit, as provided in this section, the facility shall: i. Execute an agreement indemnifying the city; 11 Agenda Pck 440

102 ii. Carry insurance in the amounts and of the types that are acceptable to the city manager; iii. Name the city, its agents, officers and employees as additional insureds; iv. Agree to defend at is sole expense, any action against the city, its agents, officers and employees because of the issues of such approval; and v. Agree to reimburse the city for any court costs and attorney s fees that the city may be required to pay as a result of such action. The city may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relive the operator of its obligation hereunder. p) All MMFs shall be required to enter into a development agreement to fully reimburse the city for all costs of the city resulting from the existence of such facilities in the city and that provides the city with revenue to offset the potential deleterious effect of the location of MMFs within the jurisdiction of the city. I hereby declare that I have read the foregoing conditions and that they are the conditions, which were imposed upon the granting of this permit. I agree to abide fully by these conditions. OWNER MJP Partners By: Its: APPLICANT Blake Bechtel NetZero Farms III, LLC Date: Date: APPROVED BY: CITY OF GONZALES Dated: Thomas Truszkowski, Deputy City Manager/ Community Development Director 12 Agenda Pck 441

103 Exhibit : Site Plan 13 Agenda Pck 442